DETAILED ACTION
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 .
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 1-20 are directed to a method, a computer program product, and a system which would be classified under one of the listed statutory classifications (i.e., 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance (hereinafter “PEG”) “PEG” Step 1=Yes).
However, claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. Independent claim(s) 1, 8, and 15 recite(s) the following abstract idea:
acquiring a discount rate for a utility electric service;
determining a market rate based on a tier of the utility electric service;
calculating a net energy metering (NEM) credit, the NEM credit being determined based on the excess electricity produced;
determining at least one of an electrical generation system or an electrical storage system;
calculating electricity generated from the electrical generation system or the electrical storage system;
generating and displaying, via a graphical user interface (GUI), the NEM credit, calculated actual solar usage, and the electricity generated for a predetermined period;
calculating solar energy usage by comparing inverter production data with real-time utility account or on-premise meter data and net metering credits used within a given period;
computing tenant-specific solar usage in a multi-tenant property to enable per- user solar billing;
determine a dynamic discount rate for billing by applying a predefined discount rate to determine a tenant's solar bill based on actual consumption and;
generate and display, via a graphical user interface (GUI), the NEM credit, solar usage breakdown, and billing based on the actual consumption.
The limitations as detailed above, as drafted, falls within the “Certain Method of Organizing Human Activity” grouping of abstract ideas namely commercial or legal interactions because they recite advertising, marketing and sales activities or behaviors because they merely gather data, analyze the data, determine results based on the analysis, generate tailored content based on the results, and transmit the tailored content. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea (i.e. “PEG” Revised Step 2A Prong One=Yes).
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the claim only recites the additional elements of at least one processor with at least one memory, a non-transitory computer readable medium, and a graphical user interface (e.g. a general-purpose computer with generic computer components).
The following limitations, if removed from the abstract idea and considered additional elements, merely perform generic computer function of processing, storing, communicating (e.g., transmitting and receiving), and displaying data and, as such, are insignificant extra-solution activities (see MPEP 2016.05(d)(II) and MPEP 2106.05(g)):
acquiring a discount rate for a utility electric service (receiving data);
displaying, via a graphical user interface (GUI), the NEM credit, calculated actual solar usage, and the electricity generated for a predetermined period (displaying data); and
generate and display, via a graphical user interface (GUI), the NEM credit, solar usage breakdown, and billing based on the actual consumption (displaying data).
The additional technical elements above are recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as a generic processor and generic computer components performing a generic computers function of processing, communicating and displaying) such that it amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using one or more general-purpose computers and generic computer components. The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the additional technical elements above do not integrate the abstract idea/judicial exception into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. More specifically, the additional elements fail to include (1) improvements to the functioning of a computer or to any other technology or technical field (see MPEP 2106.05(a)), (2) applying or using a judicial exception to effect a particular treatment or prophylaxis for a disease or medical condition (see Vanda memo), (3) applying the judicial exception with, or by use of, a particular machine (see MPEP 2106.05(b)), (4) effecting a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing (see MPEP 2106.05(c)), or (5) applying or using the judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment, such that the claim as a whole is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception (see MPEP 2106.05(e) and Vanda memo).
Rather, the limitations merely add the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on one or more computers, or merely uses computers as a tool to perform an abstract idea (see MPEP 2106.05(f)), or generally link the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use (see MPEP 2106.05(h)).
Thus, the claim is “directed to” an abstract idea (i.e. “PEG” Revised Step 2A Prong Two=Yes)
When considering Step 2B of the Alice/Mayo test, the claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the claims do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea.
More specifically, as discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements of using at least one processor with at least one memory, a non-transitory computer readable medium, and a graphical user interface (e.g. a general-purpose computer with generic computer components) to perform the claimed functions amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using one or more general-purpose computers and one or more generic computer component.
“Generic computer implementation” is insufficient to transform a patent-ineligible abstract idea into a patent-eligible invention (See Affinity Labs, _F.3d_, 120 U.S.P.Q.2d 1201 (Fed. Cir. 2016), citing Alice, 134 S. Ct. at 2352, 2357) and more generally, “simply appending conventional steps specified at a high level of generality” to an abstract idea does not make that idea patentable (See Affinity Labs, _F.3d_, 120 U.S.P.Q.2d 1201 (Fed. Cir. 2016), citing Mayo, 132 S. Ct. at 1300). Moreover, “the use of generic computer elements like a microprocessor or user interface do not alone transform an otherwise abstract idea into patent-eligible subject matter (See FairWarning, 120 U.S.P.Q.2d. 1293, citing DDR Holdings, LLC v. Hotels.com, L.P., 773 F.3d 1245, 1256 (Fed. Cir. 2014)). As such, the additional elements of the claim do not add a meaningful limitation to the abstract idea because they would be generic computer functions in any computer implementation. Thus, taken alone, the additional elements do not amount to significantly more than the above-identified judicial exception (the abstract idea). Looking at the limitations as an ordered combination adds nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually. There is no indication that the combination of elements improves the functioning of the computer or improves any other technology. Their collective functions merely provide generic computer implementation.
The Examiner notes simply implementing an abstract concept on one or more computers, without meaningful limitations to that concept, does not transform a patent-ineligible claim into a patent-eligible one (See Accenture, 728 F.3d 1336, 108 U.S.P.Q.2d 1173 (Fed. Cir. 2013), citing Bancorp, 687 F.3d at 1280), limiting the application of an abstract idea to one field of use does not necessarily guard against preempting all uses of the abstract idea (See Accenture, 728 F.3d 1336, 108 U.S.P.Q.2d 1173 (Fed. Cir. 2013), citing Bilski, 130 S. Ct. at 3231), and further the prohibition against patenting an abstract principle “cannot be circumvented by attempting to limit the use of the [principle] to a particular technological environment” (See Accenture, 728 F.3d 1336, 108 U.S.P.Q.2d 1173 (Fed. Cir. 2013), citing Flook, 437 U.S. at 584), and finally merely limiting the field of use of the abstract idea to a particular existing technological environment does not render the claims any less abstract (See Affinity Labs, _F.3d_, 120 U.S.P.Q.2d 1201 (Fed. Cir. 2016), citing Alice, 134 S. Ct. at 2358; Mayo, 132 S. Ct. at 1294; Bilski v. Kappos, 561 U.S. 593, 612 (2010); Content Extraction & Transmission LLC v. Wells Fargo Bank, Nat’l Ass’n, 776 F.3d 1343, 1348 (Fed. Cir. 2014); buySAFE, Inc. v. Google, Inc., 765 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2014).
Applicant herein only requires one or more general-purpose computer and generic computer components (as evidenced from at least paragraphs 76-83 and 93-99 of the applicant’s specification; and the Intellectual Ventures I v. Capital One decision which discloses that generic interfaces that merely provide information to and accept user input is a generic computer element); therefore, there does not appear to be any alteration or modification to the generic activities indicated, and they are also therefore recognized as insignificant activity with respect to eligibility. Finally, the following limitations, if removed from the abstract idea and considered additional elements, would be considered insignificant extra solution activity as they are directed to merely receiving, displaying, storing, and/or transmitting data (see MPEP 2016.05(d)(II) and MPEP 2106.05(g)):
acquiring a discount rate for a utility electric service (receiving data);
displaying, via a graphical user interface (GUI), the NEM credit, calculated actual solar usage, and the electricity generated for a predetermined period (displaying data); and
generate and display, via a graphical user interface (GUI), the NEM credit, solar usage breakdown, and billing based on the actual consumption (displaying data).
Thus, taken individually and in combination, the additional elements do not amount to significantly more than the above-identified judicial exception (the abstract idea) (i.e., “PEG” Step 2B=No).
The dependent claims 2-7, 9-14, and 16-20 appear to merely further limit the abstract idea by adding additional steps of determining the electricity generated and calculating daily electricity added which are both considered part of the abstract idea (Claims 2, 9, and 16; adding the additional step of calculating the total electricity usage which is considered part of the abstract idea (Claims 3, 10, and 17); adding the additional steps of comparing the electricity generated with electricity consumption, calculating the (NEM) credit; and calculating a solar NEM usage which are all considered part of the abstract idea (Claim 4-6, 11-13, and 18-20); and adding the additional step of determining the NEM credit and the electricity generated for a predetermined period and integrating usage data from real-time monitoring devices which are both considered part of the abstract idea (Claims 7 and 14), and therefore only further limit the abstract idea (i.e. “PEG” Revised Step 2A Prong One=Yes), does/do not include any new additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception, and as such are “directed to” said abstract idea (i.e. “PEG” Step 2A Prong Two=Yes); and do not add significantly more than the idea (i.e. “PEG” Step 2B=No)..
Thus, based on the detailed analysis above, claims 1-20 are 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.
Claims 1-20 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.
Independent claims 1, 8, and 15 are all broad enough to encompass each of the claimed steps being performed by a single computer and recite: “calculating a net energy metering (NEM) credit, the NEM credit being determined based on the excess electricity produced”.
The step of “calculating a net energy metering (NEM) credit, the NEM credit being determined based on the excess electricity produced” would require the applicant’s invention to obtain, in some manner, information that allows it to determine “excess electricity produced”. Unless some third party is merely providing the applicant’s invention with an amount of “excess electricity produced”, the computer performing the step would need to determine the amount of energy produced and the amount of energy used. However, the claimed calculating of the net energy metering credit occurs prior to the applicant invention determining electricity generated or calculating solar energy usage. One of ordinary skill in the art would not be able to determine how the applicant invention is able to calculate a net energy metering credit based on the excess electricity produced without first calculating the energy generated and calculating the solar energy usage. Perhaps, the applicant does not intend the limitations to be an order set of steps and the claimed steps of calculating the energy generated and calculating the solar energy usage are intended to occur prior to the calculating of the net energy metering based on the excess electricity produced? However, if this were the case, one of ordinary skill in the art would not be able to determine how the applicant’s invention can calculate solar energy usage by analyzing net metering credits used. Net metering credits would need to be calculated and awarded before they can be used. However, net metering credits cannot be calculated without solar energy usage being calculated. As currently claimed, neither the net energy metering credit nor the solar energy usage can be calculated without the other being calculated first. As such, it is clear that claim 1, 8, and 15 are indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor, regards as the invention.
Dependent claims 2-7, 9-14, and 16-20 fail to cure the deficiencies of the claim from which they depend and, as such, are rejected by virtue of dependency.
For the purpose of prosecuting the claims the examiner is going to interpret the individual limitations as if they can occur in any order, as the steps of the claims as written cannot be considered to occur in an ordered manner.
Claims 1-7 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.
Independent claims 1 is a method claim and recites: generating and displaying, via a graphical user interface (GUI), the NEM credit, calculated actual solar usage, and the electricity generated for a predetermined period; determining solar energy usage by comparing inverter production data with real-time utility account or on-premise meter data; computing tenant-specific solar usage in a multi-tenant property to enable per- user solar billing; and applying a predefined discount rate to determine a tenant's solar bill based on actual consumption .
Based on the claim as currently written, the step of “generating and displaying…calculated actual solar usage…” occurs prior to the step of “determining solar energy usage…” and does not have antecedent basis the determined solar energy usage that follows because the determined solar energy usage is not indicated as being actual solar usage. There is no actual claimed step of “calculating actual solar usage”. The only calculating being performed in the claim, before the generating and displaying of said “calculated actual solar usage” is calculating a net energy metering credit and calculating electricity generated. However, neither of these calculating steps in inherently required to be associated with solar energy or solar usage. While calculating a net metering credit would require determining a actual or estimated amount of energy generated and the actual or estimated amount of energy used, the generation and use of energy could be any type of energy such as wind, coal, hydroelectric, solar; etc. Thus, it would not inherently require actual solar energy generated and actual solar energy usage. Additionally, the claimed “actual solar usage” is not limited to just “solar energy usage” and, as such, it could be referring to the amount of time that solar panels were collecting solar energy during a time period. As such, one of ordinary skill in the art would not be able to determine the intended metes and bounds of the claimed “calculated actual solar usage” that is generated and displayed in the graphical user interface. How and when does the applicants invention calculate actual solar usage? If the “calculated actual solar usage” is intended to be the equivalent of the claimed “determining solar energy usage”, then how does the applicant’s invention generate and display such data before such data is actually determined? Perhaps, the applicant intends the “calculated actual solar usage” to be some type of unclaimed step associated with “calculating a net energy metering credit”? If so, such a step would need to be positively recited since it is not an inherently required step of “calculating a net energy metering credit”. Perhaps, the applicant intends the claimed “calculated actual solar usage” to be unrelated to solar energy usage, and instead by a different kind of solar usage? If so, the calculating of such solar usage is neither positively claimed nor inherently required to occur during the claim. Does the applicant’s invention merely obtain “a calculated actual solar usage” from a third party, and merely generate and display this received data? Without being able to determine what “calculated actual solar usage” is intended to be and where or how “calculated actual storage usage” was calculated and obtained, the claim is indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor, regards as the invention.
Dependent claims 2-7 fail to cure the deficiencies of the claim from which they depend and, as such, are rejected by virtue of dependency.
For the purpose of prosecuting the claims the examiner is going to interpret the individual limitations as if they can occur in any order, as the steps of the claims as written cannot be considered to occur in an ordered manner.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) 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 the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Janis (PGPUB: 2023/0351529).
Claims 1, 8, and 15: Janis discloses a computer-implemented method, a non-transitory computer-readable medium, and a computing system, the comprising:
at least one processor connected to at least one memory (Paragraphs 105-108); and
a non-transitory computer readable medium including instructions stored thereon that when executed by at least the processor cause the processor (Paragraphs 105-108) to:
acquiring a discount rate for a utility electric service (Paragraph 76: a discount as a percentage or a flat dollar amount that is based on the benefit of using energy from the one or more DER producing assets during the time period rather than getting that same energy from the utility; the discount is also applied to the gross utility cost for each unit to reduce the cost of energy to each unit);
determining a market rate based on a tier of the utility electric service (Paragraph 68: pulling live up to date data points from public utility tariffs, and storing them per time of use segment; time of use segments are determined based on a utility tariff and comprise a time period with a set energy cost per that time of use; a utility tariff is a rate structure associated to a utility company);
calculating a net energy metering (NEM) credit, the NEM credit being determined based on the excess electricity produced (Paragraph 63: internal net energy metering credits are calculated by the energy bank module based on excess electricity produced; Paragraph 66: external net energy metering credits are calculated by the utility credit module based on excess electricity produced);
determining at least one of an electrical generation system or an electrical storage system (Paragraph 40-41: the production module collects energy production data from associated solar systems and inverter (CT’s) energy production history; assigns the energy production assets to the correct virtual grid system; and stores it in the server);
calculating electricity generated accessing data from the electrical generation system or the electrical storage system (Paragraph 40-41: the production module collects energy production data from associated solar systems and inverter (CT’s) energy production history; assigns the energy production assets to the correct virtual grid system; and stores it in the server);
generating and displaying, via a graphical user interface (GUI), the NEM credit, calculated actual solar usage, and the electricity generated for a predetermined period (Paragraph 59-61: The resident user module allows allow users to access their consumption data sets, virtual allocation history, avoided rate criteria and inputs, associated appliances, solar billing history, and notifications for optimizing energy behavior; the interface module allows a user with associated data inside of the virtual grid system to visualize data trends, suggestions, or preferences include suggestions on when automation events would occur, what types of events they want to be notified about, and energy usage patterns; the reporting module allows owners or stakeholders involved in a property to view the different summary or detailed data sets from these modules; Paragraphs 55:the user billing module picks up outputs from the weighting module and avoided cost module to generate a billing output; Paragraphs 50, 54-55, 59-61, 67, 72: weighting module and avoided cost module outputs include for both individual and in aggregate, solar usage, NEM credit and electricity generated by the system);
calculating solar energy usage by comparing inverter production data with real-time utility account or on-premise meter data and net metering credits used within a given period (Paragraphs 42-43: the consumption module collects the energy usage information from the different nodes within the virtual grid system and store and associate the data points to the correct physical attribute; Paragraphs 62-63: the load allocation module determines the shared generation load across the multiple usage nodes and applies it to a virtual allocation leger associated to the users or multiple unit dwelling based on their real consumption at each time period and communicates with the energy bank module to determine time stamped energy bank decrease or increase amounts according load net differences; the load allocation module also determines whether a credit will be generated for too much electricity produced or a need for electricity from outside the property; the energy bank module keeps track of surplus produced energy given real time of generation and usage comparison which will be identified in the allocation module; the solar energy usage takes into account the internal net metering credits used; Paragraph 41: the solar energy produced can come from an inverter; Claim 19: the energy usage information comes from on-premise meter data) .
computing tenant-specific solar usage in a multi-tenant property to enable per-user solar billing (Paragraphs 64: the weighting module is configured to distribute the shared financial incentives identified by the utility credit module based on unique usage behavior per user; the weighted module will factor avoided time of use cost for allocated generation load as described in the allocation module; the weighting module weights the unit usage loads against each other based on positive usage behavior and external utility pricing signals; a % value at the end of a billing cycle per unit will determine how much of the aggregated property utility credit will be associated to each user; the rules will be equally available to all and are based on real time energy pricing weighted by utility price reference; the weighting module will update based on utility time of use updates to incorporate real time market pricing into the weighting calculation);
determine a dynamic discount rate for billing by applying a predefined discount rate to determine a tenant's solar bill based on actual consumption (Paragraph 76: a discount as a percentage or a flat dollar amount that is based on the benefit of using energy from the one or more DER producing assets during the time period rather than getting that same energy from the utility; the discount is also applied to the gross utility cost for each unit to reduce the cost of energy to each unit; Paragraphs 64: a % value at the end of a billing cycle per unit will determine how much of the aggregated property utility credit will be associated to each user) and;
generate and display, via a graphical user interface (GUI), the NEM credit, solar usage breakdown, and billing based on the actual consumption. (Paragraph 59-61: The resident user module allows allow users to access their consumption data sets, virtual allocation history, avoided rate criteria and inputs, associated appliances, solar billing history, and notifications for optimizing energy behavior; the interface module allows a user with associated data inside of the virtual grid system to visualize data trends, suggestions, or preferences include suggestions on when automation events would occur, what types of events they want to be notified about, and energy usage patterns; the reporting module allows owners or stakeholders involved in a property to view the different summary or detailed data sets from these modules; Paragraphs 55:the user billing module picks up outputs from the weighting module and avoided cost module to generate a billing output; Paragraphs 50, 54-55, 59-61, 67, 72: weighting module and avoided cost module outputs include for both individual and in aggregate, solar usage, NEM credit and electricity generated by the system).
Claims 2, 9, and 16: Janis discloses the method of claim 1, the non-transitory computer-readable medium of claim 8, and the computing system of claim 15, further comprising determining the electricity generated by calculating the electricity added to the electrical storage system, and further calculating daily electricity added to the electrical storage system during a predetermined period. (Paragraphs 63, 87-103: time intervals during which energy generated and energy used is compared can be every 15 minutes such that there are 96 intervals in a day; and 2880 time intervals if the time period is 30 days; if excess electricity usage occurs during a time period of a day, the system attempts to allocate energy added to the storage during the same time period on a previous day; time intervals during a time period may be any duration between 30 second intervals and 60 minute intervals; at the end of a full billing time period energy usage data and electricity production are collected across all time intervals during the time period).
Claims 3, 10, and 17: Janis discloses the method of claim 2, the non-transitory computer-readable medium of claim 9, and the computing system of claim 16, further comprising calculating the total electricity usage from the electrical storage system as the sum of daily subtractions from the electrical storage system in a given month. (Paragraphs 63, 87-103: time intervals during which energy generated and energy used is compared can be every 15 minutes such that there are 96 intervals in a day; and 2880 time intervals if the time period is 30 days; if excess electricity usage occurs during a time period of a day, the system attempts to allocate energy added to the storage during the same time period on a previous day; time intervals during a time period may be any duration between 30 second intervals and 60 minute intervals; at the end of a full billing time period energy usage data and electricity production are collected across all time intervals during the time period).
Claim 4-6, 11-13, and 18-20. Janis discloses the method of claim 1, the non-transitory computer-readable medium of claim 8, the computing system of claim 15 and the computing system of claim 17, further comprising
comparing the electricity generated with electricity consumption for a predetermined period to obtain a net electricity usage, wherein net electricity usage includes individual user consumption tracking in shared solar systems for allocation of solar energy in multi-user environments (Paragraphs 63, 87-103: time intervals during which energy generated and energy used is compared can be every 15 minutes such that there are 96 intervals in a day; and 2880 time intervals if the time period is 30 days; if excess electricity usage occurs during a time period of a day, the system attempts to allocate energy added to the storage during the same time period on a previous day; time intervals during a time period may be any duration between 30 second intervals and 60 minute intervals; at the end of a full billing time period energy usage data and electricity production are collected across all time intervals during the time period).
calculating the (NEM) credit from at least one of the electricity generated, the electricity consumed, or the net electricity usage (Paragraph 63: internal net energy metering credits are calculated by the energy bank module based on excess electricity produced; Paragraph 66: external net energy metering credits are calculated by the utility credit module based on excess electricity produced); and
calculating a solar NEM usage (SNU) for a current period based on the balance of SNU from a prior period, wherein the solar NEM usage (SNU) is usage of solar generated electricity that has been allocated dynamically to individual tenants or customers based on their specific energy consumption patterns. (Paragraphs 63, 87-103: time intervals during which energy generated and energy used is compared can be every 15 minutes such that there are 96 intervals in a day; and 2880 time intervals if the time period is 30 days; if excess electricity usage occurs during a time period of a day, the system attempts to allocate energy added to the storage during the same time period on a previous day; time intervals during a time period may be any duration between 30 second intervals and 60 minute intervals; at the end of a full billing time period energy usage data and electricity production are collected across all time intervals during the time period).
Claims 7 and 14: Janis discloses the method of claim 1 and the non-transitory computer-readable medium of claim 8, further comprising determining the NEM credit and the electricity generated for a predetermined period by accessing data from a solar inverter, wherein the solar inverter in communicably coupled to at least the utility electric service and the electrical generation system, and further integrating usage data from real-time monitoring devices such as current transformers. (Paragraphs 36 and 41: the system accesses inverters and current transformers; Paragraphs 63, and 87-103: time intervals during which energy generated and energy used is compared can be every 15 minutes such that there are 96 intervals in a day; and 2880 time intervals if the time period is 30 days; if excess electricity usage occurs during a time period of a day, the system attempts to allocate energy added to the storage during the same time period on a previous day; time intervals during a time period may be any duration between 30 second intervals and 60 minute intervals; at the end of a full billing time period energy usage data and electricity production are collected across all time intervals during the time period)
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Garner (PGPUB: 2014/0074556) which discloses acquiring and tracking both spot rates that utility; acquiring and monitoring status information from a renewable energy system as well as other hardware; calculating charges for each onsite user at contract rates using measurements from user meters but subject to legal limits a utility would charge onsite users and legal restrictions on rates; invoicing each onsite user for charges; and collecting onsite user payments.
Jain (WO 2021/168339) which discloses a virtual grid system that enables allocation of energy produced by an energy producing asset to individual units of a multi-unit building by tracking the amount of electrical energy produced by the energy producing asset and also tracks an amount of electrical energy used by each individual unit; comparing energy production information including pairs of an amount of energy produced and a corresponding time interval during which the amount of energy was produced to energy usage information including pairs of an amount of energy used and a corresponding time interval during which the amount of energy was used; allocating an amount of energy produced during each time interval to the individual units based on the amount of energy consumed by each respective individual unit during the time intervals; and calculating an energy cost allocation for each individual unit.
Shah, How to charge tenants for solar energy on multifamily or commercial properties, December 18, 2023, https://medium.com/energy311/how-to-share-solar-energy-with-tenants-on-a-multi-tenant-property-c7da729bff51, pages 1-9 which discloses using a master-metered building and a ratio utility billing system, wherein tenants can pay fair market value for solar credits being added to their local utility bill, wherein the solar bill can equal a discount applied to the results of a total bill – an ongoing bill.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JOHN W VAN BRAMER whose telephone number is (571)272-8198. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday 5:30 am - 4 pm 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, Spar Ilana can be reached at 571-270-7537. 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.
/John Van Bramer/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3622