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 Office action is responsive to the communication filed on 07/30/2026. The claim(s) 1-20 is/are pending, of which the claim(s) 1, 9, & 17 is/are in independent form.
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
In light of the amendments received to the claims, the outstanding claim objections thereto have been rendered moot and withdrawn.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 07/30/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
I) Response to Arguments –Claim Rejections 35 USC § 101
Applicant contends that the claims are in fact directed to a practical application even if they recite abstract idea. Specifically, applicant argues following:
“claim 1, as a representative claim, recites one or more processors coupled to… in a specific technological context loads connected to energy generation and storage systems…dismisses the preamble as non-structural and does not fully engage with whether the combination of the processor,… directed to improving operation of a technical system -rather than merely using a computer as a tool…determine one or more system parameters (e.g., operational schedules for large loads such as, but not limited to, electric vehicle (EV) charging, heat pump operation, etc.)… amounts to significantly more than an abstract idea, and, even if such an apparatus can be considered an abstract idea…Thus, claims 1-20 are patentable.”
Remarks, Section A, pages 6- 7.
Response: Examiner respectfully disagrees. Firstly, examiner notes that applicant does not provide any arguments against examiner’s position that states the claim recites abstract idea. However, applicant’s reply does dispute against the examiner’s position that the claim fails to provide both a practical application (step 2A, Prong 2) and inventive concept (Step 2B).
As to applicant’s comment that alleges-- “claims are in fact directed to a practical application in a specific technological context, e.g., controlling physical loads (EVs, heat pumps, etc.)… output of the adjusted schedule directly controls physical hardware”, examiner responds that the claim 1 does not require any direct or indirect controlling of physical loads other than mere generating and outputting of adjusted load operation schedules. Here, the claim does not go beyond mere generating and outputting of the adjusted parameter schedule although the adjusted parameters may be able to be used to control the physical loads, but the claim is silent on this regard. See last limitation of claim 1. Please note that the features (e.g., “controlling physical loads (EVs, heat pumps, etc.)…” ) upon which applicant relies are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
In this instance, just because the load operation schedule is for a load like EVs in a specific technological context, does not mean that claimed determination, generating, adjusting steps that all relate to manipulating numerical values cannot be performed in human’s mind. That is, the abstract idea covers changing of datasets into a technological field of generating operation schedule for at least one load and hence still can be performed in human’s mind.
As to applicant’s comment that alleges the office action “dismisses the preamble as non-structural and does not fully engage”, examiner responds that only an apparatus is positively recited and remaining limitations of the preamble are field of use limitations and are not part of the claimed apparatus and hence do not receive patentable weight and contribute to provide a practical application in Step 2A, Prong 2 and an inventive step in Step 2B. That is, the actually claimed subject matter is “an apparatus” but not the load connected to a system including an energy generation system”.
Applicant’s reply also states-- “claims are directed to improving operation of a technical system… more schedules may be optimized to enhance the operation of the overall energy generation… produce one or more load scheduling parameters”. Here, the alleged improvement is realized in determining, generating and adjusting steps. All these steps are identified as abstract idea and applicant’s reply does not dispute this. Therefore, the alleged improvement is an improvement of an abstract idea rather than an improvement to a technological field or a computer system or overall system performance as argued.
Accordingly, applicant’s arguments against the outstanding 101 rejections were deemed not persuasive. The outstanding 101 rejections of claims 1- 20 are respectfully maintained as fully set forth below.
II) Response to Arguments -- Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102/103
a) As to independent claims 1, 9, & 17, applicant argues that prior cited Wright (US 20240154414 A1) reference fail to teach amended limitations of the independent claims. Specifically, applicant argues that Wright does not teach
(1) the “system design variables” to comprise “at least one of inverter types, battery types, degradation factors for solar and storage production, or number of batteries” and
(2) the “system operational variables” to include “utility tariff type, charge to grid, discharge to grid, reserve SOC, or special load variables related to load type”.
See Remarks, Section page 8.
Wright teaches, in part:
[0100] “In some embodiments, the device control plan optimization engine is implemented using a linear solver that has an objective function that is to optimize against a goal, such as reducing cost and/or maximizing benefit. The linear solver is provided various inputs, such as the size/capacity of the battery storage on the site (e.g., the kWh the battery can hold), the maximum kilowatt discharge rate of the inverter of that battery, the round trip efficiency of the battery (e.g., if charging up by 100 kW, how much of that can be discharged, which may not be the same due to losses), minimum state of charge of the battery (e.g., battery capacity floor to have a reserve amount of charge left), etc. Other parameters may be included.”
tariff: [0156]: based on tariffs or rate plans, using the site-level energy optimization techniques described above; [094] "an optimal plan for controlling a site's battery storage is generated based on the predicted solar generation and energy consumption, as well as any economic factors (e.g., tariffs, net metering, time of use rate
reserve SOC = [0151]: “various goals and predictions are taken into account in order to generate an optimal plan for utilizing the battery storage device” [0100]: “minimum state of charge of the battery (e.g., battery capacity floor to have reserve amount of charge left), etc.”
battery types= [0100]: “The linear solver is provided various inputs, such as the size/capacity of the battery storage on the site”
Inverter types = [0100]: “the maximum kilowatt discharge rate of the inverter of that battery”
Here, the claimed “battery type” of “system design variables” can be mapped with “the size/capacity of the battery storage” of Wright and “reserve SOC” of “operational variables” can be mapped with “battery capacity floor” under BRI. Furthermore, “inverter type” can be mapped with “the maximum kilowatt discharge rate of the inverter of that battery” and “utility tariff type” can be mapped with “tariffs or rate plans” (para. 0156) of Wright. Therefore, Wright clearly teaches added one or more sub-parameters of system design variables and “system operational variables” recited in the independent claims.
b) As to dependent claims, applicant argues in sections C and D of the Remarks in pages 9- 10 that Wright and Wallace fail to cure the amended limitations of the independent claims. There are no specific arguments against the dependent claims.
Examiner’s Response: Examiner respectfully disagrees. In para. 0100 and elsewhere, Wright clearly teaches the claimed one or more design variables and operation variables added in independent claims. Therefore, applicant’s arguments of sections C and D that merely alleges dependent claims are allowable also deemed not persuasive.
The outstanding 102 and 103 rejections are maintained as set forth below.
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.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are:
in claims 17- 20:
“a forecast engine”: Fig. 3, item 306, paras. 028, 1030
“a system estimator”: Fig. 3, item 312/236, para. 024 “system estimator software 236, when executed, enables at least one user device 208 to access and interact with the web page 230”; para. 026 “the system estimator software 236 when executed by the server of FIG. 2”, see para. 028
“an optimization engine”: fig. 3, item 314, para. 041 “the method 400 proceeds to 412 to execute the optimization engine. The engine uses the objective function to adjust the controllable variables”
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 § 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 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to Judicial Exception (“abstract idea”) without significantly more.
As to claim 1
1. Apparatus for generating at least one operation schedule for at least one load connected to a system including an energy generation system, an energy storage system, or both comprising:
one or more processors coupled to one or more non-transitory computer readable media storing instructions thereon which, when executed by the one or more processors, cause the one or more processors to perform the operations comprising:
[a] receiving data comprising system design variables, which comprise at least one of inverter types, battery types, degradation factors for solar and storage production, or number of batteries, and system operational variables, which comprise utility tariff type, charge to grid, discharge to grid, reserve SOC, or special load variables related to load type;
[b] determining, in view of the system design variables and system operational variables, an initial estimate of system performance;
[c] generating a load operation schedule for at least one load connected to the system;
[d] adjusting the load operation schedule to improve system performance; and
[d] output the adjusted operation schedule to control the at least one load.
1. Step 1: Yes. The claim is to an apparatus with “one or more processors”, which is one of the four categories of patent eligible subject matter.
2. Step 2A, Prong 1: Yes. The claim recites limitations [b] to [d] (shown above with bold emphasis). These all three limitations are considered an abstract idea (mental processes) based exception because they all can be practically performed in human’s mind via observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion, at best with an aid of pen and paper. That is, under BRI as drafted, the limitations of “determining, in view of the system design variables and system operational variables, an initial estimate of system performance; generating a load operation schedule for at least one load connected to the system; adjusting the load operation schedule to improve system performance” cover performance of the limitations in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer element, namely one or more processors.
For example, the limitation [b] require determining/calculating an initial estimate (e.g., cost, or power demand, see claim 8) to provide power by considering two variables: design variables and system operational variables. See spec, para. 024. Based on the estimated supply power and consumption power (that can be calculated based on design variables and operational variables, see claim 3), one can easily calculate the cost (performance) in mind without requiring a computer processor to perform such simple calculation when the price of the electricity and net power consumption is known with simple math. The limitation [c] covers generating or determining operational schedule for one of the load connected to the system and the limitation [d] requires adjusting the previously generated schedule to further improve.
Hence all these three limitations [b] to [d] can be performed in human’s mind. Please note that if a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components, as in this case, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea in limitations [b] to [d].
3. Step 2A, Prong 2: No. This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim recites following additional elements:
(1) “one or more processors coupled to one or more non-transitory computer readable media storing instructions thereon which, when executed by the one or more processors, cause the one or more processors to perform the operations”
(2) “receiving data comprising system design variables, which comprise at least one of inverter types, battery types, degradation factors for solar and storage production, or number of batteries, and system operational variables, which comprise utility tariff type, charge to grid, discharge to grid, reserve SOC, or special load variables related to load type”; and
(3) “output the adjusted operation schedule to control the at least one load”.
Please note that the limitation of preamble for “generating at least one operation schedule for at least one load connected to a system including an energy generation system” is not structural part of the claimed “apparatus” and is not positively recited as well. Therefore, this preamble does not receive patentable weight. Arguendo, even if this limitation were to provide a patentable weight, to which examiner disagree, this also does not go beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use – see MPEP 2106.05(h) and therefore cannot provide a practical application.
Here, the 1st additional element of “one or more processors” is recited at very high level of generality to execute/automate the steps [a] to [d] such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. That is, additional element (1) of processor is akin to merely using a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea - see MPEP 2106.05(f).
The 2nd and 3rd additional elements of receive and output steps are akin to adding pre-solution and post-solution insignificant extra-solution activities respectively to the judicial exception - see MPEP 2106.05(g). This is so because they are merely recited as part of data gathering and merely outputting the solution of the abstract idea at very high level without providing any specific way of data gathering and outputting the solution being calculated. Even considering all of the additional elements together with the abstract idea, they continue to remain using a generic computer with a processor to collect data, perform an abstract idea (in limitations [b] -[d]) and output the result of the abstract idea in the field of power system with a power generation system. Accordingly, upon considering individually and combination of additional elements and the abstract idea, they still fail to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application and do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the above abstract idea. The claim is directed to an abstract idea.
4. Step 2B: No. The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional element (1) is akin to using a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea and additional elements (2) and (3) of receive and output step are akin to adding of insignificant extra-solution activities.
The Symantec, TLI, and OIP Techs. court decisions cited in MPEP 2106.05(d)(II) indicate that mere collection or receipt of data over a network is a well‐understood, routine, and conventional function when it is claimed in a merely generic manner (as it is here for receiving two types of data, namely system design variables and system operation variables including various sub-parameters) as in this case. Accordingly, the conclusion that the collecting step is well-understood, routine, conventional activity is supported under Berkheimer Option 2.
Furthermore, examiner takes an Official notice that the limitations of “receiving data comprising system design variables, which comprise at least one of inverter types, battery types, degradation factors for solar and storage production, or number of batteries, and system operational variables, which comprise utility tariff type, charge to grid, discharge to grid, reserve SOC, or special load variables related to load type” and “output the adjusted operation schedule to control the at least one load” are well-understood, routine, conventional activities by relying on the cited prior arts as an evidence- Berkheimer memo.
Here, mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. The adding of an insignificant extra-solution activities that are well-understood, routine, and conventional also are not indicative of an inventive concept. Accordingly, the additional elements when considered separately and in combination with the abstract idea do not add significantly more (also known as an “inventive concept”) to the exception. The claim is not patent eligible.
As to claim 9
1. Step 1: Yes. The claim is to a method, which is one of the four categories of patent eligible subject matter.
2. Step 2A, Prong 1: Yes. The claim recites limitations of:
“determining, in view of the system design variables, which comprise at least one of inverter types, battery types, degradation factors for solar and storage production, or number of batteries, and system operational variables, which comprise utility tariff type, charge to grid, discharge to grid, reserve SOC, or special load variables related to load type;
generating a load operation schedule for at least one load connected to the system;
adjusting the load operation schedule to improve system performance.”
These limitations are considered an abstract idea based exception because they all can be practically performed in human’s mind for the similar reasons set forth above in claim 1. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
3. Step 2A, Prong 2: No. This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim recites the additional elements of:
(1) “receiving data comprising system design variables and system operational
variables”;
(2) “output the adjusted operation schedule to control the at least one load.”
Here, both of these additional elements are recited at very high level of generality for data gathering and outputting the result of the abstract idea and hence are akin to mere adding of insignificant extra-solution activities to the judicial exception - see MPEP 2106.05(g). Hence, both additional elements cannot provide a practical application. Furthermore, the individual and combination of additional elements continue to fail to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application since they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the above abstract idea. The claim is directed to an abstract idea.
4. Step 2B: No. The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements are used for mere data gathering and simply outputting the solution of the abstract idea at very high level of generality. Both of these additional elements are well-understood, routine, conventional activity and examiner takes an Official notice to that effect by relying on the cited arts as evidence- Berkheimer memo. Accordingly, the additional elements when considered separately and in combination do not add significantly more (also known as an “inventive concept”) to the exception. The claim is not patent eligible.
As to claim 17
17. Apparatus for generating at least one operation schedule for at least one load connected to a system including an energy generation system, an energy storage system, or both comprising:
[a] a forecast engine for generating production and consumption forecasts for the system based on customer information comprising system design variables comprising at least one of inverter types, battery types, degradation factors for solar and storage production, or number of batteries, and system operational variables, which comprise utility tariff type, charge to grid, discharge to grid, reserve SOC, or special load variables related to load type;
[b] a system estimator for using the production and consumption forecasts to generate a load operation schedule for at least one load connected to the system; and
[c] an optimization engine for adjusting the load operation schedule to improve system performance and for outputting the adjusted operation schedule to control the at least one load.
1. Step 1: Yes. The claim is to an apparatus comprising various engines and estimator, which is one of the four categories of patent eligible subject matter.
2. Step 2A, Prong 1: Yes. The claim recites limitations shown above with the bold emphasis and they can be practically performed in human’s mind hence are abstract idea. These limitations with bold emphasis are considered an abstract idea based exception because they cover performance of the limitation in human mind but for the recitation of generic computer components, namely a forecast engine, a system estimator, and an optimization engine respectively. That is, under BRI, other than reciting of “a forecast engine”, “a system estimator”, and “an optimization engine”, nothing in the limitations [a] –[c] for the bold emphasis portion preclude the steps from practically being performed in the mind. Simply put, the limitations of “generating production and consumption forecasts for the system”; “for using the production and consumption forecasts to generate a load operation schedule for at least one load;”; and “adjusting the load operation schedule to improve system performance” can be practically performed in human’s mind without the assistance of any generic computer elements. If claim limitations, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, cover performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components as in this claim, then they fall within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
3. Step 2A, Prong 2: No. This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim recites the additional element(s) of:
(1) “a forecast engine”, “a system estimator”, “an optimization engine” and
(2) “for outputting the adjusted operation schedule to control the at least one load” using “an optimization engine”.
Here, using of computing elements (engines and system estimator) in all three steps are recited at a high-level of generality such that they amount no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer components. As set forth above under 112(f) interpretations, these additional elements cover generic computer elements. Accordingly, the 1st additional element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
The 2nd additional element (outputting portion of the last limitation) is also recited at very high level of generality of outputting a solution generated by the abstract idea hence is akin to mere adding of a post-solution insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception - see MPEP 2106.05(g). Accordingly, the individual and combination of additional elements fail to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. The claim is directed to an abstract idea.
4. Step 2B: No. The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the 1st additional elements to perform all three steps amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. The 2nd additional element of using off-the shelves “an optimization engine” “for outputting the adjusted operation schedule to control the at least one load” is well-understood, routine, and conventional activity and examiner takes an Official notice to that effect—Berkheimer memo. Accordingly, the additional elements when considered separately and in combination do not add significantly more (also known as an “inventive concept”) to the exception. The claim is not patent eligible.
Regarding dependent claims 2- 8, 10- 16, & 18- 20, they depend on claims 1, 9, & 17 respectively. Therefore, they recite the same abstract idea and additional elements set forth above in claims 1, 9, & 17 respectively.
The dependent claims 2- 8, 10- 16, & 18- 20 recite other new limitations. However, these other new limitations of these claims also merely describe the specific type of the variables (see claims 4, 7- 8, 12, 15- 16, & 20) being utilized, the types of the loads (electric vehicles or heat pump and values being determined, see claims 2, 5- 6, 10, 13- 14, 18) being utilized, and limitations (see claims 3, 11, & 19) that can be practically performed in human’s mind. Therefore, these other new limitations are still abstract idea. That is, the claims 2- 8, 10- 16, & 18- 20 do not add any new additional elements.
Therefore, all of the dependent claims also fail to provide a practical application under Step 2A, Prong 2 and an inventive concept in Step 2B. The dependent claims 2- 8, 10- 16, & 18- 20 are not patent eligible.
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 9- 16 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 applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Regarding claim 9, the claim recites “determining, in view of the system design variables, which comprise at least one of inverter types, battery types, degradation factors for solar and storage production, or number of batteries, and system operational variables, which comprise utility tariff type, charge to grid, discharge to grid, reserve SOC, or special load variables related to load type”. However, the claim fails to clarify what is being determined in view of “system design variables” and “system operational variables” thereby rendering the scope of the claim indefinite.
Examiner notes the previous claim 9 recited “determining, in view of the system design variables and system operational variables, an initial estimate of system performance”. However, the currently amended claim 9 simply omits “an initial estimate of system performance” and does not show this with strikethrough emphasis on the deleted portion in determining step.
Note: For the examination purpose, this determining step is interpreted to also require “an initial estimate of system performance”.
Regarding claims 10- 16, these claims are also rejected because of their dependency with claim 9.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1, 3- 4, 8- 9, 11- 12, 16- 17, & 19- 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a) (2) as being anticipated by Wright et al. (US 20240154414 A1, Filing Date: 2022-12-22, reference of record).
Regarding claim 1, Wright teaches An apparatus [“an apparatus; a system” e.g., “FIG. 1A, energy provisioning planning system 106” that uses machine learning predictions for power generations and energy consumption] for generating at least one operation schedule for at least one load [loads of the sites] connected to a system [“a site with PV and/or ESS”] including an energy generation system [PV], an energy storage system [ESS], or both comprising: one or more processors [CPU of the planning system 106] coupled to one or more non-transitory computer readable media storing instructions thereon which, when executed by the one or more processors, cause the one or more processors to perform the operations comprising: (Fig. 1A, [034, 038-044, 084]);
receiving data comprising 2(1) system design variables [“following are example factors for determining solar power generation…example factors for determining solar power generation…array size…”], which comprise at least one of
inverter types, battery types [“linear solver is provided various inputs, such as the size/capacity of the battery storage on the site”, the battery size or capacity information provides information about battery types], degradation factors [“the asset (e.g., battery storage), or has an arrangement”, wherein “asset health/degradation cost (e.g., impact on life of battery storage) can be taken into account during optimization”] for solar and storage production, or number of batteries and (2) system operational variables [“historical measures of power generated by the solar panel array”, “historical home energy system behavior is collected”, “Patterns in the behavior of the solar generation”, “energy consumption data for a historical or previous period of time for a site is obtained”] which comprise utility tariff type [“based on tariffs or rate plans, using the site-level energy optimization techniques described above”], charge to grid, discharge to grid, reserve SOC [“battery capacity floor to have a reserve amount of charge left”], or special load variables related to load type ([041, 050-059, 068, 081, 0100, 0151, 0156]);
determining, in view of the system design variables and system operational variables, an initial estimate [“energy consumption predictions at a household/site level are determined.”] of system performance ([083, 087, 0110]);
generating a load operation schedule [“determine, for each household, a plan for controlling the usage of the household's energy storage device”, “plans for controlling usage of the battery (e.g., to charge or discharge the battery) are generated”, step 306: generated plan] for at least one load [“household's energy storage device”] connected to the system ([044, 094, 099, 0144]);
adjusting [“device control plan may be optimized for various scenarios”, “most optimal option or control plan is selected.”] the load operation schedule to improve system performance ([044, 0100, 0107-0110, 0144]); and
output [“plans are sent each night at a predetermined time” or in Fig. 4, Step 402: “plan to selectively store energy in an energy storage device or discharge energy from the energy storage device is received...to control behavior of the battery” means the plan is provided or outputted to the energy management system 156 of a site from planning system 106] the adjusted operation schedule to control the at least one load ([0143, 0145]).
Regarding claim 3, Wright teaches the apparatus of claim 1, further comprising determining [“site-specific forecasts of solar power generation and energy consumption.”] production and consumption forecasts using the system design variables and the system operational variables ([039, 050, 094]).
Regarding claim 4, Wright teaches the apparatus of claim 1, wherein the system operation variables comprise tariffs [“based on tariffs or rate plans”, “cost of importing and/or exporting energy to the grid”] for importing or exporting power ([084, 0101, 0111, 0156]).
Regarding claim 8, Wright teaches the apparatus of claim 1, wherein a measure of system performance is at least one of total cost of energy, energy independence, saving maximization, CO2 emission minimization, green energy use maximization, peak power demand minimization, and adjusting further comprises applying an objective function [“using a linear solver that has an objective function”] to minimize the total cost of energy [“minimize cost over some specified period of time”], energy independence, saving maximization, CO2 emission minimization [“or minimize carbon, etc.)”], green energy use maximization, peak power demand minimization for the system ([0100- 0110]).
Regarding claims 9, 11- 12, & 16, Wright teaches a method for estimating capacity of a system for these claims for the similar reasons set forth above in claims 1, 3- 4, & 8 respectively.
Regarding claim 17, Wright teaches an apparatus [computer that implement “energy provisioning planning system 106”] for generating at least one operation schedule for at least one load connected to a system [one of the site 102 like system shown in fig. 1B including power generator/storage and load] including an energy generation system [“site also has a home energy management system 156 that manages the distribution of power from the PV array 152, battery storage 154, and the grid 158”], an energy storage system [battery 154/electric vehicle 160], or both comprising: (Fig. 1, [041, 038]);
a forecast engine [“energy consumption prediction engine 118 and solar generation prediction engine 120”] for generating [“site's projected energy consumption and power generation (e.g., solar generation) for a given time period”] production and consumption forecasts for the system based on customer information comprising (1) system design variables comprising at least one of inverter types, battery types [“the size/capacity of the battery storage on the site”], degradation factors [“asset health/degradation cost”] for solar and storage production, or number of batteries, and (2) system operational variables, which comprise utility tariff type, charge to grid, discharge to grid, reserve SOC [“battery capacity floor to have a reserve amount of charge left)”], or special load variables related to load type ([041, 095, 0100]);
a system estimator for using the production and consumption forecasts to generate [“At 306, a plan to selectively store energy in an energy storage device (e.g., battery or fuel cell) or discharge energy from the energy storage device is generated based at least in part on a plurality of optimization criteria”] a load operation schedule for at least one load connected to the system ([0110, 0144]); and
an optimization engine [“implemented using a linear solver that has an objective function”] for adjusting the load operation schedule to improve [“management of charging of the battery and of the EV is optimized in a manner that minimizes cost”] system performance and for outputting the adjusted operation schedule to control the at least one load ([0100, 0144, 0150]).
Regarding claim 19, Wright teaches the apparatus of claim 17, further comprising determining production [step 302] and consumption forecasts [step 304] using the system design variables and the system operational variables (Fig. 3, [0144].
Regarding claim 20, Wright teaches the apparatus of claim 17, wherein a measure of system performance is at least one of total cost of energy, energy independence, saving maximization, CO2 emission minimization [“reduce carbon emissions”], green energy use maximization, peak power demand minimization, and adjusting further comprises applying an objective function to minimize the total cost of energy, energy independence [“reduce grid import during expensive period”], saving maximization, CO2 emission minimization, green energy use maximization, peak power demand minimization for the system ([094, 0150]).
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.
Claim(s) 2, 5, 7, 10, 13, 15, & 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wright (US 20240154414 A1).
Regarding claim 2, Wright does not explicitly (necessarily) teach but nevertheless implicitly teaches/suggests (MPEP 2144.1) to PHOSITA that apparatus of claim 1, wherein the at least one load comprises an electric vehicle and/or heat pump and wherein the special load variables comprise electric vehicle ratings, electric vehicle charging cycle, or heat pump circulator parameters ([038, 051, 0113, 0144]). This is so because “generating a device control plan...optimize against one or more goals” can be understood by PHOSITA to cover schedule of electric vehicle and/or heat pump since loads “EVs, EV chargers, HVAC units, etc. and wherein the special load variables comprise electric vehicle ratings, electric vehicle charging cycle, or heat pump circulator parameters.” are included in each site monitored by the energy provisioning planning system 106.
Sites like 102 of Wright are well-known to plug eV as loads to provide charging power to these eVs when the occupants of the sites 102 drive electric vehicles. The limitation of “special load variables comprise electric vehicle ratings, electric vehicle charging cycle, or heat pump circulator parameters” is an optional sub-parameter of “system operational variables” parameter and hence can be met by Wright reference when it teaches “utility tariff type,” and “reserve SOC”.
Regarding claim 5, Wright does not explicitly (necessarily) teach but nevertheless implicitly teaches/suggests (MPEP 2144.1) the apparatus of claim 1, wherein the load operation schedule for an electric vehicle [“how to control consumption of energy by loads (e.g., EVs, EV chargers, HVAC units, etc.)”] comprises [“start and end times, etc.”] a start time, a duration and a charging goal [“minimum and/or maximum SoC band”] See, paras. [036, 038, 0119, 0144, 30151]).
Regarding claim 7, Wright does not explicitly teach but nevertheless implicitly teaches/suggests (MPEP 2144.1) the apparatus of claim 1, wherein a measure of system performance is total cost [“terms of minimizing cost to the homeowner while achieving the desired goals.”] of energy and adjusting further comprises applying an objective function to minimize the total cost of energy for the system. See ([0114, 0150]).
Regarding claims 10, 13, & 15, Wright teaches/suggests inventions of these claims for the similar reasons set forth above in claims 2, & 5- 7 respectively.
Regarding claim 18, Wright may not explicitly (necessarily) teach but nevertheless implicitly teaches/suggests (MPEP 2144.1) the apparatus of claim 17, wherein the at least one load [“usage of controllable loads of the home, such as electric vehicles (e.g., EV 160) and HVAC units”] comprises an electric vehicle and/or heat pump ([038]).
Claim(s) 6 & 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wright (US 20240154414 A1) in view of Wallace et al. (US 20210102721 A1, reference of record).
Regarding claim 6, Wright teaches the apparatus of claim 1, wherein the load operation schedule [“determine how to control consumption of energy by loads (e.g., EVs, EV chargers, HVAC units, etc.)”, “control of distributed energy resources (such as a battery, EV charger, or HVAC)”] for a HVAC units
However, Wright may not teach its HVAC system to be heat pump type and also controlling of the HVAC loads to include controlling “a circulator speed” of the heat pump as claimed and shown above with strikethrough emphasis.
Wallace teaches an apparatus for generating at least one operation schedule for at least one load connected to a power system, the apparatus comprising a processor [“Microprocessor Controller 12”] to: (Claim 32, [083]);
generating a load operation schedule for at least one load, the load operation schedule for a heat pump comprises a start time, a duration and a circulator speed [“calculate at a first compressor speed and a load circulator speed to maintain a flow rate of the load fluid: to meet at least one of: the heating demand; and the cooling demand;”] ([078, 083, 0123], claim 32).
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to (1) combine Wallace and Wright because they both related to an apparatus with processor collecting various data and processing the collected data for optimizing power usage in a household while providing heating and cooling and (2) modify the generated load operation schedule for HVAC system of Wright to including generating operation schedule for a heat pump (to work as a HVAC system) a start time, a duration and a circulator speed. Doing so would allow further optimize power consumption while meeting heating and cooling demand in the facility of the Wright (Wallace claim 12).
Regarding claim 14, Wright in view of Wallace teaches invention of this method claim for the similar reasons set forth above in claim 6.
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 extension fee 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.
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
1) Takayama (US 20200247262 A1) teaches an apparatus with a processor and memory to: receive data comprising system design variables including battery type and system operation variables including a special load variables related to load type that includes “electric vehicle ratings” ([055]).
Contacts
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SANTOSH R. POUDEL whose telephone number is (571)272-2347. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday (8:30 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, Kamini Shah can be reached at (571) 272-2279. 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.
/SANTOSH R POUDEL/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2115
1 “Each block of the flow diagrams below may represent a module of code to execute and/or combinations of hardware and/or software configured to perform one or more processes described herein.”
2 See Spec, para. 032 that states “solar panel type, inverter type, battery type, degradation factors” as example system design variables and “electrical power tariff type, capability of charging from the power grid, capability of discharging to the power grid” as examples of “operational variables”.
3 “order to generate an optimal plan for utilizing the battery storage device, EV, or HVAC”
