DETAILED ACTION
Status of Claims
The present application, filed on or after 3/16/2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
This action is in reply to the Application and claims filed 10/31/2025.
Claims were preliminarily amended.
Claims 1-9 have been examined and are pending.
Information Disclosure Statement (IDS)
Acknowledgement is hereby made of receipt of Information Disclosure Statements filed by applicant on 10/31/2025 and 5/29/2026.
Priority
Applicant’s claim for the benefit of a prior-filed application under 35 U.S.C. 119(b) is acknowledged.
(AIA ) Examiner Note
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 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.
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 at the time any inventions covered therein were effectively filed 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 at the time a later invention was effectively filed 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.
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 1-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea (i.e. a judicial exception) without significantly more.
Per step 1 of the Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance outlined in the MPEP 2106, the claims are directed towards a process, machine, or manufacture.
Per step 2A Prong One, the claims recite specific limitations which fall within at least one of the groupings of abstract ideas enumerated in the MPEP 2106, as follows:
Per Independent claims 1, 8, 9:
classifying power supplied from a plurality of power sources into any one of the power classifications; the power classification being one of a plurality of power classifications determined based on a mode of carbon dioxide emissions during power generation;
allocating the amount of power supplied from each of the power sources to each of the plurality of areas based on the power classification to be used on a priority basis in the one or more areas and the amount of power used in each of the plurality of areas;..
As noted supra, these limitations fall within at least one of the groupings of abstract ideas enumerated in MPEP 2106. Specifically, these limitations fall within the groups, Mental Processes (concepts performed in the human mind including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion), and Certain Methods Of Organizing Human Activity (e.g. fundamental economic principles or practices (including hedging, insurance, mitigating risk); commercial or legal interactions (including agreements in the form of contracts; legal obligations; advertising, marketing or sales activities or behaviors; business relations); managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people (including social activities, teaching, and following rules or instructions).
That is, these steps as drafted, are a business decision to manage power distribution and usage thereof based on business policy and/or government regulation (e.g. applicant’s a priority basis) regarding classification of how a supplier of power produces the energy being supplied (i.e. the power classification being one of a plurality of power classifications determined based on a mode of carbon dioxide emissions during power generation) and thus falling at least into Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity.
Additionally, except for the generic reference to the steps being performed by a controller of an apparatus, these classification and allocation steps are at such a high level of generality that they could be performed in the human mind by, for example, an operator of a industrial plant whose role includes managing the power used and distributed to the industrial plant from various energy suppliers (external and/or internal) according to governmental regulation and/or business policy, e.g. to adhere to international initiatives1 pertaining to use of what is known as Green, Blue, or Gray2 types of energy or power suppliers (i.e. those which produce energy from processes which do not produce CO2, those which try to minimize CO2 production such as through sequestration, etc… and those which produce/generate power from fossil fuels, etc…).
There is no technical solution recited here and there is no technical problem being solved. The problem is simply a business decision of whether to adhere to government regulation and/or business rules/policy and there is no technical means of doing so recited in the claims. Furthermore, the mere nominal recitation of a generic computer components (e.g. controller and apparatus performing the abstract ideas) does not take the claim limitation out of the enumerated grouping. Thus, the claims recite an abstract idea.
Per step 2A Prong 2, the Examiner finds that the judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. Although there are additional elements, other than those noted supra, recited in the claims, none of these additional element(s) or a combination of elements as recited in the claims apply, rely on, or use the judicial exception in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on the judicial exception, such that it is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception. As drafted, the claims as a whole merely describe how to generally “apply” the aforementioned concepts or, link them to a field of use (i.e. in this power distribution management) or, serve as insignificant extra-solution activity. The claimed computer components are recited at a high level of generality and are merely invoked as tools to implement the idea but are not technical in nature. Simply implementing the abstract idea on or with generic computer components is not a practical application of the abstract idea. These additional limitations are as follows:
“A power management method to be executed by a controller of a power management apparatus that manages an amount of power supplied to a plurality of areas, wherein the plurality of areas includes one or more areas for which a power classification to be used on a priority basis is determined, the power classification being one of a plurality of power classifications determined based on a mode of carbon dioxide emissions during power generation ,the power management method comprising: …
acquiring an amount of power supplied from each of the plurality of power sources;
acquiring an amount of power used in each of the plurality of areas;…
and storing the power classification and the amount of power allocated to each area.”
However, these elements do not present a technical solution to a technical problem; i.e. Applicant’s invention is not a technique nor technical solution for “acquiring” information regarding power supplied or used, nor is it “storing” information in a database, regardless of what the data is intended to represent. The additional elements do not recite a specific manner of performing any of the steps core to the already identified abstract idea. Instead, these features merely serve to generally “apply” the aforementioned concepts or, link them to a field of use or, are insignificant extra-solution activity to the already identified abstract idea and do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application thereof.
Per Step 2B, the Examiner does not find that the claims provide an inventive concept, i.e., the claims do not recite additional element(s) or a combination of elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception recited in the claim. As discussed with respect to Step 2A Prong Two, the additional elements in the independent claims were considered as merely serving to generally “apply” the aforementioned concepts via generically described computer components (e.g. by one or more processors) and “link” them to a field of use (i.e. power distribution management), or as insignificant extra-solution activity (e.g. data acquisition, storage, transmittal, display, etc…). For the same reason these elements are not sufficient to provide an inventive concept; i.e. the same analysis applies here in 2B. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component and conventional data gathering cannot integrate a judicial exception into a practical application at Step 2A or provide an inventive concept in Step 2B. So, upon revaluating here in step 2B, these elements are determined to amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components (e.g. a method executed by a controller of a power management apparatus, etc…) and/or gather and transmit data which is well-understood, routine, conventional activity in the field; i.e. note the Symantec, TLI, and OIP Techs Court decisions cited in MPEP 2106.05(d)(ll) indicate that mere receipt or transmission of data over a network is a well-understood, routine, and conventional function when it is claimed in a merely generic manner (as it is here).
Accordingly, alone and in combination, these elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application, as found supra, nor provide an inventive concept, and thus the claims are not patent eligible.
As for the dependent claims, the dependent claims do recite a combination of additional elements. However, these claims as a whole, considered either independently or in combination with the parent claims, do not integrate the identified abstract idea into a practical application thereof nor do they provide an inventive concept.
For example, dependent claim 2 recites the following: “The power management method according to claim 1, wherein the power classifications include a first classification of power that is derived from natural energy sources that do not emit carbon dioxide, a second classification of power that is generated by using fossil fuels and recovering the carbon dioxide that is produced during generation, and a third classification of power that is generated by using fossil fuels and emitting carbon dioxide” However, these classifications are arbitrary and are not technical. Indeed, these are generic references to classifications (Green, Blue, and Gray energy classifications3) already well-known and widely used in industry which are called Green, Blue, and Gray energy and/or energy suppliers. Therefore, this is nothing more than a description of common industry practice and therefore perhaps provides context for the claimed invention but it is not significantly more than the already recited abstract idea.
Therefore, the Examiner does not find that these additional claim limitations integrate the abstract idea into a practical application nor provide an inventive concept. Instead, these limitations, as a whole and in combination with the already recited claim elements of the parent claims, are not significantly more than the already identified abstract idea. A similar finding is found for the remaining dependent claims.
For these reasons, the claims are not found to include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception and therefore the claims are not found to be patent eligible.
Please see the MPEP 2106 and the 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance published in the Federal Register (84 FR 50) on January 7, 2019 (found at http://www.uspto.gov/patent/laws-and-regulations/examination-policy/examination-guidance-and-training-materials).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103 (AIA )
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 of this title, 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 set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied 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 non-obviousness.
Claims 1-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Yamagishi et al. (JP app: 2020091135; 2020-091135; Pub. #s: JP 2021189510 A; JP 7509579 B2; hereinafter, "Yamagishi").
Claims 1, 8, 9 (Original)
Pertaining to claims 1, 8, 9 exemplified in the limitations of method claim 1, Yamagishi as shown teaches the following:
A power management method to be executed by a controller of a power management apparatus that manages an amount of power supplied to a plurality of areas, wherein the plurality of areas includes one or more areas for which a power classification to be used on a priority basis is determined, the power classification being one of a plurality of power classifications determined based on a mode of carbon dioxide emissions during power generation, the power management method comprising:
classifying power supplied from a plurality of power sources into any one of the power classifications (Yamagishi, see at least Examples 3-7 and Figs. 7-9 as well as at least [0008]-[0018], [0028]-[0029] re: “types of power”, in view of [0037]-[0042], teaching: “<Non CO2 Free Power Generation Facility 5>”, “<CO2 Free Power Generation Facility 6a with Time Information>”, and “<CO2 Free Power Generation Facility 6b Without Time Information>” as well as “The electric power supplied by the power supplier 3 is derived from a wide range of energy, such as thermal power generation using LNG, coal, or oil, hydroelectric power generation, and power generation using renewable energy such as sunlight, wind power, biomass, geothermal power, wave power, or tide… power other than thermal power generation, such as power generation by renewable energy such as hydroelectric power generation, solar power, wind power, biomass, geothermal power, wave power, and tide, is referred to as non-fossil power. In addition, power generated by power generation other than thermal power generation is referred to as CO2 free power that does not discharge CO2….” And teaching various suppliers may be more specifically classified such as “hydro power plant”, “photovoltaic power generation facility, a wind power generation facility, a small-scale hydraulic power generation facility, and the like”, and “LNG etc…these are each power generation classifications of a power supply based on “a mode of carbon dioxide emissions during power generation”;);
acquiring an amount of power supplied from each of the plurality of power sources (Yamagishi, see citations noted supra, e.g. again per [0014] e.g.: “…As illustrated in Example 3 (FIG. 7), this is a case where the demanded power D is larger than the supplied power S [acquiring an amount of power supplied from each of a plurality of power sources] by the time information CO2 free power. In this case, the CO2 free power with time information can be used in all the unit times. In this case, even if the moving electric power A, A is appropriated to the appropriation electric power B, all the demanded electric energy cannot be covered only by the CO2 free electric power with time information, and a shortage occurs…”);
acquiring an amount of power used in each of the plurality of areas (Yamagishi, see citations noted supra, e.g. again per [0014] e.g.: “…As illustrated in Example 3 (FIG. 7), this is a case where the demanded power D [acquiring an amount of power used in each of the plurality of areas] is larger than the supplied power S [acquiring an amount of power supplied from each of a plurality of power sources] by the time information CO2 free power. In this case, the CO2 free power with time information can be used in all the unit times. In this case, even if the moving electric power A, A is appropriated to the appropriation electric power B, all the demanded electric energy cannot be covered only by the CO2 free electric power with time information, and a shortage occurs…”);
allocating the amount of power supplied from each of the power sources to each of the plurality of areas based on the power classification to be used on a priority basis in the one or more areas and the amount of power used in each of the plurality of areas (Yamagishi, see citations noted supra, e.g. again per at least [0014]-[0015], teaching: “…In this case, instead of the CO2 free power with time information, the shortage may be covered by [allocating] the CO2 free power without time information [a power supplier] or another CO2 free power with time information [another power supplier]. In addition, in this case, the power amount of the time-information-containing CO2 free power to be appropriated may be appropriated so as to be averaged within a range [based on a priority basis] not exceeding the demanded power amount per unit time set in the step of setting the demanded power amount…”); and
storing the power classification and the amount of power allocated to each area (Yamagishi, see citations noted supra, e.g. again per at least Figs. 3-4 and associated disclosure throughout Yamagishi’s teachings, e.g. at least [0014]-[0017], teaching: “…In an aspect as illustrated in Example 3 (FIG. 7), the demand electric energy is averaged and appropriated within a range not exceeding the demand electric energy per unit time set in the step of setting the demand electric energy. In other words, the allocation power B is flat in the histogram...”; Examiner notes that this histogram is an indication that Yamagishi certainly intends for a practitioner to store the power classification as noted supra as well as an amount of power allocated to a consumer from each such classified supplier such that this histogram may be created and/or reproduced for each such scenario where a consumer may receive power allocated on the basis as discussed by Yamagishi from various suppliers with different CO2 generation classifications. Therefore, although Yamagishi may not explicitly teach this feature, it is nonetheless implied and there is motivation, from Yamagishi’s teachings, to a person of ordinary skill in the art to use the knowledge available to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date, such as storing Yamagishi’s power classifications and Yamagishi’s power allocations to each consumer, to facilitate the creation of Yamagishi’s histogram and therefore, Examiner finds this step would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date for the reasons noted supra because per MPEP 2143(I) (G) Some teaching, suggestion, or motivation in the prior art that would have led one of ordinary skill to modify the prior art reference teachings to arrive at the claimed invention is obvious. The motivation may be implicit and may be found in the knowledge of one of ordinary skill in the art, or, in some cases, from the nature of the problem to be solved. Id. at 1366, 80 USPQ2d at 1649.)
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Yamagishi in view of Official Notice.
Claim 2 (Original)
Yamagishi teaches the limitations upon which this claim depends. Furthermore, as shown Yamagishi teaches the following:
The power management method according to claim 1, wherein the power classifications include a first classification of power that is derived from natural energy sources that do not emit carbon dioxide (Yamagishi, see citations note supra including again [0028]-[0029], e.g.: “…a wide range of energy, such as… renewable energy such as sunlight, wind power, biomass, geothermal power, wave power, or tide… power other than thermal power generation, such as power generation by renewable energy such as hydroelectric power generation, solar power, wind power, biomass, geothermal power, wave power, and tide, is referred to as non-fossil power. In addition, power generated by power generation other than thermal power generation is referred to as CO2 free power that does not discharge CO2 [energy sources that do not emit carbon dioxide]…”), […] , and a third classification of power that is generated by using fossil fuels and emitting carbon dioxide (Yamagishi, see citations noted supra, including again at least [0028]-[0029], e.g.: “…a wide range of energy, such as thermal power generation using LNG, coal, or oil [power that is generated by using fossil fuels and emitting carbon dioxide], etc….).
Although Yamagishi teaches the above limitations, he may not explicitly teach a second classification of power that is generated by using fossil fuels and recovering the carbon dioxide that is produced during generation. However, Examiner takes Official Notice of the following facts: An industry term called “Blue Energy”, referring to what is what is called a “transitional option” of energy supply which is not considered CO2 emitting free but neither is it considered CO2 emitting intensive, such as one of GE’s hydrogen gas production processes which uses fossil fuels in part for the production process of this energy source but then sequesters part of the CO2 emitted, was old and well-known long before the filing date of applicant’s invention; e.g. see https://www.jdpower.com/cars/shopping-guides/whats-the-difference-between-gray-blue-and-green-hydrogen. Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have further classified Yamagishi’s energy supply sources into this third category as was already well-known and established in the industry long before the effective filing date of the claimed invention because per MPEP 2143(I) (G) Some teaching, suggestion, or motivation in the prior art that would have led one of ordinary skill to modify the prior art reference or to combine prior art reference teachings to arrive at the claimed invention is obvious. The motivation to combine may be implicit and may be found in the knowledge of one of ordinary skill in the art, or, in some cases, from the nature of the problem to be solved. Id. at 1366, 80 USPQ2d at 1649.
Claims 3, 4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Yamagishi in view of Official Notice further in view of Li et al. (US 20160109916 A1; hereinafter, “Li").
Claim 3 (Original)
Although Yamagishi/Official Notice teaches the limitations upon which this claim depends, and Yamagishi teaches e.g. per [0003]: “…there is a possibility of procurement by various methods depending on the attributes of CO2, whether or not certificates are used, and the like. International initiatives have set up unique requirements and reference to guidelines (GHG Protocol Scope 2 Guidance), such as eliminating duplicate claims of environmental value, in the calculation of emissions. In order to provide a service that handles CO2 free power, operation in a form that conforms to these standards has been required...”, they may not explicitly teach the nuance below. However, as shown Yamagishi in view Li teaches the ollowing:
The power management method according to claim 2, wherein the controller executes processing including calculating an expected amount of power usage that is expected to be used in the plurality of areas; acquiring the power classification and amount of electric power for electric power stored in a storage battery connected to an electric circuit; and instructing the storage battery to discharge in a case in which the expected amount of power usage exceeds the amount of power supplied for at least one of the first classification of power and the second classification of power (Li, see at least Figs. 3, 5, 7, and 8-11A/B and associated disclosure i teaching: controller calculates power usage and battery charge and switches between battery and power suppliers, e.g. from Utility to Solar, etc… when power usage exceeds power supplied by renewable power sources, e.g. note [0041]-[0043], teaching: “…FIGS. 11A-11B show a battery discharging profile and the renewable [for at least one of the first classification of power and the second classification of power] power supply and server power demand traces (workload: Nutch page indexing) for an embodiment with high renewable power variability (FIG. 11A) and low renewable power variability (FIG. 11B)….”;
PNG
media_image1.png
474
416
media_image1.png
Greyscale
).
Therefore, the Examiner understands that the limitation in question is merely applying a known technique of Li which is applicable to a known base device/method of Yamagishi/Official to yield predictable results. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to apply the technique of Li to the device/method of Yamagishi/Official in order to perform the limitation in question because Li is pertinent to the power management objectives of Yamagishi and because according to MPEP 2143(I) (C) and/or (D), the use of known technique to improve a known device, methods, or products in the same way (or which is ready for improvement) is obvious.
Claim 4 (Original)
Yamagishi/O.N./Li teaches the limitations upon which this claim depends. Furthermore, as shown Yamagishi/Li teaches the following: The power management method according to claim 3, wherein the controller executes processing including instructing the storage battery to charge in a case in which the amount of power supplied exceeds the expected amount of power usage for both the first classification of power and the second classification of power (Li, see citations noted supra, noting again [0041]-[0043], teaching: “…FIGS. 11A-11B show a battery discharging profile and the renewable [for both the first classification of power and the second classification of power] power supply and server power demand traces (workload: Nutch page indexing) for an embodiment with high renewable power variability (FIG. 11A) and low renewable power variability (FIG. 11B)….”; note that applicant’s33 first and second classifications may each be categorized as renewable energy supplies.)
Potentially allowable subject matter
Claims 5, 6, 7 appear to have features not explicitly taught by the discovered prior art and may be allowable if rewritten or amended to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 USC 101 as set forth in this Office action.
Conclusion
The following prior art is made of record although not relied upon as it is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
Yoden Mitsuru (US 2025/0252511 A1; filed 03-28-2023; hereinafter, "Yoden"), in view of the knowledge of a person of ordinary skill in the art also teaches all aspects of applicant’s independent claims 1, 8, and 9 and may be used as an alternate reference. For example, Pertaining to claims 1, 8, 9 exemplified in the limitations of method claim 1, Yoden as shown teaches the following:
A power management method to be executed by a controller of a power management apparatus that manages an amount of power supplied to a plurality of areas, wherein the plurality of areas includes one or more areas for which a power classification to be used on a priority basis is determined, the power classification being one of a plurality of power classifications determined based on a mode of carbon dioxide emissions during power generation, the power management method comprising:
classifying power supplied from a plurality of power sources into any one of the power classifications (Yoden, see at least [0043]-[0054], teaching, e.g.: “…(Energy classification from the perspective of greenhouse gas emissions)・Green energy: Energy that does not emit greenhouse gases ・Gray energy: Energy that emits greenhouse gases ・Blue energy: Recovering and using greenhouse gases emitted during the manufacturing process of gray energy to reduce the greenhouse effect Energy that reduces gas emissions (energy classification from the perspective of power generation method)・LNG-fired power plants ・Coal-fired power plants ・Oil-fired power plants ・Nuclear power plants ・Hydroelectric power plants ・Solar power plants ・Wind power plants ・Geothermal power plants. The input resource calculation server 26 has a classification means for classifying energy usage into a plurality of energy categories (green energy, blue energy, gray energy) from the viewpoint of greenhouse gas emissions. The energy categories specified by the classification means are stored in the database 22 for each process. Please refer to the first embodiment for details of energy classification. The classification means can be provided within the input resource calculation server 26 as a part of the program…”);
acquiring an amount of power supplied from each of the plurality of power sources (Yoden, see citations noted supra, e.g. [0099]-[0113], teaching: E1 represents green energy, E2 represents blue energy, and E3 represents gray energy… Let E1=300MJ, E2=900MJ, and E3=1,800MJ, etc…; the amount of energy supplied from E1 is 300MJ, in this example, etc…);
acquiring an amount of power used in each of the plurality of areas (Yoden, see citations noted supra, e.g. [0099]-[0113], teaching, e.g.: E1 represents green energy, E2 represents blue energy, and E3 represents gray energy… Process3 example: Energy: Coal-fired power plant (with CCUS (carbon dioxide capture and storage); Work details: 1kW machine operated for 20 days (7 hours/day) Measurement method: Smart meter (wattmeter); Energy usage: 140kWh; Energy conversion value: 3.6MJ/kWh; Converted energy (E2): 140kWh x 3.6MJ/kWh = 504MJ”, etc…; the amount of energy used from E2 supplier is 504MJ, etc…);
allocating the amount of power supplied from each of the power sources to each of the plurality of areas based on the power classification to be used on a priority basis in the one or more areas and the amount of power used in each of the plurality of areas (Yoden, see citations noted supra, e.g. again per [0100]: “…Energy used varies depending on the process, such as gasoline or renewable energy…”; Examiner finds it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have allocated Yoden’s amount of energy supplied, e.g. either amount from E1suppliers, E2suppliers, or E3suppliers based on these classifications of such suppliers, i.e. based on E1, E2, or E3 depending on some priority as perhaps established by government regulation or business policy which may set a threshold amount of power which may be used from any one such type of supplier, e.g. a threshold amount that may be used from Gray energy suppliers such as E3 suppliers before energy consumption/usage must be from a source/supplier which is considered to produce less CO2, etc… because such government regulations and business policies were well known to a person of ordinary skill in this field before the effective filing date of the claimed invention and because there is motivation to make such allocations from Yoden himself as shown supra and because per MPEP 2143(I) (G) Some teaching, suggestion, or motivation in the prior art that would have led one of ordinary skill to modify the prior art reference or to combine prior art reference teachings to arrive at the claimed invention is obvious. The motivation to combine may be implicit and may be found in the knowledge of one of ordinary skill in the art, or, in some cases, from the nature of the problem to be solved. Id. at 1366, 80 USPQ2d at 1649.); and
storing the power classification and the amount of power allocated to each area (Yoden, see [0201]: teaching, e.g. Each time the above steps are completed, the amount of energy used is transmitted to the database 22. The database 22 stores the amount and breakdown of energy used (categorization of E1 to E3) for each of parts a1 and a2 and product A, and when the energy usage in a new process is sent to the database 22, parts a1 and a2 , the amount and breakdown of energy used for product A are updated, etc…)
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MICHAEL J SITTNER whose telephone number is (571)270-3984. The examiner can normally be reached M-F; ~9:30-6:30. 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, Waseem Ashraf can be reached on (571) 270-3948. 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.
/Michael J Sittner/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3621
1 E.g.: Yamagishi et al. (JP app: 2020091135; 2020-091135; Pub. #s: JP 2021189510 A; JP 7509579 B2) discussing per Background: In recent years, an international framework for commitment to global warming such as Paris Agreement has been established, and interest in measures against climate change has increased worldwide. There is an increasing demand for companies to reduce emission of greenhouse gases in business activities and to take measures against decarbonization management, and there are an increasing number of companies, mainly global companies, who express participation in international initiatives such as CDP, SBT, and RE100. Also in Japan, some companies have advanced targets against the background of further activation of CO2 free power markets such as Yon-FIT, and the needs of companies for renewable energies are expected to increase more and more in the future.
2 https://www.jdpower.com/cars/shopping-guides/whats-the-difference-between-gray-blue-and-green-hydrogen
3 E.g.: see https://www.jdpower.com/cars/shopping-guides/whats-the-difference-between-gray-blue-and-green-hydrogen and compare to Applicant’s specification at [0026]: “…The first classification of power is called green power, the second classification of power is called blue power, and the third classification of power is called gray power.”
