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
2. The Amendment filed on March 11, 2026, has been entered. The examiner acknowledges the amendments to claims 1-9.
Rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 101: Applicant argues claims are not directed to abstract ideas, and cannot be construed as mathematical concepts and organizing human activity, but perform day-ahead optimization and effective purchase strategy, reducing time spent deciding on the strategy. Examiner notes that optimization and strategizing are mental processes involving evaluation, judgment and opinion as well as following rules and instructions refers to governing the operation of the markets and participation. Of note, the Office Action lists mathematical concepts as one of the groupings of abstract ideas evaluated under Step 2A, but the analysis of the method of independent claim 1 does not cite specific instances of mathematical concepts in the detailed 2A-Prong 1 analysis. Of note, applicant’s amendment to claims 1, 4, 7 adds a mathematical equation, another abstract idea, to the independent claims.
It is clear from the independent claims that data is collected, processed, and analyzed, and constraints are modeled to feed objective functions to optimize the real-world scheduling of power sources to meeting electricity demand, and these processes are executed on a computer. The increased speed in strategy development processing is inherent, given the application of a computer, but the claims and arguments suggest that software is run on a computer, which by itself does not recite allowable subject matter. Another consideration when determining whether a claim integrates a judicial exception into a practical application in Step 2A Prong Two or recites significantly more than a judicial exception in Step 2B is whether the additional elements amount to more than a recitation of the words "apply it" (or an equivalent) or are more than mere instructions to implement an abstract idea or other exception on a computer. The Examiner believes the invention implements instructions implementing an exception on a computer.
Applicant further argues an improvement to computer technology. The improvement to technology is not apparent from the claims as they cite routine computer calculation and data handling functions. The additional elements cited in Step 2A-Prong 2 are used in conventional ways and it is not apparent that the abstract ideas are integrated into the invention or additional elements in any novel way. Thus, the claims do not support the presence of a practical application, and in the absence of a practical application, the claims are directed to non-statutory subject matter and the rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 101 will not be withdrawn.
Rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 103: Applicant’s amendments to claims 1, 4, and 7 overcome the stated prior art and the rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 103 are withdrawn for these claims. Dependent claims 2-3, 5-6, 8-9 are not rejected due to their inherent dependence upon independent claims 1, 4, and 7.
Claim Rejections – 35 U.S.C. § 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 1-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 because the claimed invention is directed
to non-statutory subject matter. The claims, 1-9 are directed to a judicial exception (i.e., law of nature, natural phenomenon, abstract idea) without providing significantly more.
Step 1
Step 1 of the subject matter eligibility analysis per MPEP § 2106.03, required the claims to be a process, machine, manufacture or a composition of matter. Claims 1-9 are directed to a process (method), machine (system), and product/article of manufacture, which are statutory categories of invention.
Step 2A
Claims 1-9 are directed to abstract ideas, as explained below.
Prong one of the Step 2A analysis requires identifying the specific limitation(s) in the claim under examination that the examiner believes recites an abstract idea, and determining whether the identified limitation(s) falls within at least one of the groupings of abstract ideas of mathematical concepts, mental processes, and certain methods of organizing human activity.
Step 2A-Prong 1
The claims recite the following limitations that are directed to abstract ideas, which can be summarized as being directed to a method, the abstract idea, of optimizing the operational schedule of power sources for an enterprise.
Claim 1 discloses a method, comprising: A processor implemented method, comprising:
receiving, a plurality of inputs associated with a plurality of power sources from a source system, (following rules or instructions, observation, evaluation, judgement, opinion),
wherein the source system is associated with an enterprise, wherein the plurality of inputs comprise one or more of: one or more parameters associated with each of an additional power source available with the enterprise and a battery, one or more solar parameters, one or more forecasted parameters, a plurality of historic power data, an electricity board power contract price, and an energy market power price, wherein the one or more forecasted parameters comprise a forecasted demand data,
D
^
(t), a forecasted market price data and a forecasted solar data that includes both a forecasted solar internal data,
P
^
Si(t) and external data ,
P
^
Se(t), and wherein the plurality of historic power data comprises a historical market price data, a historical demand data and a historical solar data; (following rules or instructions, observation, evaluation, judgement, opinion),
calculating a variance of each of a market price, a demand and a solar generation based on the historical market price data, the historical demand data and the historical solar data, respectively, using a variance calculation method; (following rules or instructions, observation, evaluation, judgement, opinion),
modelling, a first set of constraints based on the plurality of inputs, wherein the first set of constraints comprise a solar generation constraint, a state of charge constraint, a battery capacity constraint, a generation load-balance constraint, and a maximum demand constraint; (following rules or instructions, observation, evaluation, judgement, opinion),
wherein the generation load-balance constraint ensures that the power allocated is equal to the demand at each time block, and the generation load balance constraint is modelled to stipulate that net demand is satisfied by a net generation from the plurality of power sources as Pm(t) + Pc(t) + Pse(t) - Pbc(t) + Pbdt(t) - Psk(t) =
D
^
(t) -
P
^
Si(t), Ɐt, wherein the solar generation constraint limits solar generation based on the solar availability from external solar source and performs the solar allocation within or equal to the available solar generation at each time block; (mathematical concepts, formulas or equations, following rules or instructions, observation, evaluation, judgement, opinion),
modelling a first objective function with minimization of a cost, a carbon emission and a weighted market price risk as a quadratic function based on the calculated variance of each of the market price, the demand, and the solar generation; (following rules or instructions, observation, evaluation, judgement, opinion)
creating, a primary optimization model based on the modelled first set of constraints and the modelled first objective function; (following rules or instructions, observation, evaluation, judgement, opinion), and
solving the primary optimization model to obtain a scheduled power allocation of the plurality of power sources using a quadratic programming technique, wherein the scheduled power allocation ensures reduced risk, cost and carbon emission, (economic principles and practices calculating costs, following rules or instructions, observation, evaluation, judgement, opinion),
receiving, power data, wherein the power data comprises a power generation data, a solar data and a demand data;
determining, , whether there is any difference between the power data and the one or more forecasted parameters; (following rules or instructions, observation, evaluation, judgement, opinion), and
performing, scheduling of the battery charging and discharging to minimize the difference between the power data and the one or more forecasted parameters upon determining that the power data is different from the one or more forecasted parameters, wherein the minimization of the difference is referred as modelling of a second objective function to be used in a secondary optimization model; (following rules or instructions, observation, evaluation, judgement, opinion),
modeling, a second set of constraints based on the plurality of inputs, wherein the second set of constraints comprises a contract constraint, a solar generation constraint, a state of charge constraint, a battery capacity constraint, and a demand balance constraint;
creating, , the secondary optimization model based on the modelled second set of constraints and the modelled second objective function;
solving, the secondary optimization model to obtain a charging and discharging to be performed on the battery using a mixed integer linear programming technique; (economic principles and practices calculating costs, following rules or instructions, observation, evaluation, judgement, opinion) and adjustments are made in battery allocation and contract allocation and further minimizing costs, risks, and carbon emissions due to deviation in actual data, (economic principles and practices calculating costs, following rules or instructions, observation, evaluation, judgement, opinion).
Additional limitations employ the method to receive power data, determine difference between forecasted parameters, scheduling battery use to minimize differences, modeling a second objective function to be used in a secondary optimization model, (following rules or instructions, observation, evaluation, judgement, opinion – claim 2), modeling a second set of constraints including contract, solar generation, state of charge, battery capacity and demand balance constraints, creating a second optimization model based on constraints and objective function, and solving the optimization model to obtain charging and discharge scheduling for the battery (economic principles and practices calculating costs, following rules or instructions, observation, evaluation, judgement, opinion – claim 3),
Each of these claimed limitations employ: organizing human activity in the form of fundamental economic principles and practices based on calculating costs, following rules or instructions, conducting commercial or legal interactions including contracts, sales activities or behaviors; performing mental processes including, observation, evaluation, judgement, and opinion.
Claims 4-6 and 7-9 recite similar abstract ideas as those identified with respect to claims 1-3.
Thus, the concepts set forth in claims 1-9 recite abstract ideas.
Step 2A-Prong 2
As per MPEP § 2106.04, while the claims 1 -9 recite additional limitations which are hardware or software elements such as, a system via one or more hardware processors, real-time data, real time scheduling, real time constraints, a memory storing instructions, communication interfaces, hardware processors coupled to the memory via the communication interfaces, one or more non-transitory machine-readable information storage mediums, the plurality of power sources, performing the real-time charging and discharging of the battery, these limitations are not sufficient to qualify as a practical application being recited in the claims along with the abstract ideas since these elements are invoked as tools to apply the instructions of the abstract ideas in a specific technological environment. The mere application of an abstract idea in a particular technological environment and merely limiting the use of an abstract idea to a particular technological field do not integrate an abstract idea into a practical application (MPEP § 2106.05 (f) & (h)).
Evaluated individually, the additional elements do not integrate the identified abstract ideas into a practical application. Evaluating the limitations as an ordered combination adds nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually.
The claims do not amount to a “practical application” of the abstract idea because they neither (1) recite any improvements to another technology or technical field; (2) recite any improvements to the functioning of the computer itself; (3) apply the judicial exception with, or by use of, a particular machine; (4) effect a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing; (5) provide other meaningful limitations beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment.
Accordingly, claims 1-9 are directed to abstract ideas.
Step 2B
Claims 1-9 do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the additional elements when considered both individually and as an ordered combination, do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea.
The analysis above describes how the claims recite the additional elements beyond those identified above as being directed to an abstract idea, as well as why identified judicial exception(s) are not integrated into a practical application. These findings are hereby incorporated into the analysis of the additional elements when considered both individually and in combination.
For the reasons provided in the analysis in Step 2A, Prong 1, evaluated individually, the additional elements do not amount to significantly more than a judicial exception. Thus, taken alone, the additional elements do not amount to significantly more than a judicial exception.
Evaluating the claim limitations as an ordered combination adds nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually. In addition to the factors discussed regarding Step 2A, prong two, there is no indication that the combination of elements improves the functioning of a computer or improves any other technology. Performing the real-time charging and discharging of the battery amounts to extra solution activity and is well-understood. Their collective functions merely amount to instructions to implement the identified abstract ideas on a computer.
Therefore, since there are no limitations in the claims 1-9 that transform the exception into a patent eligible application such that the claims amount to significantly more than the exception itself, the claims are directed to non-statutory subject matter and are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101.
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.
Claims 1, 4, and 7 are not rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103. Dependent claims 2-3, 5-6, 8-9
are not rejected due to their inherent dependence upon independent claims 1, 4, and 7.
The closest prior art to the invention includes, Price, (US 20190385182 A1), “Distributed Energy Control,” in view of Bing, (US 2005 0039787 A1), “Method and System for Predicting Solar Capacity Production,” in further view of Avrin, “Minimizing Cost Uncertainty with a New Methodology for Use In Policy Making: China's Electricity Pathways,” (2016 IEEE PES Asia-Pacific Power and Energy Conference - Xi'an – China, pp. 1-7, doi: 10.1109/APPEEC.2016.7779459).
None of the prior art alone or in combination teach the claimed invention as recited in this claim wherein the novelty is in the combination of all the limitations and not in a single limitation.
Regarding Claim 1, Price teaches, A processor implemented method, comprising:
receiving, by a system via one or more hardware processors, a plurality of inputs associated with a plurality of power sources from a source system, wherein the source system is associated with an enterprise, wherein the plurality of inputs comprise one or more of: one or more parameters associated with each of an additional power source available with the enterprise and a battery, one or more solar parameters, one or more forecasted parameters, a plurality of historic power data, an electricity board power contract price, and an energy market power price, (The system also includes a controller operable to: receive energy market data (current pricing, future pricing, weather forecast, etc.), [0008], the forecasted energy price curve may indicate, for example, an expected price of a unit of electricity at each particular time unit (e.g., each minute) of a particular day. The forecasted energy price curve may then be used to charge and discharge an energy storage device (e.g., a battery) at particular points in a day, [0051], variables analyzed by forecasting component 410 may include [ ] renewable generation (e.g., wind power and solar output), [0051], forecasting component 410 analyzes various variables that may affect energy prices in order to generate a forecasted energy price curve, [0051], variables analyzed by forecasting component 410 may include the day-ahead market, the real-time market, weather data (e.g., weather forecasts), historical energy prices, [0051], receive real-time telecommunications from the resources [ ] the price of power at the time an energy resource is charged or discharged, and any contracts (e.g. futures contracts) associated with the energy resource, [0049], forecasting component may take into consideration not only the power market pricing, [0049]),
Price does not teach the combination of wherein the one or more forecasted parameters comprise a forecasted demand data,
D
^
(t), a forecasted market price data and a forecasted solar data that includes both a forecasted solar internal data,
P
^
Si(t) and external data ,
P
^
Se(t), and wherein the plurality of historic power data comprises a historical market price data, a historical demand data and a historical solar data, Neither Bing or Arvin in combination with Price teach the combination of Applicant' s forecasted parameters calculating the price variances, and calculating both a first and second set of constraints and creating the secondary optimization model. These individually or in combination did not teach the complete scope of the claim.
Independent claims 4 and 7 recite substantially similar limitations as claim 1 and are not rejected under as they present similar rationale, reasoning, and motivation as claim 1. Dependent claims 2-3, 5-6, 8-9 are not rejected 35 U.S.C. § 103, by their inherent dependence on claims 1, 4, 7.
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure or directed to the state of the art is listed on the enclosed PTO-892.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MICHAEL BOROWSKI whose telephone number is (703)756-1822. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8-4:30.
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, Jerry O’Connor can be reached on (571) 272-6787. 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.
/MB/
Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3624
/MEHMET YESILDAG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3624
Prosecution Insights