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 .
The amendment filed 07/22/2026 has been entered. Claims 3-8 have been amended. Claims 1, 2, and 10 have been cancelled.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see page 26 lines 10-16, filed 07/22/2026, with respect to the specification have been fully considered and are persuasive. The objection of 05/15/2026 has been withdrawn.
Applicant’s arguments, see page 26 lines 19-22, with respect to claim 9 have been fully considered and are persuasive. The objection has been withdrawn.
Applicant’s arguments, see page 27 lines 1-9, with respect to the rejection of claim 3 under 35 U.S.C. 112(a), first paragraph have been fully considered and are persuasive. The rejection has been withdrawn.
Applicant’s arguments, see page 27 lines 15-22 and pages 28-30, with respect to the rejection of claim 3 under 35 U.S.C. 112(a), second paragraph have been fully considered and are persuasive. The rejection has been withdrawn
Applicant's arguments, see page 31 lines 7-27, page 32, and page 33 lines 1-11. with respect to the rejection of claims 1-10 under 35 U.S.C. 101 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. The amended limitations further reciting:
determining the real-time electricity price at a time;
determining for each residence in the community its power;
determining the total power of the community at the time;
setting the upper limit and the lower limit of the total power of the community;
wherein determining the power Prt for each residence of the community includes
determining the power of a dth electric appliance in the residence, the generated power of the residence, and the basic load of electrical appliances other than the transferable loads, the non-transferable loads, the temperature control device loads and the energy storage loads in the residence can be reasonably performed using the human mind/with pen and paper and thus also fall under the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas.
Furthermore, applicant argues that Torzhkov does not teach photovoltaic and energy storage assets owned by separate independent households with distinct property rights, for battery capacity “sharing” among multiple geographically dispersed households. However, it is the examiner’s interpretation that amended claim 3 does not require “separate ownership rights”, as “the community” is merely defined to “include[s] multiple users” without specifying “geographically/legally distinct households” or any equivalents thereof.
Applicant’s arguments, see page 33 lines 12-28 with respect to the rejection of claims 1-2 and 9-10 under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) have been considered and are persuasive. The rejection has been withdrawn.
Applicant’s arguments, see page 34 lines 1-87 with respect to claims 3-8 have been fully considered and are persuasive. The objection has been withdrawn.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
Claims 3-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1: Claims 3-9 are directed to a process.
Regarding claim 3:
Step 2A Prong One: The claim recites an abstract idea. Specifically:
“establishing an electricity cost model of a whole community as an objective optimization function”
“and setting constraints of the electricity cost model”
“and resolving optimal values of variables in the electricity cost model”
“wherein a formula of the objective optimization function is:”
“the total power of the community under the user-side energy storage sharing framework is expressed as:”
“the power of the residence under the user-side energy storage sharing framework is expressed as:”
“determining the real-time electricity price Πt at a time”
“determining for each residence in the community its power Pr,t”
“determining the total power of the community Pt at the time”
“setting the upper limit pmax and the lower limit pmin of the total power of the community”
“wherein determining the power Pr,t for each residence in the community includes determining the power Pd,t of a dth electric appliance in the residence, the generated power Gd,t of the residence, and the basic load Cd,t basic load of electric appliances of the residence other than the transferable loads, the non-transferable loads, the temperature control device loads and the energy storage loads in the residence”
The limitations of establishing an electricity cost model, setting constraints of the electricity cost model, resolving optimal variables of variables, determining the real-time electricity price at a time, determining for each residence in the community its power, determining the total power of the community at the time, setting the upper limit and lower limit of the total power of the community, wherein determining the power for each residence in the community includes determining the power of an electric appliance in the residence, the generated power of the residence, and the basic load of electric appliances of the residence other than the transferable loads, the non-transferable loads, the temperature control device loads and the energy storage loads in the residence can be reasonably performed using the human mind/with pen and paper and thus fall under the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. The formulas for the objective optimization function, the total power of the community under the user-side energy storage sharing framework, and the power of the residence under the user-side energy storage sharing framework also can be reasonably performed using the human mind/with pen and paper and thus fall under the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas.
Step 2A Prong Two: The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. Claim 1 includes the following limitations:
“A power energy scheduling optimization method for a user-side energy storage sharing framework, comprising the following steps”
“and controlling electric devices according to the optimal values”
“wherein the community includes multiple users, the users have different types of loads and are provided with solar power generation devices and battery energy storage devices, and capacity sharing is allowed between the battery energy storage devices of the users”
“wherein the transferable loads are delayable loads which are flexibly adjustable during peak power demand, and wherein the non-transferable loads are loads that cannot be interrupted or stopped once started”
The limitation of a power energy scheduling optimization method for a user-side energy storage sharing framework is a generic system and thus falls under mere instructions to apply an exception (MPEP 2106.05(f)). The limitation of controlling electric devices according to the optimal values, wherein the community includes multiple users with different types of loads, and wherein the transferable loads are delayable loads and wherein the non-transferable loads are loads that cannot be interrupted or stopped once started also fa;; under mere instructions to apply an exception (MPEP 2106.5(f)).
Step 2B: The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. The limitations of a power energy scheduling optimization method for a user-side energy storage sharing framework, controlling electric devices according to the optimal values, wherein the community includes multiple users with different types of loads and wherein the transferable loads are delayable loads and the non-transferable loads are loads that cannot be interrupted or stopped once started represent functions that are well-understood, routine, and conventional when they are claimed in a merely generic manner within the industry.
With regards to “A power energy scheduling optimization method for a user-side energy storage sharing framework, comprising the following steps”, US 20110066258 A1 to Torzhkov et al. (“Torzhkov”) describes “A method for optimizing operational settings for a plurality of energy devices” (abstract). US 20090048716 A1 to Marhoefer (“Marhoefer”) describes “An energy optimization method and control apparatus may be used in a single building or a group of buildings to optimize utility-supplied and renewable sources in order to minimize the total energy cost. Simultaneously, it may also produce and store energy” (abstract).
With regards to “and controlling electric devices according to the optimal values”, Torzhkov describes “Each of these states and/or settings may be controlled/scheduled according to an optimal utilization plan that is generated according to exemplary embodiments of the present invention” (Paragraph 79). Marhoefer describes “the user interface preferably includes a processor (e.g., a microprocessor) for controlling one or more aspects of the energy optimization scheme” (Paragraph 99).
With regards to “wherein the community includes multiple users, the users have different types of loads and are provided with solar power generation devices and battery energy storage devices, and capacity sharing is allowed between the battery energy storage devices of the users”, Torzhkov describes “However, any collection of energy units may be grouped as a sub-plant” (Paragraph 194), “Energy devices may also include devices that generate energy such as fossil fuel-powered electrical generators, geothermal systems, solar collectors and photovoltaic cells. Energy devices may also include devices that store energy for later use such as thermal energy storage devices, batteries and the like” (Paragraph 5), and “Accordingly, exemplary embodiments of the present invention may be flexible enough to accommodate multiple instances of chillers or some other form of energy device, with either parallel or composite connections” (Paragraph 150).
US 20190206000 A1 to Elbsat et al. (“Elbsat”) describes “One implementation of the present disclosure is a building energy system. The building energy system is configured to serve energy loads of a building or campus” (Paragraph 4), “For example, energy generation 120 may include an electric power plant, a photovoltaic energy field” (Paragraph 52), and “Electric energy storage can help reduce peak consumption by storing electricity in a battery when energy consumption is low and discharging the stored electricity from the battery when energy consumption is high” (Paragraph 3).
With regards to “wherein the transferable loads are delayable loads which are flexibly adjustable during peak power demand, and wherein the non-transferable loads are loads that cannot be interrupted or stopped once started”, US 20110049980 A1 to Paik et al. (“Paik”) describes “Based on this determination, each circuit in the system may be categorized internally by the UTS as “delayable” or “not delayable.” It is to be understood that for the purposes of this disclosure, “delayable” means that the power to the circuit can be temporarily cut off (interrupted) as needed (to handle overloads for example) and restored at a later time. “Not delayable” means that power to the circuit should not normally be interrupted” (Paragraph 46). US 20030011246 A1 to Sleva describes “In accordance with the present invention, an interruptible power supply module is configured by a customer to designate certain loads as “interruptible”. In the residential environment, such loads may include, for example, water heaters, clothes dryers, dehumidifiers, and the like. The remainder of the customer's load is then defined as “firm” and not subject to possible interruption”.
In view of the foregoing, in accord with MPEP 2106.05(d), simply appending well-understood, routine, conventional activities previously known to the industry, specified at a high level of generality, to the judicial exception does not qualify the claim as reciting “significantly more”. Therefore, the additional claimed features do not amount to significantly more and the claim is not patent eligible.
Regarding claim 4, the additional limitations do not integrate the judicial exception into practical application or add significantly more to the judicial exception. The power energy scheduling optimization method wherein the transferable loads in the residence are delayable loads, and the transferable loads including an electric vehicle EV fall under mere instructions to apply an exception (MPEP 2106.5(f)). The formulas for the model of the electric vehicle EV fall under a mental process and/or a mathematical concept and are thus an abstract idea.
Regarding claim 5, the additional limitations do not integrate the judicial exception into practical application or add significantly more to the judicial exception. The power energy scheduling optimization method wherein the non-transferable loads are loads that cannot be interrupted or stopped once started falls under mere instructions to apply an exception (MPEP 2106.5(f)). The formulas for the non-transferable loads fall under a mental process and/or a mathematical concept and are thus abstract ideas.
Regarding claim 6, the additional limitations do not integrate the judicial exception into practical application or add significantly more to the judicial exception. The power energy scheduling optimization method wherein the temperature control device loads are loads of household appliance for controlling an indoor temperature falls under mere instructions to apply an exception (MPEP 2106.5(f)). The formulas for the temperature control device loads fall under a mental process and/or a mathematical concept and are thus abstract ideas.
Regarding claim 7, the additional limitations do not integrate the judicial exception into practical application or add significantly more to the judicial exception. The power energy scheduling optimization method wherein an energy storage device is responsible for obtaining electric energy from a power grid or solar energy and storing the electric energy and the electric energy stored in the energy storage device being used for supplying power to the loads fall under mere instructions to apply an exception (MPEP 2106.5(f)). The formulas for the model of the energy storage device fall under a mental process and/or a mathematical concept and are thus abstract ideas.
Regarding claim 8, the additional limitations do not integrate the judicial exception into practical application or add significantly more to the judicial exception. The formulas for the energy sharing model fall under a mental process and/or a mathematical concept and are thus abstract ideas.
Regarding claim 9, the additional limitations do not integrate the judicial exception into practical application or add significantly more to the judicial exception. The power energy scheduling optimization method wherein the objective optimization function is resolved by a mixed integer linear programming (MILP) algorithm falls under mere instructions to apply an exception (MPEP 2106.5(f)).
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 WILLIAM XIANG ZHANG whose telephone number is (571)272-1276. The examiner can normally be reached M-F (8:30 AM - 5 PM).
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 5712722748. 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.
/W.X.Z./ Examiner, Art Unit 2117
/ROBERT E FENNEMA/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2117
Prosecution Insights