Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Notice to Applicant
The following is a Final Office action. In response to Examiner’s Non-Final Rejection of 05/14/2026, Applicant, on 07/10/2026, amended claims 1, 3-7, and 9-10, canceled claims 2 and 8. Claims 1, 3-7, and 9-10 are pending in this application and have been rejected below.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 07/10/2026 have been fully considered, but they are not fully persuasive. The35 USC § 103 rejection has been overcome. However, the updated 35 USC § 101 rejection of claims 1, 3-7, and 9-10 are applied in light of Applicant's amendments.
The Applicant argues “The claimed solution deeply integrates optimization algorithms into the practical application of power system scheduling, solves the technical challenge of balancing frequency security guarantee and scheduling efficiency, and produces measurable technical effects on the physical power grid.” (Remarks 07/10/2026)
The claimed subject matter, is directed to an abstract idea by reciting concepts performed in the human mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion), which falls into the “Mental Process” group; and by reciting mathematical relationships, mathematical formulas or equations, mathematical calculations which falls into the “Mathematical concepts” within the enumerated groupings of abstract ideas. The mere nominal recitation of a generic computer does not take the claim limitation out of mathematical concepts or the mental processes grouping. Thus, the claim recites a mental process for performing certain mathematical concepts.
A claim that recites a mathematical calculation, when the claim is given its broadest reasonable interpretation in light of the specification, will be considered as falling within the "mathematical concepts" grouping. A mathematical calculation is a mathematical operation (such as multiplication) or an act of calculating using mathematical methods to determine a variable or number, e.g., performing an arithmetic operation such as exponentiation. There is no particular word or set of words that indicates a claim recites a mathematical calculation. That is, a claim does not have to recite the word "calculating" in order to be considered a mathematical calculation. For example, a step of "determining" a variable or number using mathematical methods or "performing" a mathematical operation may also be considered mathematical calculations when the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claim in light of the specification encompasses a mathematical calculation.
The claimed subject matter is merely claims a method for calculating and analyzing information regarding power systems data. Although it may be intended to be performed in a digital environment, the claimed subject matter (as currently claimed in the independent claim) speaks to the calculating and analyzing data. Such steps are not tied to the technological realm, but rather utilizing technology to perform the abstract ideas (mathematical concepts). Additionally, the claimed subject matter can also be categorized as a Mental Process as it recites concepts performed in the human mind (observation and evaluation). The steps of calculating data, training/updating models, and generating a model/trend line can be performed by a human (mental process/pen and paper). The practice of calculating information and constructing models with set parameters and timelines can be performed without computers, and thus are not tied to technology nor improving technology.
The solution mentioned in the amended limitation is not implemented/integrated into technology and thus not an improvement to the technical field. The claims recite obtaining, determining, and feasibility verification in a power system data through mathematical calculations. Nothing in the claims actually controls the grid (for example, automatically increasing or decreasing power), so any benefit to the grid would depend on an operator acting on the results, and that benefit is not reflected in the claims as required by MPEP 2106.05(a). However complex the math is, analyzing power grid information without a practical application remains abstract (see EPG v. Alstom (Fed Cir. 2016)). Because there is no integration into a practical application, the claims can be interpreted as humans per se, as the claims fail to tie the steps to technology; insignificant extra solution activities (which are merely calculating and/or analyzing data).
The steps relied upon by the Applicant as recited does not improve upon another technology, the functioning of the computer itself, or allow the computer to perform a function not previously performable by a computer. The Applicant is using generic computing components (processors) to perform in a generic/expected way (obtaining and analyzing data).The abstract idea is not particular to a technological environment, but is merely being applied to a computer realm. The process of calculating and analyzing data specifically for power data, and performing additional analysis can be done without a computer, and thus the claims are not “necessarily rooted", but rather they are utilizing computer technology to perform the abstract idea. The Examiner does not recognize any elements of the Applicant's claims and/or specification that would improve or allow the computer to perform a function(s) not previously performable by the computer or improve the functioning of the computer itself. It is insufficient to indicate that the claims are novel and non-obvious and thus contain “something more.” Just because the components may perform a specialized function does not mean that that the computer components are specialized. As such the application of the abstract idea of collecting and analyzing data regarding purchase information, and performing correlation analysis is insufficient to demonstrate an improvement to the technology.
The additional elements have been evaluated, but fail to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they amount to using generic computing elements or instructions (software) to perform the abstract idea, similar to adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent), which merely serves to link the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment (generic computing environment). See MPEP 2106.05(f) and 2106.05(h).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1, 3-7, and 9-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-patentable subject matter. The claims are directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Claims 1, 3-7, and 9-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
With respect to Step 1 of the eligibility inquiry (as explained in MPEP 2106), it is first noted that the method (claims 1, 3-7, and 9-10) are directed to potentially eligible categories of subject matter (i.e., process, machine, and article of manufacture respectively). Thus, Step 1 is satisfied.
With respect to Step 2, and in particular Step 2A Prong One, it is next noted that the claims recite an abstract idea by reciting concepts performed in the human mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion), which falls into the “Mental Process” group; and by reciting and by reciting mathematical relationships, mathematical formulas or equations, mathematical calculations which falls into the “Mathematical concepts” within the enumerated groupings of abstract ideas. The mere nominal recitation of a generic computer does not take the claim limitation out of mathematical concepts or the mental processes grouping. Thus, the claim recites a mental process for performing math.
The limitations reciting the abstract idea(s) (Mental process and mathematical concepts), as set forth in exemplary claim 1, are: obtaining parameters of the power system, the parameters comprising thermal power unit parameters, load parameters, renewable energy station parameters, energy storage station parameters and an index of a transmission line; determining a convex frequency indicator constraint of the power system from obtained parameters of the power system based on a frequency response transfer function model and an outer approximation algorithm, wherein the convex frequency indicator constraint of the power system comprises a maximum frequency change rate constraint, a maximum frequency deviation constraint, and a quasi-steady state frequency deviation constraint corresponding to a maximum frequency change rate, a maximum frequency deviation and a quasi-steady state frequency deviation, respectively; initializing iteration parameters, a renewable energy severe scenario set, and an N-1 fault set; and based on the convex frequency indicator constraint of the power system, the iteration parameters, the renewable energy severe scenario set, and the N-1 fault set, obtaining a decision value of pre-scheduling variables, the unit commitment value of the thermal power unit, and the unit commitment value of the renewable energy unit obtained based on the pre- scheduling stage optimization model by considering the N-1 fault and frequency security of the power system;performing frequency security and grid operation feasibility verification on the unit commitment value of the thermal power unit and the unit commitment value of the renewable energy unit based on a re-scheduling stage optimization model; when the verification of the unit commitment value of the thermal power unit and the unit commitment value of the renewable energy unit successes, taking the unit commitment value of the thermal power unit and the unit commitment value of the renewable energy unit as a final unit commitment value; when the verification of the unit commitment value of the thermal power unit and the unit commitment value of the renewable energy unit fails, updating the pre-scheduling stage optimization model, and repeating the determining step and the performing step based on the updated pre-scheduling stage optimization model until the verification successes, taking the verified unit commitment value of the thermal power unit and the verified unit commitment value of the renewable energy unit as the final unit commitment value, wherein the N-1 fault represents a contingency in which a component in the power system exits operation.
With respect to Step 2A Prong Two, the judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. The additional elements are directed to: a thermal power unit and a renewable energy unit…; An electronic device, comprising a memory, a processor, and a computer program stored on the memory and capable of running on the processor, wherein the processor, when executing the program…; A non-transient computer-readable storage medium on which a computer program is stored, wherein the computer program, when executed by a processor, performs the unit commitment method for the power system…; A computer program product comprising a computer program, wherein the computer program, when executed by a processor, performs the unit commitment method for the power system…; (as recited in claims 1 and 8-10). However, these elements fail to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they fail to provide an improvement to the functioning of a computer or to any other technology or technical field, fail to apply the exception with a particular machine, fail to apply the judicial exception to effect a particular treatment or prophylaxis for a disease or medical condition, fail to effect a transformation of a particular article to a different state or thing, and fail to apply/use the abstract idea in a meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment.
Accordingly, because the Step 2A Prong One and Prong Two analysis resulted in the conclusion that the claims are directed to an abstract idea, additional analysis under Step 2B of the eligibility inquiry must be conducted in order to determine whether any claim element or combination of elements amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
With respect to Step 2B of the eligibility inquiry, it has been determined that the claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. The additional limitation(s) is/are directed to: a thermal power unit and a renewable energy unit…; An electronic device, comprising a memory, a processor, and a computer program stored on the memory and capable of running on the processor, wherein the processor, when executing the program…; A non-transient computer-readable storage medium on which a computer program is stored, wherein the computer program, when executed by a processor, performs the unit commitment method for the power system…; A computer program product comprising a computer program, wherein the computer program, when executed by a processor, performs the unit commitment method for the power system…; (as recited in claims 1 and 8-10) for implementing the claim steps/functions. These elements have been considered, but merely serve to tie the invention to a particular operating environment (i.e., computer-based implementation), though at a very high level of generality and without imposing meaningful limitation on the scope of the claim.
The additional elements have been evaluated, but fail to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they amount to using generic computing elements or instructions (software) to perform the abstract idea, similar to adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent), which merely serves to link the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment (generic computing environment). See MPEP 2106.05(f) and 2106.05(h). Even if the acquiring steps are considered as additional elements, these steps at most amount to insignificant extra-solution activity accomplished via receiving/transmitting data, which is not enough to amount to a practical application. See MPEP 2106.05(g).
In addition, Applicant’s Specification (paragraph [0030]) describes generic off-the-shelf computer-based elements for implementing the claimed invention, and which does not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea, which is not enough to transform an abstract idea into eligible subject matter. Such generic, high-level, and nominal involvement of a computer or computer-based elements for carrying out the invention merely serves to tie the abstract idea to a particular technological environment, which is not enough to render the claims patent-eligible, as noted at pg. 74624 of Federal Register/Vol. 79, No. 241, citing Alice, which in turn cites Mayo. See, e.g., Symantec, 838 F.3d at 1321, 120 USPQ2d at 1362 (utilizing an intermediary computer to forward information); TLI Communications LLC v. AV Auto. LLC, 823 F.3d 607, 610, 118 USPQ2d 1744, 1745 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (using a telephone for image transmission); OIP Techs., Inc., v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363, 115 USPQ2d 1090, 1093 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (sending messages over a network); buySAFE, Inc. v. Google, Inc., 765 F.3d 1350, 1355, 112 USPQ2d 1093, 1096 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (computer receives and sends information over a network).
In addition, when taken as an ordered combination, the ordered combination adds nothing that is not already present as when the elements are taken individually. There is no indication that the combination of elements integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Their collective functions merely provide conventional computer implementation. Therefore, when viewed as a whole, these additional claim elements do not provide meaningful limitations to transform the abstract idea into a practical application of the abstract idea or that the ordered combination amounts to significantly more than the abstract idea itself. Further, the courts have found the presentation of data to be a well-understood, routine, conventional activity, OIP Techs., 788 F.3d at 1362-63, 115 USPQ2d at 1092-93 (see MPEP 2106.05(d)).
The dependent claims (2-7) are directed to the same abstract idea as recited in the independent claims, and merely incorporate additional details that narrow the abstract idea via additional details of the abstract idea. For example claims 2-7 “determining a convex frequency indicator constraint of the power system from parameters of the power system based on a frequency response transfer function model and an outer approximation algorithm, wherein the convex frequency indicator constraint of the power system comprises a maximum frequency change rate constraint, a maximum frequency deviation constraint, and a quasi-steady state frequency deviation constraint; initializing iteration parameters, a renewable energy severe scenario set, and an N-1 fault set; and based on the convex frequency indicator constraint of the power system, the iteration parameters, the renewable energy severe scenario set, and the N-1 fault set, obtaining a decision value of pre-scheduling variables, the unit commitment value of the thermal power unit, and the unit commitment value of the renewable energy unit obtained based on the pre- scheduling stage optimization model by considering the N-1 fault and frequency security of the power system; obtaining a decision value of an objective function of the pre-scheduling stage optimization model based on the decision value of the pre-scheduling variables, the unit commitment value of the thermal power unit, and the unit commitment value of the renewable energy unit; and updating a lower bound of the pre-scheduling stage optimization model based on the decision value of the objective function of the pre-scheduling stage optimization model using a first preset formula, wherein the first preset formula is: wherein LBCCG is the lower bound of the pre-scheduling stage optimization model, CCG is a column-and-constraint generation algorithm, SOTn' is the decision value of the objective function of the pre-scheduling stage optimization model, n is the iteration parameters, and MP is the pre-scheduling stage; based on the convex frequency indicator constraint of the power system, the iteration parameters, the renewable energy severe scenario set, and the N-1 fault set, obtaining a decision value of an active power output of the renewable energy unit and a decision value of an operating state of an N-1 fault power equipment based on the re-scheduling stage optimization model; determining a decision value of an objective function of the re-scheduling stage optimization model based on the decision value of the active power output of the renewableenergy units and the decision value of the operating state of the N-1 fault power equipment; and based on the decision value of the objective function of the re-scheduling stage optimization model, updating an upper bound of the re-scheduling stage optimization model based on a second preset formula, wherein the second preset formula is:UBCCG=P - HnP + HnP,wherein UBCCG is the upper bound of the re-scheduling stage optimization model, SOT P is the decision value of the objective function of the pre-scheduling stage optimization model, HnP is the decision value of the pre-scheduling variable, HnP is the decision value of the objective function of the re-scheduling stage optimization model, CCG is the column-and- constraint generation algorithm, n is the iteration parameters, MP is the pre-scheduling stage, and SP is the re-scheduling stage; when the lower bound of the pre-scheduling stage optimization model and the upper bound of the re-scheduling stage optimization model satisfy a third preset formula, indicating that verification of the unit commitment value of the thermal power unit and the unit commitment value of the renewable energy unit successes; and when the lower bound of the pre-scheduling stage optimization model and the upper bound of the re-scheduling stage optimization model do not satisfy the third preset formula, indicating that the verification of the unit commitment value of the thermal power unit andthe unit commitment value of the renewable energy unit fails, wherein the third preset formula is:UBCCG- LBCCG
PNG
media_image1.png
16
12
media_image1.png
Greyscale
SCCG,wherein LBCCG is the lower bound of the pre-scheduling stage optimization model, UBCCG is the upper bound of the re-scheduling stage optimization model, and SCCGis a preset convergence threshold; when the lower bound of the pre-scheduling stage optimization model and the upper bound of the re-scheduling stage optimization model do not satisfy the third preset formula, updating the iteration parameters, updating the renewable energy severe scenario set, and the N-1 fault set to update the pre-scheduling stage optimization model based on the updated iteration parameters, the updated renewable energy severe scenario set, and the updated N-1 fault set; obtaining a non-convex nonlinear frequency indicator constraint of the power system from the parameters of the power system based on the frequency response transfer function model of the power system; and converting the non-convex nonlinear frequency indicator constraint of the power system into the convex frequency indicator constraint applicable to the pre-scheduling stage optimization model and the re-scheduling stage optimization model of the power system based on the outer approximation algorithm”, without additional elements that integrate the abstract idea into a practical application and without additional elements that amount to significantly more to the claims.
The ordered combination of elements in the dependent claims (including the limitations inherited from the parent claim(s)) add nothing that is not already present as when the elements are taken individually. There is no indication that the combination of elements improves the functioning of a computer or improves any other technology. Their collective functions merely provide conventional computer implementation. Accordingly, the subject matter encompassed by the dependent claims fails to amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
Wang; Cheng. System And Method Of Primary Frequency Reserve Procurement Of Power Systems Considering Multiple Damping States And Governor Limiters, .U.S. Patent 11888323 The present disclosure relates generally to renewable energy power system, and more particularly, to systems and methods of primary frequency reserve procurement of power systems considering multiple damping states and governor limiters.
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any extension fee pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Arif Ullah, whose telephone number is (571) 270-0161. The examiner can normally be reached from Monday to Friday between 9 AM and 5:30 PM.
If any attempt to reach the examiner by telephone is unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Beth Boswell, can be reached at (571) 272-6737. The fax telephone numbers for this group are either (571) 273-8300 or (703) 872-9326 (for official communications including After Final communications labeled “Box AF”).
/Arif Ullah/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3625
Prosecution Insights