Ex Parte Koch

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Apr 24, 2019

13939935 - (D) (P.T.A.B. Apr. 24, 2019)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
13/939,935
90545 7590
HONEYWELL/STW
Patent Services
115 Tabor Road
P.O. Box 377
07/11/2013
04/26/2019
MORRIS PLAINS, NJ 07950
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Edward Koch
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.
H0038342-1161.1769101 4175
EXAMINER
HENRY, MATTHEW D
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3683
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
04/26/2019 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 EDWARD KOCH
Appeal 2018-003 625
Application 13/939,935
Technology Center 3600
Before JOHN A. JEFFERY, STEPHEN C. SIU, and
JENNIFER L. McKEOWN, Administrative Patent Judges.
JEFFERY, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellant1 appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner's
decision to reject claims 1-12 and 14--24. We have jurisdiction under
35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We affirm.
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellant's invention assesses and distributes utility resources by
automating demand response (DR) resource selection for DR events using a
scoring function applied to each resource to rank the resources. The highest-
1 Appellant identifies the real party in interest as Honeywell International
Inc. App. Br. 3.
Appeal 2018-003625
Application 13/939,935
ranked resources are then selected to satisfy a particular load objective. See
generally Abstract; Spec. 1. Claim 1 is illustrative:
1. A method for automated selection of demand response (DR)
resources, compnsmg:
providing a program comprising a utility/independent system
operator (ISO), a plurality of DR resources enrolled within the
program, and one or more DR signals from the utility/ISO to the DR
resources relative to a DR event initiated by the utility/ISO;
determining a nature and timing of a DR event, wherein the DR
event has a load reduction objective;
setting forth a set of attributes relevant to the DR event;
selecting attributes from the set of attributes that are relevant for
evaluating a DR resource;
developing a set of scoring factors for correlation with the
attributes selected from the set of attributes;
receiving a predicted load response from each of the plurality of
DR resources, wherein the predicted load response is determined by
each of the plurality of DR resources and indicates what each of the
plurality of DR resources' load response would be to the DR event in
view of, respectively, the DR resource's current 1 oad controller state;
assigning a value to each of the factors corresponding to an
attribute for each of the plurality of DR resources in view of the
received predicted load responses;
adding the values of the factors together to obtain a score for
each DR resource of the plurality of DR resources;
selecting one or more of the plurality of DR resources based on
the received predicted load responses, wherein a sum of the predicted
load responses of the selected one or more of the plurality of DR
resources that will satisfy the load reduction objective of the DR
event; and
affecting load consumption by the selected one or more of the
plurality of DR resources via sending a DR signal to each of the
selected one or more of the plurality of DR resources to satisfy the
load objective of the DR event.
2
Appeal 2018-003625
Application 13/939,935
THE REJECTI0NS 2
The Examiner rejected claims 1-11, 23, and 24 under 35 U.S.C. § 103
as unpatentable over Taft (US 2010/0138065 Al; published June 3, 2010),
McConky (US 2014/0278687 Al; published Sept. 18, 2014), and Matsuoka
(US 2014/0277769 Al; published Sept. 18, 2014). Final Act. 7-19. 3
The Examiner rejected claims 12 and 14--22 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
unpatentable over Taft, McConky, Kim (US 2012/0310860 Al; published
Dec. 6, 2012), and Matsuoka. Final Act. 19-39.
THE REJECTION OVER TAFT, MCCONKY, AND MATSUOKA
The Examiner finds that Taft's method for automatically selecting DR
resources includes many recited elements of independent claim 1, but does
not receive a predicted load response from each of plural DR resources,
where the predicted load response is ( 1) determined by each resource, and
(2) indicates what each resource's load response would be to a DR event in
view of, respectively, the DR resource's current load controller state. Final
Act. 7-12. The Examiner also acknowledges that Taft does not assign
values based on the predicted load responses. Final Act. 12. The Examiner,
however, cites (1) McConky for teaching assigning values based on the
2 Although not indicated in the Answer, the Examiner nonetheless withdrew
an indefiniteness rejection in view of the entry of an amendment filed after
the Final Rejection on August 11, 2017 that cured the associated
deficiencies. See Adv. Act. mailed Aug. 24, 2017, at 3. Accordingly, that
rejection is not before us.
3 Throughout this opinion, we refer to (1) the Final Rejection mailed June
12, 2017 ("Final Act."); (2) the Appeal Brief filed November 13, 2017
("App. Br."); (3) the Examiner's Answer mailed December 18, 2017
("Ans."); and ( 4) the Reply Brief filed February 19, 2018 ("Reply Br.").
3
Appeal 2018-003625
Application 13/939,935
predicted load responses, and receiving DR data for each DR resource, and
(2) Matsuoka for receiving and indicating a predicted load response for a DR
resource that is determined by the resource in its current load controller
state. Final Act. 12-14. Based on these collective teachings, the Examiner
concludes that the claim would have been obvious. Final Act. 7-15.
Appellant argues that the cited prior art does not teach or suggest
receiving a predicted load response from each of plural DR resources as
claimed. App. Br. 8-13; Reply Br. 2-8. According to Appellant, the
Examiner's reliance on Matsuoka is misplaced in this regard, for Matsuoka's
system merely enables customers to enroll in a DR plan and select their level
of participation, but does not indicate what a DR resource's load response to
a DR event would be in view of the resource's current load controller state,
let alone receive predictions of such responses from each DR resource as
claimed. App. Br. 10-13; Reply Br. 2-8.
ISSUE
Under§ 103, has the Examiner erred in rejecting claim 1 by finding
that Taft, McConky, and Matsuoka collectively would have taught or
suggested receiving a predicted load response from each of plural DR
resources, where the predicted load response is ( 1) determined by each
resource, and (2) indicates what each resource's load response would be to a
DR event in view of, respectively, the DR resource's current load controller
state ("the predicted load response limitation")?
4
Appeal 2018-003625
Application 13/939,935
ANALYSIS
We begin by noting that the Examiner's reliance on the particular
teachings of Taft and McConky in the rejection is undisputed, as is the cited
references' comb inability. Rather, as noted above, this dispute turns solely
on the Examiner's reliance on Matsuoka for teaching the recited predicted
load response limitation. Therefore, we confine our discussion to Matsuoka.
As noted above, claim 1 requires receiving a predicted load response
from each of plural DR resources-resources that the Examiner maps to
customers. See Final Act. 8, 10. A key aspect of these load responses is not
only that they are predicted as term's very label indicates, but also that they
are (1) determined by each resource, and (2) indicate what each resource's
load response would be to a DR event in view of each DR resource's current
load controller state.
As the Specification explains, for each predefined finite DR signal
value (e.g., "NORMAL," "MODERATE," "HIGH," etc.), each DR resource
continuously reports back what its load response will be if one of those
signal values were to be sent as a DR signal. Spec. 8. Using these
predefined finite DR signal values has advantages not only with respect to
more accurate DR resource predictions, but prediction is also easier and it is
unnecessary to model the resources' DR strategies or loads. Id.
Turning to the rejection, the Examiner relies principally on
Matsuoka's DR program enrollment and participation functionality for
teaching the recited predicted load response limitation. See Final Act. 13-
14; Ans. 3-5. As Matsuoka's paragraph 1 explains, Matsuoka's system
manages DR programs and events to shift energy consumption from a time
period when energy cost is relatively high to a period when cost is lower.
5
Appeal 2018-003625
Application 13/939,935
To this end, energy consumers can enroll in DR programs offered by a
utility provider as shown, for example, in Figures 8 to 11 C. Figure 8 shows
a DR program enrollment process where, after identifying consumers for
possible enrollment, an energy management system estimates aggregate
energy shifting from successful implementation of the DR program in
operation 804. Matsuoka ,r,r 136-137. An enrollment request and metrics
indicating the amount of energy likely to be shifted resulting from the
consumer's enrollment and participation is then communicated to the
identified customers in operations 810 and 812. Id. ,r,r 142-143. For
example, these communicated metrics can include the number of kilowatt-
hours (kWh) of energy or associated monetary value likely to be shifted
resulting from the consumer's participation. Id. ,r 143.
After receiving these metrics and the enrollment request, the identified
customers then send information indicating whether they accept or reject the
enrollment request to the energy management system in operation 814. Id.
,r 145. Each identified consumer can also send information to the energy
management system indicating the consumer's amenability to DR load
shifting, namely whether the consumer prefers a minimum or maximum
amount of load shifting (or anywhere in between}-a preference that is
reflected in a corresponding indication of the consumer's minimum or
maximum participation in the DR program. Id. ,r 146. Notably, minimum
participation results in the least change to the consumer's energy
consumption habits, but maximum participation results in the maximum
change to those habits. Id.
Based on this functionality, the received amenability responses from
identified consumers in operation 816 ( or "DR resources" consistent with
6
Appeal 2018-003625
Application 13/939,935
the Examiner's mapping) are effectively predictions of load responses at
least with respect to each consumer's expected change in energy
consumption-namely, a minimum or maximum predicted change-
resulting from program participation. Notably, this predicted change is
relative to the identified consumers' current energy consumption habits
before enrollment and, therefore, would be based at least partly on the
associated load controller's current state, namely before enrollment. Accord
Ans. 5 (noting that the load shift in Matsuoka's paragraph 146 represents
the DR resource's current load that is used to determine associated load
reduction).
So even assuming, without deciding, that estimated savings displayed
in Matsuoka's Figure 1 lB is calculated by the utility and not the consumer
as Appellant contends (Reply Br. 3), nothing in the claim precludes the
Examiner's reliance on the consumer amenability response functionality of
Matsuoka's paragraph 146 for at least suggesting the predicted load response
limitation. Appellant's arguments to the contrary (Reply Br. 6-7) are
unavailing and not commensurate with the scope of the claim. Moreover,
Appellant's contentions regarding the alleged shortcomings in connection
with other aspects ofMatsuoka's system, including functionality associated
with the user-interface-based input/output element 1100 in Matsuoka's
Figures llA to llC and paragraphs 176 and 177 (App. Br. 10-13; Reply Br.
2-5), do not persuasively rebut the Examiner's reliance on the consumer
amenability response functionality of Matsuoka's paragraph 146 for at least
suggesting the predicted load response limitation for the foregoing reasons.
7
Appeal 2018-003625
Application 13/939,935
Therefore, we are not persuaded that the Examiner erred in rejecting
claim 1, and claims 2-11, 23, and 24 not argued separately with
particularity.
THE REJECTION OVER TAFT, MCCONKY, KIM, AND MATSUOKA
We also sustain the Examiner's rejection of independent claim 12
reciting, in pertinent part, that the DR signal has one of three predefined
finite levels, and predicted load responses are received continuously from
each DR resource, where the predicted load responses (1) are determined by
each DR resource, and (2) indicate what each resource's load response to the
DR signal would be, in view of the resources' load controller state,for each
of the three predefined finite levels of the DR signal if the DR resource were
to be selected. Our emphasis underscores a key difference between claim 12
and claim 1, namely that the predicted load responses are relative to each of
the three predefined finite levels of the DR signal.
As the Specification explains, for each predefined finite DR signal
value (e.g., "NORMAL," "MODERATE," "HIGH," etc.), each DR resource
continuously reports back what its load response will be if one of those
signal values were to be sent as a DR signal. Spec. 8. Using these
predefined finite DR signal values has advantages not only with respect to
more accurate DR resource predictions, but prediction is also easier and it is
unnecessary to model the resources' DR strategies or loads. Id.
Although this disclosure informs our understanding of the DR signal's
recited predefined levels and the DR resources' predicted load responses
based on those particular levels, this disclosure is not limiting. That the
Specification's pages 2 and 31 clearly and unambiguously indicate that the
8
Appeal 2018-003625
Application 13/939,935
claims are to be interpreted "as broadly as possible," and that there may be
numerous other examples or ways of implementing the disclosed system and
approach only underscores the exemplary and non-limiting nature of
Appellants' disclosure. Although we interpret claims with the broadest
reasonable interpretation in light of the Specification-not the broadest
possible interpretation-we nonetheless decline to import non-limiting and
exemplary embodiments into the claims. See In re Smith Int 'l, 871 F .3d
1375, 1383 (Fed. Cir. 2017); see also Phillips v. AWH Corp., 415 F.3d 1303,
1316, 1323 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (en bane) ("[A]lthough the specification often
describes very specific embodiments of the invention, we have repeatedly
warned against confining the claims to those embodiments .... [C]laims
may embrace different subject matter than is illustrated in the specific
embodiments in the specification.") ( citations and internal quotation marks
omitted).
Turning to the rejection, as with claim 1, the Examiner cites Taft for
teaching the recited DR signal that is sent to each DR resource (Final Act.
20, 22}-a finding that is undisputed. The Examiner, however,
acknowledges that Taft's DR signal lacks the recited three predefined finite
levels, but cites Matsuoka for teaching that feature, namely levels
corresponding to (1) a minimum participation level; (2) a maximum
participation level; and (3) some level between the minimum and maximum
levels. See Final Act. 25-26; Ans. 5-6 ( citing Matsuoka ,r 146 and Figure
1 lB). The Examiner also cites Matsuoka for teaching that the predicted load
responses are (1) determined by the DR resources, and (2) indicate what
each resource's load response to the DR signal would be, in view of the
9
Appeal 2018-003625
Application 13/939,935
resources' load controller state, for each of the signal's three predefined
finite levels if the DR resource were to be selected. Final Act. 25-26.
Despite Appellants' arguments to the contrary (App. Br. 16-17; Reply
Br. 8-10), we see no error in the Examiner's reliance on Matsuoka in
combination with the other cited prior art for at least suggesting the disputed
limitations. As noted previously, the received amenability responses from
identified consumers ( or "DR resources" consistent with the Examiner's
mapping) in operation 816 in Matsuoka's Figure 8 and paragraph 146 are
effectively predictions of load responses at least with respect to each
consumer's expected change in energy consumption-namely, a minimum
or maximum predicted change-resulting from program participation.
Notably, this predicted change is relative to the identified consumers' energy
consumption habits before enrollment and, therefore, would be based at least
partly on the associated load controller's state before enrollment.
Given this functionality considered in light of the other cited prior
art, including Taft, Matsuoka's received amenability responses from
identified consumers effectively indicate what each resource's load response
to a DR signal would be, in view of the resources' pre-enrollment load
controller state, for each of the signal's three predefined finite levels if the
DR resource were to be selected. As noted above, these predefined levels
would be at least associated with (1) a minimum participation level; (2) a
maximum participation level; and (3) some level between the minimum and
maximum levels, such as that shown by slider 1112 in Matsuoka's Figure
1 lB. Appellants' contentions regarding Matsuoka's lacking the recited DR
signal that is sent from a utility/ISO to DR resources (App. Br. 17; Reply Br.
9-10) are unavailing, for the Examiner did not rely solely on Matsuoka for
10
Appeal 2018-003625
Application 13/939,935
teaching the recited DR signal, but rather the collective teachings of Taft and
Matsuoka for at least suggesting that particular feature. 4 See Final Act. 20,
22, 25-26. On this record, the Examiner's proposed enhancement to Taft's
DR signal-based functionality to include predicted load responses based on
three predefined signal levels associated with different participation levels in
light of Matsuoka is reasonable, and uses prior art elements predictably
according to their established functions-an obvious improvement. See KSR
Int'! Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., 550 U.S. 398,417 (2007). In short, Appellants'
arguments regarding Matsuoka's individual shortcomings in this regard
(App. Br. 17; Reply Br. 9-10) do not show nonobviousness where, as here,
the rejection is based on the cited references' collective teachings. See In re
Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 1097 (Fed. Cir. 1986).
Therefore, we are not persuaded that the Examiner erred in rejecting
claim 12, and claims 14--22 not argued separately with particularity.
CONCLUSION
The Examiner did not err in rejecting claims 1-12 and 14--24 under
§ 103.
DECISION
We affirm the Examiner's decision to reject claims 1-12 and 14--24.
4 The Examiner cites McConky and Kim for teaching other undisputed
features of claim 12. See Final Act. 24--25.
11
Appeal 2018-003625
Application 13/939,935
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
12