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 .
Status of Claims
This action is in reply to the communications filed on 12/22/2025.
Claims 1 and 8 have been amended.
Claim 6 has been cancelled.
Claims 1-5 and 7-10 are currently pending and have been examined.
Response to Applicant’s Remarks
Applicant’s arguments and remarks filed on 12/22/2025, have been fully considered and each argument will be respectfully addressed in the following final office action.
Response to 35 U.S.C. § 112(b) Remarks
Applicant’s remarks filed on page 19 of the Response concerning the 35 U.S.C. § 112(b) rejection of claims 1-10 have been fully considered and are found to be persuasive. In view of the amendments to claims 1 and 8, the §112(b) rejection has been overcome and withdrawn accordingly.
Response to 35 U.S.C. § 101 Remarks
Applicant’s remarks filed on pages 19-25 of the Response concerning the 35 U.S.C. § 101 rejection of claims 1-10 have been fully considered but are found not persuasive and are moot in view of the amended rejection that may be found starting on page 13 of this final office action.
On pages 20-21 of the Response, the Applicant submits “the claims do not recite an abstract idea, but merely involve an abstract idea. In particular, claim 1 is directed to optimizing the efficiency of berthing ships to a port and charging shipborne energy storage of ships […] claim 1 is specifically limited and uniquely directed to controlling ships to berth at a port and charging shipborne energy storage of ships, which are not abstract concepts”.
The Examiner respectfully disagrees that the claims do not recite an abstract idea. The claims, as currently drafted, recite steps for formulating a layered game architecture for a port-and-ship integrated energy and transportation operation, establishing a layered game optimization model based on optimized objective functions for a port and ship corresponding to various particular mathematical calculations/equations, and further controlling ships and diesel generators in accordance with a resulting strategy. Furthermore, as disclosed by the Applicant in the specification, “The port-ship layered game model is established, and the port micro energy grid guides the ship berthing service and the energy transaction by setting the price, so that the overall operating economy can be effectively achieved” (pg. 34, para. 4). Accordingly, under broadest reasonable interpretation in view of the specification, the claims recite steps for managing and coordinating business relations for a ship berthing service based on a layered game optimization model, which is the abstract idea of commercial interactions. See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(II).
Furthermore, the limitations directed towards “controlling ships of the in-port ship set to berth at the port as defined by the strategy and operating a diesel generator of the port diesel generators coupled to the ith ship to charge the shipborne energy storage of the ith ship from the port in accordance with the strategy” recite concepts of managing personal behavior in the form of following instructions by a human. Neither the claim or Applicant’s specification provide any indication that the claimed steps for “controlling” the ships or diesel generators are performed in an automated/autonomous manner and, thus, under broadest reasonable interpretation in view of the specification, may encompass a human following instructions to perform the claim steps for controlling the ship and diesel generator in accordance with the determined strategy.
On pages 21- 23 of the Response, the Applicant argues that the amended claims recite an improvement to a technical field. In particular, the Applicant submits, on pg. 22 of the Response, “charging of the shipborne energy storage in accordance with step S2.4 of claim 1 constitutes an improvement in the technical field and is a practical application because it optimizes the efficiency of berthing ships and directing berthing time of the ships to a port for purposes of maximizing charging shipborne energy storage of ships in the in-port ship set in an efficient manner […] claim 1 explicitly recites operating a diesel generator coupled to a berthed ship and optimizes “charging and discharging power of shipborne energy storage” at particular time period, charged energy of shipborne energy storage” at particular time periods and “charging and discharging efficiencies of shipborne energy storage” […] This clearly is directed to an improvement in power distribution to shipborne energy system […] claim 1 is directed to an improvement in the technical field, as it optimizes energy transfer and storage of the ships at port in an efficient and timely manner”. Furthermore, on pg. 23 of the Response, the Applicant submits “the present application solves the problems of energy waste and low service efficiency caused by conventional unilateral and coarse scheduling approaches by means of mathematical optimization”.
The Examiner respectfully disagrees that the amended claims recite additional elements that reflect an improvement to the abstract idea, such as to implement the abstract idea into a practical application. As noted further above, neither the claim or Applicant’s specification provide any indication that the claimed steps for “controlling” the ships or diesel generators are performed in an automated/autonomous manner and, thus, under broadest reasonable interpretation in view of the specification, may encompass a human following instructions to perform the claim steps for controlling the ship and diesel generator in accordance with the determined strategy. As such, these features are considered to be a part of the abstract idea itself. Furthermore, the Examiner submits that “optimiz[ing] the efficiency of berthing ships and directing berthing time of the ships to a port for purposes of maximizing charging shipborne energy storage of ships in the in-port ship set in an efficient manner” and “optimiz[ing] energy transfer and storage of the ships at port in an efficient and timely manner” are not considered to be a technical improvement to a technological field, but rather may be considered an improvement to the abstract idea itself. In particular, these claims features provide, at best, an improvement to coordinating and scheduling a business relation (i.e., a ship berthing service and energy transfer operation). The Examiner notes that “it is important to keep in mind that an improvement in the abstract idea itself […] is not an improvement in technology” (See MPEP 2106.05(a)(II)).
On page 24 of the Response, the Applicant submits “claim 1 provides a significant improvement the technical field, and the claim is patentable eligible under Step 2B for the same reasons discussed above with respect to step 2A. the Applicant also respectfully submits that the claimed method is not route or conventional”. As noted in further detail above, the amended independent claims are considered to recite, at best, an improvement to the abstract idea itself as opposed to a technical improvement to a technical field.
Response to 35 U.S.C. § 103 Remarks
Applicant’s remarks filed on pages 19-25 of the Response concerning the 35 U.S.C. § 101 rejection of claims 1-10 have been fully considered and are found to be persuasive. In view of the amendments to independent claims 1 and 8, the §103 rejection of the claims have been overcome and withdrawn accordingly. The Examiner has provided a detailed explanation describing why the claims are considered to overcome the prior art of record in the Examiner Notes that may be found starting on page 27 herein.
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.
Regarding claims 8 and 10, the three prong test to determine if 35 U.S.C. § 112(f) can be invoked was applied.
Claim 8 recites the limitations (1.) “a module M1, configured to formulate…”, (2.) “a module M2 configured to establish….”, and (3.) “module M3, configured to, based on the port-and-ship layered game optimization model, solve….”. Thus, these limitations use generic placeholders for the term “means” for performing the claimed function of the respective limitations. The generic placeholder for the term “means” in each limitation is subsequently modified by the functional language “configured to”. The generic placeholder for the term “means” in each limitation is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed functions.
The term “module M1” is considered to be a generic placeholder for the term “means” for performing the claimed function of the limitation. The generic placeholder “module M1” is subsequently modified by the functional language “configured to formulate a layered game architecture”. The limitation “a module M1, configured to formulate a layered game architecture” has therefore been interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) as a means plus function limitation, with the corresponding structure or acts being recited as “a logic gate, a switch, an application-specific integrated circuit, a programmable logic controller, an embedded microcontroller and the like”. See pg. 34, para. 2 of the Applicant’s Specification. Furthermore, the corresponding algorithm is found being recited in claim 9.
The term “module M2” is considered to be a generic placeholder for the term “means” for performing the claimed function of the limitation. The generic placeholder “module M2” is subsequently modified by the functional language “configured to establish a port-and-ship layered game optimization model”. The limitation “a module M2, configured to establish a port-and-ship layered game optimization model,” has therefore been interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) as a means plus function limitation, with the corresponding structure or acts being recited as “a logic gate, a switch, an application-specific integrated circuit, a programmable logic controller, an embedded microcontroller and the like”. See pg. 34, para. 2 of the Applicant’s Specification. Furthermore, the corresponding algorithm is found being recited in claim 10.
The term “module M3” is considered to be a generic placeholder for the term “means” for performing the claimed function of the limitation. The generic placeholder “module M3” is subsequently modified by the functional language “configured to, based on the port-and-ship layered game optimization model, solve”. The limitation “a module M3, configured to, based on the port-and-ship layered game optimization model, solve” has therefore been interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) as a means plus function limitation, with the corresponding structure or acts being recited as “a logic gate, a switch, an application-specific integrated circuit, a programmable logic controller, an embedded microcontroller and the like”. See pg. 34, para. 2 of the Applicant’s Specification.
Claim 10 recites the limitations (1.) “a module M2.1, configured to establish…”, (2.) “a module M2.2, configured to establish…”, (3.) “a module M2.3, configured to establish…”, (4.) “a module M2.4, configured to establish…”, (5.) “a module M3.1, configured to convert…”, (6.) “a module M3.2, configured to, then solve…”. Thus, these limitations use generic placeholders for the term “means” for performing the claimed function of the respective limitations. The generic placeholder for the term “means” in each limitation is subsequently modified by the functional language “for setting” or “configured to”. The generic placeholder for the term “means” in each limitation is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed functions.
The term “module M2.1” is considered to be a generic placeholder for the term “means” for performing the claimed function of the limitation. The generic placeholder “module M2.1” is subsequently modified by the functional language “configured to establish”. The limitation “a module M2.1, configured to establish” has therefore been interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) as a means plus function limitation, with the corresponding structure or acts being recited as “a logic gate, a switch, an application-specific integrated circuit, a programmable logic controller, an embedded microcontroller and the like”. See pg. 34, para. 2 of the Applicant’s Specification. Furthermore, the corresponding algorithm is found being recited in claim 10.
The term “module M2.2” is considered to be a generic placeholder for the term “means” for performing the claimed function of the limitation. The generic placeholder “module M2.2” is subsequently modified by the functional language “configured to establish”. The limitation “a module M2.2, configured to establish” has therefore been interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) as a means plus function limitation, with the corresponding structure or acts being recited as “a logic gate, a switch, an application-specific integrated circuit, a programmable logic controller, an embedded microcontroller and the like”. See pg. 34, para. 2 of the Applicant’s Specification. Furthermore, the corresponding algorithm is found being recited in claim 10.
The term “module M2.3” is considered to be a generic placeholder for the term “means” for performing the claimed function of the limitation. The generic placeholder “module M2.3” is subsequently modified by the functional language “configured to establish”. The limitation “a module M2.3, configured to establish” has therefore been interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) as a means plus function limitation, with the corresponding structure or acts being recited as “a logic gate, a switch, an application-specific integrated circuit, a programmable logic controller, an embedded microcontroller and the like”. See pg. 34, para. 2 of the Applicant’s Specification. Furthermore, the corresponding algorithm is found being recited in claim 10.
The term “module M2.4” is considered to be a generic placeholder for the term “means” for performing the claimed function of the limitation. The generic placeholder “module M2.4” is subsequently modified by the functional language “configured to establish”. The limitation “a module M2.4, configured to establish” has therefore been interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) as a means plus function limitation, with the corresponding structure or acts being recited as “a logic gate, a switch, an application-specific integrated circuit, a programmable logic controller, an embedded microcontroller and the like”. See pg. 34, para. 2 of the Applicant’s Specification. Furthermore, the corresponding algorithm is found being recited in claim 10.
The term “module M3.1” is considered to be a generic placeholder for the term “means” for performing the claimed function of the limitation. The generic placeholder “module M3.1” is subsequently modified by the functional language “configured to convert”. The limitation “a module M3.1, configured to convert” has therefore been interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) as a means plus function limitation, with the corresponding structure or acts being recited as “a logic gate, a switch, an application-specific integrated circuit, a programmable logic controller, an embedded microcontroller and the like”. See pg. 34, para. 2 of the Applicant’s Specification. Furthermore, the corresponding algorithm is found being recited in claim 10.
The term “module M3.2” is considered to be a generic placeholder for the term “means” for performing the claimed function of the limitation. The generic placeholder “module M3.2” is subsequently modified by the functional language “configured to, then solve”. The limitation “a module M3.2, configured to, then solve” has therefore been interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) as a means plus function limitation, with the corresponding structure or acts being recited as “a logic gate, a switch, an application-specific integrated circuit, a programmable logic controller, an embedded microcontroller and the like”. See pg. 34, para. 2 of the Applicant’s Specification.
Therefore, the limitations discussed above are considered to have invoked 35 U.S.C. § 112(f) and should be treated accordingly. Furthermore, no other terms in claims exist that would impart structure to the aforementioned generic placeholder terms to remove these limitations from 35 U.S.C. § 112(f).
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend 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 avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1-5 and 7-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Independent claims 1 and 8 similarly recite “controlling ships of the in-port ship set to berth at the port as defined by the strategy and operating a diesel generator of the port diesel generators coupled to the ith ship to charge the shipborne energy storage of the ith ship from the port in accordance with the strategy”.
The Applicant’s Specification discloses the following: “The port-ship layered game model is established, and the port micro energy grid guides the ship berthing service and the energy transaction by setting the price” (pg. 34), and “an object of the present invention is to provide an integrated operation method for a port-and-ship energy and transportation system […] so as to guide the ships to berth orderly to accept the berth service and the energy transaction” (pg. 17).
Accordingly, the Specification, at most, recites steps for guiding ships to berth to accept a berth service and energy transaction. Guiding a ship berthing service is fundamentally different than controlling the operation of a ship, and therefore cannot be considered to be equivalent or interchangeable terminology. Furthermore, the specification, at most, recites steps for guiding a ship to accept an energy transaction. Again, this does not provide sufficient written support for the claimed steps of operating a diesel generator of port diesel generators coupled to the ship to charge the shipborne energy storage. The specification does provide a description of the port diesel generator and a charging/discharging strategy (see pp. 11-12), however fails to provide written support describing the performance of operating a diesel generator to charge the shipborne energy storage of the ship from the port.
For the sake of compact prosecution, the claim features described above will be treated as though they comply with the written description requirement and do not recite new matter.
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 1-5 and 7-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
First of all, claims must be directed to one or more of the following statutory categories: a process, a machine, a manufacture, or a composition of matter. Claims 1-5 and 7 are directed to a process (“a method”), and claims 8-10 are directed to a machine (“a system”). Thus, claims 1-5 and 7-10 satisfy Step One because they are all within one of the four statutory categories of eligible subject matter. Claims 1-5 and 7-10, however, are directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Regarding independent claim 1, the specific limitations that recite an abstract idea are:
An integrated operation method […] based on a layered game, comprising:
step Si: formulating a layered game architecture for a port-and-ship integrated energy and transportation operation;
step S2: establishing a port-and-ship layered game optimization model based on an optimized objective function and an optimized constraint condition of a port and an optimized objective function and an optimized constraint condition of a ship; and
step S3: based on the port-and-ship layered game optimization model, solving, by the layered game architecture, to obtain an optimal integrated operation method for the port-and-ship energy and transportation system through a KKT (Karush-Kuhn-Tucker) optimality condition solving method;
wherein the port-and-ship layered game optimization model is configured to use the port as a superior guider to formulate and execute a strategy, use the ship as an inferior follower to make corresponding responses by taking the strategy formulated by the port as a constraint, and allow the port to update the strategy according to the corresponding responses made by the ship till reaching a game equilibrium.
Wherein step S2 comprises Step S2.1: establishing the optimized objective function of the port:
PNG
media_image1.png
116
764
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
482
792
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Step S2.2.: Establishing the optimized constraint condition of the port: a port-ship energy transaction value constraint comprises:
PNG
media_image3.png
470
788
media_image3.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image4.png
280
794
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Step S2.4: establishing the optimized constraint condition of the ship: an energy storage related constraint for an all-electric ship is as follows:
PNG
media_image5.png
648
804
media_image5.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image6.png
403
804
media_image6.png
Greyscale
Wherein the method further comprises controlling ships of the in-port ship set to berth at the port as defined by the strategy and operating a diesel generator of the port diesel generators coupled to the ith ship to charge the shipborne energy storage of the ith ship from the port in accordance with the strategy.
Therefore, claims 1 and 2-5, 7, by virtue of dependence, recite certain methods of organizing human activity. In particular, the limitations of claim 1 identified above, as a whole, recite concepts of managing and coordinating business relations based on a layered game optimization model using various mathematical algorithms, which is the abstract idea of commercial interactions. See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(II). This is further evidenced in the Applicant’s specification at page 17, para. 2-4 of the “Detailed Description of the Embodiments”. Moreover, the limitations directed towards “controlling ships of the in-port ship set to berth at the port as defined by the strategy and operating a diesel generator of the port diesel generators coupled to the ith ship to charge the shipborne energy storage of the ith ship from the port in accordance with the strategy” recite concepts of managing personal behavior in the form of following instructions by a human. Neither the claim or Applicant’s specification provide any indication that the claimed steps for controlling the ships or operating the diesel generators are performed in an automated/autonomous manner and, thus, under broadest reasonable interpretation in view of the specification, may merely encompass a human following instructions to perform the claim steps for controlling the ship and diesel generator in accordance with the determined strategy.
Furthermore, the limitations directed towards formulating a layered game architecture for a port-and-ship integrated energy and transportation operation, establishing the port-and-ship layered game optimization model, solving the layered game optimization model through a KKT optimality condition solving method, multiple steps for establishing an optimized objective function for a port and ship, establishing constraint conditions, defining the corresponding algorithms, and defining each of the variables and parameters recite concepts of mathematical calculations and equations - which is the abstract idea of mathematical concepts. See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(I).
The judicial exception recited above is not integrated into a practical application. The additional elements of the claim include a “port-and-ship energy and transportation system”. The abstract idea is not integrated into a practical application because the additional elements merely serve as generic computer components on which the abstract idea is implemented. See MPEP 2106.05(f).
Finally, the claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because, as discussed above, the additional elements, in combination, are recited at a high level of generality such that they amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the abstract idea using generic computer components. Because merely “applying” the exception using generic computer components/instructions cannot provide an inventive concept, the additional elements, when viewed as a whole/ordered combination, do not recite significantly more than the judicial exception. See MPEP 2106.05(I)(A). Thus, claim 1 is not patent eligible.
Regarding independent claim 8, the specific limitations that recite an abstract idea are:
[…] formulate a layered game architecture for a port-and-ship integrated energy and transportation operation;
[…] establish a port-and-ship layered game optimization model based on an optimized objective function and an optimized constraint condition of a port and an optimized objective function and an optimized constraint condition of a ship; and
[…] based on the port-and-ship layered game optimization model, solve, by the layered game architecture, to obtain an optimal integrated operation method for the port-and-ship energy and transportation system through a KKT (Karush-Kuhn-Tucker) optimality condition solving method;
wherein the port-and-ship layered game optimization model is configured to use the port as a superior guider to formulate and execute a strategy, use the ship as an inferior follower to make corresponding responses by taking the strategy formulated by the port as a constraint, and allow the port to update the strategy according to the corresponding responses made by the ship till reaching a game equilibrium.
Establish the optimized objective function of the port:
PNG
media_image1.png
116
764
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
482
792
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Establish the optimized constraint condition of the port: a port-ship energy transaction value constraint comprises:
PNG
media_image3.png
470
788
media_image3.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image4.png
280
794
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Establish the optimized constraint condition of the ship: an energy storage related constraint for an all-electric ship is as follows:
PNG
media_image5.png
648
804
media_image5.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image6.png
403
804
media_image6.png
Greyscale
[…] the port as the superior guider configured to control ships of the in-port ship set to berth at the port as defined by the strategy and operating a diesel generator of the port diesel generators coupled to the ith ship to charge the shipborne energy storage of the ith ship from the port in accordance with the strategy.
Therefore, claims 8 and 9-10, by virtue of dependence, recite certain methods of organizing human activity. In particular, the limitations of claim 8 identified above, as a whole, recite concepts of managing and coordinating business relations based on a layered game optimization model using various mathematical algorithms, which is the abstract idea of commercial interactions. See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(II). This is further evidenced in the Applicant’s specification at page 17, para. 2-4 of the “Detailed Description of the Embodiments”. Moreover, the limitations directed towards “controlling ships of the in-port ship set to berth at the port as defined by the strategy and operating a diesel generator of the port diesel generators coupled to the ith ship to charge the shipborne energy storage of the ith ship from the port in accordance with the strategy” recite concepts of managing personal behavior in the form of following instructions by a human. Neither the claim or Applicant’s specification provide any indication that the claimed steps for controlling the ships or operating diesel generators are performed in an automated/autonomous manner and, thus, under broadest reasonable interpretation in view of the specification, may merely encompass a human following instructions to perform the claim steps for controlling the ship and diesel generator in accordance with the determined strategy.
Furthermore, the limitations directed towards formulating a layered game architecture for a port-and-ship integrated energy and transportation operation, establishing the port-and-ship layered game optimization model, solving the layered game optimization model through a KKT optimality condition solving method, multiple steps for establishing an optimized objective function for a port and ship, establishing constraint conditions, defining the corresponding algorithms, and defining each of the variables and parameters recite concepts of mathematical calculations and equations - which is the abstract idea of mathematical concepts. See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(I).
The judicial exception recited above is not integrated into a practical application. The additional elements of the claim include a “port-and-ship energy and transportation system based on a layered game”, “module M1”, “module M2”, and “module M3”. The abstract idea is not integrated into a practical application because the additional elements merely serve as generic computer components on which the abstract idea is implemented. See MPEP 2106.05(f).
Finally, the claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because, as discussed above, the additional elements, in combination, are recited at a high level of generality such that they amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the abstract idea using generic computer components. Because merely “applying” the exception using generic computer components/instructions cannot provide an inventive concept, the additional elements, when viewed as a whole/ordered combination, do not recite significantly more than the judicial exception. See MPEP 2106.05(I)(A). Thus, claim 8 is not patent eligible.
Claim 2 further defines particular algorithms, and defines each of their variables and parameters that are utilized by the claimed invention. Thus, claim 2 further describes the abstract idea of mathematical concepts (i.e., mathematical equations) and commercial interactions. The claim does not recite any further additional elements beyond the additional elements previously addressed with regard to claim 1 from which the claim depends.
Claim 3 further defines the algorithm variables and parameters (i.e., that the strategy set of a fixed microgrid of the port comprises active output of the energy supply equipment, a price of electricity sold by the port to the ship, and a price of electricity purchased by the port from the ship). Thus, claim 3 further describes the abstract idea of mathematical concepts (i.e., mathematical equations) and commercial interactions. The claim does not recite any further additional elements beyond the additional elements previously addressed with regard to claims 1-2 from which the claim depends.
Claim 4 further defines the algorithm variables and parameters (i.e., wherein the strategy set of the mobile microgrid of the ship represents a charging strategy and a discharging strategy of the ship). Thus, claim 4 further describes the abstract idea of mathematical concepts (i.e., mathematical equations) and commercial interactions. The claim does not recite any further additional elements beyond the additional elements previously addressed with regard to claims 1-2 from which the claim depends.
Claim 5 further defines particular algorithms, and defines each of their variables and parameters that are utilized by the claimed invention. Thus, claim 5 further describes the abstract idea of mathematical concepts (i.e., mathematical equations) and commercial interactions. The claim further introduces the additional elements of a “port diesel generator”, “port energy storage system”, “renewable energy source power generation system”, “photovoltaic power generation system”, and “wind power generation system”.
The abstract idea is not integrated into a practical application because the additional elements are merely generally linking the use of the abstract idea to a particular technical environment. 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 the additional elements, either alone or in combination, are merely generally linking the used of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment. Because merely generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment cannot provide an inventive concept, the additional elements, when viewed as a whole/ordered combination, do not recite significantly more than the judicial exception. See MPEP 2106.05(I)(A).
Claim 7 further describes converting a layered game optimization model into a monolayer mixed integer model using the Karush-Kuhn-Tucker optimality condition solving method, and solving the monolayer mixed integer linear model to obtain an optimal energy transaction price strategy of the port. Thus, claim 7 further describes the abstract idea of mathematical concepts (i.e., mathematical calculations) and commercial interactions. The claim further introduces the additional elements of a “commercial solver”.
The abstract idea is not integrated into a practical application because the additional elements merely serve as generic computer components on which the abstract idea is implemented. See MPEP 2106.05(f).
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the additional elements, either alone or in combination, are recited at a high level of generality such that they amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the abstract idea using generic computer components. Because merely “applying” the exception using generic computer components/instructions cannot provide an inventive concept, the additional elements, when viewed as a whole/ordered combination, do not recite significantly more than the judicial exception. See MPEP 2106.05(I)(A).
Claim 9 further defines particular algorithms, and defines of each of their variables and parameters that are utilized by the claimed invention. Thus, claim 9 further describes the abstract idea of mathematical concepts (i.e., mathematical equations) and commercial interactions. The claim does not recite any further additional elements beyond the additional elements previously addressed with regard to claim 1 from which the claim depends. The claim further introduces the additional elements of a “port diesel generator”, “port energy storage system”, “renewable energy source power generation system”, “photovoltaic power generation system”, and “wind power generation system”.
The abstract idea is not integrated into a practical application because the additional elements are merely generally linking the use of the abstract idea to a particular technical environment. 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 the additional elements, either alone or in combination, are merely generally linking the used of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment. Because merely generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment cannot provide an inventive concept, the additional elements, when viewed as a whole/ordered combination, do not recite significantly more than the judicial exception. See MPEP 2106.05(I)(A).
Claim 10 further describes establishing an optimized objective function, establishing constraint conditions, defines the corresponding algorithms, defines each of the variables and parameters, describes converting a layered game optimization model into a monolayer mixed integer model using the Karush-Kuhn-Tucker optimality condition solving method, and solving the monolayer mixed integer linear model to obtain an optimal energy transaction price strategy of the port. Thus, claim 7 further describes the abstract idea of mathematical concepts (i.e., mathematical calculations and equations) and commercial interactions. The claim further introduces the additional elements of “module M2.1”, “module M2.2”, “module 2.3”, “module 2.4”, “module 3.1”, “module 3.2”, and “commercial solver”.
The abstract idea is not integrated into a practical application because the additional elements merely serve as generic computer components on which the abstract idea is implemented. See MPEP 2106.05(f).
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the additional elements, either alone or in combination, are recited at a high level of generality such that they amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the abstract idea using generic computer components. Because merely “applying” the exception using generic computer components/instructions cannot provide an inventive concept, the additional elements, when viewed as a whole/ordered combination, do not recite significantly more than the judicial exception. See MPEP 2106.05(I)(A).
Examiner Notes
Claims 1 and 8 have been found to overcome the cited art of record. Further, claims 2-5, 7, and 9-10, by virtue of dependence, recite the same limitations as claims 1 and 8 that overcome the cited art of record. The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of claims 1-5 and 7-10 being found to overcome the cited art of record. None of the prior art of record, taken individual or in combination, teach or suggest the specific series of logical operations of claims 1 and 8. Further, it would not have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have combined the teachings or suggestions of the prior art of record without the benefit of hindsight.
The prior art references most closely resembling the Applicant’s claimed invention are as follows:
Zhang et al. CN113592648B;
Shalini et al. “Energy Trading for Ferry-to-Grid Network using Game Theoretic Approach” (2020);
Zhao et al. “Bi-level programming model of container port game in the container transport supernetwork” (2008);
Li et al. CN111950809B;
Shan et al. CN113822578A;
Martin-Iradi et al. “The multi-port berth allocation problem with speed optimization: Exact methods and a cooperative game analysis” (2020);
Zhang discloses methods for constructing an energy hub model and optimization model for regional integrated energy suppliers, establishing a mathematical model of the energy hub, determining the optimization objectives and constraints, and establish a load model for community users and determine optimization objectives and constraints. Furthermore, Zhang discloses a three-tier market transaction model that is established based on a master-slave game, wherein the strategy of the transaction model is a combination of the strategies of each game participant, and the profit of the transaction model is the objective function of the model. Zhang, however, does not explicitly teach the specific series of logical operations recited in independent claims 1 and 8. In particular, Zhang does not teach the specific set of algorithms, variables, and parameters as defined in claims 1 and 8.
Shalini discloses a three-layer model where an aggregator acts as a bridge between the electric ferries (EFs) and a grid which is capable of transferring energy bidirectionally. The energy exchange process is modeled using the Stackelberg Game approach, in which the aggregator (one-leader) purchases energy from all the stationed EFs (N-Follower) in the dockyard who are willing to participate and finally settle up the trade process at a definite unit price to each of them. In this uncoordinated game, each player is formulated with an optimal energy price scheduling algorithm to maximize their own revenues by choosing independent optimal strategies until they converge to a Stackelberg Equilibrium (SE). Shalini, however, does not explicitly teach the specific series of logical operations recited in independent claims 1 and 8. In particular, Shalini does not teach the specific set of algorithms, variables, and parameters as defined in claims 1 and 8.
Zhao discloses the establishment of an EPEC (Equilibrium Problem with Equilibrium Constraints) model, in which the upper layer ports go on non-cooperation competition while the lower layer shippers compete for the path of minimum expense. Zhao, however, does not explicitly teach the specific series of logical operations recited in independent claims 1 and 8. In particular, Zhao does not teach the specific set of algorithms, variables, and parameters as defined in claims 1 and 8.
Li discloses a master-slave game-based layered and partitioned optimal operation method for an integrated energy system which comprises establishing a master-slave game layered partition structure for a multi-park integrated energy system. The invention effectively utilizes the complementary advantages of various energy sources of cold, heat, electricity and gas, further reduces the comprehensive operation cost of the system, and realizes the economical, flexible, coordinated and optimal operation of the multi-park comprehensive energy system. Li, however, does not explicitly teach the specific series of logical operations recited in independent claims 1 and 8. In particular, Li does not teach the specific set of algorithms, variables, and parameters as defined in claims 1 and 8.
Shan discloses a distributed energy management method that takes into account the comprehensive energy system of the ship and the port. The invention solves the energy management problem of the centralized energy management mode during the voyage of the ship based on the dynamic programming method, and considers the comprehensive energy of the ship and the port based on the distributed energy management mode of the port integrated energy system during the ship's voyage and the ship's berthing period. Shan, however, does not explicitly teach the specific series of logical operations recited in independent claims 1 and 8. In particular, Shan does not teach the specific set of algorithms, variables, and parameters as defined in claims 1 and 8.
Martin-Iradi discloses a variant of the Berth Allocation Problem (BAP), which aims at assigning berthing times and positions to vessels in container terminals. The problem, known as the multi-port berth allocation problem (MPBAP) extends the BAP to cover multiple ports where vessel traveling speeds are optimized between ports. Furthermore, an existing mixed-integer problem formulation is reformulated into a generalized set partitioning problem where each variable refers to a sequence of feasible berths in the ports visited by the vessel. In addition, methods of cooperative game theory are applied for distributing efficiently the savings of a potential collaboration and show that both carriers and terminal operators would benefit from such collaboration. Martin-Iradi, however, does not explicitly teach the specific series of logical operations recited in independent claims 1 and 8. In particular, Martin-Iradi does not teach the specific set of algorithms, variables, and parameters as defined in claims 1 and 8.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 JORGE G DEL TORO-ORTEGA whose telephone number is (571)272-5319. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9:00AM-6:00PM.
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, Jeffrey Zimmerman can be reached at (571) 272-4602. 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.
/JORGE G DEL TORO-ORTEGA/Examiner, Art Unit 3628
/JEFF ZIMMERMAN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3628