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 amendment filed on 6/10/2026.
Claims 1-2, 4, 6-7, 9, 11-12, 14, 16, 21-22, and 24 have been amended and are hereby entered.
Claims 3, 13, and 23 have been canceled.
Claims 1-2, 4-12, 14-22, and 24-25 are currently pending and have been examined.
This action is made FINAL.
Response to Applicant’s Arguments
Objections
Regarding the previous objections to Claims 9 and 19, Applicant asserts that “[t]he Applicant has amended the claims in accordance with the Examiner’s comments and respectfully requests withdrawal of the claim objections.” This assertion is untrue, as Claim 9 is solely amended in relation to Applicant’s other amendments to Claim 1 (upon which Claim 9 depends), failing to address the subject of the previous objection, and Claim 19 is not presently amended at all. As such, these objections are modified based on the present amendments to Claim 9 and maintained.
Claim Interpretation
Applicant argues against the previous 112(f) interpretation of the term “control system” in Claims 1, 11, and 21. These arguments are in part persuasive and in part unpersuasive.
The core argument presented by Applicant is that “control system” is not a nonce term, but rather “it is a term that persons of ordinary skill in the art understand to denote a specific class of structure.” Applicant is mistaken, as “control system” does indeed constitute a nonce term, one which may be embodied by a vast variety of structural arrangements (in part based on the vast array of systems and machines, executing a vast array of different functionalities, to which the term “control system” may be applied) rather than one which would have a particular structure understood by one of ordinary skill in the art.
Indeed, this lack of definite structure is supported by Applicant’s arguments here rather than refuted by them, as was seemingly Applicant’s intent. For example, these arguments assert that this term is “a well-established term of art in electrical engineering, computer science, and industrial automation that refers to hardware and/or software configured to direct the operations of a system” (Examiner’s emphasis), which references a few of the variety of industries in which this term might be used, and even internally admits that the term does not denote particular structure (ie: ignoring that no particular hardware is asserted in this argument, Applicant admits that a “control system” may at least constitute pure hardware, pure software, or a combination of the two). Applicant’s further argument that a control system “denotes a system with sensors or data inputs, processing logic, and outputs that govern the behavior of a controlled plant or process” similarly uses alternative language, and further defines the term by way of what it does (ie: receiving inputs, processing data, and generating outputs) rather than by what structure it comprises. This is precisely the issue which necessitates interpretation under 112(f), and thus Applicant is admitting this necessity here rather than refuting it. Even in the singular instance where actual structure is asserted (ie: sensors), this is not definitional but rather situational depending upon the industry and/or purpose to which a particular control system is applied (further admitted by Applicant here by the use of “or” in conjunction with these sensors). Applicant is encouraged to review at least MPEP 2181 to properly understand the standards of interpretation under 112(f).
Where Applicant’s arguments are persuasive are solely in relation to the present amendments to Claim 11, wherein the term “control system” is indeed modified by sufficient structure (ie: one or more processors; a memory storing instructions executable by said processors) for performing the functions associated therewith. Therefore, 112(f) of “control system” is no longer necessary in relation to the drafting of Claim 11. Should Claims 1 and 21 be similarly amended in the future, the 112(f) interpretations thereof would likewise be obviated.
As such, the previous 112(f) interpretations are maintained as relates to Claims 1 and 21 and withdrawn as relates to Claim 11. Examiner reminds Applicant that interpretation under 112(f) is not an objection or rejection, and does not in and of itself preclude patentability.
Claim Rejections – 35 USC § 112
Similar to the objections addressed above, Applicant asserts that “[t]he Applicant has amended the claims in accordance with the Examiner’s comments.” Here, as in relation to the objections, this is in significant part untrue.
Regarding the 112(b) rejections of Claims 1, 11, and 21 and the associated subjectivity of the claimed optimization, Claims 1 and 21 are amended sufficiently to obviate this issue, but Claim 11 contains similar language which remains indefinite for the same reasons as set forth in said previous 112(b) rejections. As such, these rejections are variously withdrawn or modified and maintained as appropriate.
Regarding the 112(b) rejection of Claim 22, this issue is not addressed. As such, this 112(b) rejection is presently maintained.
Claim Rejections – 35 USC § 101
While the present Remarks related to 101 contain numerous misapprehensions and misapplications of legal standards as relates to the subject matter eligibility analysis (e.g., improperly reads limitations from the specification into the claims rather than properly interpreting the claim language in light of the specification; misapprehends the recitation of multiple categories of abstract idea under Step 2A, Prong One in a manner that flies in the face of the holding and reasoning of the seminal Alice (e.g., erroneously asserts that the bare use of computer elements as a tool to perform abstract functions/determinations prevents recitation of abstract ideas) and the myriad Federal Circuit applications of the Alice/Mayo test in the years since; presents arguments in relation to the “optimization” which is removed from independent Claims 1 and 21 as presently amended; applies Step 2A, Prong One to the claim as a whole, whereas the claim as a whole is considered in Step 2A, Prong Two and Step 2B; misapprehends the well-understood, routine, and conventional consideration of Step 2B, including when and to what it applies), Examiner agrees that the independent claims (and thus the dependent claims as well) integrate the recited abstract ideas into a practical application under Step 2A, Prong Two. Particularly, Examiner finds that the allocation of electrical power to particular pieces of modular equipment to perform execution of computing processes based on abstract determinations (e.g., output/availability of power from one or more power sources) improves the functioning of a modular data center in analogous fashion to, e.g., the improvement to the functioning of a rubber mold in Diamond v. Diehr, 450 U.S. 175, 209 USPQ2d 1 (1981). As such, in view of the present amendments to the claims, the previous 101 rejections are withdrawn.
Claim Rejections – 35 USC § 103
Applicant’s arguments regarding the 103 analysis have been considered and are unpersuasive.
Applicant’s arguments regarding 103 are based on newly drafted claim language, and as such need not be addressed here. Further, these arguments are moot in view of the updated 103 rejections below. Further still, these arguments are made in an entirely unsupported, conclusory manner, failing to engage with the content of the cited references in any meaningful way. Such conclusory arguments are improper, providing Examiner with no understanding of Applicant’s thought process and nothing particular to which Examiner may respond. Generally, Examiner disagrees with Applicant’s conclusory arguments, finding that the claims even as presently amended are obvious in view of the combination of the previously cited Marcus and Archer references. Indeed, power-based analysis and distribution is so central to both Marcus and Archer (apparent from any meaningful review of either reference) that Examiner is at a loss as to how Applicant could reasonably conclude otherwise.
Particularly regarding the Archer reference, while Applicant is correct generally that the cited content of Archer must be supported in the provisional applications thereof for Archer to constitute prior art to the present invention, Applicant is mistaken in the belief that Examiner must illustrate such support to establish a prima facie case of obviousness. Rather, an applicant may challenge such support should said applicant find that such support is lacking. Examiner maintains his conclusions that the passages of Archer which are cited (including passages newly cited in response to the present claim amendments) all find support in one or both of the provisional applications of Archer. For example, the structural details found in Paragraphs 0036, 0057, and 0066 and Fig. 1 of Archer are supported by at least pg. 19 of Provisional 63521082 and Paragraphs 0054 and 0066 and Fig. 1 of Provisional 63553619. As another example, the data gathering, data analysis, and power distribution execution functionalities of Paragraphs 0207, 0219, and 0280 and Figs. 13A-13B of Archer are supported by at least Paragraphs 0055, 0146, and 0209 and Figs. 3A-3B of Provisional 63553619.
Claim Objections
Claims 1, 9, 11, and 19 are objected to because of the following informalities:
In Claim 1, “generating, by the control system, based on the received data and power output, an allocation for…” should read “generating, by the control system, based on the received telemetry data and the power output, an allocation for…” to maintain proper antecedent basis in view of present amendments.
In Claim 11, “receive telemetry data relating to performance of the one or more computing processes, determine and power output from one or more power sources supplying the modular data center” should read “receive telemetry data relating to performance of the one or more computing processes, and power output from one or more power sources supplying the modular data center.”
In Claim 11, “generate, based on the received telemetry data and the power output, an optimization for execution of allocation that assigns the one or more computing processes based upon to computing equipment of one or more of the received modular data center modules” should read “generate, based on the received telemetry data and the power output, an optimization for execution of allocation that assigns the one or more computing processes to computing equipment of one or more of the modular data center modules.”
In Claim 11, “…based upon the determination of optimization of the at least one computing process” should read “…based upon the generated optimization of the at least one computing process” or similar to maintain proper antecedent basis in view of present amendments.
In Claims 9 and 19, “wherein the generating an allocation 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 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 11-12, 14-20, and 22 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.
Claim 11 contains the following limitations: “generate, based on the received telemetry data and the power output, an optimization for execution of allocation that assigns the one or more computing processes based upon to computing equipment of one or more of the received modular data center modules” and “cause execution of at least one computing process of the one or more computing processes for on the computing equipment according to the allocation such that electrical energy supplied by the one or more power sources is consumed by execution based upon the determination of optimization of the at least one computing process.” As noted in the objections above, the phrase “the determination of optimization” in the latter limitation does not maintain proper antecedent basis with the generated optimization of the former limitation. More critically, this optimization continues to be indefinite as subjective as explained in the 112(b) rejection of Claims 1, 11, and 21 in the Non-Final Rejection of 3/10/2026 (see said Office Action for more information). For the purposes of this examination, and particularly in view of the present amendments to similar limitations in other independent Claims 1 and 21, these limitations will be interpreted as “generate, based on the received telemetry data and the power output, an allocation that assigns the one or more computing processes based upon to computing equipment of one or more of the received modular data center modules” and “cause execution of at least one computing process of the one or more computing processes for on the computing equipment according to the allocation such that electrical energy supplied by the one or more power sources is consumed by execution of the at least one computing process” respectively. Claims 12 and 14-20 are rejected due to their dependence upon Claim 11.
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 § 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 1-2, 4-12, 14-22, and 24-25 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).
Marcus does not explicitly disclose but Archer does disclose a modular data center comprising one or more modular data center modules, each module including computing equipment configured to execute one or more computing processes (¶ 0036, 0057, 0062, 0066, 0117; Fig. 1; the power consumption system generally comprises any number of power consumers, including DCUs, adapted to consume the electrical power provided by the power production system; the DCUs collectively enable a modular computing installation, for example, a data center, cryptocurrency mine; 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; with respect to computing resource allocation for DCUs, first container orchestrator is configured to store in the first controller memory or periodically transmit data including a total power consumption capacity and a currently available power consumption capacity for each of the first DCUs).
Marcus additionally discloses a control system, the control system comprising one or more processors and a memory storing instructions executable by the one or more processors (Abstract; ¶ 0100-0102, 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; the controller may include a computing device in the form of a computer including a processing unit, a system memory, input and output devices, and a system bus that couples various system components including the system memory to the processing unit; 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; computers typically include a variety of computer readable media that can form part of the system memory and be read by the processing unit). 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 of a location, telemetry data relating to performance of one or more computing processes, and power output from one or more power sources supplying the location (Abstract; ¶ 0005, 0015, 0020, 0051, 0059, 0065, 0068, 0073-0077, 0095, 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 location is a modular data center (¶ 0036, 0066, 0207; Figs. 1, 13A; 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 generating, by the control system, based on the received data and power output, an allocation for execution of the one or more computing processes based upon one or more of: parameters of the one or more computing processes, availability and operational status of the modular data center modules, or power availability associated with the one or more power sources (Abstract; ¶ 0004, 0058-0060, 0075-0077, 0092-0098; Figs. 3A-3C, 7-8; the system includes a conversion subsystem coupled to the routing and storage subsystems, and switchable in substantially real-time between a storage mode, in which energy is transferred from the routing to the storage subsystem, and a generation mode, in which energy is transferred from the storage to the routing subsystem for delivery to the grid; 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). Marcus does not explicitly disclose but Archer does disclose wherein the allocation is to one or more modular data center modules and is based on the received data, the power output, and one or more of: parameters of the one or more computing processes, availability and operational status of the modular data center modules, or power availability associated with the one or more power sources (¶ 0036, 0057, 0062, 0066, 0117, 0121, 0207, 0219; Figs. 1, 13A-13B; the power consumption system generally comprises any number of power consumers, including DCUs, adapted to consume the electrical power provided by the power production system; the DCUs collectively enable a modular computing installation, for example, a data center, cryptocurrency mine; 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; with respect to computing resource allocation for DCUs, first container orchestrator is configured to store in the first controller memory or periodically transmit data including a total power consumption capacity and a currently available power consumption capacity for each of the first DCUs; determining an optimal power consumption distribution model for the computing units based on the target power production framework and the metrics related to power consumption system).
Marcus does not explicitly disclose but Archer does disclose causing, by the control system, execution of at least one computing process on computing equipment according to the allocation such that electrical energy supplied by the one or more power sources is consumed by the execution of the at least one computing process (¶ 0036, 0057, 0062, 0066, 0117, 0121, 0207, 0280; Figs. 1, 13A-13B; the power consumption system generally comprises any number of power consumers, including DCUs, adapted to consume the electrical power provided by the power production system; the DCUs collectively enable a modular computing installation, for example, a data center, cryptocurrency mine; 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; with respect to computing resource allocation for DCUs, first container orchestrator is configured to store in the first controller memory or periodically transmit data including a total power consumption capacity and a currently available power consumption capacity for each of the first DCUs; altering the power state of the DCUs determined in step 1306 to achieve the optimal power consumption distribution model). Marcus additionally discloses wherein the at least one computing process is of the one or more computing processes (¶ 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).
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 telemetry 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 4, 14, and 24, Marcus in view of Archer disclose the limitations of Claims 1, 11, and 21. 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 generating an allocation includes a determination of a profitability of the one or more computing processes (¶ 0071, 0075, 0082-0084, 0095; 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 generating an allocation includes forming one or more vectors or tuples (¶ 0073, 0095; 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 generating an allocation 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
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to 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
Prosecution Insights