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 .
DETAILED ACTION
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 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e. abstract idea) without anything significantly more.
Step 1: Claims 1-11 are directed to a system, claims 12-15 are directed to a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium, and claims 16-20 are directed to a method. Therefore, claims 1-20 are directed to patent eligible categories of invention.
Step 2A, Prong 1:
The claim(s) recite(s) (mathematical relationships/formulas, mental process or certain methods of organizing human activity). Specifically the independent claims recite:
mental process: as drafted, the claim recites the limitations of accessing stored information, submitting a plan, modifying a plan, providing further information which is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components. That is, other than reciting “a computer system,” nothing in the claim precludes the determining step from practically being performed in the human mind. For example, but for the “a computer system” language, the claim encompasses a project manager evaluating feedback on prior successful projects and revising a proposal accordingly. This evaluation/judgement that can be performed in the human mind or with pen and paper, merely uses a computer as a tool to perform the steps of the invention. The mere nominal recitation of a generic computing device does not take the claim limitation out of the mental processes grouping. This limitation is a mental process.
(c) certain methods of organizing human activity: The claim as a whole recites a method of organizing human activity. The claimed invention is a method that allows for managing a business/legal relationship and regulatory submission and revision process which is a commercial legal interaction. Thus, the claim recites an abstract idea.
Dependent claims 2-3, 6, 8, 10, 13, 15, 17, 19, further narrow the abstract idea identified in the independent claims and do not introduce further additional elements for consideration.
Dependent claims 4, 5, 7, 9, 11, 14, 18, 20 will be evaluated under Step 2A, Prong 2 below.
Step 2A, Prong 2: Independent claims 1, 12, and 16 do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. Claim 1 is a system comprising “a computation device; memory configured to sore program instructions… power-system project.” Claim 12 is a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium for use in conjunction with a computer system, “computer-readable storage medium storing program instructions that, when executed by the computer system, cause the computer system to perform operations… power-system project.” Claim 16 is a method that comprises “a computer system… power-system project.” These additional elements are mere instructions to implement an abstract idea using a computer in its ordinary capacity, or merely uses the computer as a tool to perform the identified abstract idea. Use of a computer or other machinery in its ordinary capacity for performing the steps of the abstract idea or other tasks (e.g., to receive, store, or transmit data) or simply adding a general purpose computer or computer components after the fact to an abstract idea (e.g., certain methods of organizing human activity) does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application. See MPEP 2106.05(f). Adding insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception, e.g., mere data gathering in conjunction with a law of nature or abstract idea such as a step of obtaining information about credit card transactions so that the information can be analyzed by an abstract mental process, as discussed in CyberSource v. Retail Decisions, Inc., 654 F.3d 1366, 1375, 99 USPQ2d 1690, 1694 (Fed. Cir. 2011) (see MPEP § 2106.05(g)).
Therefore, the additional elements of the independent claims, when considered both individually and in combination, are not sufficient to prove integration into a practical application.
Dependent claims 2-3, 6, 8, 10, 13, 15, 17, 19, further narrow the abstract idea identified in the independent claims and do not introduce further additional elements for consideration, which does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Dependent claims 4, 14, 18 introduces the additional element of “wherein the power-system project comprises a distributed power-system project that is located at multiple locations in a region.” This limitation does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application because it is nothing more than generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment. See MPEP 2106.05(h).
Dependent claim 5 introduces the additional element of “wherein the information, the second information or both is accessed in a database, and the information is stored in a directed graph.” Use of a computer or other machinery in its ordinary capacity for performing the steps of the abstract idea or other tasks (e.g., to receive, store, or transmit data) or simply adding a general purpose computer or computer components after the fact to an abstract idea (e.g., certain methods of organizing human activity) does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application. See MPEP 2106.05(f).
Dependent claim 7 introduces the additional element of “wherein the plan is modified using a pretrained large-language model (LLM).” This limitation does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application because it is nothing more than generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment. See MPEP 2106.05(h). Use of a computer or other machinery in its ordinary capacity for performing the steps of the abstract idea or other tasks (e.g., to receive, store, or transmit data) or simply adding a general purpose computer or computer components after the fact to an abstract idea (e.g., certain methods of organizing human activity) does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application. See MPEP 2106.05(f).
Dependent claim 9 introduces the additional element of “wherein providing the third information comprises: storing the third information in a computer-readable memory; displaying the third information on a display; and/or printing the third information on paper.” Use of a computer or other machinery in its ordinary capacity for performing the steps of the abstract idea or other tasks (e.g., to receive, store, or transmit data) or simply adding a general purpose computer or computer components after the fact to an abstract idea (e.g., certain methods of organizing human activity) does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application. See MPEP 2106.05(f).
Dependent claims 11, 20, introduces the additional element of “wherein modifying the plan comprises changing one or more parameters in the plan based at least in part on parameters associated with at least one of the prior power-system projects.” This limitation provides nothing more than mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a generic computer. See MPEP 2106.05(f). MPEP 2106.05(f) provides the following considerations for determining whether a claim simply recites a judicial exception with the words “apply it” (or an equivalent), such as mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer: (1) whether the claim recites only the idea of a solution or outcome i.e., the claim fails to recite details of how a solution to a problem is accomplished; (2) whether the claim invokes computers or other machinery merely as a tool to perform an existing process; and (3) the particularity or generality of the application of the judicial exception. Therefore, this limitation is not sufficient to prove integration into a practical application.
Therefore, the additional elements of the dependent claims, when considered both individually and in the context of the independent claims, are not sufficient to prove integration into a practical application.
Step 2B: Independent claims 1, 12, and 16 do not comprise anything significantly more than the judicial exception. As can be seen above with respect to Step 2A, Prong 2, claim 1 is a system comprising “a computation device; memory configured to sore program instructions… power-system project.” Claim 12 is a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium for use in conjunction with a computer system, “computer-readable storage medium storing program instructions that, when executed by the computer system, cause the computer system to perform operations… power-system project.” Claim 16 is a method that comprises “a computer system… power-system project.” These additional elements are mere instructions to implement an abstract idea using a computer in its ordinary capacity, or merely uses the computer as a tool to perform the identified abstract idea. Use of a computer or other machinery in its ordinary capacity for performing the steps of the abstract idea or other tasks (e.g., to receive, store, or transmit data) or simply adding a general purpose computer or computer components after the fact to an abstract idea (e.g., certain methods of organizing human activity) is not anything significantly more than the judicial exception. See MPEP 2106.05(f). Adding insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception, e.g., mere data gathering in conjunction with a law of nature or abstract idea such as a step of obtaining information about credit card transactions so that the information can be analyzed by an abstract mental process, as discussed in CyberSource v. Retail Decisions, Inc., 654 F.3d 1366, 1375, 99 USPQ2d 1690, 1694 (Fed. Cir. 2011) (see MPEP § 2106.05(g)).
The additional elements of the independent claims, when considered both individually and in combination, do not comprise anything significantly more than the judicial exception.
Dependent claims 2-3, 6, 8, 10, 13, 15, 17, 19, further narrow the abstract idea identified in the independent claims and do not introduce further additional elements for consideration, which is not anything significantly more than the judicial exception.
Dependent claims 4, 14, 18, introduce the additional element of “wherein the power-system project comprises a distributed power-system project that is located at multiple locations in a region.” This limitation is not anything significantly more than the judicial exception because it is nothing more than generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment. See MPEP 2106.05(h).
Dependent claim 5 introduces the additional element of “wherein the information, the second information or both is accessed in a database, and the information is stored in a directed graph.” Use of a computer or other machinery in its ordinary capacity for performing the steps of the abstract idea or other tasks (e.g., to receive, store, or transmit data) or simply adding a general purpose computer or computer components after the fact to an abstract idea (e.g., certain methods of organizing human activity) is not anything significantly more than the judicial exception. See MPEP 2106.05(f).
Dependent claim 7 introduces the additional element of “wherein the plan is modified using a pretrained large-language model (LLM).” This limitation is not anything significantly more than the judicial exception because it is nothing more than generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment. See MPEP 2106.05(h). Use of a computer or other machinery in its ordinary capacity for performing the steps of the abstract idea or other tasks (e.g., to receive, store, or transmit data) or simply adding a general purpose computer or computer components after the fact to an abstract idea (e.g., certain methods of organizing human activity) is not anything significantly more than the judicial exception. See MPEP 2106.05(f).
Dependent claim 9 introduces the additional element of “wherein providing the third information comprises: storing the third information in a computer-readable memory; displaying the third information on a display; and/or printing the third information on paper.” Use of a computer or other machinery in its ordinary capacity for performing the steps of the abstract idea or other tasks (e.g., to receive, store, or transmit data) or simply adding a general purpose computer or computer components after the fact to an abstract idea (e.g., certain methods of organizing human activity) is not anything significantly more than the judicial exception. See MPEP 2106.05(f).
Dependent claim 11 introduces the additional element of “wherein modifying the plan comprises changing one or more parameters in the plan based at least in part on parameters associated with at least one of the prior power-system projects.” This limitation provides nothing more than mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a generic computer. See MPEP 2106.05(f). MPEP 2106.05(f) provides the following considerations for determining whether a claim simply recites a judicial exception with the words “apply it” (or an equivalent), such as mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer: (1) whether the claim recites only the idea of a solution or outcome i.e., the claim fails to recite details of how a solution to a problem is accomplished; (2) whether the claim invokes computers or other machinery merely as a tool to perform an existing process; and (3) the particularity or generality of the application of the judicial exception. Therefore, this limitation is not anything significantly more than the judicial exception.
The additional elements of the dependent claims, when considered both individually and in the context of the independent claims, are not anything significantly more than the judicial exception.
Accordingly, claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 USC 101.
Therefore based on the above analysis as conducted based on MPEP 2106 from the United States Patent and Trademark Office the claims are viewed as a court recognized abstract idea, are viewed as a judicial exception, does not integrate the claims into a practical application, does not provide significantly more, and does not provide an inventive concept, therefore the claims are ineligible.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (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 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.
Claim(s) 1, 4, 6, 8-12, 14-16, 18-20, is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Halabieh (US 20180356780 A1) in view of Stephens et al. (US 20140172678 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Halabieh teaches a computation device; memory configured to store program instructions, wherein, when executed by the computation device, the program instructions cause the computer system to perform one or more operations comprising (¶ 40-41, 93, discloses a computer system, a memory, programmed logic, a processor, Fig. 15);
accessing stored information that specifies a plan for a power-system project (¶ 61, 83-84, discloses generating a plan for a power plant, abstract, ¶ 69, 74-76, Fig. 13);
submitting the plan and receiving feedback about the plan during an approval process (¶ 75-78, disclose power plant fleet capacity value that is finalized. When the process is complete there is an awarded capacity for the fleet, ¶ 3, 37);
based at least in part on the second information and the feedback, automatically modifying the plan for the power-system project, wherein the modified plan (¶ 78-79, the awarded fleet capacity is divided among the plants and the manager gets an awarded version of the generating plan. ¶ 88-89, mitigating actions occur in the plant based on detected feedback from the actual output. Fig. 12, 13);
and providing third information specifying the modified plan for the power-system project (¶ 70-72, 79, discloses displaying the awarded and modified generating plan to the manager via a GUI. Fig. 11).
Halabieh does not specifically teach accessing information about a successful outcome, feedback with a municipal government.
However, Stephens teaches accessing stored information that specifies a plan for a power-system project and second information specifying prior power-system projects that were successful accessing stored information that specifies a plan for a power-system project (¶ 12, 87, discloses the sharing of historical data. ¶ 217, discloses generating data using recent history. ¶226-228, discloses simulating development scenarios. ¶ 270-278, discloses simulating and replicating past power system project data. ¶ 237-241, 260-267, 98, 207);
submitting the plan and receiving feedback about the plan during an approval process associated with a utility commission and/or a municipal government (¶ 211-212, discloses how municipal infrastructure projects are subject to a government level review and feedback. ¶ 307, discloses regulatory feedback ¶ 104, 146);
wherein the modified plan increases an estimated probability of success of the power- system project (¶ 167-168, by dynamically linking financing with the investment the uncertainty and risk is reduced.).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to modify Halabieh to include/perform a successful outcome, as taught/suggested by Stephens. This known technique is applicable to the system of Halabieh as they both share characteristics and capabilities, namely, they are directed to testing and proposing various features of power plants. One of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that applying the known technique of Stephens would have yielded predictable results and resulted in an improved system. It would have been recognized that applying the technique of Stephens to the teachings of Halabieh would have yielded predictable results because the level of ordinary skill in the art demonstrated by the references applied shows the ability to incorporate such success features into similar systems. Further, applying a successful outcome would have been recognized by those of ordinary skill in the art as resulting in an improved system that would allow motivation to the managers as well as a positive outcome.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to modify Halabieh to include/perform an approval process associated with a utility commission and/or a municipal government, as taught/suggested by Stephens. This known technique is applicable to the system of Halabieh as they both share characteristics and capabilities, namely, they are directed to testing and proposing various features of power plant. One of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that applying the known technique of Stephens would have yielded predictable results and resulted in an improved system. It would have been recognized that applying the technique of Stephens to the teachings of Halabieh would have yielded predictable results because the level of ordinary skill in the art demonstrated by the references applied shows the ability to incorporate such approval features into similar systems. Further, applying an approval process associated with a utility commission and/or a municipal government would have been recognized by those of ordinary skill in the art as resulting in an improved system because they have legal authority to ensure the project meets safety, environmental, and public interest standards before it can proceed.
Regarding claims 4, 14, 18, the combination of Halabieh and Stephens teach the limitations of the dependent claims. Halabieh teaches multiple power plants but does not specifically teach wherein the power-system project comprises a distributed power-system project that is located at multiple locations in a region.
However, Stephens teaches wherein the power-system project comprises a distributed power-system project that is located at multiple locations in a region (¶ 260-266, discloses simulating over multiple dimensions including locations. ¶ 4,8).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to modify Halabieh to include/perform wherein the power-system project comprises a distributed power-system project that is located at multiple locations in a region, as taught/suggested by Stephens. This known technique is applicable to the system of Halabieh as they both share characteristics and capabilities, namely, they are directed to testing and proposing various features of power plant. One of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that applying the known technique of Stephens would have yielded predictable results and resulted in an improved system. It would have been recognized that applying the technique of Stephens to the teachings of Halabieh would have yielded predictable results because the level of ordinary skill in the art demonstrated by the references applied shows the ability to incorporate such region features into similar systems. Further, applying wherein the power-system project comprises a distributed power-system project that is located at multiple locations in a region would have been recognized by those of ordinary skill in the art as resulting in an improved system by spreading generation across multiple locations in a region, these systems minimize long-distance transmission losses and enable localized grid operation.
Regarding claims 6, 15, 19, the combination of Halabieh and Stephens teach the limitations of the dependent claims. Halabieh teaches cost but does not specifically use the term ROI.
However, Stephens teaches computing an estimate of a return on investment (ROI) for the power-system project; and wherein the plan is modified based at least in part on the estimated ROI (¶ 155-159, discloses the financial benefits of investing. Modifying investment decisions based on returns. ¶ 165-168, 174, 194, 199, 201-204, 295).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to modify Halabieh to include/perform computing an estimate of a return on investment (ROI) for the power-system project, as taught/suggested by Stephens. This known technique is applicable to the system of Halabieh as they both share characteristics and capabilities, namely, they are directed to testing and proposing various features of power plant. One of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that applying the known technique of Stephens would have yielded predictable results and resulted in an improved system. It would have been recognized that applying the technique of Stephens to the teachings of Halabieh would have yielded predictable results because the level of ordinary skill in the art demonstrated by the references applied shows the ability to incorporate such ROI features into similar systems. Further, applying computing an estimate of a return on investment (ROI) for the power-system project would have been recognized by those of ordinary skill in the art as resulting in an improved system by providing a ROI value there is a measurable, quantitative basis for evaluating success.
Regarding claim 8 the combination of Halabieh and Stephens teach the limitations of claim 1. Halabieh teaches risks but does not specifically teach determining an estimated risk associated with the power-system project.
However, Stephens teaches determining an estimated risk associated with the power-system project; and wherein the plan is modified based at least in part on the estimated risk (¶ 155-159, discloses the financial benefits of investing. Modifying investment decisions based on returns. ¶ 165-168, 174, 194, 199, 201-204, 295).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to modify Halabieh to include/perform determining an estimated risk associated with the power-system project, as taught/suggested by Stephens. This known technique is applicable to the system of Halabieh as they both share characteristics and capabilities, namely, they are directed to testing and proposing various features of power plant. One of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that applying the known technique of Stephens would have yielded predictable results and resulted in an improved system. It would have been recognized that applying the technique of Stephens to the teachings of Halabieh would have yielded predictable results because the level of ordinary skill in the art demonstrated by the references applied shows the ability to incorporate such risk features into similar systems. Further, applying determining an estimated risk associated with the power-system project would have been recognized by those of ordinary skill in the art as resulting in an improved system by information that would allow the users the ability to make a more informed decision.
Regarding claim 9, Halabieh teaches wherein providing the third information comprises: storing the third information in a computer-readable memory; displaying the third information on a display; and/or printing the third information on paper (¶ 41, 47, 93-94, discloses storing data. ¶ 48, 60-65, 67-71, disclose displaying the information on a display.
Regarding claim 10, Halabieh teaches submitting the modified plan and receiving second feedback about the modified plan during an approval process (¶ 49, 57, disclose running feedback loops, ¶ 60, 72-79, disclose the approval process with the modified plan); and automatically and iteratively updating the modified plan based at least in part on the second feedback between at least a pair of steps in the approval process (¶ 49, 57, disclose running feedback loops, ¶ 60, 72-79, disclose the approval process with the modified plan and awarding the plan. Manager, trader, dispatch, authority, manager loop).
However, Stephens teaches submitting the plan and receiving feedback about the plan during an approval process associated with a utility commission and/or a municipal government (¶ 211-212, discloses how municipal infrastructure projects are subject to a government level review and feedback. ¶ 307, discloses regulatory feedback ¶ 104, 146).
Halabieh does not specifically teach feedback with a municipal government.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to modify Halabieh to include/perform an approval process associated with a utility commission and/or a municipal government, as taught/suggested by Stephens. This known technique is applicable to the system of Halabieh as they both share characteristics and capabilities, namely, they are directed to testing and proposing various features of power plant. One of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that applying the known technique of Stephens would have yielded predictable results and resulted in an improved system. It would have been recognized that applying the technique of Stephens to the teachings of Halabieh would have yielded predictable results because the level of ordinary skill in the art demonstrated by the references applied shows the ability to incorporate such approval features into similar systems. Further, applying an approval process associated with a utility commission and/or a municipal government would have been recognized by those of ordinary skill in the art as resulting in an improved system because they have legal authority to ensure the project meets safety, environmental, and public interest standards before it can proceed.
Regarding claims 11 and 20, Halabieh teaches wherein modifying the plan comprises changing one or more parameters in the plan based at least in part on parameters associated with at least one of the prior power-system projects (¶ 49, 57, disclose running feedback loops, ¶ 60, 70-79, disclose the approval process with the modified plan and awarding the plan. Manager, trader, dispatch, authority, manager loop, ¶ 88-91, mitigating actions occur in the plant based on detected feedback from the actual output. Fig. 12, 13). Also taught by Stephens ¶ 103-104.
Regarding claim 12, Halabieh teaches a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium for use in conjunction with a computer system, the computer-readable storage medium storing program instructions that, when executed by the computer system (¶ 40-41, 93, discloses a computer system, a memory, programmed logic, a processor, Fig. 15);
accessing stored information that specifies a plan for a power-system project (¶ 61, 83-84, discloses generating a plan for a power plant, abstract, ¶ 69, 74-76, Fig. 13);
submitting the plan and receiving feedback about the plan during an approval process (¶ 75-78, disclose power plant fleet capacity value that is finalized. When the process is complete there is an awarded capacity for the fleet, ¶ 3, 37);
based at least in part on the second information and the feedback, automatically modifying the plan for the power-system project, wherein the modified plan (¶ 78-79, the awarded fleet capacity is divided among the plants and the manager gets an awarded version of the generating plan. ¶ 88-89, mitigating actions occur in the plant based on detected feedback from the actual output. Fig. 12, 13);
and providing third information specifying the modified plan for the power-system project (¶ 70-72, 79, discloses displaying the awarded and modified generating plan to the manager via a GUI. Fig. 11).
Halabieh does not specifically teach accessing information about a successful outcome, feedback with a municipal government.
However, Stephens teaches accessing stored information that specifies a plan for a power-system project accessing stored information that specifies a plan for the power-system project and second information specifying prior power-system projects that were successful (¶ 12, 87, discloses the sharing of historical data. ¶ 217, discloses generating data using recent history. ¶226-228, discloses simulating development scenarios. ¶ 270-278, discloses simulating and replicating past power system project data. ¶ 237-241, 260-267, 98, 207);
submitting the plan and receiving feedback about the plan during an approval process associated with a utility commission and/or a municipal government (¶ 211-212, discloses how municipal infrastructure projects are subject to a government level review and feedback. ¶ 307, discloses regulatory feedback ¶ 104, 146);
wherein the modified plan increases an estimated probability of success of the power- system project (¶ 167-168, by dynamically linking financing with the investment the uncertainty and risk is reduced.).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to modify Halabieh to include/perform a successful outcome, as taught/suggested by Stephens. This known technique is applicable to the system of Halabieh as they both share characteristics and capabilities, namely, they are directed to testing and proposing various features of power plants. One of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that applying the known technique of Stephens would have yielded predictable results and resulted in an improved system. It would have been recognized that applying the technique of Stephens to the teachings of Halabieh would have yielded predictable results because the level of ordinary skill in the art demonstrated by the references applied shows the ability to incorporate such success features into similar systems. Further, applying a successful outcome would have been recognized by those of ordinary skill in the art as resulting in an improved system that would allow motivation to the managers as well as a positive outcome.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to modify Halabieh to include/perform an approval process associated with a utility commission and/or a municipal government, as taught/suggested by Stephens. This known technique is applicable to the system of Halabieh as they both share characteristics and capabilities, namely, they are directed to testing and proposing various features of power plant. One of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that applying the known technique of Stephens would have yielded predictable results and resulted in an improved system. It would have been recognized that applying the technique of Stephens to the teachings of Halabieh would have yielded predictable results because the level of ordinary skill in the art demonstrated by the references applied shows the ability to incorporate such approval features into similar systems. Further, applying an approval process associated with a utility commission and/or a municipal government would have been recognized by those of ordinary skill in the art as resulting in an improved system because they have legal authority to ensure the project meets safety, environmental, and public interest standards before it can proceed.
Regarding claim 16, Halabieh teaches a method for modifying a plan for a power-system project, comprising: by a computer system (¶ 40-41, 93, discloses a computer system, a memory, programmed logic, a processor, Fig. 15);
accessing stored information that specifies a plan for a power-system project (¶ 61, 83-84, discloses generating a plan for a power plant, abstract, ¶ 69, 74-76, Fig. 13);
submitting the plan and receiving feedback about the plan during an approval process (¶ 75-78, disclose power plant fleet capacity value that is finalized. When the process is complete there is an awarded capacity for the fleet, ¶ 3, 37);
based at least in part on the second information and the feedback, automatically modifying the plan for the power-system project, wherein the modified plan (¶ 78-79, the awarded fleet capacity is divided among the plants and the manager gets an awarded version of the generating plan. ¶ 88-89, mitigating actions occur in the plant based on detected feedback from the actual output. Fig. 12, 13);
and providing third information specifying the modified plan for the power-system project (¶ 70-72, 79, discloses displaying the awarded and modified generating plan to the manager via a GUI. Fig. 11).
Halabieh does not specifically teach accessing information about a successful outcome, feedback with a municipal government.
However, Stephens teaches accessing stored information that specifies a plan for a power-system project accessing stored information that specifies a plan for the power-system project and second information specifying prior power-system projects that were successful (¶ 12, 87, discloses the sharing of historical data. ¶ 217, discloses generating data using recent history. ¶226-228, discloses simulating development scenarios. ¶ 270-278, discloses simulating and replicating past power system project data. ¶ 237-241, 260-267, 98, 207);
submitting the plan and receiving feedback about the plan during an approval process associated with a utility commission and/or a municipal government (¶ 211-212, discloses how municipal infrastructure projects are subject to a government level review and feedback. ¶ 307, discloses regulatory feedback ¶ 104, 146);
wherein the modified plan increases an estimated probability of success of the power- system project (¶ 167-168, by dynamically linking financing with the investment the uncertainty and risk is reduced.).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to modify Halabieh to include/perform a successful outcome, as taught/suggested by Stephens. This known technique is applicable to the system of Halabieh as they both share characteristics and capabilities, namely, they are directed to testing and proposing various features of power plants. One of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that applying the known technique of Stephens would have yielded predictable results and resulted in an improved system. It would have been recognized that applying the technique of Stephens to the teachings of Halabieh would have yielded predictable results because the level of ordinary skill in the art demonstrated by the references applied shows the ability to incorporate such success features into similar systems. Further, applying a successful outcome would have been recognized by those of ordinary skill in the art as resulting in an improved system that would allow motivation to the managers as well as a positive outcome.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to modify Halabieh to include/perform an approval process associated with a utility commission and/or a municipal government, as taught/suggested by Stephens. This known technique is applicable to the system of Halabieh as they both share characteristics and capabilities, namely, they are directed to testing and proposing various features of power plant. One of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that applying the known technique of Stephens would have yielded predictable results and resulted in an improved system. It would have been recognized that applying the technique of Stephens to the teachings of Halabieh would have yielded predictable results because the level of ordinary skill in the art demonstrated by the references applied shows the ability to incorporate such approval features into similar systems. Further, applying an approval process associated with a utility commission and/or a municipal government would have been recognized by those of ordinary skill in the art as resulting in an improved system because they have legal authority to ensure the project meets safety, environmental, and public interest standards before it can proceed.
Claim(s) 2, is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Halabieh (US 20180356780 A1) in view of Stephens et al. (US 20140172678 A1) in further view of Renford et al. (US 20210365872 A1).
Regarding claims 2, the combination of Halabieh and Stephens teach the limitations of claim 1, the combination does not teach a directed graph. However, Renford teaches wherein the power-system project has a cost that is less than a predefined amount (¶ 210, discloses a budget associated with capital improvements. ¶ 107-109, discloses keeping projects on budget. ¶ 29 ).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to modify Halabieh to include/perform a project cost under an amount, as taught/suggested by Renford. This known technique is applicable to the system of Halabieh as they both share characteristics and capabilities, namely, they are directed to management of data related to future projects. One of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that applying the known technique of Renford would have yielded predictable results and resulted in an improved system. It would have been recognized that applying the technique of Renford to the teachings of Halabieh would have yielded predictable results because the level of ordinary skill in the art demonstrated by the references applied shows the ability to incorporate such project cost features into similar systems. Further, applying a project cost would have been recognized by those of ordinary skill in the art as resulting in an improved system that would allow the project to be completed on time with the resources allocated to it.
Claim(s) 3, 13, 17, is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Halabieh (US 20180356780 A1) in view of Stephens et al. (US 20140172678 A1) in further view of Renford et al. (US 20210365872 A1) in view of official notice.
Regarding claims 3, 13, 17, the combination of Halabieh and Stephens teach the limitations of claim 1, the combination does not teach a directed graph. However, Renford teaches wherein the power-system project has a cost that is less than a predefined amount; and wherein the predefined amount comprises a specified amount (¶ 210, discloses a budget associated with capital improvements. ¶ 107-109, discloses keeping projects on budget. ¶ 29 ).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to modify Halabieh to include/perform a project cost under an amount, as taught/suggested by Renford. This known technique is applicable to the system of Halabieh as they both share characteristics and capabilities, namely, they are directed to management of data related to future projects. One of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that applying the known technique of Renford would have yielded predictable results and resulted in an improved system. It would have been recognized that applying the technique of Renford to the teachings of Halabieh would have yielded predictable results because the level of ordinary skill in the art demonstrated by the references applied shows the ability to incorporate such project cost features into similar systems. Further, applying a project cost would have been recognized by those of ordinary skill in the art as resulting in an improved system that would allow the project to be completed on time with the resources allocated to it.
The combination of Halabieh, Stephens, and Renford does not specifically teach a specific numerical value for the power-system, specifically $2 million. The prior art does not disclose wherein the predefined amount comprises $2 M. The Office takes official Notice that selecting a specific numerical value for a cost threshold distinguishing the size of a distributed power system projects is a matter that would have been within the routine skill of one or ordinary skill in the art and that arriving at the particular value of $2 million would have been an obvious matter of routine optimization of a result-effective variable, absent a showing of cruciality that that specific value.
Claim(s) 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Halabieh (US 20180356780 A1) in view of Stephens et al. (US 20140172678 A1) in further view of Tarameshloo et al. (US 20200267186 A1).
Regarding claim 5, the combination of Halabieh and Stephens teach the limitations of claim 1, the combination does not teach a directed graph. However, Tarameshloo teaches wherein the information, the second information or both is accessed in a database, and the information is stored in a directed graph (¶ 34-39, discloses created a directed graph. ¶ 92-95, discloses modifying a directed graph. ¶ 83, 101-103, 109).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to modify Halabieh to include/perform a directed graph, as taught/suggested by Tarameshloo. This known technique is applicable to the system of Halabieh as they both share characteristics and capabilities, namely, they are directed to generating and modifying information for user interaction. One of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that applying the known technique of Tarameshloo would have yielded predictable results and resulted in an improved system. It would have been recognized that applying the technique of Tarameshloo to the teachings of Halabieh would have yielded predictable results because the level of ordinary skill in the art demonstrated by the references applied shows the ability to incorporate such directed graph features into similar systems. Further, applying a directed graph would have been recognized by those of ordinary skill in the art as resulting in an improved system that would more accurately represent directional relationships, for modeling systems with dependencies, hierarchies, and one-way flows, while enabling reachability and path analysis.
Claim(s) 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Halabieh (US 20180356780 A1) in view of Stephens et al. (US 20140172678 A1) in further view of Ben David et al. (US 11875123 B1).
Regarding claim 7, the combination of Halabieh and Stephens teach the limitations of claim 1, the combination does not teach a large language model. However, Ben David teaches wherein the plan is modified using a pretrained large-language model (LLM) (Fig. 3-5. Col. 6, line 39 – col. 8, line 50, Fig. 4).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to modify Halabieh to include/perform a large language model, as taught/suggested by Ben David. This known technique is applicable to the system of Halabieh as they both share characteristics and capabilities, namely, they are directed to modifying business plans. One of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that applying the known technique of Ben David would have yielded predictable results and resulted in an improved system. It would have been recognized that applying the technique of Ben David to the teachings of Halabieh would have yielded predictable results because the level of ordinary skill in the art demonstrated by the references applied shows the ability to incorporate such large language model features into similar systems. Further, applying a large language model would have been recognized by those of ordinary skill in the art as resulting in an improved system that would have a versatile tool for summarizing, translating, coding, and answering questions.
Other pertinent prior art includes Flowers et al. (US 20230095792 A1) which discloses allocations of budgets. Buzz (US 20130218780 A1) which discloses monitoring the progress of a construction project and determining whether the project is on budget. Wichmann et al. (US 20160147204 A1) which discloses economic and performance optimization and/or enhancement of power plants having thermal generating units.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JAMIE H AUSTIN whose telephone number is (571)272-7363. The examiner can normally be reached Monday, Tuesday, Thursday, Friday 7am-2pm.
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, Brian Epstein can be reached at (571) 270 5389. 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.
JAMIE H. AUSTIN
Examiner
Art Unit 3625
/JAMIE H AUSTIN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3625
Prosecution Insights