Ex Parte Bedros et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Mar 29, 2016

12852690 (P.T.A.B. Mar. 29, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
12/852,690
90545 7590
HONEYWELL/STW
Patent Services
115 Tabor Road
P.O. Box 377
08/09/2010
03/31/2016
MORRIS PLAINS, NJ 07950
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Saad J. Bedros
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.
H0024658- ll 61.l 657 l 01 4410
EXAMINER
GAMI, TEJAL
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2127
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
03/31/2016 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):
patentservices-us@honeywell.com
Honeywell. USPTO@STWiplaw.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte SAAD J. BEDROS, TOM MARKHAM, TOM PLOCHER,
PRADEEP SHETTY, THIRUMARAN EKAMBARAM, and
NASIR MOHAMMED
Appeal2014-006979
Application 12/852,690
Technology Center 2100
Before ELENI MANTIS MERCADER, CARL W. WHITEHEAD JR, and
ADAM J. PYONIN, Administrative Patent Judges.
MANTIS MERCADER, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appeal2014-006979
Application 12/852,690
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from a final rejection of
claims 1-21. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We affirm.
THE INVENTION
Appellants' claimed invention is directed to a "context-aware smart
home energy management (CASHEM) system and method" that
"dynamically schedules household energy use to reduce energy
consumption" (Abstract).
Independent claim 1, reproduced below, is representative of the
subject matter on appeal:
1. A method for dynamically scheduling household energy
use said method comprising:
receiving contextual information about a household at a
home energy manager coupled to at least one appliance, the
home energy manager including a user interface, a memory,
and a processor coupled to the user interface and the memory,
the receiving step including:
querying a user about a user's preferences for the
at least one appliances via the user interface of the home energy
manager;
accepting an indication of the user's preferences
for the at least one appliance entered by the user via the user
interface;
identifying a comfort of service (Cos) model, wherein
said comfort of service model references the contextual
information received by the home energy manager including the
2
Appeal2014-006979
Application 12/852,690
indication of the user's preferences for the at least one
appliance;
determining an appliance use schedule for one or more
appliances based, at least in part, on said comfort of service
(Cos) model; and
recommending the appliance use schedule to the user via
the user interface of the home energy manager.
REFERENCES and the REJECTION
Claims 1-21 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as being
anticipated by Ehlers (US 2004/0117330 Al; June 17, 2004). Ans. 3-15.
ISSUES
The issues are whether the Examiner erred in finding Ehlers discloses
the limitations of:
1. the "querying," "identifying," "determining," and "recommending"
steps, as recited in claim 1;
2. "determining a local energy schedule for using renewable energy
sources and/or storage batteries within said household, wherein said
local energy schedule is based, at least in part, on contextual
information received at the home energy manager related to demand
response of a utility," as recited in claim 2; and
3. "correlating said contextual information received at the home energy
manager with energy consumption levels to dynamically schedule the
at least one appliance based on an energy-saving condition and a
user's preference," as recited in claim 4.
3
Appeal2014-006979
Application 12/852,690
ANALYSIS
We adopt the Examiner's findings in the Answer and add the
following primarily for emphasis.
1. Claims 1, 3, 5-10, 12, 14-21
Regarding independent claim 1, Appellants argue the Examiner erred
because Ehlers fails to disclose the "querying," "identifying," "determining,"
and "recommending" steps recited in claim 1 (App. Br. 11-19).
A. Querying Step
Regarding the "querying" step, Appellants contend Ehlers fails to
disclose "the step of querying a user about a user's preference for at least
one appliance via the user interface" (App. Br. 12, emphases in original).
We do not agree with Appellants' argument. The Examiner finds, and we
agree, Ehlers discloses examples of user queries in Figures 4A--4R and
"comfort is managed using customer inputs" (Ans. 16, citing Ehlers i-f 252).
For example, in Figure 4D of Ehlers, the user is queried via a dialog box to
supply heating and cooling preferences for the heating/cooling system (id.).
In response to the Examiner's Answer, Appellants additionally
contend Ehlers "cannot be seen to disclose querying a user" (Reply Br. 2)
and offer the Merriam-Webster's online dictionary definition of "query" as
"a question or a request for information about something" in support of the
argument that "the Examiner has failed to properly consider the term
'querying' as recited in the claims" (Reply Br. 3). We are not persuaded.
The Examiner has broadly and reasonably interpreted "querying" as
encompassing Ehlers' dialog boxes that accept user input necessary for
4
Appeal2014-006979
Application 12/852,690
Ehlers' proper management of the user's heating/ cooling system. Further,
Ehlers' dialog boxes are "a request for information about something" and
thus a "query" under Appellants' proffered definition.
B. IdentifYing Step
Regarding the "identifying" step, Appellants argue Ehlers "cannot be
said to disclose the particular step of' identifYing a comfort of service (Cos)
model, wherein said comfort of service model references the contextual
information received by the home energy manager including the indication
of the user's preferences for the at least one appliance"' (App. Br. 15,
emphases in original).
We do not agree with Appellants' argument. The Examiner finds, and
we agree, Ehlers Figures 3C-3G discloses "examples of comfort of service
model (e.g., economic and comfort management & control example;
maximum savings, balanced savings/ comfort, maximum comfort)
referencing a thermostat/hvac" (Ans. 16). For example, Figure 3C of Ehlers
identifies a comfort of service model identifying "the impact the set point
versus outside temperature differential has over the thermal gain rate in the
home" (Ehlers i-f 253) in which the set point is a user preference.
C. Determining and Recommending Steps
Regarding the "determining" and "recommending" and steps,
Appellants argue Ehlers "cannot be seen to disclose 'determining an
appliance use schedule for one or more appliances based, at least in part, on
said comfort of service (Cos) model' and 'recommending the appliance use
schedule to the user via the user interface of the home energy manager"'
5
Appeal2014-006979
Application 12/852,690
(App. Br. 16, emphasis in original). Appellants contend "providing a
temporary override function or the like is not the same as 'recommending an
appliance use schedule', as recited in claim 1" (App. Br. 16).
We do not agree with Appellants' arguments. The Examiner finds,
and we agree, Ehlers discloses "regarding the availability and/or cost of
energy, the device 1.08 may make decisions based upon this information.
For example, functions of the device 1.08 may be delayed and re-scheduled
for another time" (Ans. 17, quoting Ehlers i-f 216). Ehlers thus discloses
determining the scheduling and re-scheduling of appliance functions, such as
the defrost cycle of a refrigerator (see Ehlers i-f 215). The Examiner
additionally finds, and we agree, that Ehlers' disclosure of an "override
temperature button" and "override occupancy button" used to "override the
current temperature and occupancy schedules" (Ans. 17, citing Ehlers i-f 316)
is recommending a usage schedule via the user interface that the user is
invited to alter. Appellants have not persuasively provided arguments or
technical evidence to rebut the Examiner's findings. See, e.g., In re Geisler,
116 F.3d 1465, 1470 (Fed. Cir. 1997) (attorney arguments or conclusory
statements are insufficient to rebut a prima facie case).
Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner's rejection of independent
claim 1, and independent claims 10 and 19 which were not separately argued
with particularity. We also sustain the Examiner's rejection of dependent
claims 3, 5-9, 12, 14--18, 20 and 21 which were not separately argued with
particularity.
6
Appeal2014-006979
Application 12/852,690
2. Claim 2
Regarding claim 2, Appellants argue the Examiner erred because
Ehlers fails to disclose "determining a local energy schedule for using
renewable energy sources and/or storage batteries within said household,
wherein said local energy schedule is based, at least in part, on contextual
information received at the home energy manager related to demand
response of a utility" (App. Br. 20). Claim 11 recites commensurate
limitations. See App. Br. 23. Appellants contend Ehlers appears to "merely
provide a simple example of a how a load reduction may be accomplished"
and "merely provide examples of various means of on-site energy storage"
(App. Br. 20).
We do not agree with Appellants' arguments. The Examiner finds,
and we agree, Ehlers discloses photovoltaic arrays attached to battery
storage systems for a residential home, which in tum can sell power back to
the utility (Ans. 18, citing Ehlers i-fi-f 172, 209). Ehlers paragraph 172 further
discloses on-site capacity to be dispatched "when the demand and
economics are favorable or the demand exceeds the supply creating an
energy shortage" meaning that the home system receives demand and
economic information.
Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner's rejection of claim 2 and claim
11.
3. Claim 4
Regarding claim 4, Appellants argue the Examiner erred because
Ehlers fails to disclose "correlating said contextual information received at
the home energy manager with energy consumption levels to dynamically
7
Appeal2014-006979
Application 12/852,690
schedule the at least one appliance based on an energy-saving condition and
a user's preference" (App. Br. 21, emphasis in original). Appellants contend
the Examiner error in claim 4 can be traced back to the failure of Ehlers to
disclose "receiving contextual information about a household at a home
energy manager," which appears in claim 1. App. Br. 21.
We do not agree with Appellants' argument. The Examiner finds, and
we agree, that regarding a scheduled activity such as performing the defrost
cycle of a refrigerator, Ehlers discloses "if the actual cost were above the
predetermined value, then the scheduled action would be postponed" (Ans.
19, quoting Ehlers i-f 215). Ehlers paragraph 215 further discloses cost
information is received from the associated control node. We agree with the
Examiner that the claimed "contextual information" encompasses Ehlers'
cost information.
Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner's rejection of claim 4, and
claim 13 which contains similar limitations. See App. Br. 23-24.
CONCLUSION
The Examiner did not err in finding Ehlers discloses the limitations of:
1. the "querying," "identifying," "determining," and "recommending"
steps, as recited in claim 1;
2. "determining a local energy schedule for using renewable energy
sources and/or storage batteries within said household, wherein said
local energy schedule is based, at least in part, on contextual
information received at the home energy manager related to demand
response of a utility," as recited in claim 2; and
8
Appeal2014-006979
Application 12/852,690
3. "correlating said contextual information received at the home energy
manager with energy consumption levels to dynamically schedule the
at least one appliance based on an energy-saving condition and a
user's preference," as recited in claim 4.
DECISION
The Examiner's decision rejecting claims 1-21 is affirmed.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(l )(iv).
AFFIRMED
9