DETAILED ACTION
Introduction
This Non-Final Office Action ins in response to the application with serial number 18/954,277, filed on November 20, 2024.
Claims 1-15 are pending.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement filed on November 20, 2024, has been considered.
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.
The Manual of Patent Examining Procedure (MPEP) provides detailed rules for determining subject matter eligibility for claims in §2106. Those rules provide a basis for the analysis and finding of ineligibility that follows.
Claims 1-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101. The claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter because the claimed invention recites a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more. Under Step 1 of the subject matter eligibility analysis, claims(s) 1-15 are all directed to one of the four statutory categories of invention. However, under step 2A, prong one, the claims recite a judicial exception: generating an optimal energy generation schedule (as evidenced by exemplary independent claim 1; “generating . . . an optimal energy generation schedule”), an abstract idea. Certain methods of organizing human activity are ineligible abstract ideas, including managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people. See MPEP §2106.04(a). The limitations of exemplary claim 1 include: ”receiving . . . an energy volume . . . generated by a corresponding plurality of energy generation system [sic];” “predicting . . . a current market price value;” “computing . . . an expected revenue . . . based on a corresponding predicted current market price, corresponding multi-energy bilateral agreement price and a corresponding generated energy volume;” “computing . . . an energy generation cost . . . based on the corresponding generated energy volume;” “computing . . . an energy conversion cost for each of a plurality of energy type pairs;” “computing . . . an energy storage cost . . . based on a corresponding charged an discharged energy and, a storage penalty cost;” “computing . . . a market price variation risk;” “obtaining . . . a market price risk forecast;” and “generating . . . an optimal energy generation schedule . . . to achieve one of (i) maximizing profit and (ii) minimize the loss based on the risk aversion factor. The steps are all steps for managing personal behavior related to the abstract idea of generating an optimal energy generation schedule that, when considered alone and in combination, are part of the abstract idea of generating an optimal energy generation schedule. The dependent claims further recite steps for managing personal behavior that are part of the abstract idea of generating an optimal energy generation schedule. These claim elements, when considered alone and in combination, are considered to be abstract ideas because they are directed to a method of organizing human activity which includes maximizing profit and minimizing costs based on risk and market factors.
Under step 2A, prong two, of the subject matter eligibility analysis, a claim that recites a judicial exception must be evaluated to determine whether the claim provides a practical application of the judicial exception. Additional elements of the independent claims amount to generic computer hardware that does not provide a practical application (processors in independent claim 1, a system with a memory, I/O interfaces, and processors in independent claim 6; and a machine-readable storage medium in independent claim 11). See MPEP §2106.04(d)[I]. The claims do not recite an improvement to another technology or technical field, nor do they recite an improvement to the functioning of the computer itself. See MPEP §2106.05(a). Because the claims only recite use of a generic computer, they do not apply the judicial exception with a particular machine. See MPEP §2106.05(b). Under step 2B of the subject matter eligibility analysis, the claims do not integrate the abstract idea into a judicial exception. Referring to the additional elements provided in the analysis in step one, above, the generic computer hardware does not provide significantly more than the recited abstract idea. See MPEP §2106.05(f).
For these reasons, the claims do not provide a practical application of the abstract idea, nor do they amount to significantly more than an abstract idea under step 2B of the subject matter eligibility analysis. Using a generic computer to implement an abstract idea does not provide an inventive concept. Therefore, the claims recite ineligible subject matter under 35 USC §101.
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 1-15 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.
Claims 1, 6, and 11 recite the limitation "the risk aversion factor". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. The dependent claims inherit the deficiency.
Lack of Prior Art Rejection
A thorough search was conducted, but the search did not return prior art that anticipates or renders obvious the combination of elements recited in the claims. The claims would be allowable, if the rejection for lack of subject matter eligibility under 35 USC §101 were overcome.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
US 20110231028 A1 to Ozog. A method for optimization of microgrid energy use and optimization is disclosed. Pricing based on bilateral agreements is discussed, in addition to optimization based on mean and variance forecasting of demand.
US 20200265350 A1 to Padullaparthi et al. A method of estimating energy capacity and usage patterns in electric networks is discussed. The method uses an energy conversion function.
US 11416936 B1 to Jenkins et al. A system is disclosed for managing a renewable energy asset. The method uses a means variance technique for determining energy storage configurations.
CN 110322068 A to Zhang et al. A method is disclosed for management of an energy system that teaches use of a full-system conversion efficiency matrix and a replacement matrix.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to RICHARD N SCHEUNEMANN whose telephone number is (571)270-7947. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9am-5pm EST.
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, Patricia Munson can be reached at 571-270-5396. 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.
/RICHARD N SCHEUNEMANN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3624