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 received on 08/05/2026.
The claims 1- 20 are pending, of which the claim(s) 1, 9, & 17 is/are in independent form.
Claim Objections
Claims 1- 8, & 17- 20 objected to because of the following informalities:
As to claim 19, “the system design variables and the system operational variables” should be changed to “
As to claims 1 & 17 in line 1 “Apparatus for” for should be “An apparatus for”.
As to claims 2- 8 & 18- 20, they are also objected to because they also carry the same deficiency of the claims 1 & 17 respectively due to their dependency.
Appropriate correction is required.
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 and system operational variables;
[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;
[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 a processor coupled to one or non-transitory computer readable media, 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 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; 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 in a power system and the limitation [d] requires adjusting the previously generated schedule to further improve.
The claim covers any possible improvement including very little improvements in cost, CO2 level, energy independence etc., see claim 10. Hence, this also 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 and system operational Variables”; 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. 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 of 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, 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 use 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. Furthermore, examiner takes an Official notice that the limitations of “receiving data comprising system design variables and system operational variables;” 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 mere 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 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 and system operational variables, an initial estimate of system performance; generating a load operation schedule for at least one load; 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. These both 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;
[b] a system estimator for using the production and consumption forecasts to generate a load operation schedule for at least one load; 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 bold emphasis and they can be practically performed in human’s mind 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 also 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 § 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).
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 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 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 2system design variables [“following are example factors for determining solar power generation…example factors for determining solar power generation…array size…”] and 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”] ([050-059, 068, 081]);
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”] ([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 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 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 ([041]);
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 ([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 ([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.” are included in each site monitored by the energy provisioning planning system 106.
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).
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
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
1) Hu (US 20240027982 A1) teaches sending a verification message or prompt, e.g., on the remote user interface device of the user device 1000 or on a local user interface of the household appliance 10, and the user feedback 740 may be received in response to the verification message or prompt ([069], Fig. 6).
2) Lafleur (US 20120029725 A1) teaches the cycle can be to run in optimized manner ([027]).
3) Katayama et al. (US 20140142774 A1) teaches generating charge/discharge schedule of the storage battery 102, and the /discharge of the on-battery 106, which can the energy cost ([0151]).
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”
Prosecution Insights