Ex Parte HaughDownload PDFPatent Trial and Appeal BoardJun 17, 201612476391 (P.T.A.B. Jun. 17, 2016) Copy Citation UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR 12/476,391 0610212009 Julianne F. Haugh 52837 7590 06/21/2016 The Brevetto Law Group, PLLC P.O. Box 808 Quincy, IL 62306-0808 UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE United States Patent and Trademark Office Address: COMMISSIONER FOR PATENTS P.O. Box 1450 Alexandria, Virginia 22313-1450 www .uspto.gov ATTORNEY DOCKET NO. CONFIRMATION NO. AUS920080635US l .. IBM-0247 5349 EXAMINER LOPEZ ALVAREZ, OLVIN ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2121 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 06/21/2016 ELECTRONIC Please find below and/or attached an Office communication concerning this application or proceeding. The time period for reply, if any, is set in the attached communication. Notice of the Office communication was sent electronically on above-indicated "Notification Date" to the following e-mail address( es): docket@patent-counsel.com scr@patent-counsel.com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Ex parte JULIANNE F. HAUGH Appeal2014-007623 Application 12/476,391 Technology Center 2100 Before CAROLYN D. THOMAS, JEFFREYS. SMITH, and TERRENCE W. McMILLIN, Administrative Patent Judges. SMITH, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL Appeal2014-007623 Application 12/476,391 STATEivIENT OF THE CASE This is an appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner's Final Rejection of claims 1-20, 22, 23, 25, 26, and 28-32, which are all the claims pending in the application. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We affirm. Representative Claims 1. A method of net-metering in a power distribution system comprising a distributed renewable generation ('DRG') system, the DRG system capable of providing power to a local load, an electric utility, and one or more batteries for storage, the method carried out iteratively during operation of the power distribution system, the method comprising: maintaining a DRG database of historical load and generation data; retrieving projected weather conditions for a predefined period of time; retrieving current weather data from one or more devices, said current weather data including local present weather conditions; storing the current weather data in said DRG database, wherein past values of the current weather data are stored as historical weather data along with their respective associated load data and associated generation data; retrieving, by a decision control engine comprising a module of automated computing machinery, a local load and generation profile for the predefined period of time, the local load and generation profile describing projected net local power generation for the predefined period of time taking into account the projected weather conditions for the predefined period of time along with the historical weather data and said associated load data; determining a present state of charge to be less than a target state of charge; 2 Appeal2014-007623 Application 12/476,391 predicting, based on the local load and generation profile, that the DRG system will be able to generate and store power to reach the target state of charge within the predefined period of time even if locally generated power is sold for a given time period within the predefined period of time; deciding, by the decision control engine in accordance with revenue optimizing decision criteria and in dependence upon the local load and generation profile, present and projected utility power purchase prices, and a present state of charge of the batteries, to sell locally generated power despite the present state of charge being less than the target state of charge; providing locally generated power to the electric utility for the given time period during the predefined period of time based on the decision to sell the locally generated power; and delaying charging the batteries with locally generated power to complete the target state of charge in the batteries until after the providing of the locally generated power to the electric utility during the given time period within the predefined period of time. Adrian Altevogt Brewster Miller Gopal Hakim MacGregor Prior Art US 2002/0171397 Al US 2005/0240619 Al US 7,142,949 B2 US 2007/0276547 Al US 2008/0046387 Al US 2008/0114499 Al US 7,519,485 B2 Nov. 21, 2002 Oct. 27, 2005 Nov. 28, 2006 Nov. 29, 2007 Feb.21,2008 May 15, 2008 Apr. 14, 2009 IBM, Collecting Bucket Index Statistical Data with Colocation Considered, IP.com (Mar. 19, 2005) 3 Appeal2014-007623 Application 12/476,391 Examiner's Rejections Claims 1, 4, 6-10, 12, 14--16, 18, 20, 22, 25, 28, and 30-32 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Miller, Brewster, Macgregor, and Gopal. Claims 2, 3, 11, and 17 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Miller, Brewster, MacGregor, Gopal, and Hakim. Claims 5, 13, and 19 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Miller, Brewster, MacGregor, Gopal, and Adrian. Claims 23, 26, and 29 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Miller, Brewster, MacGregor, Gopal, and Altevogt. Claims 23, 26, and 29 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Miller, Brewster, MacGregor, Gopal, and IBM. ANALYSIS We adopt the findings of fact made by the Examiner in the Final Rejection and Examiner's Answer as our own. We concur with the conclusions reached by the Examiner for the reasons given in the Examiner's Answer. We highlight the following for emphasis. Section 103 rejection of claims 1, 6-10, 14-16, 20, 22, 25, 28, and 30-32 Appellant argues Miller does not teach selling "locally generated power," as required by claim 1, but rather teaches selling "excess capacity already stored in the batteries." App. Br. 8; Reply Br. 9. Appellant's contention is based on the premise that paragraph 39 of Miller teaches selling power from batteries rather than directly from a local energy source. However, Appellant's contention is inconsistent with the Abstract of Miller, 4 Appeal2014-007623 Application 12/476,391 which teaches alternative energy sources (e.g., photovoltaic cells) are activated to sell energy to the power grid; and paragraphs 25 and 32, which teach power from power sources can be used to sell surplus power back to the grid. Appellant has not provided persuasive evidence or argument to distinguish selling the locally generated power as claimed from activating alternative energy sources to sell energy back to the power grid as taught by Miller. Appellant also contends Gopal does not teach selling "locally generated power," as recited in claim 1. App. Br. 10; Reply Br. 10-11. According to Appellant, Gopal sells electricity immediately from batteries. Reply Br. 11. Appellant's contention is inconsistent with paragraph 89 of Gopal, which teaches one of skill in the art can choose to sell surplus energy immediately, even when the batteries are not fully charged. Appellant also contends Gopal sells electricity at a higher price, regardless of whether the system will be able to recharge its batteries in a given time period. Reply Br. 10. Appellant's contention is inconsistent with paragraph 89 of Gopal, which teaches one of ordinary skill can set constraints for a time interval such that the battery's charge value is less than or equal to the surplus marked for sale, resulting in a fully charged battery. Appellant's contention is also inconsistent with paragraph 90 of Gopal, which teaches making sell decisions that ensure the battery's charge will be sufficient to meet the next energy deficit. Appellant responds that "Miller, which requires an expectation that the batteries can be recharged later in the day, teaches away from being modified in the manner of Gopal." Reply Br. 13. Appellant raises this 5 Appeal2014-007623 Application 12/476,391 argument for the first time in the Reply Brief, without adequate explanation for the delay. Appellant's contention is therefore untimely. We sustain the rejection of independent claim 1, and commensurate independent claims 10 and 16, as well as the rejection of claims 6-9, 14, 15, 20, 22, 25, 28, and 30-32, not separately argued, under 35 U.S.C. § 103. Section 103 rejection of claims 4, 12, and 18 Appellant argues Gopal' s store/ sell decision does "not depend upon whether the system will be able to charge its batteries up by the end of a predefined period of time," and thus does not teach "if the present state of charge is between a minimum and maximum threshold, performing calculations to predict whether the DRG system will generate and store sufficient power to reach the target state of charge at a time of maximum utility power purchase price within the predefined period of time," as recited in claim 4. The Examiner finds that Gopal teaches "the current state of charge is between a maximum and a minimum threshold," in order to decide to sell, store, or generate power, while maintaining "sufficient power to reach a desired target during the time of high price in order to meet the deficit of the next period." Ans. 37-38; see Gopal i-fi-189-90. Appellant has not persuasively rebutted the Examiner's findings. We sustain the rejection of dependent claim 4, and commensurate dependent claims 12 and 18, under 35 U.S.C. § 103. 6 Appeal2014-007623 Application 12/476,391 Section 103 rejections of claims 2, 3, 5, 11, 13, 17, 19, 23, 26, and 29 Appellant does not present arguments for separate patentability of claims 2, 3, 5, 11, 13, 17, 19, 23, 26, and 29, which fall with claims 1, 4, 10, 12, 16, and 18. We sustain the rejections of claims 2, 3, 5, 11, 13, 17, 19, 23, 26, and 29 under 35 U.S.C. § 103. DECISION The Examiner's rejections of claims 1-20, 22, 23, 25, 26, and 28-32 are affirmed. No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with this appeal may be extended under 3 7 C.F .R. § 1.13 6( a )(1 )(iv). See 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(f). AFFIRMED 7 Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation