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 .
Response to Amendment
The amendment filed on 6/24/2026 has been entered. Claims 1-5 and 7-10 remain pending in the present application. Applicant’s amendments to the claims have overcome the previous 112b and claim objections set forth previously. Even though the applicant has amended the claims to include previously identified allowable subject matter, applicant’s amendments to the claims have not overcome the 35 U.S.C. 101 rejection set forth previously.
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 1-7 and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed towards an abstract idea without significantly more. Claim 1 recites, “constructing a day-ahead scheduling optimization model and generating multiple renewable energy power scenarios based on the power system prediction parameters;”, “solving the day-ahead scheduling optimization model to obtain day-ahead scheduling results;”, “verifying the day-ahead scheduling results based on the power system prediction parameters and the multiple renewable energy power scenarios;”, “wherein verifying the day-ahead scheduling results based on the power system prediction parameters and the multiple renewable energy power scenarios comprises: constructing an intraday scheduling optimization model based on the day-ahead scheduling results and the power system prediction parameters;”, “solving the intraday scheduling optimization model to obtain a multi-stage optimal solution of variables in the renewable energy power scenario;”, and “calculating a penalty cost corresponding to the day-ahead scheduling results based on the multi-stage optimal solution of the variables;” , which analyzed under Step 2A Prong One, includes limitations which includes generating power scenarios and solving a model which includes mathematical calculations which falls within the, “Mathematical Concepts” grouping of abstract ideas and further, includes the limitation of, “verifying the day-ahead scheduling results based on the penalty cost.”, which analyzed under Step 2A Prong One, simply verifies/validates results which can reasonably be performed in the human mind which falls within the, “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. Claim 1 further recites, “in case that verifying the day-ahead scheduling results successes outputting the day- ahead scheduling results” and “scheduling a power system based on the outputted day-ahead scheduling results”, which analyzed under Step 2A Prong Two, just simply displays results or provides a schedule which just merely applies the use of the judicial exception (see MPEP 2106.05(f)). Claim 1 additionally includes the limitations of, “obtaining power system prediction parameters in a to-be-scheduled time period, wherein the power system prediction parameters comprise thermal power unit parameters, renewable energy station parameters, load parameters, energy storage station (ESS) parameters, node parameters, a transmission line parameter and other power gird parameters;”, which analyzed under Step 2A Prong Two, adds insignificant extra solution activity in the form of mere data gathering (see MPEP 2106.05(g)).
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because as analyzed under Step 2B, the additional elements merely amount to gathering power system parameters and sending the data over a network. Analyzed under Berkheimer, the act of gathering and sending data over a network has been deemed as well-understood, routine, and conventional by the courts (see MPEP 2106.05(d)(II), “sending/receiving data over a network”).
Independent claims 9 and 10 are substantially similar to claim 1 and are thus rejected using the same rational as above. Claims 9 and 10 include additional limitations describing generic hardware for running the method as depicted in claim 1, which as generally recited, merely represent generic computer components for implementing the abstract idea.
Dependent claims 2-5 and 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed towards an abstract idea without significantly more. For instance, claims 2-5 and 7 each include additional limitations disclosing various equations utilized and additional verification limitations, which analyzed under Step 2A Prong One, include further limitations which fall within either the “Mental Processes” or “Mathematical Concepts” grouping of abstract ideas.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. Claims 3-5 each include limitations which define and describe a plurality of variables used in equations for the present application, which analyzed under Step 2A Prong Two, just generally links the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use (see MPEP 2106.05(h)).
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because as analyzed under Step 2B, the additional elements merely amount to gathering power system parameters and sending the data over a network. Analyzed under Berkheimer, the act of gathering and sending data over a network has been deemed as well-understood, routine, and conventional by the courts (see MPEP 2106.05(d)(II), “sending/receiving data over a network”).
Allowable Subject Matter
The office would like to first make a note that the present application has outstanding 101 rejections that MUST be resolved prior to consideration of allowance.
The independent claims have been amended and now recite: “A day-ahead scheduling method for a power system, comprising:
obtaining power system prediction parameters in a to-be-scheduled time period, wherein the power system prediction parameters comprise thermal power unit parameters, renewable energy station parameters, load parameters, energy storage station (ESS) parameters, node parameters, and a transmission line parameter;
constructing a day-ahead scheduling optimization model and generating multiple renewable energy power scenarios based on the power system prediction parameters;
solving the day-ahead scheduling optimization model to obtain day-ahead scheduling results;
verifying the day-ahead scheduling results based on the power system prediction parameters and the multiple renewable energy power scenarios;
in case that verifying the day-ahead scheduling results succeeds, outputting the day-ahead scheduling results; and
scheduling a power system based on the outputted day-ahead scheduling results; wherein verifying the day-ahead scheduling results based on the power system prediction parameters and the multiple renewable energy power scenarios comprises:
for each renewable energy power scenario, constructing an intraday scheduling optimization model based on the day-ahead scheduling results and the power system prediction parameters;
solving the intraday scheduling optimization model to obtain a multi-stage optimal solution of variables in the renewable energy power scenario;
calculating a penalty cost corresponding to the day-ahead scheduling results based on the multi-stage optimal solution of the variables: and verifying the day-ahead scheduling results based on the penalty cost.”
The closest prior art of record is Wang (CN 113516278A). Wang discloses a day-ahead power prediction/scheduling system and method which takes into account a plurality of system parameters and their respective historical values to generate correlation models. These models are then applied to an objective function which is then solved to determine the optimal energy schedule. However, Wang is silent regarding, “scheduling a power system based on the outputted day-ahead scheduling results; wherein verifying the day-ahead scheduling results based on the power system prediction parameters and the multiple renewable energy power scenarios comprises:
for each renewable energy power scenario, constructing an intraday scheduling optimization model based on the day-ahead scheduling results and the power system prediction parameters;
solving the intraday scheduling optimization model to obtain a multi-stage optimal solution of variables in the renewable energy power scenario;
calculating a penalty cost corresponding to the day-ahead scheduling results based on the multi-stage optimal solution of the variables: and verifying the day-ahead scheduling results based on the penalty cost.”
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 6/24/2026, specifically pages 10-14, with respect to the 35 U.S.C. 101 rejections have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
The applicant argues:
That the present invention is not directed towards an abstract idea because model construction is not purely numerical and the verification process requires a massive amount of calculations and therefore cannot be performed mentally.
The present application integrates the system into a practical application as the power system is scheduled based on the scheduled results of the analysis, which directly acts on the physical power system.
The present invention represents practical improvements to the related art which are not conventional, routine, or traditional activities.
With respect to the first argument, the office believes that the majority of limitations, as identified above, including model construction, even though maybe not entirely numerical for every instance, is very much a mathematical equation as can be previewed in paragraphs [0016]-[0018] of the filed specification. With regards to verifying the day-ahead scheduling results, as admitted by the applicant, this involves massive numerical calculations and iterative optimization which cannot be performed in the human mind, which the office agrees, however, in light of the newly amended scope represents mathematical calculations which thus makes the limitation fall within the, “Mathematical Concepts” grouping of abstract ideas.
With respect to the second argument, the applicant argues that scheduling power system based on the determined results sufficiently integrates the application into a practical application. However, it is not clear what is actually meant by “scheduling” the power system. When considering whether a limitation integrates the system into a practical application one must consider the guidance provided in the MPEP 2106.05(f) which states:
“When determining whether a claim simply recites a judicial exception with the words "apply it" (or an equivalent), such as mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, examiners may consider the following:[AltContent: rect]
(1) Whether the claim recites only the idea of a solution or outcome i.e., the claim fails to recite details of how a solution to a problem is accomplished. The recitation of claim limitations that attempt to cover any solution to an identified problem with no restriction on how the result is accomplished and no description of the mechanism for accomplishing the result, does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more because this type of recitation is equivalent to the words "apply it". See Electric Power Group, LLC v. Alstom, S.A., 830 F.3d 1350, 1356, 119 USPQ2d 1739, 1743-44 (Fed. Cir. 2016); Intellectual Ventures I v. Symantec, 838 F.3d 1307, 1327, 120 USPQ2d 1353, 1366 (Fed. Cir. 2016); Internet Patents Corp. v. Active Network, Inc., 790 F.3d 1343, 1348, 115 USPQ2d 1414, 1417 (Fed. Cir. 2015). In contrast, claiming a particular solution to a problem or a particular way to achieve a desired outcome may integrate the judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more. See Electric Power, 830 F.3d at 1356, 119 USPQ2d at 1743. [AltContent: rect]
By way of example, in Intellectual Ventures I v. Capital One Fin. Corp., 850 F.3d 1332, 121 USPQ2d 1940 (Fed. Cir. 2017), the steps in the claims described "the creation of a dynamic document based upon ‘management record types’ and ‘primary record types.’" 850 F.3d at 1339-40; 121 USPQ2d at 1945-46. The claims were found to be directed to the abstract idea of "collecting, displaying, and manipulating data." 850 F.3d at 1340; 121 USPQ2d at 1946. In addition to the abstract idea, the claims also recited the additional element of modifying the underlying XML document in response to modifications made in the dynamic document. 850 F.3d at 1342; 121 USPQ2d at 1947-48. Although the claims purported to modify the underlying XML document in response to modifications made in the dynamic document, nothing in the claims indicated what specific steps were undertaken other than merely using the abstract idea in the context of XML documents. The court thus held the claims ineligible, because the additional limitations provided only a result-oriented solution and lacked details as to how the computer performed the modifications, which was equivalent to the words "apply it". 850 F.3d at 1341-42; 121 USPQ2d at 1947-48 (citing Electric Power Group., 830 F.3d at 1356, 1356, USPQ2d at 1743-44 (cautioning against claims "so result focused, so functional, as to effectively cover any solution to an identified problem")).
In the present application, the claims merely state “schedule” the power system based on the result without explaining how the schedule is utilized to actually affect control of the power system. Similar to the case of, Intellectual Ventures I v. Capital One Fin. Corp., 850 F.3d 1332, 121 USPQ2d 1940,
creating a schedule can be seen as merely collecting and displaying the determined schedule which just merely applies the use of the judicial exception. In order to further prosecution, the office recommends adding further limitations as to how the system uses the schedule in order to control power system to distribute power as a way to overcome this rejection.
Finally, with respect to the third argument, MPEP 2106.04(d)(1) discloses:
“The courts have not provided an explicit test for this consideration, but have instead illustrated how it is evaluated in numerous decisions. These decisions, and a detailed explanation of how examiners should evaluate this consideration are provided in MPEP § 2106.05(a). In short, first the specification should be evaluated to determine if the disclosure provides sufficient details such that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize the claimed invention as providing an improvement. The specification need not explicitly set forth the improvement, but it must describe the invention such that the improvement would be apparent to one of ordinary skill in the art. Conversely, if the specification explicitly sets forth an improvement but in a conclusory manner (i.e., a bare assertion of an improvement without the detail necessary to be apparent to a person of ordinary skill in the art), the examiner should not determine the claim improves technology. Second, if the specification sets forth an improvement in technology, the claim must be evaluated to ensure that the claim itself reflects the disclosed improvement. That is, the claim includes the components or steps of the invention that provide the improvement described in the specification. The claim itself does not need to explicitly recite the improvement described in the specification (e.g., "thereby increasing the bandwidth of the channel")”
The office does not doubt that the present invention provides improvements to the current technology area, however, the arguments as presented are merely conclusory without providing citations within the specification which support the provided statements.
Conclusion
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 nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) 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 mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHRISTOPHER W CARTER whose telephone number is (469)295-9262. The examiner can normally be reached 9-6:30.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Robert Fennema can be reached at (571) 272-2748. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/CHRISTOPHER W CARTER/Examiner, Art Unit 2117
Prosecution Insights