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
Status of Claims
This action is a first action on the merits in response to the application filed on 11/21/2024.
Claims 1 – 24 are currently pending and have been examined in this application.
Examiner notes in Claim 19 the computer readable storage medium is explicitly defined in the Specification as a tangible device (see Spec ¶0099).
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 1-24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. Claim 1 recites:
retrieving weather data over a predetermined time period from weather resources connected to the internet;
obtaining solar energy generation ratings of a solar energy system of a user; forecasting a solar energy peak generation profile over the predetermined time period for the solar energy system based on the weather data and the solar energy generation ratings;
obtaining energy consumption ratings of a plurality of devices used by the user that are connected to, and powered by, the solar energy system;
determining an energy consumption pattern of the user’s use of the plurality of devices over the predetermined time period;
predicting, during the predetermined time period, when one or more offshoots of the energy consumption pattern will occur, wherein the energy consumption pattern will exceed the forecasted solar energy peak generation profile; and
avoiding the one or more offshoots of the energy consumption pattern by first modifications of the user’s use of a first set of devices of the plurality of devices during the predetermined time period, wherein the avoiding results in a reduction of energy consumption costs or a reduction in CO2 emissions.
The limitation under its broadest reasonable interpretation covers Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activities related to managing personal behaviors, but for the recitation of generic computer components (e.g. a processor and memory). For example, determining energy consumption pattern, predicting when an offshoot will occur, and modifying a user’s use of a first set of devices involve managing a user’s personal behavior. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea of Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity.
Additionally, the claims encompass Mental Processes related to observation and evaluation of data.
Independent Claims 9 and 17 substantially recite the subject matter of Claim 1 and also include the abstract ideas identified above. The dependent claims encompass the same abstract ideas. For instance, Claim 2 is directed to prohibiting the user’s use of the first set of devices (analyzing data); Claims 3-4 are directed to notifying a user of a disconnect signal to disconnect devise and overriding the signal; Claim 5 is directed to predicting when a consumption peeks will occur and reducing the energy consumption peaks by a second notification (analyzing data); Claim 6 is directed to shifting the time of the user’s use of the second set of devices during a time period (analyzing data); Claim 7 notifying the user that shift signal will automatically shift is to be generated, overriding the generation of the shift signal and generating the signal if override signal is not generated and user retrieving calendar data and Claim 8 is directed to advising the user to manually shift the time of the user’s use of the second set of devices. Claims 10-16 and 18-24 substantially recite the subject matter of claims 2-8 and encompass same abstract ideas. Claims 3-4 are directed to the displaying invitation information and Claim 5 is identifying a service provider (e.g. evaluation). Thus, the dependent claims further limit the abstract concepts found in the independent claims.
The judicial exceptions are not integrated into a practical application. Claim 9 recites the additional elements of a computer system comprising at least one memory and one or more processors. Claim 17 recites the additional elements of a computer system product comprising at least one computer readable storage medium readable by a processing circuit. These are generic computer components recited at a high level of generality as performing generic computer functions (see Spec ¶0075).
For instance, the steps of receiving weather data over a predetermined time period, obtaining solar energy generation ratings and obtaining energy consumption rations of a plurality of devices are data gathering activity. The steps of forecasting a solar energy peak generation profile, determining an energy consumption pattern and predicting when one or more offshoots of the energy consumption pattern will occur involve data analysis. The step of avoiding the one or more offshoots of the energy consumption pattern first modifications of the user’s use of a first device involves updating data.
Each of the additional limitations is no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer components (e.g. a processor). The combination of these additional elements is no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component (e.g. a processor). Therefore, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract ideas into a practical application because it does not impose meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. Therefore, the claims are directed to an abstract idea.
The dependent claims when analyzed both individually and in combination are also held to be ineligible for the same reason above and the additional recited limitations fail to establish that the claims are not directed to an abstract. The additional limitations of the dependent claims when considered individually and as an ordered combination do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea.
Looking at these limitations as an ordered combination and individually adds nothing additional that is sufficient to amount to significantly more than the recited abstract idea because they simply provide instructions to use generic computer components, to "apply" the recited abstract idea. Thus, the elements of the claims, considered both individually and as an ordered combination, are not sufficient to ensure that the claim as a whole amounts to significantly more than the abstract idea itself. Therefore, Claims 1-24 are not patent eligible.
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 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 set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied 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, 2, 5, 9, 10, 13, 17, 18 and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Buttgenbach et al. (US 2023/0231378) in view of Huang et al. ( CN 117477786).
Claim 1:
Buttgenbach discloses:
A computer implemented method for managing solar energy consumption of a user, the method comprising: (see at least ¶0034, energy management system)
retrieving weather data over a predetermined time period from weather resources connected to the internet; (see at least ¶0085-¶0086, forecasts based on weather conditions; see also ¶0098)
obtaining solar energy generation ratings of a solar energy system of a user; (see at least ¶0034 and ¶0037, energy generation of the RES (solar photovoltaic))
forecasting a solar energy peak generation profile over the predetermined time period for the solar energy system based on the weather data and the solar energy generation ratings; (see at least ¶0034, forecast an amount of electrical energy available from RES (solar) and ESS (energy storage system) for a plurality of time periods; see also ¶0083))
determining an energy consumption pattern of the user’s use of the plurality of devices over the predetermined time period; (see at least ¶0085, forecasts based on historical consumption patterns, during times of day, year and weather conditions; see also ¶0117, energy usage patterns)
predicting, during the predetermined time period, when one or more offshoots of the energy consumption pattern will occur, wherein the energy consumption pattern will exceed the forecasted solar energy peak generation profile; and (see at least ¶0034, EFAS communicate with user when consumer load is predicted to exceed the maximum energy limit; see also ¶0087)
avoiding the one or more offshoots of the energy consumption pattern by first modifications of the user’s use of a first set of devices of the plurality of devices during the predetermined time period, wherein the avoiding results in a reduction of energy consumption costs or a reduction in CO2 emissions. (see at least ¶0034-¶0035, EFAS communicate a reduction plan to a user when consumer load is predicted to exceed the maximum energy limit; see also ¶0088, the energy reduction plan may comprise communicating to a user “you are currently consuming 25 kW and we need to ask you to reduce your average consumption to 15 kW for the rest of today”, “you would usually consume 50 kWh during the next 12 hours; we need to ask you to reduce this to 35 kWh today,” or provide recommendations)
While Buttgenbach discloses the above limitations, Buttgenbach does not explicitly disclose the following limitations; however, Huang does disclose:
obtaining energy consumption ratings of a plurality of devices used by the user that are connected to, and powered by, the solar energy system; (see at least pg. 9, para 1, high energy consumption device needs 20 kilowatt per hour)
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, to combine the managing of electrical energy generated in a microgrid of Buttgenbach with the determining kilowatts for a high energy consumption device of Huang in order to analyze and predict energy consumption (see Abstract)
Claim 2:
Buttgenbach and Huang disclose claim 1. Buttgenbach further discloses:
wherein the avoiding the one or more offshoots comprises: prohibiting the user’s use of the first set of devices when the one or more offshoots are predicted to occur. (see at least ¶0082, active meters can be shut down; see also ¶0034, signaling equipment to shut down when it is predicted to exceed energy consumption)
Claim 5:
Buttgenbach and Huang disclose claim 1. Buttgenbach further discloses:
predicting, during the predetermined time period, when one or more energy consumption peaks of the energy consumption pattern will occur; and (see at least ¶0034-¶0035, EFAS communicate a reduction plan to a user when consumer load is predicted to exceed the maximum energy limit; see also ¶0088, the energy reduction plan may comprise communicating to a user “you are currently consuming 25 kW and we need to ask you to reduce your average consumption to 15 kW for the rest of today”, “you would usually consume 50 kWh during the next 12 hours; we need to ask you to reduce this to 35 kWh today,” or provide recommendations)
reducing the one or more energy consumption peaks of the energy consumption pattern by second modifications of the user’s use of a second set of devices of the plurality of devices during the predetermined time period, wherein the reducing results in a further reduction of energy consumption costs or a further reduction in CO2 emissions. (see at least ¶0034-¶0035, EFAS communicate a reduction plan to a user when consumer load is predicted to exceed the maximum energy limit; see also ¶0088, the energy reduction plan may comprise communicating to a user “you are currently consuming 25 kW and we need to ask you to reduce your average consumption to 15 kW for the rest of today”, “you would usually consume 50 kWh during the next 12 hours; we need to ask you to reduce this to 35 kWh today,” or provide recommendations)
Claims 9, 10 and 13 for a system (Buttgenbach see ¶0202) and Claims 17, 18 and 21 for a CRM (Buttgenbach see ¶0041) substantially recite the subject matter of Claims 1, 2 and 5 for a method and are rejected under the same rationale.
Claims 3, 4, 6 -8, 11, 12, 14-16, 19, 20 and 22 - 24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Buttgenbach et al. (US 2023/0231378) in view of Huang et al. ( CN 117477786) further in view of Mathews et al. (US 2023/0418346).
Claim 3:
While Buttgenbach discloses claim 2 and Buttgenbach further disclose wherein the prohibiting comprises: notifying the user that a disconnect signal to automatically disconnect the first set of devices from the solar energy system is about to be generated; see also ¶0034, signaling equipment to shut down when it is predicted to exceed energy consumption; see also ¶0088, EFAS may communicate with user before taking action), neither Buttgenbach and Huang disclose the following limitations; however, Mathews does disclose:
wherein the prohibiting comprises: notifying the user that a disconnect signal to automatically disconnect the first set of devices from the solar energy system is about to be generated; (see at least ¶0062, receiving a notification about an upcoming control action to turn off appliance)
overriding the generation of the disconnect signal via generation of a first user implemented override signal, if the user decides not to disconnect the first set of devices; and generating the disconnect signal, if the first user implemented override signal is not generated. (see at least ¶0062, receiving a notification about an upcoming control action to turn off appliance and residential user can use mobile app to override the control action)
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, to combine the managing of electrical energy generated in a microgrid of Buttgenbach and the determining kilowatts for a high energy consumption device of Huang with the control actions of Mathews to provide automatic and manual control actions to a device to help facilitate control of devices and appliances (see ¶0005).
Claim 4:
While Buttgenbach discloses claim 2, neither Buttgenbach nor Huang discloses the following limitation; however, Mathews does disclose:
wherein the prohibiting comprises: advising the user to manually disconnect the first set of devices from the solar energy system when the one or more offshoots are predicted to occur. (see at least ¶0102,control action prompts user to intervene manually to turn off a device or appliance)
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, to combine the managing of electrical energy generated in a microgrid of Buttgenbach and the determining kilowatts for a high energy consumption device of Huang with the control actions of Mathews to provide automatic and manual control actions to a device to help facilitate control of devices and appliances (see ¶0005).
Claim 6:
While Buttgenbach discloses claim 5, neither Buttgenbach nor Huang discloses the following limitation; however, Mathews does disclose:
wherein the reducing the one or more energy consumption peaks comprises: shifting the time of the user’s use of the second set of devices during the predetermined time period, such that the second set of devices are not used when the one or more energy consumption peaks are predicted to occur. (see at least ¶0095, determining a condition is met scheduler transmits automated control action (e.g. turn off, temp control) at any suitable time or period indicating a time shift for using device; see also ¶0102, recommendation can prompt user to switch off a device, to run a device at a particular hour in the day; see also ¶0051-¶0052, home scheduler determines device is eligible for automated control and can control devices when a condition occurs, may transmit a recommendation to a user to make manual adjustments such as adjusting temps or turning off device; see also ¶0060)
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, to combine the managing of electrical energy generated in a microgrid of Buttgenbach and the determining kilowatts for a high energy consumption device of Huang with the control actions of Mathews to provide automatic and manual control actions to a device to help facilitate control of devices and appliances (see ¶0005).
Claim 7:
While Buttgenbach, Huang and Mathews disclose claim 6, neither Buttgenbach nor Huang discloses the following limitation; however, Mathews does disclose:
wherein the shifting the time of the user’s use comprises: notifying the user that a shift signal to automatically shift the time of the user’s use of the second set of devices during the predetermined time period is about to be generated; (see at ¶0062, notifying user about upcoming control actions; see also ¶0076- ¶0077
overriding the generation of the shift signal via generation of a second user implemented override signal, if the user decides not to shift the user’s use of the second set of devices; and (see at least ¶0021, overriding control actions; see also ¶0077, user has ability to override control action; see also
generating the shift signal, if the second user implemented override signal is not generated. (see at least ¶0077, in response to not overriding an automatic control action the schuelder transmit control action to a device)
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, to combine the managing of electrical energy generated in a microgrid of Buttgenbach and the determining kilowatts for a high energy consumption device of Huang with the control actions of Mathews to provide automatic and manual control actions to a device to help facilitate control of devices and appliances (see ¶0005).
Claim 8:
While Buttgenbach discloses claim 6, neither Buttgenbach nor Huang discloses the following limitation; however, Mathews does disclose:
wherein the shifting the time of the user’s use comprises: advising the user to manually shift the time of the user’s use of the second set of devices during the predetermined time period, such that the second set of devices are not used when the one or more energy consumption peaks are predicted to occur. (see at least ¶0046, prompting user to manually change settings on a device; see also ¶0062, sending recommendations prompting the user to manually manage uncontrolled loads)
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, to combine the managing of electrical energy generated in a microgrid of Buttgenbach and the determining kilowatts for a high energy consumption device of Huang with the control actions of Mathews to provide automatic and manual control actions to a device to help facilitate control of devices and appliances (see ¶0005).
Claims 11, 12 and 14-16 for a system (Buttgenbach see ¶0202) and Claims 19, 20 and 22 - 24 for a CRM (Buttgenbach see ¶0041) substantially recite the subject matter of Claims 3, 4 and 6-8 for a method and are rejected under the same rationale.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered relevant but not applied:
Lee et al. (US 2024/0212075) discloses an energy management apparatus and an energy management method, capable of performing an optimized energy management using a deep learning algorithm, and an energy management.
Golden et al. (US 2017/0186) discloses monitoring energy consumption including establishing an energy budget for a future time period, receiving device information for a plurality of electrical devices and associating the device information with the energy budget, periodically measuring electrical usage from the plurality of electrical devices, projecting future energy consumption for the future time period based on the measured electrical usage, and automatically generating an alert.
Any inquiry of a general nature or relating to the status of this application or concerning this communication or earlier communications from the Examiner should be directed to Renae Feacher whose telephone number is 571-270-5485. The Examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 9:00 am - 5:00 pm. If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the Examiner's supervisor, Beth Boswell can be reached at 571-272-6737.
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.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://portal.uspto.gov/external/portal/pair. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866.217.9197 (toll-free).
Any response to this action should be mailed to:
Commissioner of Patents and Trademarks
Washington, D.C. 20231
or faxed to 571-273-8300.
Hand delivered responses should be brought to the United States Patent and Trademark Office Customer Service Window:
Randolph Building
401 Dulany Street
Alexandria, VA 22314.
/Renae Feacher/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3625