DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
This Action is non-final and is in response to the claims filed July 18, 2024. Claims 1-20 are currently pending, of which claims 1-20 are currently rejected.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to because Figs. 1, 4, 10 and 11 are blurry and borderline ineligible. While color drawings have been accepted, Figs. 1 and 4 have been replaced with blurry black and white drawings. The original filed Fig. 1, even in color, was low resolution and blurry and caused legibility issues. The black and white version that replaced Fig. 1 has the same issues. Fig.4 was originally filed in color and the black and white version that was replaced has created more legibility issues than what was originally filed. Figs. 10 and 11 have numerous lines in the charts and they are very difficult to follow and make distinct as well. Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Examiner notes the granted petition decision regarding the color drawings, mailed on November 5, 2024. These objections are not because of the color drawings. These are for legibility issues, as detailed above.
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 an abstract idea(s) without significantly more.
As per claim 1, at Step 1 the claim is directed to a statutory category of invention (method/process). At Step 2A, Prong 1, the claim language has been reproduced below and the various abstract ideas identified accordingly:
A method for dynamically managing an energy system, comprising:
determining a production plan for the energy system over a finite time horizon, the energy system including a plurality of energy units (mental process – evaluation; method of organizing human activity – fundamental economic activity), wherein determining the production plan includes:
determining a first stochastic system dynamic program based on a state of the energy system and an energy demand in the energy system, the energy demand corresponding to a baseline forecast model, wherein the first stochastic system dynamic program is subject to a constraint of meeting the energy demand of the baseline forecast model over discrete time periods of the finite time horizon and a corresponding state of the energy system (mental process – evaluation and judgment; method of organizing human activity – fundamental economic principle);
determining a second stochastic system dynamic program by relaxing the first stochastic system dynamic program, wherein relaxing the first stochastic system dynamic program includes applying stochastic value functions based on a history of states of the energy system (mental process – evaluation and judgment; method of organizing human activity – fundamental economic principle);
decomposing the second stochastic system dynamic program into unit-specific stochastic system dynamic programs corresponding to each energy unit of the plurality of energy units (mental process – evaluation; method of organizing human activity – fundamental economic activity); and
applying the unit-specific stochastic system dynamic programs with a price model to define a bound on the first stochastic system dynamic program, wherein the price model is based on the state of the energy system (mental process – evaluation and judgment; method of organizing human activity – fundamental economic activity; mathematical relationship); and
determining a forward-looking dynamic economic dispatch plan using the second stochastic system dynamic program for each discrete time period of the finite time horizon (mental process – evaluation and judgment; method of organizing human activity – fundamental economic activity), wherein determining the economic dispatch plan for each discrete time period includes:
identifying a current state for the energy system corresponding to a first discrete time period of the finite time horizon (mental process – evaluation and judgment);
identifying current unit-specific states corresponding to the first discrete time period, wherein the current unit-specific states are identified from the identified current state of the energy system (mental process – evaluation and judgment);
identifying actions for each energy unit corresponding to production levels that are reachable from the identified current unit-specific states (mental process – evaluation and judgment);
applying the current unit-specific states and the identified actions to the production plan to generate an updated production plan, the updated production plan including unit-specific actions and unit-specific expected continuation values based on the second stochastic system dynamic system that modify subsequent actions over the finite time horizon (mental process – evaluation and judgment; method of organizing human activity – fundamental economic activity); and
dispatching the identified unit-specific actions to the energy system (mental process – evaluation and judgment; method of organizing human activity – fundamental economic activity).
That is, with the assistance of pen and paper, a user/operator could merely identify the various production plan functions and come up with a plan. This can include historical input/performance, as well as economic factors. For example, a user/operator could recognize certain trends in demand and act accordingly. Or perhaps, energy production has different costs at different times of day (or other defined periods, like monthly). These are all fundamental economic principles and mental processes.
At Step 2A, Prong 2 and Step 2B, there are no additional elements that integrate the judicial exception(s) into a practical application, nor do they amount to significantly more than the identified judicial exception(s).
As per claim 2, the claim is directed to the abstract idea of identifying information/data (mental process – observation and evaluation). At Step 2A, Prong 2 and Step 2B, there are no additional elements that integrate the judicial exception(s) into a practical application, nor do they amount to significantly more than the identified judicial exception(s).
As per claim 3, the claim is directed to the abstract idea of evaluating demand information/data (mental process – evaluation and judgment). At Step 2A, Prong 2 and Step 2B, there are no additional elements that integrate the judicial exception(s) into a practical application, nor do they amount to significantly more than the identified judicial exception(s).
As per claim 4, the claim is directed to the abstract idea of evaluating demand using math (mental process – evaluation and judgment; mathematical relationships). At Step 2A, Prong 2 and Step 2B, there are no additional elements that integrate the judicial exception(s) into a practical application, nor do they amount to significantly more than the identified judicial exception(s).
As per claim 5, the claim is directed to the abstract idea of evaluating programs based on demands and forecasts (mental process – evaluation and judgment). At Step 2A, Prong 2 and Step 2B, there are no additional elements that integrate the judicial exception(s) into a practical application, nor do they amount to significantly more than the identified judicial exception(s).
As per claim 6, the claim is directed to the abstract idea of evaluating programs based on variables and constraints (mental process – evaluation and judgment; organizing human activity). At Step 2A, Prong 2 and Step 2B, there are no additional elements that integrate the judicial exception(s) into a practical application, nor do they amount to significantly more than the identified judicial exception(s).
As per claim 7, the claim is directed to the abstract idea of evaluating programs using general pricing models (mental process – evaluation and judgment; organizing human activity). At Step 2A, Prong 2 and Step 2B, there are no additional elements that integrate the judicial exception(s) into a practical application, nor do they amount to significantly more than the identified judicial exception(s).
As per claim 8, the claim is directed to the abstract idea of evaluating programs using general pricing models (mental process – evaluation and judgment; organizing human activity). At Step 2A, Prong 2 and Step 2B, there are no additional elements that integrate the judicial exception(s) into a practical application, nor do they amount to significantly more than the identified judicial exception(s).
Claims 9-11, 12, 13, and 14, are directed to a computing device that implements the same features as the method of claims 1-3, 7, 8, and 4, respectively, and are rejected for at least the same reasons therein. Furthermore, at Step 2A, Prong 2 and Step 2B, the only additional elements that differ from those claims above are the generic computer components of a processor and memory. These are merely adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea. See MPEP 2106.05(f). Therefore, these do not integrate the claims into a practical application, nor are they indicative of an inventive concept or significantly more than the identified judicial exception(s).
Claims 15, 16, 17, and 18-20, are directed to a storage medium that implements the same features as the method of claims 1, 7, 8, and 2-4, respectively, and are rejected for at least the same reasons therein. Furthermore, at Step 2A, Prong 2 and Step 2B, the only additional elements that differ from those claims above are the generic computer components of the storage medium and processor. These are merely adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea. See MPEP 2106.05(f). Therefore, these do not integrate the claims into a practical application, nor are they indicative of an inventive concept or significantly more than the identified judicial exception(s).
Allowable Subject Matter
Examiner notes that the independent claims 1, 9, and 15 are allowable over the prior art of record and the only issue remaining in this Action are those identified above. Examiner encourages more explicit control based on the data processing. As currently claimed (and as identified above), “dispatching” is too generic and high level. The energy system should explicitly control the unit-specific actions.
Regarding the prior art of record, the closest prior art references are as follows:
Wenzel et al. (U.S. 2019/0219293) discloses load/rate productions using a deterministic plus stochastic model, where historical load data can be used in generating a forecast. This includes controlling energy loads to subsystems based on demand profiles. Furthermore, cost models are used when (See Wenzel paras. [0129], [0164], and [0200-208]);
Ghosh (U.S. 2014/0025352) discloses forecast scenarios for modeling uncertainty in renewable energy output. This includes stochastic programs for optimization as well as decomposition-based algorithms (See Ghosh paras. [0035-37], [0053-56], [0060], and [0094-95]);
Hou et al. (U.S. 2022/0188477) discloses load curtailment modeling with Lagrange multipliers, as well as taking into account system states for the models (See Hou Figs. 1 and 2 and paras. [0048-74]); and
Cruickshank, III (U.S. 2021/0296897) discloses determining optimal operating strategies based on a variety of factors, including cost/economic factors. This also includes stochastic model predictive control strategies and combining models to optimize the estimation of temporal values across a range of zones/areas (See Cruickshank paras. [0108], [0112], [0127], and [0140]).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Nicholas Klicos whose telephone number is (571)270-5889. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 9:00 AM-5:00 PM.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Scott Baderman can be reached at (571) 272-3644. 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.
/NICHOLAS KLICOS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2118
Prosecution Insights