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 .
DETAILED ACTION
This office action is in response to application filed on September 12, 2024. The Preliminary Amendment filed on September 12, 2024 has been entered. Claims 1-13 are currently pending in the application.
Drawings
The drawings filed on September 12, 2024 are acknowledged and are acceptable.
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 1-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
As to claim 1, claim recites “A prediction apparatus comprising:
at least one memory configured to store instructions; and
at least one processor configured to execute the instructions to perform operations comprising:
acquiring a progression of one or more predicted values of a first amount of electric power supply from a source of electric power supply including at least one piece of photovoltaic power generation equipment to a supply target; and
in a case where a predetermined condition is satisfied, modifying or re-predicting the progression of one or more predicted values of the first amount of electric power supply by using an image acquired by capturing an image of a sky around the photovoltaic power generation equipment.”
Under the Step 1 of the eligibility analysis (as explained in MPEP 2106), we determine whether the claim is directed to a statutory category of patentable subject matter. It is noted that claim 1 is directed to at least one potentially eligible statutory category of subject matter (i.e., process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter). Thus Step 1 of the Subject Matter Eligibility test for claim 1 is satisfied.
Under the Step 2A, Prong One, we consider whether the claim recites a judicial exception (abstract idea). In the above claim, the bold type portion constitutes an abstract idea because, under a broadest reasonable interpretation, it recites limitations that the fall into/recite abstract idea exceptions. Specifically, under the 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance, it falls into the grouping of subject matter that, when recited as such in a claim that covers performing mathematical concepts (mathematical relationships, mathematical formulas or equations, mathematical calculations) and mental processes (concepts performed in the human mind, and examples of mental processes include observations, evaluations, judgements, and opinions).
In claim 1, the steps of “acquiring a progression of one or more predicted values of a first amount of electric power supply from a source of electric power supply including at least one piece of photovoltaic power generation equipment to a supply target”, and “in a case where a predetermined condition is satisfied, modifying or re-predicting the progression of one or more predicted values of the first amount of electric power supply by using an image acquired by capturing an image of a sky around the photovoltaic power generation equipment” are a combination of a mathematical concept and a mental process, therefore, they are considered to be an abstract idea.
Next, under the Step 2A, Prong Two, we consider whether the claim that recites a judicial exception is integrated into a practical application. In this step, we evaluate whether the claim recites additional elements that integrate the exception into a practical application of that exception.
The claim comprises the following additional elements:
at least one memory configured to store instructions;
at least one processor configured to execute the instructions to perform operations; and
capturing an image (e.g., via a camera) of a sky around the photovoltaic power generation equipment.
The additional elements have been considered individually and in combination, but fail to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they amount to using generic computing elements to perform the abstract idea, and these elements (e.g., a camera that captures the image) are recited at a high level of generality amounting to no more than that which is well-understood, routine, and conventional.
In conclusion, the additional elements, considered individually and in combination with the other claim elements do not reflect an improvement to other technology or technical field, do not reflect improvements to the functioning of the computer itself, do not recite a particular machine, do not effect a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing, and, therefore, do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
The claim, therefore, is not patent eligible.
Dependent claims 2-11 provide additional features/steps which are considered part of an expanded abstract idea of the independent claim 1, and do not integrate the abstract ideas into a practical application.
The analysis above applies to all statutory categories of invention (i.e., method claim 12 and non-transitory storage medium claim 13). Accordingly, claims 1-13 are rejected as ineligible for patenting under 35 U.S.C. § 101.
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 of this title, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 1, 3, 5, and 7-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kudo et al. (Japanese Publication No. JP2006033908A; machine translation obtained from Espacenet; hereinafter as, “Kudo”) in view of Sadatoshi et al. (Japanese Publication No. JP2021141769A; machine translation obtained from Espacenet; hereinafter as, “Sadatoshi”).
As per claim 1, Kudo teaches a prediction apparatus (see, e.g., Figs. 1-2; para. [0010]-[0020]) comprising:
at least one memory configured to store instructions (see e.g., para. [0047]); and
at least one processor configured to execute the instructions to perform operations (e.g., para. [0047]: the computer executing the program) comprising:
acquiring a progression of one or more predicted values of a first amount of electric power supply from a source of electric power supply including at least one piece of photovoltaic power generation equipment to a supply target (see e.g., para. [0012]: “The solar radiation prediction calculation unit 17A calculates a solar radiation prediction value using the solar radiation prediction formula derived in the solar radiation prediction formula derivation unit 16A, along with the forecast weather phenomena for the target day or target time period received by the weather information receiving unit 11 for the area where the solar power generation system 2 is installed, and the solar radiation information received by the solar radiation receiving unit 12 before the prediction implementation time for the target day.”); and
in a case where a predetermined condition is satisfied, modifying or re-predicting the progression of one or more predicted values of the first amount of electric power supply (see e.g., para. [0018]-[0020]: “the system performs forecast calculations each time the time-series weather forecast is updated, or each time the collection of actual solar radiation data for a specified time period entered into the solar radiation forecast formula is completed, and the power generation forecast is corrected accordingly.”)
Kudo does not explicitly teach predicting values of the first amount of electric power supply by using an image acquired by capturing an image of a sky around the photovoltaic power generation equipment.
However, in the same field of endeavor, Sadatoshi teaches: predicting values of the first amount of electric power supply by using an image acquired by capturing an image of a sky around the photovoltaic power generation equipment (see e.g., Figs 6-7; para. [0076]-[0084]: discloses the feature of acquiring an image capturing the sky around an installation site of a photovoltaic power device from the ground, inferring an amount of cloud cover at the installation site from the image, and using the inferred amount of cloud cover to obtain a predicted value for photovoltaic power output).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Kudo to incorporate the teachings of Sadatoshi such that an amount of cloud cover at an installation site inferred from an image capturing the sky around an installation site of a photovoltaic power device from the ground is used to predict the power output for each timespan and to correct the predictions of the power output.
As per claim 3, Kudo in view of Sadatoshi teaches the prediction apparatus according to claim 1, where Kudo further teaches: wherein the predetermined condition includes a condition related to at least one item out of electric power supply from an electric power system grid to the supply target and electric power supply from the source of electric power supply to the electric power system grid (see e.g., para. [0029]: “On the other hand, if there is actual power generation data for the time immediately preceding the prediction calculation, such as during the daytime, the actual power generation data for the time immediately preceding the prediction calculation and the temperature at the same time are input into the solar power generation model 18.”).
As per claim 5, Kudo in view of Sadatoshi teaches the prediction apparatus according to claim 1, where Kudo further teaches: wherein the predetermined condition includes a condition related to electric power supply based on renewable energy to the supply target (see Kudo, e.g., para. [0002], [0014] & [0019]).
As per claim 7, Kudo in view of Sadatoshi teaches the prediction apparatus according to claim 1, where Kudo further teaches: wherein modifying or re-predicting the progression of one or more predicted values of the first amount of electric power supply comprises modifying or re-predicting the progression of one or more predicted values of the first amount of electric power supply by further using a date and time or information about a position of the sun (see e.g., para. [0014]-[0020]: discloses the feature of using a temperature forecast, etc. for each timespan (correspond to "date/time") when predicting and correcting predictions of power output for each timespan).
As per claim 8, Kudo in view of Sadatoshi teaches the prediction apparatus according to claim 1, where Kudo further teaches: wherein modifying or re-predicting the progression of one or more predicted values of the first amount of electric power supply comprises modifying or re-predicting the progression of one or more predicted values of the first amount of electric power supply by further using at least one item out of wind information and temperature (see e.g., para. [0014]-[0020]: discloses the feature of using a temperature forecast, etc. for each timespan when predicting and correcting predictions of power output for each timespan).
As per claim 9, Kudo in view of Sadatoshi teaches the prediction apparatus according to claim 1, where Sadatoshi further teaches: wherein modifying or re-predicting the progression of one or more predicted values of the first amount of electric power supply comprises modifying or re-predicting the progression of one or more predicted values of the first amount of electric power supply by using wind information, and the image includes an image of a windward sky viewed from the photovoltaic power generation equipment (see e.g., para. [0081]: describes that an image of the sky above the installation site taken from the ground may be acquired as information on the surrounding clouds, and it is recognized that the sky above the installation site also includes an image of the windward sky when viewed from the installation site of the photovoltaic power generation facility).
As per claim 10, Kudo in view of Sadatoshi teaches the prediction apparatus according to claim 1, where Kudo further teaches: wherein the operations further comprise outputting least one type of information out of notification information and control information, based on a comparison result between a modified or re-predicted predicted value of the first amount of electric power supply and a predicted value of an amount of electric power demand at the supply target, and the control information is information for controlling at least one of an amount of electric power supply to the supply target and the amount of electric power demand (see e.g., para. [0033]: “The power generation amount receiving unit 13 receives the amount of electricity from the power meter 5, which measures the power output of the solar power generation system 2…The power generation prediction calculation unit 21A predicts the amount of power generated from the power generation prediction formula derived in the power generation prediction formula derivation unit 20A and the amount of power generated received by the power generation receiving unit 13.”).
As per claim 11, Kudo in view of Sadatoshi teaches a prediction system comprising: the prediction apparatus according to claim 1 as discussed in the rejection of claim 1; where Sadatoshi further teaches: a camera that captures the image of the sky around the photovoltaic power generation equipment in a case where the predetermined condition is determined to be satisfied in the prediction apparatus (see e.g., Figs. 6-7; para. [0076]-[0084]: describes that an image capturing the sky around the installation site of the photovoltaic power device from the ground is used to obtain predicted values for photovoltaic power output).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Kudo to incorporate the teachings of Sadatoshi such that an image capturing the sky around the installation site of the photovoltaic power device from the ground is used to predict the power output for each timespan and to correct the predictions of the power output. Further, it is obvious that in such case, an image capturing the sky around the installation site of the photovoltaic power device from the ground will be acquired at each update of the chronological weather forecast for correcting the power output prediction or at each completed collection of per-arbitrary-timespan real solar radiation for input to the solar radiation prediction formula.
Claim 12 (a prediction method) is drawn to the method of using the corresponding apparatus claimed in claim 1. Therefore, method claim 12 corresponds to apparatus claim 1 and is rejected for the same reasons of obviousness as used above.
Claim 13 (a non-transitory storage medium storing a program) is drawn to the computer program executing a prediction method using the corresponding apparatus claimed in claim 1. Therefore, non-transitory storage medium claim 13 corresponds to apparatus claim 1 and is rejected for the same reasons of obviousness as used above.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 2, 4, and 6 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims, and by overcoming the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. § 101 set forth in this Office action.
Regarding claim 2, the following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter over the prior art: The prior arts of record do not expressly teach or render obvious, wherein
the predetermined condition includes at least one of a condition (1) and a condition (2),
the condition (1) is that a ratio of a predicted value of an amount of electric power demand at the supply target to a predicted value of the first amount of electric power supply satisfies a predetermined first criterion, and
the condition (2) is that a difference between an actual value and a predicted value of the first amount of electric power supply satisfies a predetermined second criterion.
Regarding claim 4, the following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter over the prior art: The prior arts of record do not expressly teach or render obvious, wherein
the predetermined condition includes at least one of a condition (3) and a condition (4),
the condition (3) is reception of information indicating that a second amount of electric power supply being an amount of electric power supply from the electric power system grid to the supply target needs to be changed, and
the condition (4) is reception of information indicating that a third amount of electric power supply being an amount of electric power supply from the source of electric power supply to the electric power system grid needs to be changed
Regarding claim 6, the following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter over the prior art: The prior arts of record do not expressly teach or render obvious, wherein
the predetermined condition includes a condition (5), and
the condition (5) is that a difference between an amount of electric power supply based on renewable energy to the supply target and an amount of electric power demand at the supply target, or a cumulative value of the difference satisfies a third criterion.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Refer to PTO-892, Notice of References Cited for a listing of analogous art.
Arai (U.S. Publication No. 2018/0196896) discloses a photovoltaic power generation amount prediction device, method, and system.
Ishibashi (U.S. Publication No. 2011/0137591) discloses an electric power generation amount estimation device, system, method, and a computer program.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ADNAN AZIZ whose telephone number is (571) 270-7536, (Fax: 571-270-8536). The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday (9am - 6pm Eastern Time).
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, QUAN-ZHEN WANG can be reached at 571-272-3114. 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.
/ADNAN AZIZ/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2685 adnan.aziz@uspto.gov
Prosecution Insights