DETAILED ACTION
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that use the word “means” or “step” but are nonetheless not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph because the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure, materials, or acts to entirely perform the recited function. Such claim limitation(s) is/are:
“display means” in claims 1, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 10
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are not being interpreted to cover only the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant intends to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to remove the structure, materials, or acts that performs the claimed function; or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) does/do not recite sufficient structure, materials, or acts to perform the claimed function.
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.
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the applicant has provided evidence that the applicant intends the term “program” to include non-statutory matter. The applicant describes a program as including open ended language and thus it is reasonable to interpret it to include all possible mediums, including non-statutory mediums (see paragraph 0011). The words "storage" and/or "recording" are insufficient to convey only statutory embodiments to one of ordinary skill in the art absent an explicit and deliberate limiting definition or clear differentiation between storage media and transitory media in the disclosure. As such, the claim(s) is/are drawn to a form of energy. Energy is not one of the four categories of invention and therefore this/these claim(s) is/are not statutory. Energy is not a series of steps or acts and thus is not a process. Energy is not a physical article or object and as such is not a machine or manufacture. Energy is not a combination of substances and therefore not a composition of matter.
The Examiner suggests amending the claim(s) to read as a “non-transitory machine-readable storage medium comprising a program”.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-3, 5-6, and 10-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being unpatentable by
JP 2019091106A (Yamazaki) (cited by Applicant) (citations to English translation).
Claim 1:
The cited prior art describes a power procurement plan creating system comprising (Yamazaki: “The present invention relates to a power planning device, a power supply and demand control system, and a power planning method.”)
a control unit that causes (Yamazaki: see the demand control device 1 as illustrated in figures 1, 2)
a display means to display a power procurement plan adopting a combination of supply/procurement sources, (Yamazaki: see the display device 202 as illustrated in figure 1; “A user such as a power system operator can set and change parameters such as various threshold values through a predetermined interface of the input unit 204, and can appropriately set the operation of the power supply and demand control device 1. In addition, the user can select the type of data to be confirmed through a predetermined interface of the input unit 204 and cause the display device 202 to display the data.”)
the combination being selected based on a given evaluation index, from among a plurality of supply/procurement sources that are power supply sources, (Yamazaki: “Power supply control uncertainty data 33 including the control achievement probability 33c for each) is calculated.”; “The control achievement probability 33c is an indicator of uncertainty regarding the control of the power supply for procurement, and for example, under the condition of the supply and demand condition data 33b, the power supply for procurement A correctly executes the control command data 33a with a probability of 95%. Is registered. The power supply control uncertainty calculation unit 13 applies the statistical analysis to the control command response result data 26 to calculate the control achievement probability 33 c. The control achievement probability 33c may be calculated for each combination of the power supply for procurement and the demand-supply condition data 33b, or may be calculated for each power supply for procurement.”)
wherein the evaluation index includes a degree of stability that indicates a degree of stable supply of power to a demand side. (Yamazaki: “The control achievement probability 33c is an indicator of uncertainty regarding the control of the power supply for procurement, and for example, under the condition of the supply and demand condition data 33b, the power supply for procurement A correctly executes the control command data 33a with a probability of 95%. Is registered. The power supply control uncertainty calculation unit 13 applies the statistical analysis to the control command response result data 26 to calculate the control achievement probability 33 c. The control achievement probability 33c may be calculated for each combination of the power supply for procurement and the demand-supply condition data 33b, or may be calculated for each power supply for procurement.”; “The power supply procurement risk calculation unit 14 calculates the power supply procurement risk data 34 of FIG. 8 using the supply and demand fluctuation forecast data 31, the supply and demand control plan data 32, and the power supply control uncertainty data 33 as input (details of calculation processing Figure 12). The supply and demand control plan correction unit 15 corrects the supply and demand control plan data 32 into the risk consideration plan data 35 by using the power supply procurement risk data 34 and the power supply procurement risk upper limit data 27 of FIG. Figure 14).”)
Claim 2:
The cited prior art describes the power procurement plan creating system according to claim 1, wherein the control unit displays the degree of stability on a display screen for displaying the power procurement plan. (Yamazaki: see the display device 202 as illustrated in figure 1; “A user such as a power system operator can set and change parameters such as various threshold values through a predetermined interface of the input unit 204, and can appropriately set the operation of the power supply and demand control device 1. In addition, the user can select the type of data to be confirmed through a predetermined interface of the input unit 204 and cause the display device 202 to display the data.”; “The control achievement probability 33c is an indicator of uncertainty regarding the control of the power supply for procurement, and for example, under the condition of the supply and demand condition data 33b, the power supply for procurement A correctly executes the control command data 33a with a probability of 95%. Is registered. The power supply control uncertainty calculation unit 13 applies the statistical analysis to the control command response result data 26 to calculate the control achievement probability 33 c. The control achievement probability 33c may be calculated for each combination of the power supply for procurement and the demand-supply condition data 33b, or may be calculated for each power supply for procurement.”; “The power supply procurement risk calculation unit 14 calculates the power supply procurement risk data 34 of FIG. 8 using the supply and demand fluctuation forecast data 31, the supply and demand control plan data 32, and the power supply control uncertainty data 33 as input (details of calculation processing Figure 12). The supply and demand control plan correction unit 15 corrects the supply and demand control plan data 32 into the risk consideration plan data 35 by using the power supply procurement risk data 34 and the power supply procurement risk upper limit data 27 of FIG. Figure 14).”)
Claim 3:
The cited prior art describes the power procurement plan creating system according to claim 1, wherein the control unit causes the display means to display the power procurement plan adopting a combination with the degree of stability being highest. (Yamazaki: see the highest probability of 99% as illustrated in figure 7; see the display device 202 as illustrated in figure 1; “A user such as a power system operator can set and change parameters such as various threshold values through a predetermined interface of the input unit 204, and can appropriately set the operation of the power supply and demand control device 1. In addition, the user can select the type of data to be confirmed through a predetermined interface of the input unit 204 and cause the display device 202 to display the data.”; “The control achievement probability 33c is an indicator of uncertainty regarding the control of the power supply for procurement, and for example, under the condition of the supply and demand condition data 33b, the power supply for procurement A correctly executes the control command data 33a with a probability of 95%. Is registered. The power supply control uncertainty calculation unit 13 applies the statistical analysis to the control command response result data 26 to calculate the control achievement probability 33 c. The control achievement probability 33c may be calculated for each combination of the power supply for procurement and the demand-supply condition data 33b, or may be calculated for each power supply for procurement.”; “The power supply procurement risk calculation unit 14 calculates the power supply procurement risk data 34 of FIG. 8 using the supply and demand fluctuation forecast data 31, the supply and demand control plan data 32, and the power supply control uncertainty data 33 as input (details of calculation processing Figure 12). The supply and demand control plan correction unit 15 corrects the supply and demand control plan data 32 into the risk consideration plan data 35 by using the power supply procurement risk data 34 and the power supply procurement risk upper limit data 27 of FIG. Figure 14).”)
Claim 5:
The cited prior art describes the power procurement plan creating system according to claim 3, wherein the control unit causes the display means to display the power procurement plan adopting a combination with a power cost in a given planning target period being equal to or smaller than a set value and the degree of stability being highest, the combination being adopted from among combinations of the supply/procurement sources. (Yamazaki: “The supply and demand control plan correction unit 15 satisfies the control performance requirements such as the output change rate as the determination criteria of the power supply for procurement to be added, and targets the power supply for procurement with low power supply procurement cost based on merit order. Alternatively, it is desirable to select a power supply for procurement with high power supply cost as a target for output reduction. In other words, the total cost of the power supply for procurement can be efficiently reduced by preferentially adding the low cost procurement power supply as much as possible when the supply is insufficient, and preferentially releasing the high cost procurement power supply when possible.”; “At this time, if the total supply and demand fluctuation value 31a indicates a trend of increased demand, the supply and demand control plan creation unit 12 controls the supply power supply so as to increase the output in order from the supply power source having the lowest power supply cost. Create data 32. On the other hand, when the total supply and demand fluctuation value 31a indicates a trend of decreasing demand, the supply and demand control plan data 32 for controlling the supply for supply so that the output is decreased in order from the supply for supply with high cost. When the output of the selected power supply for procurement reaches the upper and lower control limit, the power supply for procurement to be the control candidate of the next order in the merit order is selected. The above process is repeated, and the supply and demand control plan creation unit 12 adds the power supply for procurement until the required supply amount is satisfied, and determines the final control candidate.”)
Claim 6:
The cited prior art describes the power procurement plan creating system according to claim 1, wherein the control unit causes the display means to selectively display the power procurement plan adopting a combination with the degree of stability being highest and a different power procurement plan adopting a combination with a power cost in a given planning target period being lowest, both combinations being adopted from among combinations of the supply/procurement sources. (Yamazaki: “In S403, the supply and demand control plan correction unit 15 selects the power supply for procurement to be newly added to the plan data from the power supplies for procurement extracted in S402. The power supply procurement risk value 34a can be improved because the additional power supply for procurement can afford the power supply. The supply and demand control plan correction unit 15 satisfies the control performance requirements such as the output change rate as the determination criteria of the power supply for procurement to be added, and targets the power supply for procurement with low power supply procurement cost based on merit order. Alternatively, it is desirable to select a power supply for procurement with high power supply cost as a target for output reduction. In other words, the total cost of the power supply for procurement can be efficiently reduced by preferentially adding the low cost procurement power supply as much as possible when the supply is insufficient, and preferentially releasing the high cost procurement power supply when possible.”; “At S405, the supply and demand control plan correction unit 15 determines whether or not the power supply procurement risk value 34a calculated at S404 is within the determination standard. If No in S405, the process returns to S403. If Yes in S405, the risk consideration plan data 35 in consideration of the power supply procurement risk value 34a is created, and the process is ended. The lower the power supply risk value 34a is, the lower the power supply risk value 34a is. Therefore, for example, the power supply risk upper limit value 27a of the power supply risk upper limit data 27 acquired in S401 is used as the power supply risk value 34a. In the case where the value of 需 給 is smaller than, the supply and demand control plan correction unit 15 determines that it is within the judgment standard.”)
Claim 10:
Claim 10 is substantially similar to claim 1 and is rejected based on the same reasons and rationale.
10. (Original) A power procurement plan creating method comprising
a process of causing a display means to display a power procurement plan adopting a combination of supply/procurement sources,
the combination being selected based on a given evaluation index, from among a plurality of supply/procurement sources that are power supply sources,
wherein the evaluation index includes a degree of stability that indicates a degree of stable supply of power to a demand side.
Claim 11:
The cited prior art describes a program for causing a computer to execute the power procurement plan creating method according to claim 10. (Yamazaki: “As an internal configuration of the power supply and demand control device 1, a central processing unit (CPU) 201, a display device 202, a communication unit 203, an input unit 204, a memory 205 and a storage device 206 are connected to a bus line 211. There is. The CPU 201 executes a calculation program to calculate a system state, generate a control signal, and the like. The memory 205 is a memory for temporarily storing image data for display, calculation result data of the system state, and the like, and is configured using, for example, a random access memory (RAM). The memory 205 generates necessary image data by the CPU 201 and displays the image data on the display device 202.”)
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 4 and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over
JP 2019091106A (Yamazaki) (cited by Applicant) (citations to English translation) in view of
U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2014/0058571 (Hooshmand).
Claim 4:
Yamazaki does not explicitly describe a renewable energy ratio as described below. However, Hooshmand teaches the renewable energy ratio as described below.
The cited prior art describes the power procurement plan creating system according to claim 3, wherein the control unit causes the display means to display the power procurement plan adopting a combination with a renewable energy ratio being within a set range and the degree of stability being highest, the combination being adopted from among combinations of the supply/procurement sources, and wherein the renewable energy ratio is a ratio of a power amount supplied by the supply/procurement sources as renewable energy, to a total of supply-power amounts supplied to a demand side in a given planning target period. (Hooshmand: see the renewable inequality constraint using renewable energy within a set range as described in paragraph 0028) (Yamazaki: “Power supply control uncertainty data 33 including the control achievement probability 33c for each) is calculated.”; “The control achievement probability 33c is an indicator of uncertainty regarding the control of the power supply for procurement, and for example, under the condition of the supply and demand condition data 33b, the power supply for procurement A correctly executes the control command data 33a with a probability of 95%. Is registered. The power supply control uncertainty calculation unit 13 applies the statistical analysis to the control command response result data 26 to calculate the control achievement probability 33 c. The control achievement probability 33c may be calculated for each combination of the power supply for procurement and the demand-supply condition data 33b, or may be calculated for each power supply for procurement.”)
One of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that applying the known technique of Yamazaki, namely, an electric power planning apparatus, with the known techniques of Hooshmand, namely, energy management system, would have yielded predictable results and resulted in an improved system. Accordingly, applying the teachings of Yamazaki to determine a power source with a risk probability with the teachings of Hooshmand to manage energy procurement based on various criteria would have been recognized by those of ordinary skill in the art as resulting in an improved energy management system. In other words, the combination of references provides for determining power supplies based on risk probability data and renewable energy sources based on the teachings of determining power supplies based on risk probability data in Yamazaki and the teachings of using various criteria to manage energy supplies in Hooshmand).
Claim 9:
Yamazaki does not explicitly describe adjusting price to match supply and demand as described below. However, Hooshmand teaches the adjusting price to match supply and demand as described below.
The cited prior art describes a dealing system that communicates with the power procurement plan creating system according to claim 1, wherein the dealing system adjusts a power unit price, based on a matching rate between a power demand side and a power supply side, and wherein the matching rate is a value given by dividing a total sum of predicted supply- power amounts in a case of reflecting a contract between the power demand side and the power supply side in a given planning target period, by a total sum of power amounts that can be supplied from a plurality of the supply/procurement sources to the power demand side. (Hooshmand: see the optimization problem equation as described in paragraph 0031 that is subject to constraints 7-12 include the supply demand balance constraint 7 as described in paragraph 0024; see the balancing of the load 104 as illustrated in figure 3A; “In this way, it guarantees the balance between generation and consumption within the micro-grid at each time step while it satisfies the optimal performance constraints provided by MPC at advisory layer.” Paragraph 0056)
Yamazaki and Hooshmand are combinable for the same rationale as set forth above with respect to claim 9.
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over
JP 2019091106A (Yamazaki) (cited by Applicant) (citations to English translation) in view of
U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2019/0372348 (Miyake).
Claim 7:
Yamazaki does not explicitly describe a supply graph as described below. However, Miyake teaches the supply graph as described below.
The cited prior art describes the power procurement plan creating system according to claim 1, wherein the control unit causes the display means to display, as the power procurement plan, a supply graph showing transition of supply-power to a demand side in a given planning target period and a division graph showing a ratio of supply- power from each of the plurality of supply/procurement sources to a value of the supply graph. (Miyake: see the power supply amounts as illustrated in figure 5 and as described in paragraphs 0081, 0082; “FIG. 5 is a diagram illustrating an example of the actual power system stabilization data D7 obtained from the power system stability device 105 according to the embodiment of the present invention. The actual power system stabilization data D7 is constituted of D701 indicating a case ID, D702 indicating an electric control power supply ID, an electric control amount D703, D704 indicating a load control facility ID of an electric power customer performing load restriction, and a load control amount D705.” Paragraph 0081)
One of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that applying the known technique of Yamazaki, namely, an electric power planning apparatus, with the known techniques of Miyake, namely, a power procurement plan system, would have yielded predictable results and resulted in an improved system. Accordingly, applying the teachings of Yamazaki to determine a power source with a risk probability with the teachings of Miyake to manage energy procurement would have been recognized by those of ordinary skill in the art as resulting in an improved energy management system. In other words, the combination of references provides for determining power supplies based on risk probability data and providing how the supplies are provided based on the teachings of determining power supplies based on risk probability data in Yamazaki and the teachings of managing energy supplies in Miyake.
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over
JP 2019091106A (Yamazaki) (cited by Applicant) (citations to English translation) in view of
U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2020/0212677 (Wolkoff).
Claim 8:
Yamazaki does not explicitly describe battery allocation as described below. However, Wolkoff teaches the battery allocation as described below.
The cited prior art describes the power procurement plan creating system according to claim 1, wherein the supply/procurement sources include a storage battery, wherein the control unit creates the power procurement plan so that a stable supply is allocated to an important and stable demand among power demands in a given time zone included in a given planning target period and that power supply from the storage battery is allocated to an important and uncertain demand among the power demands in the given time zone included in the given planning target period, and wherein the stable demand and the uncertain demand are calculated based on demand prediction data and demand performance data resulting from a past power demand prediction. (Wolkoff: “A method of predicting load, according to one embodiment of the present disclosure, may perform a load prediction considering historic periodic trends or shapes such as a daily trend or shape. The load prediction can execute every time an EO executes an EO process, or it can execute more or less frequently. The load prediction may be executed by performing a regression of a parameterized historic load shape against historic load data (typically less than or equal to 24 hours) in one embodiment. Regression algorithms such as least squares may be used. A compilation of historic trends may be recorded as a historic average (or typical) profile or an average load shape. The historic average profile or average load shape may be a daily (24-hour) historic average profile that represents a typical day. The compilation of historic observations and/or historic average profile may be received from another system, or may be gathered and compiled (or learned) as part of the method of predicting load, as will be explained below with reference to FIG. 8.” Paragraph 0188; “For example, if electricity supply and/or delivery costs (e.g., charges) are high at a particular time of day, an ESS can generate/discharge electrical energy from a storage system at that time to reduce the net consumption of a consumer (e.g., a building), and thus reduce costs to the consumer.” Paragraph 0027) (Yamazaki: “Examples of the power supply for procurement include storage battery control, pump-up of pumped storage power generation, charge and discharge control of an electric vehicle, and demand response (DR).”; “Power supply control uncertainty data 33 including the control achievement probability 33c for each) is calculated.”; “The control achievement probability 33c is an indicator of uncertainty regarding the control of the power supply for procurement, and for example, under the condition of the supply and demand condition data 33b, the power supply for procurement A correctly executes the control command data 33a with a probability of 95%. Is registered. The power supply control uncertainty calculation unit 13 applies the statistical analysis to the control command response result data 26 to calculate the control achievement probability 33 c. The control achievement probability 33c may be calculated for each combination of the power supply for procurement and the demand-supply condition data 33b, or may be calculated for each power supply for procurement.”)
One of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that applying the known technique of Yamazaki, namely, an electric power planning apparatus, with the known techniques of Wolkoff, namely, an electrical control system, would have yielded predictable results and resulted in an improved system. Accordingly, applying the teachings of Yamazaki to determine a power source with a risk probability with the teachings of Wolkoff to manage electrical control for energy storage systems would have been recognized by those of ordinary skill in the art as resulting in an improved energy management system. In other words, the combination of references provides for determining power supplies based on risk probability data and providing how the supplies are utilized based on the teachings of determining power supplies based on risk probability data in Yamazaki and the teachings of managing battery storage supplies in Wolkoff.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2023/0065402 describes an electric power agreement system.
U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2013/0226637 describes using electric vehicles as mobile energy storage.
U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2011/0106328 describes an energy optimization system.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHRISTOPHER E EVERETT whose telephone number is (571)272-2851. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8:00 am to 5:00 pm (Pacific).
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 E. Everett/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2117
Prosecution Insights