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
Claims 1-20 are currently pending in this application.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor, or for pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
Independent claims 1 and 11 recite the limitation “all energy sources” render the claims indefinite. A claim cannot claim an entire spectrum of energy resources, as there is no single catch-all energy source exists. Thus, this limitation renders the claims unclear and indefinite.
Claims 2-10 and 12-20 are further rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph, for being dependent upon a rejected base claim 1 and 11 respectively.
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 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter.
Independent claims 1 and 11:
Step 1:
Claim 1 is drawn to an energy allocation method and claim 11 is drawn to a computing apparatus, therefore each of claims 1 and 11 falls under one of four categories of statutory subject matter (process/method, machines/products/apparatus, manufactures, and compositions of matter).
Step 2A, Prong 1:
Nonetheless, claims 1 and 11 are directed to a judicially recognized exception of an abstract idea without significantly more.
Claims 1 and 11 recites the following steps “determining a demand for a target energy source”, “comparing a supply difference between the target energy source and other energy sources among the all energy sources”, “determining a target condition corresponding to the target energy source according to the demand and the supply difference”, and “determining a recommended amount of the target energy source according to the target condition” that under their broadest reasonable interpretation, enumerates a mental concept. Other than reciting a generic “processor” (claim 11 only), nothing in the claims preclude the steps from the mental concept where a human can mentally evaluate to determine and compare. For example, from obtaining the information on a limit ratio and electricity consumption, a human can determine how much alternative energy must be generated to meet needs while adhering to specific caps or thresholds. The human can compare cost between target power source over other alternatives. The human then can evaluate how much energy is needed versus how much is available, then determine the amount of alternative energy required to close that gap. The mere nominal recitation of a generic processor to perform the mental concept does not take the claim limitations out of the abstract idea (See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III)).
Step 2A, Prong 2-2B:
Claim 11 recites “the processor” and “a storage” at a high level of generality, and merely to automate the data manipulation and data storing using generic computer components. Claims 1 and 11 fail to recite any additional elements or functions that would integrate the abstract idea into a practical application, thus also fail to amount to significantly more than an abstract idea.
Dependent claims 2-10 and 12-20:
Step 1:
Claims 2-10 are drawn to an energy allocation method and claims 12-20 are drawn to a computing apparatus, therefore each of claims 2-10 and 12-20 falls under one of four categories of statutory subject matter (process/method, machines/products/apparatus, manufactures, and compositions of matter). Nonetheless, dependent claims 2-10 and 12-20 are also ineligible for the same reasons given with respect to claims 1 and 11.
Steps 2A-2B:
Claims 2 and 12 recite an additional element of “obtaining the limit ratio from specification data by inputting the specification data into a ratio model” that is interpreted as an insignificant extra solution activity where data gathering is necessary for the use of the judicial exception (See MPEP 2106.05(g)). Claims 2 and 12 recite another additional element of “the ratio model is trained by a machine learning algorithm” that is interpreted as merely an instruction to apply the judicial exception (See MPEP 2106.05(f)) and not positively reciting the step to train the ratio model as a machine learning algorithm based on the limit ratio of the specification data.
Claims 3 and 13 recite an additional element of defining that “the specification data is in a text form, and the machine learning algorithm comprises a natural language processing algorithm” that is interpreted further as an insignificant extra solution activity where data gathering and defining the type of data that are gathered is necessary for the use of the judicial exception (See MPEP 2106.05(g)).
Claims 4 and 14 recite further the abstract mental concept of determining the demand for the target energy source according to the limit ratio and the electricity consumption by “predicting the future consumption according to a growth trend corresponding to the historical consumption” that is interpreted as being performed by the human to visually evaluate a graphical growth trend based on historical consumption to predict the future consumption (See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III)).
Claims 5 and 15 recite an additional element of “obtaining payment amount of the target energy source and obtaining payment amount of the other energy sources from contract data by inputting the contract data into a payment model…the supply difference is a difference between the payment amount to obtain the target energy source and the payment amount to obtain the other energy sources” that is interpreted further as an insignificant extra solution activity where data gathering and defining the type of data that are gathered is necessary for the use of the judicial exception (See MPEP 2106.05(g)). Claims 5 and 15 recite another additional element of “the payment model is trained through a machine learning algorithm” that is interpreted as merely an instruction to apply the judicial exception (See MPEP 2106.05(f)) and not positively reciting the step to train the payment model as a machine learning algorithm based on the contract data.
Claims 6 and 16 recite an additional element of defining that “the contract data is in a text form, and the machine learning algorithm comprises a natural language processing algorithm” that is interpreted further as an insignificant extra solution activity where data gathering and defining the type of data that are gathered is necessary for the use of the judicial exception (See MPEP 2106.05(g)).
Claims 7 and 17 recite an additional element of “the target condition…comprises at least one of the following: a total amount upper limit of at least one electricity consumption region; a recommended amount of the at least one electricity consumption region and a weighted calculation corresponding to the supply difference; and a recommended range of the at least one electricity consumption region” that is interpreted further as an insignificant extra solution activity where data gathering and defining the type of data that are gathered is necessary for the use of the judicial exception (See MPEP 2106.05(g)).
Claims 8 and 18 recite further the abstract mental concept of “converting the target condition into a target function; and determining the recommended amount according to at least one solution of the target function” that is interpreted as being performed by the human to take a target goal and translate it into a mathematical equation in order to determine the recommended amount needed to achieve the target goal (See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III)).
Claims 9 and 19 recite further the abstract mental concept of “adjusting the recommended amount according to at least one variation factor, wherein the at least one variation factor comprises at least one of rules, contracts, and equipment changes” that is interpreted as being performed by the human to refine the recommended amount based on updated variables (See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III)).
Claims 10 and 20 recite further the abstract mental concept of “comparing a deficit between the recommended amount and an incremental amount of power generation equipment of the target energy source; and generating an energy saving command for a production equipment according to the deficit, wherein the energy saving command is used to adjust an operation of the production equipment” that is interpreted as being performed by the human to compare data to identify that there is a power shortfall and how much load needs to be shed to make up the difference (See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III)).
The additional steps that are form of insignificant extra-solution activities, do not amount to significantly more than an abstract idea because the court decisions have determined that this additional steps to be well-understood, routine, and conventional when claimed in a merely generic manner for data acquiring, data manipulation, and/or data outputting (See MPEP § 2106.05(d)(II)(i. Receiving or transmitting data over a network; and/or iv. Storing and retrieving information in memory, Versata Dev. Group, Inc. v. SAP Am., Inc., 793 F.3d 1306, 1334, 115 USPQ2d 1681, 1701 (Fed. Cir. 2015); OIP Techs., 788 F.3d at 1363, 115 USPQ2d at 1092-93; iv. Storing and retrieving information in memory, Versata Dev. Group, Inc. v. SAP Am., Inc., 793 F.3d 1306, 1334, 115 USPQ2d 1681, 1701 (Fed. Cir. 2015); OIP Techs., 788 F.3d at 1363, 115 USPQ2d at 1092-93; also See Electric Power Group, LLC v. Alstom S.A., 830 F.3d 1350, 119 USPQ2d 1739 (Fed. Cir. 2016))). As such, claims 2-10 and 12-20 are not patent eligible.
Pertinent Art Cited
The following US Patent Applications and/or NPL references reveal the current state of the art:
Rohr et al. (US-20140278709-A1) teaches of an energy allocation method and a computing apparatus (a method of optimizing cost savings using an intelligent combined cooling, heating, and power system, fig.9; and an intelligent combined cooling, heating, and power system, fig.1), comprising: a storage, storing program code (memory 810 with instructions, fig.8 and [0089-0090]); and a processor, coupling the storage, loading the program code (processor 805, fig.8 and [0089]), and executing: determining a demand for a target energy source (determine loads, an electrical load of the structure or an electric grid, [0073]; determine the energy sources available to meet the load(s), [0074]; determine energy sources to meet the loads, this may be a no or low cost energy source, such as a solar array. In other instances it may be more cost effective to employ a CCHP to produce power sufficient to meet the demand while exporting some power to the electrical grid to receive monetary remuneration for the excess power, [0075]); comparing a supply difference between the target energy source and other energy sources among the all energy sources, wherein the all energy sources comprise the target energy source and the other energy sources, and the supply difference is a difference in payment amount to obtain energy source (determination of which energy sources to use to meet either an electrical, thermal, or electrical and thermal load includes comparing of market prices of electric power and fuel to the costs of generating the energy using the energy sources…a determination is made as to whether the load is electrical…where a comparison is made between the price/cost of electricity from an electric utility and the cost of generating power with available electrical energy sources…where a comparison is made between the cost of fuel and the cost of generating thermal energy from other energy sources…evaluate which is the more cost effective energy source to employ in order to meet the load demands, [0076]); and determining a target condition corresponding to the target energy source and determining an amount of the target energy source according to the target condition (determine the optimal operating conditions for the CCHP system and its cost-effectiveness relative to other sources of power….evaluates the availability and capacity of no-cost power sources (e.g., solar panels, wind turbines, etc.), the cost of fuel (e.g., natural gas or propane), electricity rates, and the economic benefit of exporting energy to the grid in determining whether to co-produce power and heating/cooling with CCHP system 100 or generate/purchase power from an external source, [0055]; determining an appropriate electric energy source,…determines whether a thermal load is also present…determines which electrical producing energy source to employ…a comparison, as discussed above, is conducted to arrive at the proper energy source to use to meet both the thermal and electrical loads, [0077]).
Ramamurthy et al. (US-20150121113-A1) teaches an energy allocation method and a computing apparatus (determine an optimal number of power sources to supply power to one or more loads, abstract), comprising: a storage, storing program code; and a processor, coupling the storage, loading the program code (memory 1812 and processors 1810 to execute instructions, fig.18 and [0120]), and executing: determining a demand for a target energy source and the electricity consumption is a statistic of the all energy sources used (allocation of the dynamic power loads to the power sources can be thought of as elastic in that surplus power from a power source can be allocated to a power shortfall of a power load. Further, the amount of power allocated can increase and decrease based on demand in an effort to reduce overall power demand [0032]; determining how much additional power needs to be supplied, and then dividing the total required amount by the amount of power provided by each power source [0045]); and comparing a supply difference between the target energy source and other energy sources among the all energy sources, wherein the all energy sources comprise the target energy source and the other energy sources, and the supply difference is a difference in payment amount to obtain energy source (The plurality of power sources can be balanced based on cost [0051]; The selection criteria of power systems on which to apply the power policy (on or off) is based on the following cost optimization functions [0076]).
Chen et al. (CN-117424290-A) teaches of an energy allocation method and a computing apparatus (system and method to calculate new energy sources, figs.1-2 and fig.8), comprising: a storage, storing program code; and a processor, coupling the storage, loading the program code (computer device includes a processor, memory and executable program instructions, fig.8). Chen teaches further considers that the load, the standby capacity and the new energy output condition are different under different conditions, the new energy in different conditions is included in the previous balance according to different proportions, the starting capacity is more reasonably arranged, and the energy is saved (abstract).
Nordhaus et al. ("The Allocation of Energy Resources", Brookings Papers on Economic Activity, 1973, Vol. 1973, No. 3 (1973), pp.529-576) teaches of an energy allocation method (an empirical estimate of the efficient allocation of energy resources, p.530; calculating the allocation of different resources over time that minimizes the cost of meeting the demands, using the data on the time path of demand for various energy products, p.539). Nordhaus teaches further estimating the energy consumption pattern by fuel and by demand category (Table 1 at p.540).
Nonetheless, the prior arts of record as cited above individually or in combination does not teach at least “determining a demand for a target energy source according to a limit ratio and electricity consumption, wherein the limit ratio is a proportion of the target energy source to all energy sources, and the electricity consumption is a statistic of the all energy sources used” and “determining a target condition corresponding to the target energy source according to the demand and the supply difference”.
Conclusion
The additional prior arts made of record and have not been relied upon are considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure as follows: Xiao et al. (CN-114221338-A); Crabtree et al. (US-20100332373-A1), JP_2020510945_A, JP_2012034444_A, CN_117424290_A
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to HIEN (CINDY) D KHUU whose telephone number is (571)272-8585. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday 9am-5:30pm.
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, Ken Lo can be reached on 571-272-9774. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/HIEN D KHUU/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2116 July 9, 2026
Prosecution Insights