DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . This office action is in response to applicant's communication of September 5, 2025. The rejections are stated below. Claims 1-7 and 21-22 are pending and have been examined.
Drawings
New corrected drawings in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in this application because figures 12. 16-22, 24-27, 29-31, 33-50, 52-53, 55A, 56-63, 66 and 67 are not clean lines, illegible, not black and white, and not suitable for reproduction. Examiner notes, grey is not black, and, for best results, black should be hex code #000000 or RGB (0, 0, 0). Applicant is advised to employ the services of a competent patent draftsperson outside the Office, as the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office no longer prepares new drawings. The corrected drawings are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. As it appears applicant may need to rely on drawings for support of claim language, the requirement for corrected drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Response to Amendment/Arguments
Applicant argues that the claimed invention is not directed to an abstract idea because it is tied to computer technology and cites DDR Holdings and Trading Technologies. Applicant further argues that even if the claims are directed to an abstract idea, they include an inventive concept sufficient for patent eligibility. These arguments do not overcome the rejection under the Alice framework. Claim 1 as amended recites a financial settlements platform that collects energy usage data, generates pricing information, transmits update messages including digital contract terms, and performs energy financial settlements. The specification states that the invention relates to electric power messaging and settlements including advanced energy settlements for electric power supply, load, or curtailment. These activities of settling financial obligations, managing contracts, and exchanging pricing information are fundamental economic practices that existed long before the claimed system. The Supreme Court in Alice and the Federal Circuit have held that claims directed to such commercial and financial interactions are abstract. See Alice, 573 U.S. at 219 20 (intermediated settlement is abstract); buySAFE, 765 F.3d at 1355 (creating a guarantee contract is abstract).
Applicant emphasizes that acceptance of the digital contract causes charging of the electric vehicle by the charging station. This limitation describes the expected physical result of a contract for energy delivery. The claim does not require any specific technical mechanism for initiating charging beyond stating that charging occurs. Many abstract ideas have physical manifestations or outcomes. The presence of a physical result does not transform an abstract economic practice into patent eligible subject matter. See Ultramercial, 772 F.3d at 715 16 (requiring payment for content does not make claim patent eligible).
Applicant’s reliance on DDR Holdings is not supported. In DDR Holdings, the claims addressed a problem specifically arising in the realm of computer networks. The problem was the loss of website visitors when they clicked on advertisements. The solution was a specific web page generation technique that maintained the host site’s appearance while displaying third party content. That problem had no pre Internet analog. Here, the problem recited in the specification is managing energy settlements and contracts. Utilities have managed energy settlements, contracts, and pricing information for decades using paper based systems and telephone communications. The use of a computer to perform these tasks does not create a problem that is particular to computer networks. The claim in DDR Holdings was upheld because it solved a new problem created by the Internet. The claims here address a longstanding practice of energy financial settlement and contract management. See Electric Power Grp., 830 F.3d at 1354 (claims focused on abstract ideas of collecting and analyzing data not patent eligible).
Applicant’s citation to Trading Technologies is also unavailing. In Trading Technologies, the claims were directed to a specific graphical user interface structure that displayed a static price index. That specific structure allowed traders to place orders more efficiently. The court found that the claims were not abstract because they recited a specific structured graphical user interface that improved computer functionality. Here, claim 1 recites that the platform provides at least one interactive graphical user interface. The claim does not recite any specific structure or layout of that interface. The claim does not describe how the GUI operates differently from any other GUI. A general recitation of a GUI without technical details about its structure does not remove the claim from the abstract idea category. See Apple v. Ameranth, 842 F.3d at 1241 (claim reciting a generic graphical user interface does not become patent eligible).
Even if the claims were directed to an abstract idea, they fail step 2B because the additional elements do not provide an inventive concept that transforms the abstract idea into patent eligible subject matter. Step 2B requires that the claim include elements sufficient to ensure that the patent amounts to significantly more than the abstract idea itself.
The claim recites a financial settlements platform, at least one server, at least one active grid element, at least one electric vehicle charging station, at least one smart meter, and a graphical user interface. The specification acknowledges that prior art systems provided electric power systems management including financial settlements and messaging. See Specification paragraph 0003. The claim does not describe any improvement to the operation of these computing or power system components. It simply uses those components to perform the abstract idea of settling energy transactions. The Supreme Court and Federal Circuit have repeatedly held that the recitation of known computer components to perform an abstract idea does not supply an inventive concept. See Alice, 573 U.S. at 223 (recitation of a computer cannot transform an abstract idea into a patent eligible invention).
Applicant argues that the ordered combination of elements provides an inventive concept. The combination as claimed recites the abstract idea of energy settlement and contract management implemented using a financial settlements platform. The Federal Circuit has rejected similar arguments. See Electric Power Grp., 830 F.3d at 1354 (claims directed to collecting displaying and analyzing data lacked inventive concept). The addition of an electric vehicle and a charging station does not change the analysis. The claim still performs the same abstract idea of financial settlement using the recited components. The limitation stating that acceptance of the contract causes charging is the expected outcome of any energy purchase agreement. It is not a technical solution to a technical problem.
Claim 22 recites aggregating energy settlement data into at least one settlement block and appending a transaction number. Data aggregation and appending a transaction number are basic data manipulation steps. The claim does not describe any specific method of aggregation or any technical improvement to data structures for settlement blocks. Accordingly, claim 22 is also directed to an abstract idea and lacks an inventive concept.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claim 1-7, 21 and 22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
As per claim 1, the following limitations of claim 1 are new mater:
“wherein the at least one active grid element transmits the financial settlement messages between the at least one electric vehicle and the financial settlements platform” The specification does not describe transmitting settlement messages to an electronic vehicle.
“wherein the acceptance of the digital contract causes charging of the at least one electric vehicle by the at least one electric vehicle charging station” The specification does not describe acceptance of a digital contract causing (read as “triggering”) charging an electric vehicle.
“at least one interactive GUI for the at least one electric vehicle” The specification does not describe a GUI in an electronic vehicle.
As per claim 21, the limitation “wherein the financial settlements platform verifies that charging the at least one electric vehicle by the at least one electric vehicle charging station reduced power consumption below the baseline power consumption in an amount specified in the digital contract.” is also new matter. The specification does not describe “baseline power consumption in an amount specified in the digital contract”.
As per claim 22, the limitation “wherein the financial settlement platform modifies the at least one settlement block by appending a transaction number to the at least one settlement block” is new matter. The specification does not describe modifying settlement blocks with transaction numbers. The only mention of “transaction numbers” is in ¶ 00135, however this merely discusses transaction numbers being recorded in a table. As blocks on a blockchain are traditionally interpreted as being “immutable”, interpreting this citation of the specification as a system that “modifies” a block, is counterintuitive to an ordinary artisan’s interpretation of the technology.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-7, 21 and 22 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
As per claim 1, the phrase, “wherein acceptance of the digital contract terms by the user devices functions as a rules engine” is unclear. One of ordinary skill would not understand how the concept of acceptance “functions as a rules engine”. A rules engine is a term of art that describes is a software system that executes one or more rules in a runtime production environment. Acceptance itself is not a rules engine.
The term “near real time” in claim 22 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “near real time” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. For the purposes of compact prosecution the term is going to be interpreted as “not real time”.
Dependent claims, not directly rejected above, are also rejected under 35 USC 112, by virtue of their dependency from rejected claims.
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.
3. Claims 1-7 and 21-22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea of meter usage, generating pricing, creating contracts, and performing settlements without significantly more.
Claim 1 is directed to a system which is one of the four statutory categories of invention (Step 1: YES).
Claim 1 recites “generates financial settlement messages; wherein the at least … transmits the financial settlement messages between the at least … and …; and wherein …: creates a profile for the at least one … via the at least …,
collects energy usage data from the at least …;
generates pricing information for the … based on the financial settlement messages and/or market information;
transmits update messages relating to the at least … to … accessing the …, wherein the update messages include digital contract terms for conducting energy financial settlements, and wherein acceptance of the …contract terms by the … functions as a
… for conducting the energy financial settlements; and
performs the energy financial settlements for the participation of the at least one of
the … based on the market information and revenue
grade metrology data”. These limitations describe an abstract idea of meter usage, generating pricing, creating contracts, and performing settlements and corresponds to Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity (commercial and financial interactions). Accordingly, the claim 1 recites an abstract idea (Step 2A: Prong 1: YES).
The claim also recites as additional elements such as “system, financial settlements platform, including at least one server constructed and configured for network-based communication with at least one active grid element and at least one electric vehicle, wherein the at least one active grid element includes at least one electric vehicle charging station and/or at least one smart meter, wherein the financial settlements platform provides at least one interactive graphical user interface (GUI) for the at least one electric vehicle, wherein charging of the at least one electric vehicle automatically generates …, user devices, digital“ which do no more than implement the abstract idea and/or provide a particular technological environment. Therefore, claim 1 recites an abstract idea without a practical application (Step 2A - Prong 2: NO).
Further, as the additional elements of claim 1 do no more than serve as a tool to implement the abstract idea and/or provide a particular technological environment, they do not improve computer functionality or improve another technology or technical field. Thus, claim 1 is not patent eligible (Step 2B: NO).
Claim 2 recites “wherein the profile includes energy usage data and historical data of the …” which further describe the abstract idea. The claim includes “at least one electric vehicle” as an additional element. The additional element does no more than serve as a tool to implement the abstract idea and/or link the abstract idea a particular technological environment. And, as the additional element does no more than serve as a tool to implement the abstract idea and/or provide a particular technological environment, it does not improve computer functionality or improve another technology or technical field.
Claim 3 recites “wherein the … is operable to collect historical energy usage data for the … from a utility bill uploaded to the …, and wherein the … is further operable to … recognize the format of the utility bill” which further describe the abstract idea. The claim includes “financial settlements platform, electric vehicle, and automatic” as an additional elements. The additional elements do no more than serve as a tool to implement the abstract idea and/or link the abstract idea a particular technological environment. And, as the additional elements do no more than serve as a tool to implement the abstract idea and/or provide a particular technological environment, they do not improve computer functionality or improve another technology or technical field.
Claim 4 recites “wherein the … based on historical energy usage data and market data, and wherein the … stores the energy usage data, the market data, and predictive energy consumption data for … and day ahead market analysis” which further describe the abstract idea. The claim includes “financial settlements platform automatically populates a database, real time” as an additional elements. The additional elements do no more than serve as a tool to implement the abstract idea and/or link the abstract idea a particular technological environment. And, as the additional elements do no more than serve as a tool to implement the abstract idea and/or provide a particular technological environment, they do not improve computer functionality or improve another technology or technical field. Claim 5 recites “wherein the information regarding the energy financial settlements is communicated through the …” which further describe the abstract idea. the second predictive value is further based at least in part on the location … data”. The claim lists “at least one interactive GUI in real-time or near real-time” as an additional elements. The additional elements do no more than serve as a tool to implement the abstract idea and/or link the abstract idea a particular technological environment. And, as the additional elements do no more than serve as a tool to implement the abstract idea and/or provide a particular technological environment, they do not improve computer functionality or improve another technology or technical field.
Claim 6 recites “wherein the … is operable to perform measurement and verification to produce the revenue grade metrology data for the at least …” which further describe the abstract idea. The claim lists “at least one active grid element and at least one electric vehicle” as an additional elements. The additional elements do no more than serve as a tool to implement the abstract idea and/or link the abstract idea a particular technological environment. And, as the additional elements do no more than serve as a tool to implement the abstract idea and/or provide a particular technological environment, they do not improve computer functionality or improve another technology or technical field.
Claim 7 recites “wherein the … is operable to clear the energy financial settlements with at least one financial institution, and facilitate the transferring of funds into and/or out of at least one account associated with the profile” which further describe the abstract idea. The claim includes “financial settlements platform” as an additional element. The additional element does no more than serve as a tool to implement the abstract idea and/or link the abstract idea a particular technological environment. And, as the additional element does no more than serve as a tool to implement the abstract idea and/or provide a particular technological environment, it does not improve computer functionality or improve another technology or technical field.
Claim 21 recites “wherein the energy usage data and the historical data include baseline power consumption by the at least one … from …, wherein the … verifies that charging the at least … by the … station reduced power consumption below the baseline power consumption in an amount specified in the digital contract” which further describe the abstract idea. The claim includes “electric vehicle, electric power grid, financial settlements platform, one electric vehicle charging station, digital” as an additional elements. The additional elements do no more than serve as a tool to implement the abstract idea and/or link the abstract idea a particular technological environment. And, as the additional elements do no more than serve as a tool to implement the abstract idea and/or provide a particular technological environment, they do not improve computer functionality or improve another technology or technical field.
Claim 22 recites “wherein the financial settlements platform aggregates energy settlement data into at least one settlement block in … or near real-time, wherein the financial settlement platform modifies the at least one settlement block by appending a transaction number to the at least one settlement block, and wherein the at least one settlement block includes the revenue grade metrology data for the …” which further describe the abstract idea. The claim includes “financial settlements platform, real-time, one electric vehicle” as an additional elements. The additional elements do no more than serve as a tool to implement the abstract idea and/or link the abstract idea a particular technological environment. And, as the additional elements do no more than serve as a tool to implement the abstract idea and/or provide a particular technological environment, they do not improve computer functionality or improve another technology or technical field.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KEVIN T POE whose telephone number is (571)272-9789. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday 9:30am through 6pm EST.
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, Ryan Donlon can be reached on 571-270-3602. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see https://ppair-my.uspto.gov/pair/PrivatePair. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/K.T.P/Examiner, Art Unit 3692 /KEVIN T POE/
/RYAN D DONLON/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3692 July 16, 2026
Prosecution Insights