Accenture Global Services Limited

[2021] APO 34

IP AUSTRALIA

AUSTRALIAN PATENT OFFICE

Accenture Global Services Limited [2021] APO 34

Patent Application:             2018260878

Title:System, Method, and Apparatus for Capacity Determination for Micro Grid, and Tangible Computer Readable Medium

Patent Applicant:                Accenture Global Services Limited

Delegate:Shreyas Kumar

Decision Date:  9 September 2021

Hearing Date:  Written submissions filed on 8 January 2021

Catchwords:  PATENTS – section 45 – examiner’s objection – whether invention is a manner of manufacture – scheduling of multi-energy in a micro grid – device capacity determination – no technical or material advantages – the claimed invention is not a manner of manufacture – absence of technical contribution – application refused.

Representation:                   Patent attorney for the applicant: Murray Trento & Associates Pty Ltd

IP AUSTRALIA

AUSTRALIAN PATENT OFFICE

Patent Application:             2018260878

Title:System, Method, and Apparatus for Capacity Determination for Micro Grid, and Tangible Computer Readable Medium

Patent Applicant:                Accenture Global Services Limited

Date of Decision:                9 September 2021

DECISION

The claims of the application do not define a manner of manufacture.  There is no material in the body of the specification that may be included in the claims to overcome this finding.  On the basis of this finding, the application is refused.

REASONS FOR DECISION

Background

1. The present matter concerns patent application 2018260878 (“the application”) by Accenture Global Services Limited (“the applicant”).  The applicant filed the application on 07 November 2018 as a divisional application of 2014409485 (“the parent”), itself a national phase entry of PCT/CN2014/088992 consequently providing the application with a priority date of 21 October 2014.

2. The parent was the subject of four examination reports prior to lapsing for failure to gain acceptance within the prescribed time-period.  The first report on the parent raised objections for manner of manufacture and inventive step.  The latter was overcome by amendment.  The manner of manufacture objection was maintained through three further adverse reports until the parent lapsed.

3. The application has been the subject of three examination reports.  The objection in the first report was that the claimed invention is not for a manner of manufacture.  Despite responsive submissions from the applicant and a statement of proposed amendments to amend the description and the claims, the examiner maintained the manner of manufacture objection in a second and third report.

4. On 30 October 2020, the applicant wrote to the Commissioner requesting to be heard in relation to the matter in the third report, namely the outstanding objection that the claimed invention was not to a manner of manufacture.

5. On 02 December 2020, the Commissioner wrote to the Applicant indicating that the hearing would be conducted by way of written submissions due to be filed by 11 January 2021.  The applicant filed the submissions in this regard on 08 January 2021 (“the applicant’s submissions”).

6. While the final date for acceptance of the application was 13 November 2020, patent subregulation 13.4(1)(g) may be available to extend the time for gaining acceptance to 3 months (or more via subregulation 13.4(3)) from the date of the present decision.
   
   

   The specification

7. There were three amendments proposed during the examination of the application.  No objection has been raised to the allowability of the amendments.  In this decision, I am considering the application as currently proposed to be amended, and wherever I refer to the specification, it is a reference to the specification of the application as proposed to be amended.

8. The specification, as proposed to be amended, ends with 19 claims.  Claims 1, 11 and 19 are independent claims.  

   The invention as described

9. The application is directed to a system/computer-implemented method for optimally scheduling multiple energy supply devices in a micro grid.  Micro grids may be viewed as a cluster of renewable and clean distributed generators (“DGs”), such as photovoltaic (“PV”) panels, wind turbines (“WTs”) and Combined Cooling Heating and Power (“CCHP”) units, etc., to satisfy customers' multi-type energy demands locally.  Compared to a macro grid (i.e., the centralized power grid or the bulk power grid), a micro grid is a small-scale energy-supplying system that is autonomous and capable of being self-controlled, protected, and managed.  In practice, the micro grid could be either connected to the power grid or operated as a standalone power system to provide electric energy and/or heat or cooling energy to the end customers within the micro grid.  Moreover, when the micro grid is connected to a bulk power grid (i.e., the macro grid), it could provide the electricity back to/obtain the electricity from the bulk power grid as well.

10.  Fig. 1 describes an exemplary architecture of a micro grid including multi-type energy source devices

11.  The optimal scheduling process utilises various computing resources and operational scenarios to minimize integrated resource allocations and energy outages, and to preserve of the electricity supply/demand balance and the thermal energy supply/demand balance.

12.  The specification of the application provides a disclosure of a capacity determination optimization model for a micro grid containing multi-type energy supply devices with the aim of meeting the local energy demands and at the same time minimizing costs.  The model performs the capacity determination process by considering both the annual integrated cost and the operation reliability of the micro grid.  The optimal energy scheduling process is pre-performed by determining operation priorities of the multi-type energy supply devices and an operation mode of the CCHP unit at each time interval in a scheduling period. 

13.  The specification, when considered as whole, can be considered to be disclosing two main concepts of the scheduling process in micro grids.  They are:

·     An optimal energy scheduling process

·     A device capacity determination process

14.  The optimal energy scheduling process includes a heat and electricity coordinated daily schedule (“HECDS”) process and a cooling and electricity coordinated daily schedule (“CECDS”) process for the multi-operation scenario of grid-connected, planned islanded and unplanned islanded modes.  The HECDS process and the CECDS process are sufficiently described in paragraphs [00117]-[00140] of the specification and figures 3-6 and 7A-7C as a flow chart of steps operating in various modes.

15.  The device capacity determination process that relates to multi-objective and multi-constraint optimization is further elaborated using a multiple-objective particle swarm optimization (“MOPSO”) implementation to search the optimal solution set for the micro grid.  See Paragraphs [00141]-[00165] and figures 8-10 of the specification.

The claims

16.  The specification, as proposed to be amended, ends with 19 claims.  Claims 1, 11 and 19 are independent claims.  Claims 1, 11 and 19 are directed towards a system, a computer-implemented method and a tangible computer readable medium including instructions executable by a processor respectively with similar features as those defined in claim 1.  Given the similarities my discussion will focus on claim 1.

17.  Independent claim 1 is reproduced here:

A system for scheduling multi-energy in a micro grid, wherein the micro grid includes multi-type energy supply devices, including at least a combined cooling, heating and power CCHP unit, to provide both electricity and thermal energy, the system including:

at least one processor; and

at least one memory storing computer executable instructions,

wherein the at least one memory and the computer executable instructions are executable by the at least one processor, to cause the system to:

perform an optimal energy scheduling process by determining operation priorities of the multi-type energy supply devices and an operation mode of the CCHP unit at each time interval in a scheduling period based on a matching relationship between thermal demand and electricity demand and operation scenarios of the micro grid, the matching relationship between the thermal demand and the electricity demand defined by the ratio of the thermal energy demand to the electricity demand;

perform a device capacity determination process based on the optimal energy scheduling process, for minimizing both annual integrated resource allocations for the micro grid and annual energy outages, the device capacity determination process performed under constraints on electricity supply/demand balance and thermal energy supply/demand balance, and operation constraints on the multi-type energy supply devices;

determine respective numbers or capacities of the multi-type energy supply devices; and

schedule multi-energy in the micro-grid based on the determined respective numbers or capacities.

18.  Independent claim 11 is a computer-implemented method claim having the following preamble:

A computer-implemented method for scheduling multi-energy in a micro grid, wherein the micro grid includes multi-type energy supply devices, including at least a combined cooling, heating and power CCHP unit, to provide both electricity and thermal energy, the method including:…

The remaining features of the claim are identical to those following the preamble of the independent claim 1.

19.  Independent claim 11 is a tangible computer readable medium including instructions executable by a processor claim having the following preamble:

A tangible computer readable medium including instructions executable by a processor for scheduling multi-energy in a micro-grid, wherein the micro grid includes multi-type energy supply devices, including at least a combined cooling, heating and power CCHP unit, to provide both electricity and thermal energy, the tangible computer readable medium including:…

The remaining features of the claim are identical to those following the preamble of the independent claim 1.

20.  Dependent system claims (and their corresponding method claims in parenthesis) 2-7 (12-17), 8-9, and 10 (18) are directed to additional features such as: other energy supply devices; annual integrated resource allocation; operation constraints; performance of the device capacity determination process; daily schedule process; computer executable instructions for the daily schedule process in the various modes (grid-connected, planned island, unplanned island); and computer executable instructions to perform the device capacity determination process with a multiple-objective particle swarm optimization algorithm.

Applicable Law

21.  The application is governed by the Patents Act 1990 (“the Act”) as amended by the Intellectual Property Laws Amendment (Raising the Bar) Act 2012 (“the Raising the Bar Act”). Amendments to Sections 7, 40 and 49 of the Act apply to the present case as a consequence of and Schedule 1, item 55(4)(a), and Schedule 6, item 133(7)(d), of the Raising the Bar Act.  The application was filed after 15 April 2013.

1. Section 18 of the Act relevantly provides that:-

   (1)Subject to subsection (2), an invention is a patentable invention for the purposes of a standard patent if the invention, so far as claimed in any claim

   (a)   is a manner of manufacture within the meaning of section 6 of the Statute of Monopolies; and ...

23.  The standard of proof that applies is the balance of probabilities (subsection 49(1)).  I must accept the application if satisfied on the balance of probabilities that the application complies with the Act.  If I am not so satisfied, then I can refuse the application.

Case Law

24.  In National Research Development Corporation v Commissioner of Patents (“NRDC”), [1959] HCA 67, (1959) 102 CLR 252, the High Court provided a statement of the law in regard to manner of manufacture. At page 275, “… a process, to fall within the limits of patentability which the context of the Statute of Monopolies has supplied, must be one that offers some advantage which is material, in the sense that the process belongs to a useful art as distinct from a fine art …- that its value to the country is in the field of economic endeavour”.

25.  The High Court though was not laying down a precise formulation that can be applied unthinkingly.  In D’Arcy v Myriad Genetics Inc (“Myriad”), [2015] HCA 35, at [23]:-

“This Court in NRDC did not prescribe a well-defined pathway for the development of the concept of ‘manner of manufacture’ in its application to unimagined technologies with unimagined characteristics and implications.  Rather, it authorised a case-by-case methodology.”

26.  That case-by-case approach must have regard to the substance of the claimed invention, not simply the form of the claim.  The point was made succinctly in the Myriad case by Gageler and Nettle JJ.  At [144]:-

“Whatever words have been used, the matter must be looked at as one of substance and effect must be given to the true nature of the claim.”

27.  In Commissioner of Patents v RPL Central Pty Ltd (“RPL”), [2015] FCAFC 177, the Full Court of the Federal Court stated the same thing in the context of an invention that was in substance a scheme. At [96]:-

“A claimed invention must be examined to ascertain whether it is in substance a scheme or plan or whether it can broadly be described as an improvement in computer technology.  The basis for the analysis starts with the fact that a business method, or mere scheme, is not, per se, patentable.  The fact that it is a scheme or business method does not exclude it from properly being the subject of letters patent, but it must be more than that.  There must be more than an abstract idea; it must involve the creation of an artificial state of affairs where the computer is integral to the invention, rather than a mere tool in which the invention is performed.”

28.  At [98]:-

“It is not a question of stating precise guidelines but of deciding, in each case, whether the claimed invention, as a matter of substance not form, is properly the subject of a patent.”

29.  Moreover at [107]:-

“Simply putting a business method or scheme into a computer is not patentable unless there is an invention in the way in which the computer carries out the scheme or method.”

30.  In Grant v Commissioner of Patents (“Grant”), [2006] FCAFC 120, the Full Court of the Federal Court ruled out some fields of endeavour in a generic sense. At [47]:-

“It has long been accepted that ‘intellectual information’, a mathematical algorithm, mere working directions and a scheme without effect are not patentable.”

31.  In Aristocrat Technologies Australia Pty Limited v Commissioner of Patents (“Aristocrat20”), [2020] FCA 778, Burley J having considered the authorities, identified a two-step test for determining whether a claimed invention is a manner of manufacture:

a)An initial question whether the claimed invention is for a mere scheme or business method of the type that is not the proper subject matter of a grant of letters patent;

b)Only if the first question is answered in the affirmative and where the invention is a computerised implemented method, a second question whether the computer implemented method is one in which invention lies in the computerisation of the method as opposed to merely plugging an unpatentable scheme into a computer requiring only "generic" computer implementation.

32.  In relation to computer implemented inventions, the Full Court in RPL at [99-100] reiterated a number of considerations arising from the earlier Full Court decision in Research Affiliates LLC v Commissioner of Patents (“RA”), [2014] FCAFC 150:

·Is the contribution to the claimed invention technical in nature?

·Does the invention solve a ‘technical’ problem within the computer or outside the computer?

·Does it result in an improvement in the functioning of the computer?

·Does the claimed method merely require generic computer implementation?

·Is the computer merely the intermediary, configured to carry out the method using a computer readable medium containing program code for performing the method, but adding nothing to the substance of the idea?

·Is the invention for a technological innovation which is patentable or for a business innovation which is not?

33.  In Aristocrat20, the Court found that an electronic gaming machine having hardware, firmware and software is a device of a specific character that yields a practical and useful result and the fact that it uses software programming to give it a new functionality does not make it any less patentable than if the device were to achieve the same functionality using mechanical components.

"Simply put, the machine that is the subject of the claims is built to allow people to play games on it.  That is its only purpose.  In this regard, the physical and virtual features of the display, reels, credit input mechanism, gameplay mechanism and game controller combine to produce the invention.  It is a device of a specific character."  [098]

Secondly, as the Commissioner accepts, were the EGM of claim 1 to have been implemented mechanically, the old-fashioned way, without using software but instead using cogs, physical reels and motors to create the gameplay, there is no doubt that it would be a manner of manufacture.  There would be no occasion to disaggregate the game features from the combination of physical parts.  It is difficult to see why the development of an implementation of an EGM that utilises the efficiencies of electronics technology would be disqualified from patent eligibility, when the old-fashioned mechanical technology was not.  Such an approach would be antithetical to the encouragement of invention and innovation.  To adapt the analogy used in CCOM, a ball point pen that used computerised components to enable it to function more efficiently would be no less a manner of manufacture now than the original ball point pen was when it was first invented.  Whether or not it is novel or involves an inventive step is, of course, for separate enquiry.  [102]

34.  In Encompass Corporation Pty Ltd v InfoTrack Pty Ltd (“Encompass”), [2018] FCA 421, Perram J considered the question of what constitutes an improvement of a computer and noted:

“Where a method utilising a computer is involved it may be more useful to ask whether the invention involves the mere implementation of an abstract idea in a computer (not patentable) or whether it involves the implementation of an abstract idea that creates an improvement in the computer (patentable): Research Affiliates at 400 [104] citing Thomas J in Alice Corporation Pty Ltd v CLS Bank International 134 S Ct. 2347 (2014)”.  [191]

35.  The principles from RPL and RA have been summarised by the Delegate in Aristocrat Technologies Australia Pty Limited (“Aristocrat ’16”), [2016] APO 49 at [35]:

I conclude that it is relevant to consider a range of matters.  Without seeking to be exhaustive, these include:

·there must be more than an abstract idea, mere scheme or mere intellectual information;

·is the contribution of the claimed invention technical in nature;

·does the invention solve a technical problem within the computer or outside the computer;

·does the invention result in improvement in the functioning of the computer, irrespective of the data being processed;

·does the application of the method produce a practical and useful result;

·can it be broadly described as an improvement in computer technology;

·does the method merely require generic computer implementation;

·is the computer merely an intermediary or tool for performing the method while adding nothing of substance to the idea;

·is there ingenuity in the way in which the computer is utilised;

·does the invention involve steps that are foreign to the normal use of computers; and

·does the invention lie in the generation, presentation or arrangement of intellectual information.

The Examiner’s Objection

36.  The third examination report for the application indicates that amended claims 1-19 meet the requirements for Novelty and Inventive Step.  These claims are objected for its patentable subject matter.  The relevant content of the report is as follows:-

“Objection item 2 of the previous report is maintained.

All the comments and amendments submitted by the applicant in response to the previous reports have been considered but found to be unpersuasive.


Claims 1 – 19 as proposed to be amended are not for a manner of manufacture within the meaning of Section 18(1)(a) of the Patents Act 1990.


From reading the applicant’s claims in light of the specification as a whole, and construing the claim according to 2.9.2.1 of the Patent Manual of Practice & Procedure, I am not satisfied that the contribution of the claimed invention is technical in nature such that it produces an improvement in the functioning of the computer.  The claimed invention as a matter of substance relates to an information processing method for determining appropriate number of energy supply devices for scheduling in a micro-grid in order to minimize the cost of the micro-grid and energy outage cost.  This is an administrative scheme.


The claims define a combination of set of steps and rules such as performing an optimal energy scheduling process by determining operation priorities of the multi-type energy supply devices and an operation mode of the CCHP unit and performing a device capacity determination process under constraints on electricity and thermal energy supply/demand balance.  These are steps and rules (i.e. scheme) based on an abstract idea.
Furthermore, as described in the specification as filed, the scheduling optimization process for determining the respective numbers or capacities of energy supply devices in the micro-grid is performed by the means of Multiple-objective Particle Swarm Optimization (MOPSO) algorithm.

However, the MOPSO algorithm is known optimization method from the art and not a contribution by the present invention.  Therefore, the algorithm used for optimizing the energy scheduling process to determine the numbers or capacities of energy supply devices in the micro-grid does not form part of the substance of the invention.


Therefore, the claimed invention solves the problem of determining appropriate micro grid device numbers and operational capacity by executing a set of rules which results in abstract information.


It was submitted by the applicant that the claimed invention has application in the technical (rather than the administrative) field and seeks to address a technical problem and provides real-world benefits that reside in the environmental and technical realm.

The claimed invention solves the problem of determining appropriate number of energy supply devices for scheduling in a micro-grid in order to minimize the cost of the micro-grid and energy outage cost.  Therefore, contrary to the applicant’s submission, the claimed invention does not address a technical problem, instead, it addresses an administrative problem.


It was further submitted by the applicant that the present claims (similar to the BIO-RAD claims) relate to an optimization method which provides various “artificial effects” and also has application in a technical field, the same reasoning as provided by the Hearing Office in BIO-RAD must apply to the present claims thereby leading to a conclusion that the present claims are directed to patentable subject matter.


It is worthwhile to note that BIO-RAD concerns a method that is aimed at improving the efficiency of a specific apparatus/setup that achieves a specific result.  The substance of the BIO-RAD invention was a method that determined an optimal quality control strategy that reduced the number of tests that needed to be carried out and thereby reduced the number of reference samples that are used.  The claimed substance was considered to provide a material effect of reduced material use.  This is contrasted from the present situation wherein the substance is an administrative process.


Furthermore, the invention in BIO-RAD was considered as patentable subject matter because the substance of the BIO-RAD invention was in the optimization algorithm but not in the computerisation.  Unlike BIO-RAD, the substance of the claimed invention is not directed to the optimization.


In addition, as per the Encompass Corporation Pty Ltd v InfoTrack Pty Ltd [2019] FCAFC 161 (Encompass) decision ([83]) the terminology of an "artificially created state of affairs of economic significance", as used in NRDC, was not intended to be, and should not be seen as, a definition of "manner of manufacture" given that, in the same case, the High Court "had denounced the idea of an exact formula".

In conclusion, in the present application, the claim amounts to instructions for carrying out an administrative scheme.  The level of abstraction at which it is expressed demonstrates that it does no more than providing a list of steps to be implemented using computer technology using its well-known and understood functions.  Nothing in the specification suggests otherwise.  Even if the scheme is new and ingenious, it is not made patentable merely because it is implemented using computer technology.  Rather, the language of the specification and the steps defined in the claimed invention do no more than locate the scheme in computer technology using its well-known and understood functions in a manner similar to the inventions described in ROKT, RPL and Encompass.

Hence, the claimed invention, as a matter of substance, does not define subject matter suitable for a patent.”  (italics in the original)

The applicant’s submissions

37.  The applicant provided helpful written submissions. The main points of the applicant’s submissions are:

a)The claimed invention seeks to address the technical problem of performance of a micro grid and in particular the equipment utilisation and device costs which are highly dependent upon device capacity determination (i.e., determining suitable capacity for the micro grid so that the equipment may be utilised efficiently whilst ensuring at the same time that customers energy demands can be satisfied).

b)The invention defined by present claims addresses a technical problem and results in various technical and material advantages (as discussed herein) and a[t] least on this basis, the claimed invention cannot properly be characterised as a scheme.

Manner of Manufacture Considerations

38.  I will start by discussing and construing the features of claim 1.  Claim 1 is a system claim described such that is it suitable for multi-energy devices in a micro grid.  The micro grid includes several multi-type energy supply devices with at least a CCHP unit to provide electricity and thermal energy.  There is at least a memory storing executable instructions that is processed through a processor.  The process of optimal energy scheduling is performed by an algorithmic or mathematical process of utilising a matching relationship in terms of a ratio of thermal/electricity demand with thermal/electricity supply.  This considers the operation priorities of the multi-type energy supply devices and the CCHP unit operation mode at each time interval in a scheduling process.  The process of device capacity determination is based on the previous optimal energy scheduling process to achieve a result that is suitable for minimizing annual integrated resource allocations and annual energy outages in a micro grid, which considers the constraints of the energy supply devices and supply/demand balance to reduce costs.  This process further determines the numbers or capacities of the energy supply devices to schedule them in the micro grid.

39.  As is clear from the claims, the multi-type energy supply devices, such as the CCHP units, are generic well known devices.  The processor and memory are akin to any general purpose computing elements.  The scheduling process uses the various parameters, optimises through an algorithm using known parameters or values (for each time interval) based on a matching of demand with supply.  The device capacity determination process, as the name suggests, determines the capacity or numbers of supply devices, based on operational parameters/constraints and refines the scheduling process such that the end result is achieved by aggregating the time interval values to an annual value thereby minimizing costs/expenses in terms of annual resource allocations and annual energy outages.  So far, I consider this to be purely using known parameters of different/multiple devices and its operational variables/constraints at time intervals to estimate/schedule them to operate/run in a manner that will minimize costs.

The problem

40.  The applicant submits:

“the claimed invention seeks to address the technical problem of performance of a micro grid and in particular the equipment utilisation and device costs which are highly dependent upon device capacity determination (i.e. determining suitable capacity for the micro grid so that the equipment may be utilised efficiently whilst ensuring at the same time that customers energy demands can be satisfied).”

41.  The description further states in paragraph [0005] – “However, in the prior art, there is no such a capacity determination approach specifically for the MG (micro grid).  Besides, capacity determination approaches for the traditional bulk power grid cannot be used for the MG because, quite different from the traditional bulk power grid, the MG includes multi-type energy source devices, which can supply a plurality of energies, such as the electricity, the heating energy and the cooling energy.”

42.  A fair reading of the specification clearly outlines the difficulties arising from the need to have an optimal capacity determination process for a micro grid, and the complexity in scheduling the multi-type energy supply devices using various computing resources and operational scenarios to minimize integrated resource allocations, energy outages and preservation of the electricity supply/demand balance and the thermal energy supply/demand balance.  While the applicant’s submissions are directed towards the device capacity determination process of the claimed invention, I also consider that the invention is intending to solve the issues in performing an optimal energy scheduling process to best manage device capacity of multiple devices associated with the micro grid in terms of usage costs (i.e., integrated costs and energy outage costs).

The solution

43.  In general terms in addressing the problems, the claimed invention relates to “a system, method, apparatus and tangible computer readable medium for capacity determination for micro grid”.  The embodiments in paragraphs [00040]-[00169] summarise the claimed invention to be in terms of: a) the capacity determination optimization model for the micro grid (“MG”); b) micro grid components modeling; c) the micro grid optimal scheduling process; d) the micro capacity determination optimization solution; and e) a general computer system for implementation.  In my own words, I will summarize and provide a clearer explanation below of how the optimization and scheduling model works as per the claimed invention.

Capacity determination optimization model for MG

44.  With multi-type energy supply devices in the micro grid, the capacity determination optimization model determines the optimal numbers required along with their rated power as parameters (N_CCHP, N_PW, N_WT, Q_ordinary, Q_ice, Q_boiler, C_tank).  In fulfilling the objectives of MG cost and MG reliability, the annual integrated cost and energy outage costs are minimized by calculating several known investment/operating costs and classes of electricity load over a period of time respectively.  Any constraints such as electricity supply/demand balance, thermal supply/demand balance, MG components operational constraints, renewable energy utilization constraint, renewable energy discard constraint and any variable or parameter constraints are also considered.  

Micro grid components modeling

45.  Micro grid components, such as the CCHP unit, ice-storage air-conditioners, ice-storage tanks are further mathematically modeled for their efficiency in their operation modes.  This modeling is done by utilising manufacturing documentation from the suppliers of these components.  The modeling and operation strategy for the multi-type energy supply devices is provided for simplifying the optimal capacity determination.

Micro grid optimal scheduling process

46.  The aim of the MG optimal scheduling process is to minimize the integrated cost and energy outage cost.  This is done by using a matching relationship (i.e., a ratio) between the thermal energy demand and the electricity demand for the different MG operation scenarios, mainly with the CCHP units.  The operation mode of the CCHP is selected based on this ratio, which, when the supplied electricity is determined by the heating/cooling energy, enters a “following the heating/cooling demand” (“FHD/FCD”) mode, or when the supplied heating/cooling energy is determined by electricity, enters a “following the electricity demand” (“FED”) mode.  Ideally, the scheduling process should operate such that the ratio of the thermal energy demand to the electricity demand is matched, with the ratio of the thermal energy and electricity supplied by the CCHP unit.  The specification also states that the optimal energy scheduling process may be pre-performed.  With the MG working in three different modes, i.e., the grid-connected mode, the planned island mode and the unplanned island mode, the optimal energy scheduling process may further include a HECDS process which will determine the daily schedule strategy for heating and electricity supply (mainly for CCHP units) and a CECDS process will determine the daily schedule strategy for heating and electricity supply (mainly for CCHP units and ice-storage air-conditioners).  Certain specific strategies are disclosed as an illustrative example in the specification and figures 3-6, 7A-7C.

Micro capacity determination optimization solution

47.  MG capacity determination requires a multi-objective and multi-constraint optimization approach which leads to MOPSO implementation to search for the optimal solution.  Electricity demand is divided to four classes and thermal demand to two classes.  From the various processes listed in [44]-[46] above, the MOPSO algorithm, by selecting the number or capacity of the multi-type energy supplying devices as particles, performs the capacity determination optimization solution to output the Pareto optimal set.

General computer system for implementation

48.  A tangible computer-readable medium having plurality of executable instructions, via a processor determines the device capacity of the micro grid.  A general-purpose computer system with a known architecture of a control centre, head end, network operations and management systems, faults, performance and configuration management modules, and communication elements such as routers, servers and switches are used.  The instructions stored in memory or network are executed by the computer system to perform the capacity determination process.

Substance of Invention

49.  From reading the applicant’s submissions, the applicant has periodically questioned the Examiner’s characterisation of the claimed invention.  In considering the comments against the reports for the parent and the application, I can summarize that the applicant construes the substance to lie in “the combination of presently claimed features, namely, improved efficiency in micro grid operation and the ability to maintain the electricity supply/demand balance along with the thermal energy supply/demand balance whilst simultaneously minimizing integrated cost and energy outage costs.”

50.  In broad terms, the device capacity determination process is central to the claimed invention in the present case.  It is the capacity determiner for all the multi-energy type supply devices, constraint manager for the various constraints around device operation as well as electricity/thermal energy supply/demand that determines the optimal set.  Then comes the optimal scheduling process which coordinates the scheduling for the multi-type energy devices to operate in a micro grid through executable instructions to minimize annual integrated costs and energy outage costs.  

51.  When determining the substance of the invention it is important to consider the claimed invention as a whole, not just the individual parts.  Clearly the substance of the alleged invention broadly resides in the device integration and capacity determination process using a MOPSO algorithm, which is then fed into the scheduling process through executable instructions from a general purpose computer to perform the scheduling of the multi-type energy devices to maintain the electricity/thermal energy supply/demand balance and improve overall efficiency of the micro grid operation by minimizing integrated costs and outage costs.  I consider this result to clearly lack technical character, as the general mathematics of the algorithm is widely known and the general purpose computer merely performs a scheduling scheme according to a set of given conditions that results in reduction/savings of annual integrated costs and energy outage costs.

52.  While there are technical components present as part of the micro grid system architecture (i.e., CCHP units, PV, Wind turbines, Air-conditioners, Boilers, Battery, Ice-storage, etc.), the capacity determination optimisation solution as discussed in [44] and [47] above runs a complex algorithm based on known or pre-determined values/constraints/parameters to generate the capacity determination results, which is then conveyed to the scheduling process by means of the MOPSO algorithm using optimal solution sets.  Throughout this process, a general computer system with connected/networked general processing systems are used to execute the instructions in the software to implement a set of logical functions. i.e., there is no improvement in the computer technology.  Furthermore, there is no technical improvement to any of the devices that form part of the micro grid or the macro grid for that matter.  To this extent, I see no improvement of a technical nature that could be associated with a computer or further device in the claim.  This is consistent with RPL at [107].

53.  Additionally, addressing specific Applicant’s submissions as listed in [40] above:  

a)   I am unable to find support for the position that the solutions discussed in the entire specification address a technical problem and result in various technical advantages.  With respect to the problems identified above in [40]-[42] around “the equipment utilisation and device costs”, “the device capacity determination”, “increased efficiency of the micro grid” and how they are considered, determined, scheduled and applied as a whole as part of that optimised solution, from my reading of the specification it appears that all these are limited only to mathematical and business/commercial problems and constraints/parameters that appear to be solved by a set of abstract mathematical algorithms to minimize costs.  In my view, the specification is not particularly technical in this respect.  The system would have been easily reconfigurable, as required, at the relevant time.  The description related to flow charts in Figures 3-8 is, in the main, similarly abstract in respect of technical content.  As to the coding of these algorithms, the specification is completely silent on any specific technical problems encountered and solved by the claimed invention in relation to the “capacity determination optimization model for the MG”, “micro grids components modeling”, “micro grid optimal energy scheduling process for multi-type energy supplies – HECDS, CECDS”, and “micro capacity determination optimization solution”.

b)   It appears that the Applicant’s interpretation of the phrase “material advantage” is also quite broad.  I fail to see how advantages such as “optimisation of scheduling”, “minimization of integrated costs and energy outage costs”, “capacity determination approach”, including “maintaining the electricity supply/demand balance along with the thermal energy supply/demand balance” could reasonably be characterised as material advantages within the meaning this phrase has in the context of manner of manufacture.  The material advantages listed relate to improved “scheduling” and maximizing “available resources to save costs”, which still reside in the business and administrative realm.  I find that the combination of features of the claimed invention neither provides an improvement to the computer itself nor has it changed the way a computer normally works.  In contrast, even when taking into account the essential computer integers of the present application, there is no suggestion that the method is performed in a way that is outside the normal function and use of a computer system as known at the priority date of the application.  This is consistent with RPL, RA and Encompass.

54.  The Federal Court has distinguished between inventions characterised as apparatus of a particular construction and general-purpose devices.  In Aristocrat20, Burley J considered specific functionalities for gameplay on electronic gaming machines.  At [98]:-

“… the invention may be characterised as a machine of a particular construction which implements a gaming function.  It yields a practical and useful result.  Simply put, the machine that is the subject of the claims is built to allow people to play games on it.  That is its only purpose.  In this regard, the physical and virtual features of the display, reels, credit input mechanism, gameplay mechanism and game controller combine to produce the invention.  It is a device of a specific character.”

55.  In the present case, the system for scheduling multi-energy in a micro grid, or any optimal energy scheduling process or device capacity determination process, could not be said to be such a device.  As a further clarification, the scope of the present claims is merely to “a system for scheduling multi-energy in a micro grid”, so the applicant’s invention lies in the system suitable for use in a microgrid.  Explicitly the invention does not lie in any element of the microgrid other than the computerised system.  The system is not of a particular configuration interacting with a particular software.  Rather, the system is in the nature of scheduling of multi-energy type supply devices and software modules suitable for a range of internal optimisation by way of capacity determination to reduce costs.  The scheduling of multi-energy supply devices in a micro grid fits more with general-purpose computing devices as in RA, RPL and Encompass.

56.  With respect to the Bio-Rad Laboratories, Inc. [2018] APO 24 (“Bio-Rad”) decision, I note that, in that decision, the Delegate did not come to the conclusion that the claimed invention is a manner of manufacture simply because it “resulted in a physical effect in the real world”.  As somewhat alluded to by the Applicant, the Delegate found that “the invention is a method of determining an optimal strategy that uses a minimal number of reference samples” and that “the invention lies in computing a QC [i.e. quality control] utilisation rate for different QC rules so that the QC rule with the lowest QC utilisation rate can then be chosen as the QC strategy as it is this QC rule that uses a minimal number of reference samples for testing while still meeting the chosen performance targets of maximum permissible final errors and maximum permissible correctible errors” (at [55]).  In other words, the claimed invention had the effect of reducing the usage of reference samples for quality control of a diagnostic device while still preserving the performance (e.g., the accuracy) of the device.  This is contrasted from the present invention where the effect of the substance is an improvement in the effective scheduling of multi-type supply devices in a micro grid to minimize annual integrated costs and outage costs.  I fail to see any possible analogy between the invention claimed in the Bio-Rad case and the present invention.

57.  I have also considered each of the dependent claims.  Dependent system claims (and their corresponding method claims in parenthesis) 2-7 (12-17), 8-9, and 10 (18) are directed to additional features such as: other energy supply devices; annual integrated resource allocation; operation constraints; performance of the device capacity determination process; daily schedule process (HECDS and CECDS); computer executable instructions for the daily schedule process in the various modes (grid-connected, planned island, unplanned island); and computer executable instructions to perform the device capacity determination process with a multiple-objective particle swarm optimization algorithm.  These claims only define additional elements of parameters, constraints, modeling used by the mathematical algorithms to perform the device capacity determination process and optimal scheduling process to minimize overall costs.  There is no technical improvement to any of the devices that form part of the micro grid, or the macro grid for that matter.  Furthermore, none of the elements add anything of substance that fundamentally escapes the patentability issues of the independent claims.  It follows that none of the dependent claims are for a manner of manufacture.  In addition, I do not consider there to be any material in the specification that would provide the claimed invention with a manner of manufacture.

Conclusion

58.  None of the claims are for a manner of manufacture.  In addition, I see no material in the application that could be made the subject of a claim so as to result in that claim being for a manner of manufacture.  I therefore refuse the application.

Shreyas Kumar

Delegate of the Commissioner of Patents