DETAILED ACTION
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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, filed 11 March 2026, with respect to the rejection of claim 1 have been fully considered and are persuasive in light of the newly added amendment. However, the amendment required further searching and additional prior art was found as noted below.
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 1-8 and 15-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2017/0346292 by Handelsman et al. (Handelsman hereinafter) in view of US 2013/0173062 by Koenig-Richardson.
Regarding claim 1, Handelsman discloses a method of managing an energy system performed by an intelligent energy management system [see at least Abstract], the method comprising: detecting, by a rules execution engine [see at least Figure 1, (105)] executing on the intelligent energy management system, at least one event signal [see at least Figure 2, (203); paragraph 0040, “interrupt”]; identifying, by the rules execution engine, based on the at least one event signal, at least one operational rule, the at least one operational rule [see at least Figure 2, (203) to (201) to (202); paragraph 0040] specifying one or more conditions associated with the at least one event signal and one or more operations associated with at least one managed object, the at least one managed object comprising at least one of an electrical source and an electrical load [see at least Figure 2, (202); paragraph 0041]; executing, at least in part by the rules execution engine, the one or more operations specified in the at least one operational rule, wherein executing the one or more operations comprises actuating an electrical connection associated with the at least one managed object [see at least Figure 2, (202) to (203), (204) and (205); paragraph 0041]; and updating a state database managed by the intelligent energy management system in response to executing the one or more operations [see at least paragraph 0043].
Handelsman fails to explicitly disclose identifying, by the rules execution engine, based on the at least one event signal, at least one operational rule from a plurality of operational rules managed by the intelligent energy management system, the at least one operational rule specifying one or more conditions associated with the at least one event signal and one or more operations associated with at least one managed object. However, Koenig-Richardson discloses a monitoring and management of an operational control system [see at least Abstract] which utilizes a rules engine [see at least Figure 3, (156)] that processes various rules [see at least paragraph 0030] which can be done through a database [see at least Figure 3, (162)] in order to monitor various devices/components of a building [see at least Figure 4, (186)] and control the various devices/components of the building [see at least Figure 4, (188); paragraph 0035].
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the Applicant's invention to modify the system of Handelsman with the plurality of operational rules, as disclosed by Koenig-Richardson, in order to normalize the plurality of input data to generate conformed and normalized sensory data for each dissimilar devices/components to provide unified control of the dissimilar devices/components. Thus, providing cost effective power consumption and operation of the various devices/components.
Regarding claim 2, Handelsman in view of Koenig-Richardson teaches the method of claim 1.
Handelsman discloses wherein executing the one or more operations comprises: issuing, by the rules execution engine to energy combiner and redirector hardware of the intelligent energy management system, a control signal; wherein the energy combiner and redirector hardware is configured to actuate the electrical connection associated with the at least one managed object based on the control signal [see at least Figure 1, (105) to (103); paragraphs 0031-0032].
Regarding claim 3, Handelsman in view of Koenig-Richardson teaches the method of claim 1.
Koenig-Richardson discloses wherein at least one condition of the one or more conditions is associated with intelligent energy management system state information [see at least paragraph 0038] included in the state database [see at least Figure 3, (162); paragraph 0032].
Regarding claim 4, Handelsman in view of Koenig-Richardson teaches the method of claim 3.
Handelsman discloses wherein identifying the at least one operational rule is further based on at least one entry in the state database managed by the intelligent energy management system [see at least paragraphs 0040 and 0043].
Regarding claim 5, Handelsman in view of Koenig-Richardson teaches the method of claim 1.
Handelsman discloses wherein the electrical source comprises a utility provider connection [see at least Figure 1, (108)]; paragraph 0030].
Regarding claim 6, Handelsman in view of Koenig-Richardson teaches the method of claim 1.
Handelsman discloses wherein the electrical source comprises a local electrical source [see at least Figure 1, (101); paragraph 0030].
Regarding claim 7, Handelsman in view of Koenig-Richardson teaches the method of claim 1.
Handelsman discloses wherein the local electrical source comprises one or more of a battery storage system, a generator system, and an electric vehicle battery system [see at least Figure 1, (101); paragraph 0030].
Regarding claim 8, Handelsman in view of Koenig-Richardson teaches the method of claim 1.
Handelsman discloses wherein the electrical load comprises one or more of an electric vehicle charger, a battery storage system, and an electric appliance [see at least Figure 1, (102); paragraph 0030].
Regarding claim 9, Handelsman in view of Koenig-Richardson teaches the method of claim 1.
Handelsman discloses wherein the method further comprises receiving, by the intelligent energy management system, the at least one event signal [see at least Figure 2, (203); paragraph 0040].
Regarding claim 15, Handelsman in view of Koenig-Richardson teaches the method of claim 9.
Handelsman discloses wherein the at least one event signal comprises a signal provided by a user of the intelligent energy management service [see at least paragraph 0015].
Regarding claim 16, Handelsman in view of Koenig-Richardson teaches the method of claim 1.
Handelsman discloses wherein actuating the electrical connection associated with the at least one managed object comprises electrically connecting the electrical source to the intelligent energy management system [see at least paragraph 0046].
Regarding claim 17, Handelsman in view of Koenig-Richardson teaches the method of claim 1.
Handelsman discloses wherein actuating the electrical connection associated with the at least one managed object comprises electrically disconnecting the electrical source from the intelligent energy management system [see at least paragraph 0050].
Regarding claim 18, Handelsman in view of Koenig-Richardson teaches the method of claim 1.
Handelsman discloses wherein actuating the electrical connection associated with the at least one managed object comprises electrically connecting the electrical load to the intelligent energy management system [see at least paragraph 0046].
Regarding claim 19, Handelsman in view of Koenig-Richardson teaches the method of claim 1.
Handelsman discloses wherein actuating the electrical connection associated with the at least one managed object comprises electrically disconnecting the electrical load from the intelligent energy management system [see at least paragraph 0052].
Regarding claim 20, Handelsman in view of Koenig-Richardson teaches the method of claim 1.
Koenig-Richardson discloses wherein the plurality of operational rules are included in a rule database [see at least Figure 3, (162)] managed by the intelligent energy management system [see at least paragraph 0032; paragraph 0037, “The rules engine feeds the audit data, logging and also updates the database with necessary data”].
Claims 10-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2017/0346292 by Handelsman et al. (Handelsman hereinafter) in view of US 2013/0173062 by Koenig-Richardson in further view of US 2022/0294222 by Winter et al. (Winter hereinafter).
Regarding claim 10. Handelsman in view of Koenig-Richardson teaches the method of claim 9.
Handelsman in view of Koenig-Richardson fails to teach wherein the at least one event signal comprises an external event signal. However, Winter discloses an energy management system [see at least Abstract] which utilizes external information, such as weather information from a weather service [see at least paragraphs 0009, 0021, 0030 and 0053] and market energy price [see at least paragraphs 0006 and 0030], for control of the energy management system.
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the Applicant's invention to modify the system of Handelsman in view of Koenig-Richardson to utilize external information in the control of the system, as disclosed by Winter, in order to allow the system to adjust the operation and management of the various devices/component based on factors external to the devices/components. Thus, expanding the capabilities of the system to adjust to external events, maintain efficient operation and lower price of operation.
Regarding claim 11, Handelsman in view of Winter teaches the method of claim 10.
Winter discloses wherein the external event signal comprises weather information [see at least paragraph 0040].
Regarding claim 12, Handelsman in view of Winter teaches the method of claim 11.
Winter discloses wherein the external event signal is received from a weather service [see at least paragraph 0053].
Regarding claim 13, Handelsman in view of Winter teaches the method of claim 10.
Winter discloses wherein the external event signal comprises energy pricing information [see at least paragraph 0030].
Regarding claim 14, Handelsman in view of Winter teaches the method of claim 10.
Winter discloses wherein the external event signal is received from a machine learning service provider [see at least paragraphs 0006 and 0057].
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Joel Barnett whose telephone number is (571)272-2879. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 9:00 AM - 5:00 PM EST.
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, Regis Betsch can be reached at 571-270-7101. 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.
/JOEL BARNETT/Examiner, Art Unit 2836
/REGIS J BETSCH/SPE, Art Unit 2836
Prosecution Insights