DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
This Office action is responsive to the communication received on 04/10/2025 & 12/23/2024. The claims submitted during the preliminary amendment filed on 04/10/2025 are under examination herein. Accordingly, the claims 2-14 are pending, of which the claim(s) 2 & 14 is/are in independent form.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are:
in claim 11:
“a prediction engine”: shown as item 105 in fig. 9 and mentioned in paras. 047, 0101, 0130.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
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 2- 14 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to Judicial Exception (“abstract idea”) without significantly more.
As to claim 2
2. A system, comprising:
a processor; and a memory coupled with the processor, wherein the memory is configured to provide the processor with instructions which when executed cause the processor to:
monitor a plurality of end site devices and battery charging status at remote sites;
receive forward use predications of the plurality of end site devices at the remote sites;
form an aggregate model of the plurality of end site devices used across a local network based on forward use predictions;
compare the aggregate model with network performance to identify a potential problem on the local network, wherein the potential problem relates to predicted use exceeding a local constraint;
adjust local active management plans to reduce energy usage on the local network to avoid exceeding the local constraint; and
enact active management controls to implement the local active management plans.
1. Step 1: Yes. The claim is to a system with a processor and a memory, which is one of the four categories of patent eligible subject matter.
2. Step 2A, Prong 1: Yes. The claim 2 recites limitations shown above with bold emphasis. These limitations with bold emphasis are considered an abstract idea based exception because under BRI they all can be practically performed in human’s mind but for the recitation of generic computer element, namely a processor. Specifically, the limitation of “monitor a plurality of end site devices and battery charging status at remote sites” requires human user observing few (e.g., 3-4) numerical values of “end site devices” and “battery charging status”; such reading/observing of numerical values can be done in human’s mind. The limitations of “form an aggregate model of the plurality of end site devices used across a local network based on forward use predictions; compare the aggregate model with network performance to identify a potential problem on the local network, wherein the potential problem relates to predicted use exceeding a local constraint; adjust local active management plans to reduce energy usage on the local network to avoid exceeding the local constraint” requires calculating a total/aggregated/sum value from the pluralities of received predicted future values of demands for at least two sites to compare with available supply or some other constraints (e.g., like threshold) of the power network so that changing/adjusting some parameters/plans for the power network can be determined. If claim limitations, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, cover performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer component namely a processor, then they fall within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas as in this case. Accordingly, the claim 2 recites an abstract idea.
3. Step 2A, Prong 2: No. This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim recites the additional element(s) shown above without bold emphasis. That is, the claim limitations of:
(1) “a processor; and a memory coupled with the processor, wherein the memory is configured to provide the processor with instructions which when executed cause the processor to:”
(2) “receive forward use predications of the plurality of end site devices at the remote sites”;
(3) “enact active management controls to implement the local active management plans”.
Here, all three limitations are recited at high level of generality and hence are akin to “using a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea - see MPEP 2106.05(f)”, and adding pre-solution insignificant extra-solution and post-solution activities to the judicial exception - see MPEP 2106.05(g) respectively. Furthermore, the additional element 3 (i.e., “enact active management controls to implement the local active management plans”) can be akin to “adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception” since the claim covers every possible type of implementing or enacting of the management control. Simply implementing the abstract idea on a generic computer as by the additional element (1) is not a practical application of the abstract idea.
Furthermore, the individual and combination of additional elements fail to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the above abstract idea. The claim is directed to an abstract idea.
4. Step 2B: No. The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements amount no more than merely using a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea and adding of insignificant extra-solution activities. Furthermore, the last limitation is akin to adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception” as stated above. Examiner takes an Official notice that the limitations of “receive forward use predications of the plurality of end site devices at the remote sites” and “enact active management controls to implement the local active management plans” are well-understood, routine, conventional activities by relying on the cited arts as evidence—Berkhimer memo. Upon reconsideration, the additional elements when considered separately and in combination do not add significantly more (also known as an “inventive concept”) to the exception. The claim is not patent eligible.
As to claim 14
1. Step 1: Yes. The claim recites a series of steps and, therefore, is a process, which is one of the four statutory category.
2. Step 2A, Prong 1: Yes. The claim 14 recites the limitations of:
(1) “monitoring a plurality of end site devices and battery charging status at remote sites” and
(2) “forming an aggregate model of end site device use across a local network based on the forward use predications; comparing the aggregate model with network performance to identify a potential problem on the local network, wherein the potential problem relates to predicted use exceeding a local constraint; adjusting local active management plans to reduce energy usage on the local network to avoid exceeding the local constraint”. Here, both of these limitations can be practically performed in human’s mind for the reasons set forth above in claim 1 and hence fall within the “Mental Processes” grouping of the abstract idea. The mere nominal recitation of a generic processor does not take the claim limitation out of the mental processes grouping Accordingly, the claim recites mental processes based abstract idea.
3. Step 2A, Prong 2: No. This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim recites the additional elements of:
(1) “receiving forward use predications of the plurality of end site devices at the remote sites” and
(2) “enacting active management controls to implement the local active management plans.”
Both additional elements are recited at high level of generality and hence are akin to adding a pre-solution insignificant extra-solution and a post-solution activities to the judicial exception respectively - see MPEP 2106.05(g). Furthermore, the limitation of “enacting active management controls to implement the local active management plans” is akin to “adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception”-- see MPEP 2106.05(f). The individual and combination of additional elements fail to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the above abstract idea. The claim is directed to an abstract idea.
4. Step 2B: No. The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements amount to no more than mere adding of pre-solution and post-solution insignificant extra solution activities. Furthermore, both of these additional elements are well-understood, routine, conventional activities and examiner takes an Official notice to that effect by relying on the cited prior arts as evidence—Berkheimer memo. Upon reconsideration, the additional elements when considered separately and in combination do not add significantly more (also known as an “inventive concept”) to the exception. The claim is not patent eligible.
Regarding claims 3- 7 & 9- 11, these claims depend on claim 2 and hence recite the same abstract idea and additional elements. These claims recite new limitations, but they too can be practically performed in human’s mind and hence still abstract idea. These claims do not recite new additional elements. Therefore, claims 3- 7 & 9- 11 fail to provide a practical application and an inventive concept for the similar reasons discussed above. The claims are not patent eligible.
Regarding claim 8, the claim depends on claim 6 and hence recite the same abstract idea and additional element. The claim 8 recites a limitation of: “provide status and performance reporting to a user based on the data from the plurality of end devices and the data driven predictions”, and this can be an additional element.
However, in the claim, providing status and performance reporting to a user limitation is recited at high level of generality and hence is akin to mere adding of post-solution insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception - see MPEP 2106.05(g). The additional elements individually and in combination still fails to provide a practical application. The limitation of “provide status and performance reporting to a user based on the data from the plurality of end devices and the data driven predictions” is well-understood, routine, conventional activity and examiner takes an Official notice to that effect—Berkheimer memo. Furthermore, additional elements individually and in combination fail to provide an inventive concept. The claim is not patent eligible.
Regarding claim 12, the claim depends on claim 2 and hence recite the same abstract idea and additional element of the claim 2. The claim recites the limitation of:
“process real-time data or periodic data across the plurality of end devices within a particular location to manage an aggregate performance of energy storage resources within at least one identified local constraint; monitor the plurality of end site devices and the energy storage resources for usage, supply and charging rate; receive the forward use predications, risk profiles and available flexibility and spare capacity from the plurality of end site devices and on the local network; aggregate site usage and forecasts to model a predicted overall load forecast, demand and flows across the location or low voltage network; analyze how the forecasts impact local network performance in view of at least one network constraint; schedule adjustments to local active management plans, central or distributed battery resources and EV charging, solar curtailment, heat-resources, and other demand side response assets in order for energy usage in the network satisfying the constraint”. However, this limitation under BRI can be practically performed in human’s mind and still abstract.
The limitation of “enact active management controls to implement the plans” is an additional element but this too recited at high level of generality such that it does not go beyond simply adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception. The additional elements individually and also in combination with the abstract idea fail to provide a practical application and an inventive concept. The claim is not patent eligible.
Regarding claim 13, the claim depends on claim 12 and recites the same abstract idea and additional elements. The claim further adds new limitations, but they too can be performed in human’s mind hence still abstract. The claim fails to provide a practical application and an inventive concept. The claim is not patent eligible.
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.
Claim 11 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.
Regarding claim 11, the claim limitation “a prediction engine” invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function. While fig. 9 shows this as item element 105 that includes logic such as BL and PTV of para. 0101. However, the paras. 0101, 130, and elsewhere merely mention what this engine does rather than how this engine is being implemented. The para. 0130 does mention that “FIGURE 9, this shows a schematic of an example of a plan generator 104 method performed by software 2 within a management”. However, this section of the specification fails to specify the “prediction engine 105” is also implemented by the software 2 or by some hardware (like CPU) or combination of both.
Note: For the examination purpose, a generic processor/CPU that has software to perform prediction task is implemented as claimed “a prediction engine”.
Therefore, the claim is indefinite and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph.
Applicant may:
(a) Amend the claim so that the claim limitation will no longer be interpreted as a limitation under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph;
(b) Amend the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites what structure, material, or acts perform the entire claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(c) Amend the written description of the specification such that it clearly links the structure, material, or acts disclosed therein to the function recited in the claim, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)).
If applicant is of the opinion that the written description of the specification already implicitly or inherently discloses the corresponding structure, material, or acts and clearly links them to the function so that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize what structure, material, or acts perform the claimed function, applicant should clarify the record by either:
(a) Amending the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function and clearly links or associates the structure, material, or acts to the claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(b) Stating on the record what the corresponding structure, material, or acts, which are implicitly or inherently set forth in the written description of the specification, perform the claimed function. For more information, see 37 CFR 1.75(d) and MPEP §§ 608.01(o) and 2181.
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, 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.
Claim(s) 2- 8 & 11- 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Takahashi et al., (US 20130311236 A1) in view of Pollack et al. (US 20080039980 A1).
Regarding claim 2, Takahashi teaches a system [“a consumption adjustment server 100 is a server”, wherein the server to “adjust the total amount of electric power consumption in the entire community in the future to match the electric power supply to the community, and distributing the request to the community”], comprising: a processor [“server 100 can be realized by one or plural computer machines which have a micro processor and a storage device” and can include “functional units 121 to 133”]; and a memory coupled with the processor, wherein the memory is configured to provide the processor with instructions which when executed cause the processor to: ([041-043, 058]);
monitor a plurality of end site devices [demander EMSs 143s… manage energy consumption in each electric vehicle or the like, or may be apart of these systems”, wherein each of demanders include various “consuming apparatus 153”]
receive forward use predications [“predicts future demand in the community based on the actual consumption by those demander”] of the plurality of end site devices at the remote sites ([041, 052, 074, 0150]);
form an aggregate model [“the total demand prediction database 109, a total demand prediction value [Wh] of electric power of the entire community”, “the total demand predicting unit 125, every day, predicts a total demand value of the entire community by timeslot of the following day”] of the plurality of end site devices used across a local network based on forward use predictions ([052, 072-074]);
compare [Fig. 5, S42-S44: total demand vs total power generation] the aggregate model with network performance [“a total power generation prediction value [Wh] of the entire community for the following day in the entire community”] to identify a potential problem [demand exceeding the generation] on the local network, wherein the potential problem relates to predicted use exceeding a local constraint ([053, 075, 0116-0117]);
adjust [“some selected demanders” adjust the power demand, “the adjustment request generating unit 133, every day, decides a request value of a consumption adjustment request to be distributed to the community”] local active management plans to reduce energy usage on the local network to avoid [ “whether or not the total demand balance value [Wh] of the following day departs from a range between an upper threshold value and a lower threshold”] exceeding the local constraint; and enact [“creates a consumption adjustment request for the following day”] active management controls to implement the local active management plans ([094, 0136, 0142, 0148]).
While some of the devices of the demanders EMS 143 may include consuming apparatus 153 as electric vehicle(s) (para. 036) known to include batteries, Takahashi may not explicitly teach the monitoring battery charging status at remote sites
Pollack relates to a power aggregation system [“flow control center 102” including a flow control server 106] for numerous electric resources that include electric vehicles 112 intermittently connected to the power grid 114 (Abstract, Fig. 1, [043, 078]). Specifically, Pollack teaches a system [“flow control center 102”] with processor to: monitor a plurality of end site devices and battery charging status [“resources 112 of the exemplary power aggregation system 100 may include the batteries of electric vehicles”, wherein IPF module 134 performs “providing the flow control center102 with the statuses of remote resources”, “communicate with the electric resources 112 to gather data …gather real-time resource statistics; [0066] predict behavior of electric resources 112(connectedness, location, state (such as battery State-Of-Charge) at time of connect/disconnect)”. These information provides indication about battery charging status of vehicles] at remote sites and adjust charging time/amount to the end site devices to optimize powering of the end site devices/resources 112 ([043-045, 066-067, 0104]).
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to have (1) combined Pollack and Takahashi because they both related to a monitoring system collecting data about pluralities of devices of remote sites including electric vehicles that provide/receive power from the power grid and (2) modified system of Takashi to also monitor battery charging status of each electric vehicle as in Pollack. Doing so would allow to identify whether a large amount of power demand is about to be experienced soon or not since PHOSITA knows vehicle’s battery require large amount of power from the power grid. Furthermore, doing so would enable more accurate control and transaction of energy exchange between electric vehicles and power grids in the system of Takashi (Pollack [0148]).
Regarding claim 3, Takashi in view of Pollack teaches the system of claim 2, wherein the local constraint corresponds to a consumer and utility supply constraint [generated power or available power not meeting the total power demand in S44] in time shifting energy use and/or coupled with local network constraints for managing a set of resources within the local network to avoid constraints imposed by an infrastructure of the local network (Takashi [013, 041], Fig. 5 & Pollack [093-095]).
Regarding claim 4, Takashi in view of Pollack teaches the system of claim 3, wherein available flexibility and risk profiles [“instruction from the user”, “aggregation preferences and constraints”] from end site resources are used to defer charging (Takahashi [039, 057], Pollack [093-095, 098]).
Regarding claim 5, Takashi in view of Pollack teaches the system of claim 3, wherein the predictions are based at least in part on tracking EV vehicle location [“using signals from a global positioning satellite (GPS) system”] (Pollack [089, 0163]).
Regarding claim 6, Takashi in view of Pollack teaches the system of claim 2, wherein the processor is further configured to:
Optimize [“optimize figures of merit”] behind-the-meter (BTM) benefits by the system (Pollack [093-094, 0102]); and
process data [“statistical processing for demand prediction”] from the plurality of end devices to manage flexibility delivered by charging/discharging distributed energy storage resources by: a) analyzing data sources including one or more of i) energy use, ii) local solar production [“capability value of many solar power”], iii) weather forecast data iv) calendar information, past performance and learnt behavior v) tariff profile information [“peak time rates;”] vi) customer preferences [“the preferences of the user”], b) performing algorithmic approaches to make data-driven predictions of energy use including one or more of i) predicted load ii) solar generation iii) EV charge usage iv) battery charge plan v) risk profiles and flexibility, and c) using the data driven predictions [“total demand prediction value 214”] to produce a charge plan for a storage resource to produce a desired goal [“satisfy constraints on the exemplary power aggregation system 100”] (Takahashi [074, 077, 0105, 115, 0143] & Pollack [0182, 0200]—Pollack teaches details for Takashi about how to meet user’s pluralities of goals/constraints while the server generated schedule are processed by the end resources of Takahashi).
Regarding claim 7, Takashi in view of Pollack teaches the system of claim 6, wherein the desired goal includes one or more of the following:
i) minimizing energy use from a grid, ii) maximizing self-consumption of solar resources, iii) minimizing price, iv) minimizing CO2,v) optimizing battery performance, vi) managing state of charge and battery performance, vii) achieving a charging goal for battery readiness at a certain time, viii) responding to a change request or flexibility opportunity from a third party, and ix) providing capacity to respond to flexibility opportunities (Pollack [062, 0102]—" combination of maximizing economic value and minimizing environmental impact, etc.”).
Regarding claim 8, Takashi in view of Pollack teaches the system of claim 6, wherein the processor is configured to: provide status and performance reporting to a user based on the data from the plurality of end devices and the data driven predictions (Pollack [0169, 0174]).
Regarding claim 11, Takahashi in view of Pollack teaches the system of claim 2, wherein: data is shared with a prediction engine [predicting unit 125] and an economic model [“cost”, “price”] to determine a charging plan for a battery [vehicle charging means a charging plan for a battery]; the economic model is configured to calculate an impact of an example plan with reference to a tariff model [“peak” time known to include tariff] or store; and the prediction engine is configured to: calculate a forward model of consumption and generation for applying such a plan, store the prediction to enable performance monitoring and feedback to the system or requests for new predictions if there is divergence [“updates the adjustment model”] of measured variables from a forecast, and manage a storage and deployment of the plan to ensure end assets perform in accordance with plan objectives (Takahashi [074, 081, 0174]).
Regarding claim 12, Takahashi in view of Pollack teaches the system of claim 2, wherein the processor is further configured to:
process real-time data [“notifying unit 157 which notifies the consumption adjustment server 100, in real time or periodically”] or periodic data across the plurality of end devices within a particular location to manage an aggregate performance of energy storage resources within at least one identified local constraint (Takahashi [038]);
monitor [“system 100 continuously monitors the system operating level and activates or deactivates resources 112”] the plurality of end site devices and the energy storage resources for usage, supply and charging rate; receive the forward use predications, risk profiles and available flexibility and spare capacity from the plurality of end site devices and on the local network; aggregate [“aggregation system 100 aggregates and controls the load presented by many charging/uploading electric vehicles 200”] site usage and forecasts to model a predicted overall load forecast, demand and flows across the location or low voltage network (Takahashi [041]); analyze how the forecasts impact local network performance in view of at least one network constraint; schedule adjustments to local active management plans, central or distributed battery resources and EV charging, solar curtailment, heat-resources, and other demand side response assets in order for energy usage in the network satisfying the constraint; and enact active management controls to implement the plans (Takahashi [036] & Pollack [0100, 0103, 0113]).
Regarding claim 13, Takahashi in view of Pollack teaches the system according to claim 12, wherein the at least one network constraint corresponds with one or more of the following:
power quality issues, voltage rise, voltage drop, limits on different phases, network faults, power quality issues, deployment of an additional loads on the network, generation means on the network [“a total power generation prediction value [Wh] of the entire community”], electric vehicle charging, heat-pumps, electrification of heating, solar/EV export to a grid, leading to assets running at higher stresses, increasing fault rate, or increasing a challenge of managing the grid (Takahashi [053] & Pollack [0198]).
Regarding claim 14, Takahashi in view of Pollack teaches invention of this method claim for the similar reasons set forth above in system claim 1.
Claim(s) 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Takahashi in view of Pollack, and further in view of Tellefsen et al. (US 20080126264 A1).
Regarding claim 10, Takahashi in view of Pollack The system of claim 2, wherein the processor is further configured to: find
However, Takahashi in view of Pollack fails to teach using of Nash equilibrium as claimed.
Tellefsen teaches a computer system to find Nash equilibrium [“using a Nash equilibrium computation in generating optimized prices for use in a business to business price optimization system,”] approaches to optimize a goal ([080, 0137]).
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to have (1) combined Tellefsen and Takahashi in view of Pollack because they both related to using some approach to optimize minimize the cost goal and (2) modified processor of Takahashi in view of Pollack find Nash equilibrium approaches to optimize a goal as in Tellefsen. Doing so the optimization process to minimize the cost can be performed in Takahashi in view of Pollack with well-established algorithm that allows to break down complex and high-dimensional problems into smaller manageable subproblems.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 9 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 101, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
1) Kitajima (US 20140163743 A1) teaches compare the aggregate model [“the sum of the power demand”] with network performance to identify a potential problem on the local network ([060]).
2) Sedighy (US 20130166084 A1) teaches Maintaining a balance between generation and demand in a micro-grid network ([032]).
Contacts
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SANTOSH R. POUDEL whose telephone number is (571)272-2347. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday (8:30 am - 5:00 pm).
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, Kamini Shah can be reached at (571) 272-2279. 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.
/SANTOSH R POUDEL/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2115
Prosecution Insights