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 . Claims 16-35 filed on 8/1/2024 have been reviewed and considered by this office action.
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant’s claim for foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. 119 (a)-(d). The certified copy has been filed in parent Application No. EP22305193.9, filed on 2/22/2022.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement filed on 8/21/2024 has been reviewed and considered by this office action.
Drawings
The drawings filed on 8/21/2024 have been reviewed and are considered acceptable.
Specification
The specification filed on 8/21/2024 has been reviewed and is considered acceptable.
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 22 and 23 are 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.
In particular, it is unclear what is meant by determining whether the architecture is “operable” or “not operable” without any further context providing details on how to determine operability of a system. For instance, is operability determined based upon simulated results resulting in power production falling below a threshold? Or is operability based upon the system’s ability to meet demand? Without any context, it’s not possible to understand how operability is determined. In order to further prosecution, any prior art in which any metric is measured will be interpreted to read upon the limitation as currently recited.
Appropriate correction is required.
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 16-35 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed towards an abstract idea without significantly more. Claim 16 recites, “computing, for each set of inputs, by a computer system and based on the set of inputs, output data including one or more yearly indicators, the computing comprising, for each set of inputs:”, “for each day of a set of days: optimizing a schedule for the power plant with the architecture of the set of inputs;”, “computing daily indicators for the day based on the optimized schedule, the daily indicators including one or more power quality indicators;”, and “determining the one or more yearly indicators based on the computed daily indicators.”, which analyzed under Step 2A Prong One, includes performing computations to optimize a schedule based upon specific inputs, computing daily inputs based upon optimized schedule, and determining/computing yearly indicators based upon the daily indicators which represents using mathematical calculations and thus falls within the, “Mathematical Concepts” grouping of abstract ideas.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. Claim 16 further recites, “providing one or more sets of inputs, each set of inputs representing a respective architecture of the power plant;”, which analyzed under Step 2A Prong Two, adds insignificant extra solution activity in the form of mere data gathering (see MPEP 2106.05(g)). Finally, the limitations of, “A computer-implemented method” and “a storage system”, as generally recited represent merely generic computer components for implementing the abstract idea.
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because as analyzed under Step 2B, the additional elements merely amount to gathering input data regarding a power plant and sending the data over a network. Analyzed under Berkheimer, the act of gathering and sending data over a network has been deemed as well-understood, routine, and conventional by the courts (see MPEP 2106.05(d)(II), “sending/receiving data over a network”).
Independent claims 28 and 32 are substantially similar to claim 16 and are thus rejected using the same rationale as provided above.
Further review of the dependent claims fails to provide any additional features that provide significantly more. For instance, claims 19, 22-23, 25, 27, 31, and 35, each include additional limitations regarding performing computations thus representing the use of mathematical calculations, which analyzed under Step 2A Prong One, provides additional limitations which fall within the, “Mathematical Concepts” grouping of abstract ideas.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. Claim 26 provides limitations which involve selecting one or more sets of inputs and integrating it into a power plant architecture without providing details how the input data is utilized to operate the power plant, thus just merely providing data to a system, which analyzed under Step 2A Prong Two, just merely applies the use of the judicial exception. Further, claims 17-18, 20-21, 24, 29-30, and 33-34, provide various limitations that include number of days analyzed, types of variables which constitute the daily indicators, type of algorithm for data clustering, and types of yearly indicators, which analyzed under Step 2A Prong Two, just merely link the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use (see MPEP 2106.05(h)).
The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because as analyzed under Step 2B, the additional elements merely amount to gathering input data regarding a power plant and sending the data over a network. Analyzed under Berkheimer, the act of gathering and sending data over a network has been deemed as well-understood, routine, and conventional by the courts (see MPEP 2106.05(d)(II), “sending/receiving data over a network”).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 16-35 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rule et al. (US Patent 10,230,241) in view of McClure et al. (US PGPUB 20150331972).
Regarding Claims 16, 28, and 32; Rule teaches; A computer-implemented method for assessing performance of a power plant comprising a solar field system and a storage system, the method comprising: (Rule; at least Fig. 10; column 3, lines 40-64; disclose a hybrid power plant system including a combination of power generation facilities including solar power systems, wherein the system constantly assesses the performance and manage parameters to optimize the performance)
providing one or more sets of inputs, each set of inputs representing a respective architecture of the power plant; and (Rule; at least column 10, lines 1-25; disclose wherein the system and method includes providing a plurality of different set of inputs representative of different architectures of the power plant, wherein the system can iteratively evaluate the provided inputs to obtain respective outputs)
computing, for each set of inputs, by a computer system and based on the set of inputs, output data including one or more yearly indicators, the computing comprising, for each set of inputs: (Rule; at least column 10, lines 1-25; disclose iteratively computing a plurality of outputs based upon a received set of inputs)
for each day of a set of days: optimizing a schedule for the power plant with the architecture of the set of inputs; and (Rule; at least column 10, lines 1-36; disclose optimizing the system setpoints using daily analysis)
computing daily indicators for the day based on the optimized schedule, the daily indicators including one or more power quality indicators; and (Rule; at least column 10, lines 1-36; disclose computing power quality indicators (i.e. number of kilowatt-hours of energy produced) during the daily evaluations)
Though Rule teaches providing hourly, daily and weekly indicators, they appear to be silent on; computing, for each set of inputs, by a computer system and based on the set of inputs, output data including one or more yearly indicators,
determining the one or more yearly indicators based on the computed daily indicators.
However, McClure teaches; computing, for each set of inputs, by a computer system and based on the set of inputs, output data including one or more yearly indicators, determining the one or more yearly indicators based on the computed daily indicators. (McClure; at least paragraphs [0054] and [0284]; disclose a solar design and optimization system and method that performs simulation analysis including yearly energy profiles for the various systems).
Rule and McClure are analogous art because they are from the same field of endeavor or similar problem solving area of, power optimization and control systems.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have incorporated the known method of performing yearly indicator computations as taught by McClure with the known system of a hybrid power plant optimization and control system as taught by Rule in order to help provide a method for controlling the system in order to minimize the cost to benefit ratios for operating the systems as taught by McClure (paragraph [0004]).
Regarding Claims 17, 29, and 33; the combination of Rule and McClure teach; The method of claim 16, wherein the set of days comprises a number of days less than the number of days of a year or less than representative days in a year. (Rule; at least column 10, lines 20-25).
Regarding Claims 18, 30, and 34; the combination of Rule and McClure teach; The method of claim 17, wherein the daily indicators include a daily cumulative irradiance indicator, an average spinning reserve requirement indicator, and a variability index indicator. (Rule; at least Fig. 5; column 13, lines 15-60).
Regarding Claims 19, 31, and 35; the combination of Rule and McClure teach; The method of claim 17, the method further comprising determining the set of days, the determining of the set of days comprising: partitioning a set of days forming a year in a set of clusters based on the daily indicators of the day; and computing a center of gravity for each cluster, wherein each computed center of gravity corresponds to one day of the determined set of days. (McClure; at least paragraphs [0094] and [0104]-[0109]).
Regarding Claim 20; the combination of Rule and McClure teach; The method of claim 19, wherein the partitioning comprises a k-means clustering. (McClure; at least paragraph [0108]).
Regarding Claim 21; the combination of Rule and McClure teach; The method of claim 16, wherein the set of days comprises a worst-case scenario, the worst-case scenario corresponding to the day of the year having the highest variability index indicator. (Rule; at least column 7, lines 50-58).
Regarding Claim 22; the combination of Rule and McClure teach; The method of claim 16, wherein the one or more sets of inputs comprise a plurality of sets of inputs, the computing of the output data further comprising, for each set of inputs: determining whether the architecture represented by the set of input is operable based on the determined one or more yearly indicators. (Rule; at least column 10, lines 1-37).
Regarding Claim 23; the combination of Rule and McClure teach; The method of claim 22, wherein the method comprises iteratively providing a respective set of inputs and computing respective output data for the respective set of inputs, the method further comprising: when it is determined at a current iteration that the architecture represented by the current set of inputs is not operable, providing a set of inputs at the next iteration representing a modification of the architecture of the current iteration by reducing a power capacity of the solar field system or increasing a storage capacity of the storage system. (Rule; at least column 8, lines 7-15).
Regarding Claim 24; the combination of Rule and McClure teach; The method of claim 16, wherein the one or more yearly indicators include at least one of: a fuel consumption indicator, the determining of the fuel consumption indicator comprising an occurrence-weighted sum of corresponding daily indicators; a CO2 emission indicator, the determining of the CO2 emission indicator comprising an occurrence-weighted sum of corresponding daily indicators; a frequency variation indicator; a minimum frequency indicator; and an indicator of cumulated time of frequency disturbances. (Rule; at least column 10, lines 27-37).
Regarding Claim 25; the combination of Rule and McClure teach; The method of claim 16, wherein the computing of the daily indicators comprises: discretizing the day in a set of intervals, each interval comprising an average profile of the power generated by the solar field system; and iteratively for each interval of the set: optimizing a dispatch of the power plant based on the average profile of the interval; and simulating grid dynamics in the power plant for the optimized dispatch. (Rule; at least column 7, lines 38-50; column 11, lines 41-60).
Regarding Claim 26; the combination of Rule and McClure teach; The method of claim 16, wherein the one or more sets of inputs comprises several sets of inputs, thereby computing respective one or more yearly indicators for each set, the method further comprising upgrading a real-world power plant comprising a solar field system and a storage system, the upgrading comprising: selecting one of the one or more sets of inputs based on the computed respective one or more yearly indicators for each set, wherein the method further comprises, in the real-world power plant, at least one of: integrating the architecture represented by the selected set of inputs in the power plant; and performing an improvement of an existing architecture of the power plant based on the architecture represented by the selected set of inputs. (Rule; at least column 10, lines 1-37).
Regarding Claim 27; the combination of Rule and McClure teach; The method of claim 16, wherein the one or more sets of inputs comprises several sets of inputs, thereby computing respective one or more yearly indicators for each set, the method further comprising designing a power plant comprising a solar field system and a storage system, the designing comprising: selecting one of the one or more sets of inputs based on the computed respective one or more yearly indicators for each set, thereby determining an architecture for the power plant, the selected set of inputs representing the determined architecture. (Rule; at least column 10, lines 1-37).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Wenzel et al. (US PGPUB 20200106385): disclose a system and method for coordinating hybrid power system which incorporates a photovoltaic field as part of the power generation units, wherein the system monitors a plurality of parameters such that it can incorporate charging/discharging of the PV generated/stored power to help maximize power usage efficiency of a structure.
Ganti et al. (US PGPUB 20170364043): disclose a hybrid power system and method which utilizes a plurality of power generation facilities to coordinate providing power to a grid, wherein the system includes picking a time period and providing inputs to simulate the effect of each facilities impact and selecting a group of inputs which optimizes the systems cost function.
Doherty et al. (US PGPUB 20200350766): disclose a system and method which utilizes live, historical, and forecast data in order to optimize usage of a plurality of solar storage facilities for providing power to a grid.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHRISTOPHER W CARTER whose telephone number is (469)295-9262. The examiner can normally be reached 9-6:30.
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, Robert Fennema can be reached at (571) 272-2748. 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.
/CHRISTOPHER W CARTER/Examiner, Art Unit 2117
Prosecution Insights