DETAILED ACTION
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 02/05/2026 has been entered.
Status of Claims
The following is a Non-Final Office Action in response to applicant’s amendments filed on 02/05/2026.
Claims 1 and 5 are amended. Claims 1-8 are considered in this Office Action. Claims 1-8 are currently pending.
Response to Amendments
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office Action.
Response to §112(b) arguments: Applicant’s arguments have been considered. Applicant’s amendments to claims 1 and 5 overcome the indefinite rejection by establish clear antecedent basis and structural connections between claim limitations. The 35 U.S.C. §112(b) rejection is withdrawn.
Applicant’s amendments have been considered, and they do not overcome the 35 USC §101 rejection. Applicant’s arguments are primarily raised in light of applicant’s amendments. An updated 101 rejection will address applicant’s amendments.
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 1-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-patentable subject matter. The claims are directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Claims 1-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. The eligibility analysis in support of these findings is provided below, in accordance with the “Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance” (MPEP 2106).
With respect to Step 1 of the eligibility inquiry (as explained in MPEP 2106), it is first noted that the computer system (claims 1-4) and the method (claim 5-8) are directed to an eligible category of subject matter (i.e., process, machine, and article of manufacture respectively). Thus, Step 1 is satisfied.
With respect to Step 2, and in particular Step 2A Prong One of MPEP 2106, it is next noted that the claims fall under the claims fall under “mathematical concept”, such as: training [...] models on historical grid consumption data to identify recurring load patterns and predict load spikes with temporal granularity, executing the trained [...] to generate probability-weighted predictions of future resource requirements based on real-time grid measurements and external data comprising weather forecasts and scheduled events and applying multi-objective optimization algorithms that balance congestion relief effectiveness, flexibility procurement cost, and user comfort maintenance to calculate specific load modifications for individual flexible assets. The claims further recite an abstract idea of “certain methods of organizing human activity” The “using, generating, implementing” limitations, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitations as certain methods of organizing human activity, advertising, marketing or sales activities or behaviors. The method for enhanced smart grid framework with optimized incentive capabilities and scheduling of resources. Thus, the claim recites an abstract idea. (See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)). The claims further recite an abstract idea by the “mental process” by reciting steps that can be performed in the human mind (e.g., observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion) of coordinate aggregated resource responses to maintain overall grid stability, wherein the courts consider a mental process (thinking) that "can be performed in the human mind, or by a human using a pen and paper” to be an abstract idea. The limitations reciting the abstract idea are highlighted in italics and the limitation directed to additional elements highlighted in bold, as set forth in exemplary claim 1, are: A computer system comprising: a hardware memory, wherein the computer system is configured to execute software instructions stored on no transitory machine-readable storage media that: monitor real-time electrical load conditions of a power grid to identify consumption patterns and capacity constraints, wherein monitoring comprises measuring voltage levels, frequency, and transformer loading at multiple points across distribution networks(recited at high level of generality amount to means to gather data which fall within insignificant extra-solution activity); provide a marketplace interface enabling distributed energy resource owners to specify availability parameters and compensation requirements; generate inverse consumption profiles through artificial intelligence processing that analyzes high-demand load patterns, predicts future consumption trajectories, calculates required counterbalancing responses across multiple time horizons, and optimizes resource allocation while solving multi-constraint optimization problems in real-time, wherein the artificial intelligence processing comprises: training neural network models on historical grid consumption data to identify recurring load patterns and predict load spikes with temporal granularity; executing the trained neural network models to generate probability-weighted predictions of future resource requirements based on real-time grid measurements and external data comprising weather forecasts and scheduled events; and applying multi-objective optimization algorithms that balance congestion relief effectiveness, flexibility procurement cost, and user comfort maintenance to calculate specific load modifications for individual flexible assets, wherein calculating specific load modifications comprises identifying transformer loading approaching thermal limits and calculating the specific load modifications to prevent transformer loading from exceeding rated capacity; transmit dispatch commands to the individual flexible assets to orchestrate implementation of the specific load modifications while respecting user- defined operational constraints; coordinate the specific load modifications across multiple asset categories through automated dispatch commands, wherein the automated dispatch commands comprise device-specific control signals formatted according to protocol requirements of residential smart thermostats, commercial building management systems, industrial programmable logic controllers, and electric vehicle charging management systems; and mask the grid impact of new high-demand users by creating complementary consumption patterns that maintain overall grid stability without infrastructure modifications, wherein masking comprises: calculating a precise inverse consumption profile that, when combined with the high- demand user's load profile, results in minimal net impact on grid voltage levels, frequency stability, and equipment loading: and continuously adjusting the inverse consumption profile based on real-time feedback measurements to maintain grid parameters within operational limits, wherein adjusting the inverse consumption comprises measuring actual grid voltage levels and transformer loading during dispatch of the specific load modifications(recited at high level of generality and amounts insignificant extra-solution activity). Claim 5 recites substantially the same limitations as claim 1 and therefore subject to the same rationale.
With respect to Step 2A Prong Two of MPEP 2106, the judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. The additional elements are directed to a computer system comprising: a hardware memory, wherein the computer system is configured to execute software instructions stored on no transitory machine-readable storage media, monitoring comprises measuring voltage levels, frequency, and transformer loading at multiple points across distribution networks(recited at high level of generality amount to means to gather data which fall within insignificant extra-solution activity), transmit dispatch commands to the individual flexible assets (recited at high level of generality) a marketplace interface enabling, artificial intelligence(recited at high level of generality amount to “apply it”), coordinate the specific load modifications across multiple asset categories through automated dispatch commands, wherein the automated dispatch commands comprise device-specific control signals formatted according to protocol requirements of residential smart thermostats, commercial building management systems, industrial programmable logic controllers, and electric vehicle charging management systems (recited at high level of generality amounts to post-solution activity), adjusting the inverse consumption comprises measuring actual grid voltage levels and transformer loading during dispatch of the specific load modifications(recited at high level of generality and amounts insignificant extra-solution activity), neural network models(recited at high level of generality amount to “apply it”), and artificial intelligence based incentive platform (recited at high level of generality) to implement the abstract idea. However, these elements fail to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they fail to provide an improvement to the functioning of a computer or to any other technology or technical field, fail to apply the exception with a particular machine, fail to effect a transformation of a particular article to a different state or thing, and fail to apply/use the abstract idea in a meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment. Furthermore, these elements have been fully considered, however they are directed to the use of generic computing elements (Applicant’s Specification describes in paragraph “[0156] The exemplary computing environment described herein comprises a computing device 10 (further comprising a system bus 11, one or more processors 20, a system memory 30, one or more interfaces 40, one or more non-volatile data storage devices 50), external peripherals and accessories 60, external communication devices 70, remote computing devices 80, and cloud-based services 90” which describe high level computing environment) to perform the abstract idea, which is not sufficient to amount to a practical application and is tantamount to simply saying “apply it” using a general purpose computer, which merely serves to tie the abstract idea to a particular technological environment (computer based operating environment) by using the computer as a tool to perform the abstract idea, which is not sufficient to amount to particular application. Further, the “artificial intelligence” merely represents computer/ processor environment automatically executing predefined models per changes in the input data/parameters, and mere instructions to apply/implement/automate an abstract idea in a particular technological environment and merely limiting the use of an abstract idea to a particular field or technological environment do not eliminate existence of an abstract idea, do not provide practical application for an abstract idea and do not provide significantly more to an abstract idea MPEP 2106.05(f) &(h)). Moreover, It is notable that mere physicality or tangibility of an additional element or elements is not a relevant consideration in Step 2A Prong Two. As the Supreme Court explained in Alice Corp., mere physical or tangible implementation of an exception does not guarantee eligibility. Alice Corp. Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank Int’l, 573 U.S. 208, 224, 110 USPQ2d 1976, 1983-84 (2014) (“The fact that a computer ‘necessarily exist[s] in the physical, rather than purely conceptual, realm,’ is beside the point”).
Furthermore, in accordance to MPEP 2105.05 (d), the courts have recognized the following computer functions as well‐understood, routine, and conventional functions when they are claimed in a merely generic manner (e.g., at a high level of generality) or as insignificant extra-solution activity.
Receiving or transmitting data over a network, e.g., using the Internet to gather data, Symantec, 838 F.3d at 1321, 120 USPQ2d at 1362 (utilizing an intermediary computer to forward information); TLI Communications LLC v. AV Auto. LLC, 823 F.3d 607, 610, 118 USPQ2d 1744, 1745 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (using a telephone for image transmission); OIP Techs., Inc., v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363, 115 USPQ2d 1090, 1093 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (sending messages over a network); buySAFE, Inc. v. Google, Inc., 765 F.3d 1350, 1355, 112 USPQ2d 1093, 1096 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (computer receives and sends information over a network); but see DDR Holdings, LLC v. Hotels.com, L.P., 773 F.3d 1245, 1258, 113 USPQ2d 1097, 1106 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (“Unlike the claims in Ultramercial, the claims at issue here specify how interactions with the Internet are manipulated to yield a desired result‐‐a result that overrides the routine and conventional sequence of events ordinarily triggered by the click of a hyperlink.” (emphasis added));
Performing repetitive calculations, Flook, 437 U.S. at 594, 198 USPQ2d at 199 (recomputing or readjusting alarm limit values); Bancorp Services v. Sun Life, 687 F.3d 1266, 1278, 103 USPQ2d 1425, 1433 (Fed. Cir. 2012) (“The computer required by some of Bancorp’s claims is employed only for its most basic function, the performance of repetitive calculations, and as such does not impose meaningful limits on the scope of those claims.”); and,
Storing and retrieving information in memory, Versata Dev. Group, Inc. v. SAP Am., Inc., 793 F.3d 1306, 1334, 115 USPQ2d 1681, 1701 (Fed. Cir. 2015); OIP Techs., 788 F.3d at 1363, 115 USPQ2d at 1092-93.
Accordingly, because the Step 2A Prong One and Prong Two analysis resulted in the conclusion that the claims are directed to an abstract idea, additional analysis under Step 2B of the eligibility inquiry must be conducted in order to determine whether any claim element or combination of elements amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
With respect to Step 2B of the eligibility inquiry, it has been determined that the claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. The additional limitations are directed to: a computer system comprising: a hardware memory, wherein the computer system is configured to execute software instructions stored on no transitory machine-readable storage media, monitoring comprises measuring voltage levels, frequency, and transformer loading at multiple points across distribution networks(recited at high level of generality amount to means to gather data which fall within insignificant extra-solution activity), transmit dispatch commands to the individual flexible assets (recited at high level of generality) a marketplace interface enabling, artificial intelligence(recited at high level of generality amount to “apply it”), coordinate the specific load modifications across multiple asset categories through automated dispatch commands, wherein the automated dispatch commands comprise device-specific control signals formatted according to protocol requirements of residential smart thermostats, commercial building management systems, industrial programmable logic controllers, and electric vehicle charging management systems (recited at high level of generality amounts to post-solution activity), adjusting the inverse consumption comprises measuring actual grid voltage levels and transformer loading during dispatch of the specific load modifications(recited at high level of generality and amounts insignificant extra-solution activity), neural network models(recited at high level of generality amount to “apply it”), and artificial intelligence based incentive platform (recited at high level of generality) to implement the abstract idea. These elements have been considered, but merely serve to tie the invention to a particular operating environment (i.e., computer-based implementation), though at a very high level of generality and without imposing meaningful limitation on the scope of the claim. In addition, Applicant’s Specification (Applicant’s Specification describes in paragraph “[0156] The exemplary computing environment described herein comprises a computing device 10 (further comprising a system bus 11, one or more processors 20, a system memory 30, one or more interfaces 40, one or more non-volatile data storage devices 50), external peripherals and accessories 60, external communication devices 70, remote computing devices 80, and cloud-based services 90” which describe high level computing environment) describes generic off-the-shelf computer-based elements for implementing the claimed invention, and which does not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea, which is not enough to transform an abstract idea into eligible subject matter. Such generic, high-level, and nominal involvement of a computer or computer-based elements for carrying out the invention merely serves to tie the abstract idea to a particular technological environment, which is not enough to render the claims patent-eligible, as noted at pg. 74624 of Federal Register/Vol. 79, No. 241, citing Alice, which in turn cites Mayo.
With respect to the limitations of “measuring voltage levels, frequency, and transformer loading at multiple points across distribution networks” and “adjusting the inverse consumption profile based on real-time feedback measurements to maintain grid parameters within operational limits, wherein adjusting the inverse consumption comprises measuring actual grid voltage levels and transformer loading during dispatch of the specific load modifications,” applicant’s specification describes the additional elements as well-understood or routine or conventional (or an equivalent term), as a commercially available product, or in a manner that indicates that the additional elements are sufficiently well-known that the specification does not need to describe the particulars of such additional elements to satisfy 35 U.S.C. 112(a). For example, applicant’s specification paragraphs [0063] and [0064]: “ [0063] A mathematical model processor 270 implements optimization algorithms to find the optimal set of control actions that achieve the required counterbalancing while minimizing costs and user impacts. Mathematical model processor 270 formulates the counterbalancing problem as a multi-objective optimization with constraints.” “[0064] In one embodiment, mathematical model processor 270 implements a comprehensive optimization framework for flexibility resource dispatch that balances multiple competing objectives. The primary optimization goal minimizes the total system cost of procuring flexibility while ensuring that the aggregate response from all flexible resources precisely counterbalances the high-demand user’s consumption to maintain grid stability.” It is notable that mere physicality or tangibility of an additional element or elements is not a relevant consideration in Step 2B. As the Supreme Court explained in Alice Corp., mere physical or tangible implementation of an exception is not in itself an inventive concept and does not guarantee eligibility.
Furthermore, in accordance to MPEP 2105.05 (d), the courts have recognized the following computer functions as well‐understood, routine, and conventional functions when they are claimed in a merely generic manner (e.g., at a high level of generality) or as insignificant extra-solution activity.
Receiving or transmitting data over a network, e.g., using the Internet to gather data, Symantec, 838 F.3d at 1321, 120 USPQ2d at 1362 (utilizing an intermediary computer to forward information); TLI Communications LLC v. AV Auto. LLC, 823 F.3d 607, 610, 118 USPQ2d 1744, 1745 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (using a telephone for image transmission); OIP Techs., Inc., v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363, 115 USPQ2d 1090, 1093 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (sending messages over a network); buySAFE, Inc. v. Google, Inc., 765 F.3d 1350, 1355, 112 USPQ2d 1093, 1096 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (computer receives and sends information over a network); but see DDR Holdings, LLC v. Hotels.com, L.P., 773 F.3d 1245, 1258, 113 USPQ2d 1097, 1106 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (“Unlike the claims in Ultramercial, the claims at issue here specify how interactions with the Internet are manipulated to yield a desired result‐‐a result that overrides the routine and conventional sequence of events ordinarily triggered by the click of a hyperlink.” (emphasis added));
Performing repetitive calculations, Flook, 437 U.S. at 594, 198 USPQ2d at 199 (recomputing or readjusting alarm limit values); Bancorp Services v. Sun Life, 687 F.3d 1266, 1278, 103 USPQ2d 1425, 1433 (Fed. Cir. 2012) (“The computer required by some of Bancorp’s claims is employed only for its most basic function, the performance of repetitive calculations, and as such does not impose meaningful limits on the scope of those claims.”); and,
Storing and retrieving information in memory, Versata Dev. Group, Inc. v. SAP Am., Inc., 793 F.3d 1306, 1334, 115 USPQ2d 1681, 1701 (Fed. Cir. 2015); OIP Techs., 788 F.3d at 1363, 115 USPQ2d at 1092-93.
In addition, when taken as an ordered combination, the ordered combination adds nothing that is not already present as when the elements are taken individually. There is no indication that the combination of elements integrates the abstract idea into a practical application. Their collective functions merely provide conventional computer implementation. Therefore, when viewed as a whole, these additional claim elements do not provide meaningful limitations to transform the abstract idea into a practical application of the abstract idea or that the ordered combination amounts to significantly more than the abstract idea itself.
The dependent claims have been fully considered as well (i.e., claims 2/6 recites “”marketplace interface (amounts to GUI), claims 3/7 recites the automated dispatch commands are transmitted through multiple protocol-specific handlers for residential devices, commercial facilities, manufacturing equipment, and autonomous vehicle fleets, wherein the protocol-specific handlers comprise: a residential protocol handler implementing WiFi-based communication with smart home devices; a commercial protocol handler implementing building automation protocols for commercial building management systems; an industrial protocol handler implementing industrial control protocols for supervisory control and data acquisition systems: and an electric vehicle protocol handler implementing vehicle-to-grid communication protocols. (recited at high level of generality and amounts to transmitting instruction to an end-point, which is extra-solution activity), claim 4 recites artificial intelligence and claim 8 describes artificial intelligence processing comprises neural network models trained on historical grid consumption (the artificial intelligence processing amounts to “apply it”)). However, these elements fail to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they fail to provide an improvement to the functioning of a computer or to any other technology or technical field, fail to apply the exception with a particular machine, fail to effect a transformation of a particular article to a different state or thing, and fail to apply/use the abstract idea in a meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment. Furthermore, these elements have been fully considered, however they are directed to the use of generic computing elements (Applicant’s Specification describes in paragraph [0156] which describe high level computing environment) to perform the abstract idea, which is not sufficient to amount to a practical application and is tantamount to simply saying “apply it” using a general purpose computer, which merely serves to tie the abstract idea to a particular technological environment (computer based operating environment) by using the computer as a tool to perform the abstract idea, which is not sufficient to amount to particular application. Further, the “artificial intelligence” merely represents computer/ processor environment automatically executing predefined models per changes in the input data/parameters, and mere instructions to apply/implement/automate an abstract idea in a particular technological environment and merely limiting the use of an abstract idea to a particular field or technological environment do not eliminate existence of an abstract idea, do not provide practical application for an abstract idea and do not provide significantly more to an abstract idea MPEP 2106.05(f) &(h)).These elements have been considered, but merely serve to tie the invention to a particular operating environment (i.e., computer-based implementation), though at a very high level of generality and without imposing meaningful limitation on the scope of the claim. In addition, Applicant’s Specification (Applicant’s Specification describes in paragraph [0156]) describes generic off-the-shelf computer-based elements for implementing the claimed invention, and which does not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea, which is not enough to transform an abstract idea into eligible subject matter. Such generic, high-level, and nominal involvement of a computer or computer-based elements for carrying out the invention merely serves to tie the abstract idea to a particular technological environment, which is not enough to render the claims patent-eligible, as noted at pg. 74624 of Federal Register/Vol. 79, No. 241, citing Alice, which in turn cites Mayo), however, similar to the finding for claims above, these claims are similarly directed to the abstract idea of mental process, mathematical concept, and certain method of organizing human activity, without integrating it into a practical application and with, at most, a general purpose computer that serves to tie the idea to a particular technological environment, which does not add significantly more to the claims. The ordered combination of elements in the dependent claims (including the limitations inherited from the parent claim(s)) add nothing that is not already present as when the elements are taken individually. There is no indication that the combination of elements improves the functioning of a computer or improves any other technology. Their collective functions merely provide conventional computer implementation. Accordingly, the subject matter encompassed by the dependent claims fails to amount to significantly more than the abstract idea.
Discussion of Prior Art
Claims 1-8 are objected, but would be allowable, if they were amended in such a way to overcome the 35 USC 101 rejection set forth in the action.
Independent claims 1 and 5 are rendered neither obvious nor anticipated by the available field of prior art. The claims overcome the prior art combination of the record such that none of the cited prior art references can be applied to form the basis of a 35 USC 102 rejection nor can they be combined to fairly suggest in combination, the basis of a 35 USC 103 rejection when the limitations are read in the particularenvironment of the claims.
The closest prior art is Jimmy Jia (US 2015/0994968 A1, hereinafter “Jia”), Minesh Bhakta (US 2022/0385073 A1, hereinafter “Bhakta”), Jordan Frances Hancock (CA 3230281 A1, hereinafter “Hancock”), Michael Sean Brown (US 20170243290 A1, hereinafter “Brown”), and Clemens Pfeiffer (US 2009/0240964 A1, hereinafter “Pfeiffer”).
Jia is directed to a system for electric grid utilization and optimization comprising a communications interface executing on a network-connected server and adapted to receive information from a plurality of iNodes, the plurality of iNodes comprising a plurality of transmission or distribution iNodes. A statistics server coupled to the event database and the modeling server, wherein the modeling server, receives a request to establish an allocation of at least one of transmission losses, distribution losses, and ancillary services to a specific sink iNode, computes at least one virtual path for electricity flow between a source iNode and the specific sink iNode, the computed path being determined based on optimization of perceived comfort of users in affected areas. Bhakta teaches an energy monitoring and control system that monitors and controls the peak energy demand so that demand charges are reduced. The system includes an electrical load which receives an aggregate power signal having grid, battery, and solar power supply components. An energy monitoring panel determines the grid and solar power components. A battery-demand modulator panel determines a charge cycle for a battery power supply. An energy gateway processor receives information from the battery-demand modulator panel regarding the charge cycle for the battery power supply and information from the energy monitoring panel regarding the grid and solar power components. The battery-demand modulator panel modulates the charge cycle for the battery power supply, in response to a signal from the energy gateway processor, to adjust the battery power supply component of the aggregate power signal. Hancock is directed to energy optimization engine receives energy supply characteristics and facility operational energy consumption characteristic of energy assets associated with the facility over a first time period, and electrical vehicle operational requirements for the electric vehicles during a second period; computes energy distribution instructions for the first time period and satisfying a designated energy condition corresponding at least in part with the energy supply characteristics; and directs operation of the charge stations or the energy assets in accordance with the energy distribution instructions. Brown is directed to system for monitoring and assigning available electrical power generation and storage attributes associated with premises in a micro-grid by analyzing supply and demand characteristics of premises in a micro-grid, correlating said characteristics with external sources, coordinating the switching of excess power and storage of excess power for the benefit of members of the micro-grid and, optionally, negotiating the purchase or sale of power to/from a national/state power grid. Pfeiffer is directed to looking at the total computing requirements for an application within one location, across multiple locations, load balanced, virtualized or in a cluster configuration and comparing said computing requirements to the total computing capacity required to run said application at any given moment in time with enough buffer to insure application service levels. The method and apparatus that will adjust by application load on computing equipment within predefined levels and adds and removes computing equipment automatically and dynamically as needed to provide enough computing capacity to keep load levels within such predefined levels continuously independent of increasing or decreasing application demand.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
Peerapol et al.(US 20160248251 A1): directed to managing energy consumption within an energy management system are disclosed. In one embodiment, the energy management system includes a power generator and a management controller that controls activation of a plurality of load devices. The management controller is communicatively coupled to a meter that measures electrical energy transferred between the energy management system and an external power grid. The management controller monitors, using information from the meter, electrical energy transfer between the energy management system and the external power grid and receives a feed-out limit message from the external power grid. The management controller processes the feed-out limit message and modifies activation scheduling of at least one of the plurality of load devices based, at least in part, on processing the feed-out limit message.
Karl et al. (US 12199425 B1): directed to systems, including a computing device having a graphics processing unit (GPU) and a memory, an Energy Management System (EMS) configured for regulating power usage and optimizing energy efficiency, a distributed power resource for providing a stable and efficient energy supply, a database configured to store energy metrics, a Large Language Model (LLM) for processing the energy metrics stored to generate an energy management plan, an API gateway providing external systems secure, on-demand access to the GPU, and a software module for managing the GPU-on-demand system according to the energy management plan. The microgrid also includes one or more management servers for managing the delivery and distribution of power among the GPU-on-demand systems to optimize efficiency and uptime, and a network of power lines that interconnect the GPU-on-demand systems.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to REHAM K ABOUZAHRA whose telephone number is (571)272-0419. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7:00 AM to 5:00 PM.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Brian Epstein can be reached at (571)-270-5389. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/REHAM K ABOUZAHRA/ Examiner, Art Unit 3625
Prosecution Insights