DETAILED ACTION
In the response filed June 18, 2026, the Applicant amended claims 1, 3-6, and 10; and canceled claim 8. Claims 1-7, 9, and 10 are pending in the current application.
Notice of 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 .
Response to Arguments
Claims 1 and 8 were objected to for informalities. Examiner thanks the Applicant for revising and amending the claim language and hereby withdraws the objection from the previous Office action.
Claims 1-8 were rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being indefinite. Examiner thanks the Applicant for revising and amending the claim language and hereby withdraws the rejection from the previous Office action.
Examiner notes that claim 4 was provided with an explanation of the interpretation of the claim. Applicant states in the remarks that claim 4 has been amended to address the claim interpretation. However, the portion of claim 4 has not been amended in the manner the Applicant has stated in the filed amendments. As such, the claim interpretation of claim 4 is hereby maintained.
Applicant’s arguments for claims 1-7, 9, and 10 with respect to the 35 U.S.C. 101 rejection have been considered but are unpersuasive. Applicant argues that the claims are not directed to a judicial exception. Examiner respectfully disagrees. Here, under broadest reasonable interpretation, the amended describe or set-forth carrying out calculations in order to optimize power grid transmission and distribution, which amounts to concepts performed in the human mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion). These limitations therefore fall within the “mental processes” subject matter grouping of abstract ideas.
As Applicant explains, the claims recite “(1) modeling a physical power generation system (cascade hydropower stations and thermal power generating units) with physical engineering constraints (water balance with lag time, water head, storage capacity); (2) applying specific computational techniques to solve the physical model;” Here still, under broadest reasonable interpretation, the amended describe or set-forth “(1) modeling a physical power generation system (cascade hydropower stations and thermal power generating units) with physical engineering constraints (water balance with lag time, water head, storage capacity); (2) applying specific computational techniques to solve the physical model;” which amounts to concepts performed in the human mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion). These limitations therefore fall within the “mental processes” subject matter grouping of abstract ideas.
Further, claim 1 recites the additional limitation of “outputting dispatch commands based on the optimized cooperative dispatching to control real-time power outputs of the thermal power generating units and the cascade hydropower stations in the hybrid system, thereby maintaining power balance between total generation and equivalent loads of distribution networks connected thereto.” The requirement to execute the claimed step of “outputting dispatch commands based on the optimized cooperative dispatching to control real-time power outputs of the thermal power generating units and the cascade hydropower stations in the hybrid system, thereby maintaining power balance between total generation and equivalent loads of distribution networks connected thereto,” is equivalent to adding the words “apply it” on a generic computer and/or mere instructions to implement the abstract idea on a generic computer. Here, the claims do not recite any limitations that describe how such an output of commands is implemented or what specifically such commands instruct the units and systems to execute. This limitation in the claim merely requires the method to output dispatch commands. These limitations do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea, and therefore do/does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. See § MPEP 2106.05(f).
Applicant argues that the claims are not directed to a judicial exception as they integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Examiner respectfully disagrees. As discussed above, the recited additional elements of “outputting dispatch commands based on the optimized cooperative dispatching to control real-time power outputs of the thermal power generating units and the cascade hydropower stations in the hybrid system, thereby maintaining power balance between total generation and equivalent loads of distribution networks connected thereto,” is equivalent to adding the words “apply it” on a generic computer and/or mere instructions to implement the abstract idea on a generic computer. These limitations therefore do not qualify as “significantly more.” See MPEP § 2106.05(f). In addition, the requirement to execute the claimed steps/functions using “a computer device, comprising a memory and a processor,” (claim 9); and “a computer-readable storage medium in which a computer program is stored, wherein when the computer program is executed by a processor,” (claim 10), is equivalent to adding the words “apply it” on a generic computer and/or mere instructions to implement the abstract idea on a generic computer. These limitations do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea, and therefore do/does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. See § MPEP 2106.05(f).
Applicant argues that the claims recite limitations that amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. Examiner respectfully disagrees. Viewing the additional limitations in combination also shows that they fail to ensure the claims amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. When considered as an ordered combination, the additional components of the claims add nothing that is not already present when considered separately, and thus simply append the abstract idea with words equivalent to “apply it” on a generic computer and/or mere instructions to implement the abstract idea on a generic computer. When considered as an ordered combination, the additional components of the claims add nothing that is not already present when considered separately. Applicant’s arguments remain unpersuasive. The 35 U.S.C. 101 rejection is hereby maintained.
Claim Objections
Claims 1 and 3 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 1, line 4, “a hybrid system cascade hydropower stations” should read --a hybrid system comprising cascade hydropower stations-- as this appears to be Applicant’s intent (see claim 1, lines 35-36, “the thermal power generating units and the cascade hydropower stations in the hybrid system”.
Claim 1, line 17, “cost function of thermal power generating units” should read --cost function of the thermal power generating units-- as there is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation.
Claim 3, line 3, “an optimization objective is that a total operation cost” should read --the optimization objective is that the total operation cost-- as this appears to be a typographical error (see claim 1, line 6-7, “establishing an optimization objective of minimizing a total operation cost of the system,”).Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Interpretation
The claim limitations “if there are excessive distributed power resources in the power distribution network, the equivalent load is negative;” as recited in claim 4, does not move to distinguish the claimed invention from the cited art. The phrases are conditional/contingent limitations with the noted “if there are excessive distributed power resources in the power distribution network, the equivalent load is negative;” as recited in claim 4, steps not necessarily performed.
The broadest reasonable interpretation of a method (or process) claim having contingent limitations requires only those steps that must be performed and does not include steps that are not required to be performed because the condition(s) precedent are not met. Language that suggests or makes optional but does not require steps to be performed or does not limit a claim to a particular structure does not limit the scope of a claim or claim limitation. As such, the claim limitation will not be given patentable weight. See Ex parte Schulhauser, Appeal 2013-007847 (PTAB April 28, 2016) for an analysis of contingent claim limitations in the context of both method claims and system claims; See MPEP §2111.04 II.
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 1-7, 9, and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more.
Step 1: Claims 1-7 are drawn to a process, claim 9 is drawn to a machine, and claim 10 is drawn to a product of manufacture, each of which is within the four statutory categories (e.g., a process, a machine). (Step 1: YES).
Step 2A – Prong One: In prong one of step 2A, the claims are analyzed to evaluate whether they recite a judicial exception.
Claim 1 (representative of claims 9 and 10) recites/describes the following steps:
“collecting power grid transmission and distribution data,”
“carrying out economic dispatching modeling …wherein the economic dispatching modeling comprises establishing an optimization objective of minimizing a total operation cost of the system, the total operation cost comprising a coal consumption cost and a start-stop cost of thermal power stations and a water abandonment cost of hydropower stations, and establishing constraints comprising a water balance constraint accounting for water-flow lag time between upstream and downstream cascade hydropower stations, a water head constraint, a power generation flow constraint, an outflow constraint, a water level constraint, and a water level-storage capacity and unit output relationship constraint;”
“carrying out linearization processing on nonlinear terms in the model, comprising: linearizing a coal consumption cost function of thermal power generating units by piecewise linear approximation; linearizing a water-level-to-storage-capacity nonlinear relationship by introducing 0-1 binary indicator variables and performing piecewise linear interpolation; and discretizing a two-dimensional nonlinear constraint of hydropower unit output as a function of power generation flow and water head into one-dimensional piecewise functions by discretizing storage capacity and power generation flow into segments;”
“carrying out accelerated solving on the model by adopting Benders decomposition, wherein a master problem solves a unit commitment problem without security constraints, and a subproblem performs power flow checking, wherein when an objective function value of the subproblem for a time period is less than a threshold, the subproblem is a feasible subproblem, and wherein when the objective function value of the subproblem for the time period is greater than or equal to the threshold, the subproblem is an infeasible subproblem, and for the infeasible subproblem, violation information is fed back to the master problem to correct a solution of the master problem for a corresponding time period through Benders feasibility cuts containing forward and reverse line power flow slack variables and Lagrangian multipliers of unit output constraints and on-off state constraints, so that power grid transmission and distribution cooperative dispatching is optimized;”
These steps, under broadest reasonable interpretation, describe or set-forth carrying out calculations in order to optimize power grid transmission and distribution, which amounts to concepts performed in the human mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion). These limitations therefore fall within the “mental processes” subject matter grouping of abstract ideas.
As such, the Examiner concludes that claim 1 recites an abstract idea (Step 2A – Prong One: YES).
Dependent claim 2 recites the same abstract idea as the independent claim because it recites the limitation “wherein the power grid transmission and distribution data comprises power generation data, power grid data, market data and environment data; the power generation data comprises reservoir level, fuel consumption rate, generator set efficiency and emission efficiency; the power grid data comprises real-time load data, line loss and line impedance; the market data comprises real-time electricity price; and the environment data comprises temperature, humidity and precipitation,” that further defines the data from the abstract idea. Claim 2 is rejected due to being abstract and does not recite any additional elements/limitations.
Dependent claim 3 recites limitations detailing the economic dispatching modeling, which is the same abstract idea as the independent claim. Claim 3 is rejected due to being abstract and does not recite any additional elements/limitations.
Dependent claim 4 recites limitations detailing the economic dispatching modeling, which is the same abstract idea as the independent claim. Claim 4 is rejected due to being abstract and does not recite any additional elements/limitations.
Dependent claim 5 recites limitations detailing the linearization processing, which is the same abstract idea as the independent claim. Claim 5 is rejected due to being abstract and does not recite any additional elements/limitations.
Dependent claim 6 recites limitations detailing the linearization processing, which is the same abstract idea as the independent claim. Claim 6 is rejected due to being abstract and does not recite any additional elements/limitations.
Dependent claim 7 recites limitations detailing the model adopting Benders decomposition, which is the same abstract idea as the independent claim. Claim 7 is rejected due to being abstract and does not recite any additional elements/limitations.
Step 2A – Prong Two:
The claims recite the additional elements/limitations of: “a hybrid system cascade hydropower stations and thermal power generating units;” “outputting dispatch commands based on the optimized cooperative dispatching to control real-time power outputs of the thermal power generating units and the cascade hydropower stations in the hybrid system, thereby maintaining power balance between total generation and equivalent loads of distribution networks connected thereto,” (claim 1); “a computer device, comprising a memory and a processor,” (claim 9); and “a computer-readable storage medium in which a computer program is stored, wherein when the computer program is executed by a processor,” (claim 10).
The requirement to execute the claimed steps/functions using “a hybrid system cascade hydropower stations and thermal power generating units;” “outputting dispatch commands based on the optimized cooperative dispatching to control real-time power outputs of the thermal power generating units and the cascade hydropower stations in the hybrid system, thereby maintaining power balance between total generation and equivalent loads of distribution networks connected thereto,” (claim 1); “a computer device, comprising a memory and a processor,” (claim 9); and “a computer-readable storage medium in which a computer program is stored, wherein when the computer program is executed by a processor,” (claim 10), is equivalent to adding the words “apply it” on a generic computer and/or mere instructions to implement the abstract idea on a generic computer. These limitations do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea, and therefore do/does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. See § MPEP 2106.05(f).
The Examiner has therefore determined that the additional elements, or combination of additional elements, do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Accordingly, the claims are directed to an abstract idea (Step 2A – Prong two: NO).
Step 2B:
As discussed above in “Step 2A – Prong 2,” the requirement to execute the claimed steps/functions using “a hybrid system cascade hydropower stations and thermal power generating units;” “outputting dispatch commands based on the optimized cooperative dispatching to control real-time power outputs of the thermal power generating units and the cascade hydropower stations in the hybrid system, thereby maintaining power balance between total generation and equivalent loads of distribution networks connected thereto,” (claim 1); “a computer device, comprising a memory and a processor,” (claim 9); and “a computer-readable storage medium in which a computer program is stored, wherein when the computer program is executed by a processor,” (claim 10), is equivalent to adding the words “apply it” on a generic computer and/or mere instructions to implement the abstract idea on a generic computer. These limitations therefore do not qualify as “significantly more.” See MPEP § 2106.05(f).
Viewing the additional limitations in combination also shows that they fail to ensure the claims amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. When considered as an ordered combination, the additional components of the claims add nothing that is not already present when considered separately, and thus simply append the abstract idea with words equivalent to “apply it” on a generic computer and/or mere instructions to implement the abstract idea on a generic computer. When considered as an ordered combination, the additional components of the claims add nothing that is not already present when considered separately.
The Examiner has therefore determined that no additional element, or combination of additional claims elements is/are sufficient to ensure the claims amount to significantly more than the abstract idea identified above (Step 2B: NO).
Indication of Novel and Non-Obvious Subject Matter
Claims 1-7, 9, and 10 recite novel and non-obvious subject matter.
As per claim 1 (representative of claims 9 and 10), the closest prior art of record taken either individually or in combination with other prior art of record fails to teach or suggest “collecting power grid transmission and distribution data, and carrying out economic dispatching modeling …wherein the economic dispatching modeling comprises establishing an optimization objective of minimizing a total operation cost of the system, the total operation cost comprising a coal consumption cost and a start-stop cost of thermal power stations and a water abandonment cost of hydropower stations, and establishing constraints comprising a water balance constraint accounting for water-flow lag time between upstream and downstream cascade hydropower stations, a water head constraint, a power generation flow constraint, an outflow constraint, a water level constraint, and a water level-storage capacity and unit output relationship constraint; carrying out linearization processing on nonlinear terms in the model, comprising: linearizing a coal consumption cost function of thermal power generating units by piecewise linear approximation; linearizing a water-level-to-storage-capacity nonlinear relationship by introducing 0-1 binary indicator variables and performing piecewise linear interpolation; and discretizing a two-dimensional nonlinear constraint of hydropower unit output as a function of power generation flow and water head into one-dimensional piecewise functions by discretizing storage capacity and power generation flow into segments; carrying out accelerated solving on the model by adopting Benders decomposition, wherein a master problem solves a unit commitment problem without security constraints, and a subproblem performs power flow checking, wherein when an objective function value of the subproblem for a time period is less than a threshold, the subproblem is a feasible subproblem, and wherein when the objective function value of the subproblem for the time period is greater than or equal to the threshold, the subproblem is an infeasible subproblem, and for the infeasible subproblem, violation information is fed back to the master problem to correct a solution of the master problem for a corresponding time period through Benders feasibility cuts containing forward and reverse line power flow slack variables and Lagrangian multipliers of unit output constraints and on-off state constraints, so that power grid transmission and distribution cooperative dispatching is optimized;...”
This combination of functions/features would not have been obvious to a PHOSITA in view of the prior art.
Prior Art of Record
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to the applicant’s disclosure.
Hou et al. (US 2014/0074304 A1) discloses a system for load shaving of a power grid, and a tangible computer readable medium. The system may comprise at least one processor; and at least one memory storing computer executable instructions. The at least one memory and computer executable instructions may be configured to, with the at least one processor, cause the system to profile behavior data for power customers to divide the power customers into at least one group; define, based on usage characteristic of each of the at least one group, a possible load shaving strategy for each of the at least one group; and perform load shaving analysis at least under constraint of the possible load shaving strategy for each of the at least one group, to provide a recommended load shaving strategy for each of the power customers.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Patrick Kim whose telephone number is (571)272-8619. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 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, Lynda Jasmin can be reached at (571)272-6782. 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.
/Patrick Kim/Examiner, Art Unit 3629
Prosecution Insights