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 .
Status of Claims
This action is in reply to the application filed on 4/02/2025.
Claims 1-25 are currently pending and have been examined.
Information Disclosure Statement
All references listed in the IDS dated 11/10/2025 have been considered.
Claim Objections
Claims 9 and 19 are objected to because of the following informality: “wherein the determining of optimization includes determining one or more of a location in the modular data center for executing the at least one computing process” should read “wherein the determining of optimization includes determining a location in the modular data center for executing the at least one computing process,” “wherein the determining of optimization includes determining one or more locations in the modular data center for executing the at least one computing process,” or similar. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: “a control system” of Claims 1, 11, and 21.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof. For the purposes of this examination, this term will be interpreted in view of Paragraphs 0035, 0057, and 0076-0080 as published.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Claim Rejections – 35 USC § 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 1-25 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.
Claims 1, 11, and 21 contain variations on the following limitation: “determining, by the control system, based on the received data, an optimization for execution of the one or more computing processes based upon the received data.” Within this limitation, the term “an optimization” is indefinite as a subjective term, as what might be considered “optimal” or “optimized” may reasonably vary from individual to individual and the claims provide no objective standard for measuring the scope of this term. The dependent claims which further narrow this determination of an optimization are not claimed in a manner which would cure this indefiniteness, e.g., Claims 6 and 16 state that “the determinization of optimization includes a determination of a profitability of the one or more computing processes” but falls short of requiring that this optimization be an optimization of profitability, instead merely stating that a determination of profitability is performed at some stage of this optimization process. The specification likewise fails to provide an objective standard for measuring the scope of this term, as multiple exemplary metrics for optimization are discussed as being used in different embodiments of the invention (see, e.g., Paragraphs 0055-0056, 0059-0063, and 0067-0075 as published). Claims 2-10, 12-20, and 22-25 are rejected due to their dependence upon Claims 1, 11, and 21 respectively.
Claim 22 is explicitly recited as relating back to “[t]he computer program product of claim 1,” yet Claim 1 recites the separate statutory category of a method rather than a computer program product. As such, it is unclear as drafted how Claim 22 further narrows Claim 1. Given this drafting as well as that the content of Claim 22 is essentially identical to that of Claim 2 (which does properly further narrow Claim 1), Claim 22 will be interpreted as if it depended upon Claim 21, which is recited as a computer program product.
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 1-25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Regarding Claims 1, 11, and 21, the limitations of receiving data relating to performance of one or more computing processes; determining based on the received data, an optimization for execution of the one or more computing processes based upon the received data; and selecting at least one computing process of the one or more computing processes for execution based upon the determination of optimization, as drafted, are processes that, under their broadest reasonable interpretations, cover certain methods of organizing human activity. For example, these limitations fall at least within the enumerated categories of commercial or legal interactions and/or managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people (see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(II)).
Additionally, the limitations of receiving data relating to performance of one or more computing processes; determining based on the received data, an optimization for execution of the one or more computing processes based upon the received data; and selecting at least one computing process of the one or more computing processes for execution based upon the determination of optimization, as drafted, are processes that, under their broadest reasonable interpretations, cover mental processes. For example, these limitations recite activity comprising observations, evaluations, judgments, and opinions (see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III)).
Additionally, the limitation of determining based on the received data, an optimization for execution of the one or more computing processes based upon the received data, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers mathematical concepts. For example, these limitations recite mathematical relationships and/or calculations (see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(I)).
If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers fundamental economic principles or practices, commercial or legal interactions, managing personal behavior or relationships, or managing interactions between people, it falls within the “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity” grouping of abstract ideas. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind or with the aid of pen and paper but for recitation of generic computer components, it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers mathematical relationships, mathematical formulae or equations, or mathematical calculations, it falls within the “Mathematical Concepts” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claims recite an abstract idea.
The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim recites the additional elements of a computer program product for use on a computer system, the computer program product comprising a tangible, non-transient computer usable medium having computer readable program code thereon; a modular data center configured to execute one or more computing processes; and a control system operatively coupled with and in communication with the modular data center. These, in the context of the claims as a whole, amount to no more than mere instructions to apply a judicial exception (see MPEP 2106.05(f)). Accordingly, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract ideas into a practical application because they do not, individually or in combination, impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract ideas. The claims are therefore directed to an abstract idea.
The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the judicial exception into a practical application, the additional elements amount to no more than mere instructions to apply a judicial exception for the same reasons as discussed above in relation to integration into a practical application. These cannot provide an inventive concept. Therefore, when considering the additional elements alone and in combination, there is no inventive concept in the claims, and thus the claims are not patent eligible.
Claims 2-10, 12-20, and 22-25, describing various additional limitations to the method of Claim 1, system of Claim 11, or the product of Claim 21 amount to substantially the same unintegrated abstract idea as Claims 1, 11, and 21 (upon which these claims depend, directly or indirectly) and are rejected for substantially the same reasons.
Claims 2, 12, and 22 disclose wherein the received data comprises one or more of asset availability, asset status, electricity market conditions and operational signals (further defining the abstract idea already set forth in Claims 1, 11, and 21), which does not integrate the claims into a practical application.
Claims 3, 13, and 23 disclose wherein the received data includes power output from one or more power sources (further defining the abstract idea already set forth in Claims 1, 11, and 21), which does not integrate the claims into a practical application.
Claims 4, 14, and 24 disclose wherein the one or more power sources is an alternative energy source (generally linking the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use), which does not integrate the claims into a practical application.
Claims 5, 15, and 25 disclose wherein the alternative energy source is one or more of a wind farm or a solar farm (generally linking the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use), which does not integrate the claims into a practical application.
Claims 6 and 16 disclose wherein the determinization of optimization includes a determination of a profitability of the one or more computing processes (an abstract idea in the form of a certain method of organizing human activity, a mental process, and a mathematical concept), which does not integrate the claims into a practical application.
Claims 7 and 17 disclose wherein the determining an optimization includes forming one or more vectors or tuples (an abstract idea in the form of a certain method of organizing human activity, a mental process, and a mathematical concept), which does not integrate the claims into a practical application.
Claims 8 and 18 disclose wherein the one or more vectors or tuples include one or more of a computing process vector or tuple, an energy market signal vector or tuple, or a renewable resource availability vector or tuple (further defining the abstract idea already set forth in Claims 7 and 17), which does not integrate the claims into a practical application.
Claims 9 and 19 disclose wherein the determining of optimization includes determining one or more of a location in the modular data center for executing the at least one computing process (an abstract idea in the form of a certain method of organizing human activity and a mental process), which does not integrate the claims into a practical application.
Claims 10 and 20 disclose wherein the executing of the at least one computing process includes executing in a time interval (further defining the abstract idea already set forth in Claims 9 and 19), which does not integrate the claims into a practical application.
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1-25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Marcus (PGPub 20120197683) (hereafter, “Marcus”) in view of Archer et al (PGPub 20240419230, claiming the benefit of Provisional Applications 63521082 and 63553619) (hereafter, “Archer”).
Regarding Claims 1, 11, and 21, Marcus discloses:
A computer program product for use on a computer system, the computer program product comprising a tangible, non-transient computer usable medium having computer readable program code thereon (¶ 0101-0107; the controller includes controller software for automatically directing the operation of the system and/or permitting a user to interface with the system and its various subcomponents; RAM typically contains data and/or program modules that are immediately accessible to and/or presently being operated on by processing unit; the data or program modules may include an operating system, application programs, other program modules, and program data);
determining, by the control system, based on the received data, an optimization for execution of the one or more computing processes based upon the received data (¶ 0004, 0058-0060, 0075-0077, 0092-0098; Figs. 7-8; one type of ancillary service that a GCAES plant is able to provide, while simultaneously fulfilling a long-duration power service, is frequency response, sometimes called primary reserve; to provide this service, the GCAES plant reacts to momentary drops and increases in system frequency (e.g., variations from 60 Hz in United States or 50 Hz in European systems), increases or decreases the amount of power supplied to the grid within timeframes of seconds (or potentially fractions of a second), and maintains such response for a designated period of time, which may be as short as 30 seconds in some instances, or may be defined as a number of minutes; there are several possible actions that can be taken depending on market conditions; predictive elements are incorporated into the determination of whether to buy/sell and compress/expand energy; an optimization model may use, for example, environmental forecasts (e.g., expected wind power, temperature, pressure, humidity), market conditions predictions (e.g., future price, demand), or other future factors in optimizing energy storage and delivery; considering the available inputs as a whole, the optimization model determines the most advantageous configuration in different categories to maximize internal rate of return (IRR) and long-term net present value (NPV); trading may be used to avoid failure in meeting a PPA; for instance, if there is insufficient power being generated from the intermittent power source over a long period of time, then the trading algorithm will ensure that power is purchased to fill the storage tanks, and availability under the PPA will subsequently rise; conversely, if the power source is supplying an overabundance of energy, and storage is nearly full, the trading algorithm will shift the pricing band as necessary so that more power is sold; by selling the power and maintaining sufficient storage capacity, excess energy is not wasted, and the PPA can be satisfied at later dates, even if the source of power decreases in its generation capacity); and
selecting, by the control system, at least one computing process of the one or more computing processes for execution based upon the determination of optimization (¶ 0004, 0058-0061, 0075-0077, 0092-0098; Figs. 7-8; GCAES plants are also capable of providing spinning reserves, sometimes called secondary reserves, which requires the plant to respond within a timeframe set by the duration of the primary reserve or frequency response; for example, if frequency response ancillary services are required by the RTO to provide a duration of at least 30 seconds, then secondary reserves or spinning reserves must be able to react within at most 30 seconds; utilizing its storage and generation capabilities, the GCAES system is able to meet various load and duration demands while fulfilling, for example, a baseload or intermediate contract at the same time; predictive elements are incorporated into the determination of whether to buy/sell and compress/expand energy; an optimization model may use, for example, environmental forecasts (e.g., expected wind power, temperature, pressure, humidity), market conditions predictions (e.g., future price, demand), or other future factors in optimizing energy storage and delivery; considering the available inputs as a whole, the optimization model determines the most advantageous configuration in different categories to maximize internal rate of return (IRR) and long-term net present value (NPV); trading may be used to avoid failure in meeting a PPA; for instance, if there is insufficient power being generated from the intermittent power source over a long period of time, then the trading algorithm will ensure that power is purchased to fill the storage tanks, and availability under the PPA will subsequently rise; conversely, if the power source is supplying an overabundance of energy, and storage is nearly full, the trading algorithm will shift the pricing band as necessary so that more power is sold; by selling the power and maintaining sufficient storage capacity, excess energy is not wasted, and the PPA can be satisfied at later dates, even if the source of power decreases in its generation capacity).
Marcus does not explicitly disclose but Archer does disclose a modular data center configured to execute one or more computing processes (¶ 0036, 0066; Fig. 1; the DCUs collectively enable a modular computing installation, for example, a data center; powering the data center by the electrical power generation system and selling excess power generated by the electrical power generation system to the electrical grid).
Marcus additionally discloses a control system (Abstract; ¶ 0100-0101, 0104-0106; Fig. 10; the system also includes a controller for directing the modes based at least in part on a market factor; one or more computer controller devices for facilitating various operations of the system). Marcus does not explicitly disclose but Archer does disclose wherein the control system is operatively coupled with and in communication with the modular data center (¶ 0036, 0066; Fig. 1; the DCUs collectively enable a modular computing installation, for example, a data center; powering the data center by the electrical power generation system and selling excess power generated by the electrical power generation system to the electrical grid).
Marcus additionally discloses receiving, by a control system, data relating to performance of one or more computing processes (Abstract; ¶ 0005, 0015, 0020, 0059, 0068, 0073, 0076-0077, 0097, 0100-0101, 0104-0106; Figs. 2, 3A, 7, 10; the system also includes a controller for directing the modes based at least in part on a market factor; one or more computer controller devices for facilitating various operations of the system; ancillary services are means of providing electric power to the grid in ways that meet particular needs that are a function of unpredictable and stochastic aspects of the power market, e.g., unpredictable variations in demand as end-users vary their usage during the course of each day, and unpredictable variations in supply such as outages of generator units and variations in the amount of power supplied by intermittent sources; ancillary services are often characterized as response and reserve; such services are typically characterized in categories that proceed from shortest response timeframes to longer response timeframes; currently it is customary to refer to three basic categories of response and reserve, or ancillary services, the nomenclature and metrics of which are partially variable depending on the region, country, or Regional Transmission Organization (RTO) in question, while sharing basic characteristics; various minimum, maximum, and typical values and ranges for the operation of GCAES plants and associated systems related to energy storage and delivery are described; the tables represent examples of how energy from a power source and storage may be combined with trading to satisfy a baseload contract; the "Power Source (MW)" column indicates how much power is received from the power source per time unit, in MW; the "GCAES (MW)" column indicates how much power is transmitted through the GCAES unit per time unit, in MW, with a positive number designating expansion of energy from storage, and a negative number designating compression of energy to storage; the "Grid (MW)" column indicates how much power is transmitted to the grid per time unit, in MW; market conditions are analyzed in time increments, preferably very short increments, from 30 seconds to an hour, or any other suitable time period; the computing devices may evaluate the current operating conditions of a GCAES plant, storage capacity, present, past and/or environmental conditions, market conditions, and make determinations on how the system should operate to meet present and future power demands). Marcus does not explicitly disclose but Archer does disclose wherein the control system is of a modular data center (¶ 0036, 0066; Fig. 1; the DCUs collectively enable a modular computing installation, for example, a data center; powering the data center by the electrical power generation system and selling excess power generated by the electrical power generation system to the electrical grid).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the claimed invention to include the power plant and excess energy usage structure and techniques of Archer with the power plant control and excess energy usage system of Marcus because the combination merely applies a known technique to a known device/method/product ready for improvement to yield predictable results (see KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 415-421 (2007) and MPEP 2143). The known techniques of Archer are applicable to the base device (Marcus), the technical ability existed to improve the base device in the same way, and the results of the combination are predictable because the function of each piece (as well as the problems in the art which they address) are unchanged when combined.
Regarding Claims 2, 12, and 22, Marcus in view of Archer disclose the limitations of Claims 1, 11, and 21. Marcus additionally discloses wherein the received data comprises one or more of asset availability, asset status, electricity market conditions and operational signals (¶ 0065, 0073, 0095, 0100; the computing devices may evaluate the current operating conditions of a GCAES plant, storage capacity, present, past and/or environmental conditions, market conditions, and make determinations on how the system should operate to meet present and future power demands; as part of the power trading component, market conditions are analyzed in time increments, preferably very short increments, from 30 seconds to an hour, or any other suitable time period; an optimization model may use, for example, environmental forecasts (e.g., expected wind power, temperature, pressure, humidity), market conditions predictions (e.g., future price, demand), or other future factors in optimizing energy storage and delivery; considering the available inputs as a whole, the optimization model determines the most advantageous configuration in different categories to maximize internal rate of return (IRR) and long-term net present value (NPV); if a power source is not meeting current needs (e.g., if the power source is a wind farm, and there is insufficient wind), a GCAES plant is still able to fulfill a baseload power purchase agreement by using the energy that is available from the power source, in combination with energy obtained from storage; if the storage capacity is sufficiently large, it may contain enough stored energy (e.g., compressed air) to fulfill baseload for an extended period of time in the above-described circumstances; in the case of smaller storage units, supplying energy via this combination of sources may not be feasible beyond a limited period; as such, energy trading may play a larger part in fulfilling the baseload contract).
Regarding Claims 3, 13, and 23, Marcus in view of Archer disclose the limitations of Claims 1, 11, and 21. Marcus additionally discloses wherein the received data includes power output from one or more power sources (¶ 0051, 0068, 0075-0077, 0100; Figs. 2, 3A, 7; the computing devices may evaluate the current operating conditions of a GCAES plant, storage capacity, present, past and/or environmental conditions, market conditions, and make determinations on how the system should operate to meet present and future power demands; the "Power Source (MW)" column indicates how much power is received from the power source per time unit, in MW; the "GCAES (MW)" column indicates how much power is transmitted through the GCAES unit per time unit, in MW, with a positive number designating expansion of energy from storage, and a negative number designating compression of energy to storage; the "Grid (MW)" column indicates how much power is transmitted to the grid per time unit, in MW).
Regarding Claims 4, 14, and 24, Marcus in view of Archer disclose the limitations of Claims 3, 13, and 23. Marcus additionally discloses wherein the one or more power sources is an alternative energy source (¶ 0012, 0023, 0051; the power source may be an intermittent power source, which can be any of wind energy, solar energy, wave energy, tidal energy, falling water, hydro energy, biomass energy, and geothermal energy; moreover, the intermittent power source may produce electrical power; a power source (e.g., a wind farm including a plurality of wind turbines) may be used to harvest and convert wind or other types of energy to electric power for delivery to a power routing subsystem and conversion subsystem; it is to be appreciated that the system may be used with electric sources other than wind farms, such as, for example, with the electric power grid, or solar power sources).
Regarding Claims 5, 15, and 25, Marcus in view of Archer disclose the limitations of Claims 4, 14, and 24. Marcus additionally discloses wherein the alternative energy source is one or more of a wind farm or a solar farm (¶ 0012, 0023, 0051; the power source may be an intermittent power source, which can be any of wind energy, solar energy, wave energy, tidal energy, falling water, hydro energy, biomass energy, and geothermal energy; moreover, the intermittent power source may produce electrical power; a power source (e.g., a wind farm including a plurality of wind turbines) may be used to harvest and convert wind or other types of energy to electric power for delivery to a power routing subsystem and conversion subsystem; it is to be appreciated that the system may be used with electric sources other than wind farms, such as, for example, with the electric power grid, or solar power sources).
Regarding Claims 6 and 16, Marcus in view of Archer disclose the limitations of Claims 1 and 11. Marcus additionally discloses wherein the determinization of optimization includes a determination of a profitability of the one or more computing processes (¶ 0071, 0075, 0082-0084; the power trading component incorporated in the GCAES system improves upon existing methods and systems for creating and clearing a market for electric power, by enabling wind-power and other intermittent renewable power sources to participate at full market value, with enhanced profit and return on investment, thus boosting the development of renewable energy in the competitive electric power markets of the United States and other regions of the world; at the beginning of a time interval based on the region (e.g., five minutes, thirty minutes, one hour, or any other period based on the regional market), the algorithm considers the actual storage level, forecasted price, and wind data, for a predictive time period (e.g., 24 hours, 168 hours, or any suitable time period), and runs the optimization methodology to come up with the optimal solution for both the operation room and the trading room for the current time interval; in these conditions, therefore, a GCAES plant set up to satisfy a 100 MW supply contract can actually supply 300 MW, with potentially substantial profit derived from supplying the extra 200 MW; at its core, the trading aspect of the system comprises three trading rules to address three issues: First, when should energy be traded? Second, how much energy should be traded? And third, how does storage affect trading?; rule number one states that power should be bought or sold when it is incrementally profitable to do so; for example, if "profitable" is defined in relation to an average price of power, whether for an hour, a day, a rolling 24-hour period, a week, a month, a year, or some other time period, then power will be bought when the spot market price (or other market factor) is less than the average price by a threshold amount Likewise, power will be sold when the spot market price (or other market factor) is greater than the average price by a threshold amount; the buy threshold amount may or may not be the same as the sell threshold amount).
Regarding Claims 7 and 17, Marcus in view of Archer disclose the limitations of Claims 1 and 11. Marcus additionally discloses wherein the determining an optimization includes forming one or more vectors or tuples (¶ 0073; as part of the power trading component, market conditions are analyzed in time increments, preferably very short increments, from 30 seconds to an hour, or any other suitable time period; if, during that increment, the market price of power is below a particular threshold, such as a historical average, daily average, 24-hour rolling average, or some other indicator, that power can be purchased, and idle GCAES equipment can be used to put the energy into storage; further, if the market price is below the price of a baseload contract, the cheaper power can be used to fulfill the contract for that time increment; in other words, the power can be purchased at the low market price and sold at the contract price directly through market trading--no interaction with the GCAES conversion system is necessary; along the same lines, if the market price of power is above a particular threshold, and the GCAES equipment is not currently in use to supply power for the firm power contract(s), the GCAES plant can release energy from storage and supply it to the grid at the market price).
Regarding Claims 8 and 18, Marcus in view of Archer disclose the limitations of Claims 7 and 17. Marcus additionally discloses wherein the one or more vectors or tuples include one or more of a computing process vector or tuple, an energy market signal vector or tuple, or a renewable resource availability vector or tuple (¶ 0073; as part of the power trading component, market conditions are analyzed in time increments, preferably very short increments, from 30 seconds to an hour, or any other suitable time period; if, during that increment, the market price of power is below a particular threshold, such as a historical average, daily average, 24-hour rolling average, or some other indicator, that power can be purchased, and idle GCAES equipment can be used to put the energy into storage; further, if the market price is below the price of a baseload contract, the cheaper power can be used to fulfill the contract for that time increment; in other words, the power can be purchased at the low market price and sold at the contract price directly through market trading--no interaction with the GCAES conversion system is necessary; along the same lines, if the market price of power is above a particular threshold, and the GCAES equipment is not currently in use to supply power for the firm power contract(s), the GCAES plant can release energy from storage and supply it to the grid at the market price).
Regarding Claims 9 and 19, Marcus in view of Archer disclose the limitations of Claims 8 and 18. Marcus additionally discloses wherein the determining of optimization includes determining one or more of a location in the system for executing the at least one computing process (¶ 0021, 0071-0073; the system includes a trading subsystem for initiating at least one of a purchase of electricity, an offer to purchase electricity, a sale of electricity, and an offer to sell electricity; the trading subsystem may be adapted to fulfill a power service by buying electricity at a market price, and selling electricity at a contract price; as part of the power trading component, market conditions are analyzed in time increments, preferably very short increments, from 30 seconds to an hour, or any other suitable time period; if, during that increment, the market price of power is below a particular threshold, such as a historical average, daily average, 24-hour rolling average, or some other indicator, that power can be purchased, and idle GCAES equipment can be used to put the energy into storage; further, if the market price is below the price of a baseload contract, the cheaper power can be used to fulfill the contract for that time increment; in other words, the power can be purchased at the low market price and sold at the contract price directly through market trading--no interaction with the GCAES conversion system is necessary; along the same lines, if the market price of power is above a particular threshold, and the GCAES equipment is not currently in use to supply power for the firm power contract(s), the GCAES plant can release energy from storage and supply it to the grid at the market price). Marcus does not explicitly disclose but Archer does disclose wherein the system comprises a modular data center (¶ 0036, 0066; Fig. 1; the DCUs collectively enable a modular computing installation, for example, a data center; powering the data center by the electrical power generation system and selling excess power generated by the electrical power generation system to the electrical grid).
The rationale to combine remains the same as for Claim 1.
Regarding Claims 10 and 20, Marcus in view of Archer disclose the limitations of Claims 9 and 19. Marcus additionally discloses wherein the executing of the at least one computing process includes executing in a time interval (¶ 0073, 0093; as part of the power trading component, market conditions are analyzed in time increments, preferably very short increments, from 30 seconds to an hour, or any other suitable time period; if, during that increment, the market price of power is below a particular threshold, such as a historical average, daily average, 24-hour rolling average, or some other indicator, that power can be purchased, and idle GCAES equipment can be used to put the energy into storage; further, if the market price is below the price of a baseload contract, the cheaper power can be used to fulfill the contract for that time increment; in other words, the power can be purchased at the low market price and sold at the contract price directly through market trading--no interaction with the GCAES conversion system is necessary; along the same lines, if the market price of power is above a particular threshold, and the GCAES equipment is not currently in use to supply power for the firm power contract(s), the GCAES plant can release energy from storage and supply it to the grid at the market price; at the beginning of a time interval based on the region (e.g., five minutes, thirty minutes, one hour, or any other period based on the regional market), the algorithm considers the actual storage level, forecasted price, and wind data, for a predictive time period (e.g., 24 hours, 168 hours, or any suitable time period), and runs the optimization methodology to come up with the optimal solution for both the operation room and the trading room for the current time interval).
Discussion of Prior Art Cited but Not Applied
For additional information on the state of the art regarding the claims of the present application, please see the following documents not applied in this Office Action (all of which are prior art to the present application):
US 11574372 – “Blockchain Mine at Oil Or Gas Facility,” Barbour, disclosing a system for directing generated energy for use in computing processes related to Blockchain mining
PGPub 20250021395 – “Operational Value Optimization for Data Center Power and Computational Load,” Kelly et al, disclosing a system for optimized usage of generated power in executing data center commands and operations
Rahman et al, A Survey on Geographic Load Balancing Based Data Center Power Management in the Smart Grid Environment, IEEE Communications Surveys & Tutorials 2024, Vol. 16, Issue 1, pgs. 214-233, disclosing systems and techniques for the optimization of generated power sale and/or usage in a data center
Cao et al, Toward a Systematic Survey for Carbon Neutral Data Centers, IEEE Communications Surveys & Tutorials 2022, Vol. 24, Issue 2, pgs. 895-936, disclosing structure and techniques for powering data centers using renewable energy and choosing how to use generated energy (e.g., selling excess energy to the grid)
Ding et al, A Demand Response Energy Management Scheme for Industrial Facilities in Smart Grid, IEEE Transactions on Industrial Informatics 2014, Vol. 10, Issue 4, pgs. 2257-2269, disclosing techniques for determining optimized schemes for energy generation, usage of such energy in DR opportunities (e.g., for use in data centers), and sale of excess power to the grid
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MARK C CLARE whose telephone number is (571)272-8748. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 6:30am-2:30pm 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, Jeffrey Zimmerman can be reached at (571) 272-4602. 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.
/MARK C CLARE/Examiner, Art Unit 3628
/MICHAEL P HARRINGTON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3628