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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 11/12/2025 has been entered. Response to Amendment
Amendment received on 11/12/2025 is acknowledged and entered. Claims 1-55 have been canceled. New claims 56-75 have been added. Claim 56-75 are currently pending in the application.
Claim Objections
Claim 56 recites the limitation “(h) facilitating the diagnosis of … the data in ways that humans cannot feasibly replicate.” The term "in ways that humans cannot feasibly replicate " is a relative and/or subjective term, which 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 said term. For example, a trained and experienced specialist can analyze data in a way that only he/she can do.
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.
Claim 55 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter.
In determining whether a claim falls within an excluded category, the Examiner is guided by the Court’s two-part framework, described in Mayo and Alice. Id. at 217-18 (citing Mayo Collaborative Servs. v. Prometheus Labs., Inc., 566 U.S. 66, 75-77 (2012)); Bilski v. Kappos, 561 U.S. 593, 611 (2010); 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. 50 (Jan. 7, 2019); the October 2019 Update of the 2019 Revised Guidance (Oct. 17, 2019); 2024 Guidance Update on Patent Subject Matter Eligibility, Including on Artificial Intelligence (July 17, 2024), and the USPTO’s Paten Subject Matter Eligibility Memorandums of August 4, 2025 and December 5, 2025.
Step 1
Claims are eligible for patent protection under § 101 if they are in one of the four statutory categories and not directed to a judicial exception to patentability (i.e., laws of nature, natural phenomena, and abstract ideas). Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank Int'l, 573 U. S. ____ (2014).
Claims 56 is directed to a statutory category, because a series of steps for valuating financial waste in electricity consumption satisfies the requirements of a process (a series of acts). (Step 1: Yes).
Next, the claim is analyzed to determine whether it is directed to a judicial exception.
Step 2A – Prong 1
Claim 56 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more of valuating financial waste in electricity consumption by assessing anomalies in combined cost, consumption, and energy prices. The claim recites:
56. A structured, standardized, and streamlined computing method configured to automatically transform inconsistent and irregular electricity billing data into timely operational intelligence that identifies operational and financial waste in energy and water consumption and costs by automatically detecting, diagnosing, and assessing anomalies in electricity usage, pricing, and cost patterns using reduced datasets containing only billing variables essential for performing anomaly detection and cost pattern analysis; the method comprising the steps of:
(a) receiving and structuring, by a computing system, heterogeneous monthly electricity billing datasets from one or more utility providers ranging from at least 1 billing month of data to 12 billing months of data spanning at least two fiscal or calendar years; the data comprising monthly electricity consumption; monthly peak electricity demand; and monthly number of billing days;
(b) standardizing, by the computing system, the analysis of the heterogeneous electricity billing datasets by organizing the data into electricity distribution charges and electricity commodity charges;
(c) streamlining, by the computing system, the analysis of the heterogeneous electricity billing datasets by computing average monthly prices for the electricity distribution charges and the electricity commodity charges;
(d) totalizing, by the computing system, the monthly electricity distribution charges and the monthly electricity commodity charges into combined monthly electricity charges and computing combined monthly average electricity prices;
(e) establishing, by the computing system, at least one fixed baseline derived from historical electricity billing data spanning a period of at least 12 months prior to a target analysis period;
(f) computing, by the computing system, monthly rates of change in usage, pricing, and billing relative to the at least one fixed baseline;
(g) detecting, by the computing system, anomalies in the rates of change in the data by highlighting data points that fall outside numerically pre-defined thresholds for rates of change; wherein anomalies in usage may signal mechanical problems or an unusually high number of billing days; anomalies in distribution pricing may signal uncontrolled power utilization or a steep increase in distribution pricing; anomalies in commodity pricing may signal a steep increase in commodity pricing or unhedged commodity prices; and anomalies in usage, pricing, or billing may signal incorrect billing;
(h) facilitating the diagnosis of anomalies, by pre-processing and contextualizing the data in ways that humans cannot feasibly replicate and presenting via the computing system, visually comparable representations of anomalies in combined usage, pricing, and billing metrics alongside corresponding changes in electricity distribution and electricity commodity metrics, for review by a human user to identify potential causes of the anomalies; wherein:
anomalies in electricity usage may be caused by excessive consumption, an excessive number of billing days, or billing errors;
excessive consumption may be caused by equipment problems, a broken meter, or billing errors;
anomalies in electricity price may be caused by anomalies in distribution price, commodity price, or billing errors;
anomalies in distribution price may be caused by excessive power utilization relative to the energy consumed, a substantial increase in distribution price, or billing errors; and
anomalies in commodity price may be caused by substantial increases in commodity pricing, unhedged commodity procurement, or billing errors;
the human role in the above-described process is interpretive, not computational;
(i) facilitating the assessment of anomalies, by contextualizing and presenting the data in ways that humans cannot feasibly replicate and presenting via the computing system, visually comparable representations of the detected anomalies alongside corresponding monthly changes in electricity distribution charges, electricity commodity charges, and total combined electricity charges, thereby enabling a human user to readily assess the potential financial impact of said anomalies; here again, the human role is interpretive, not computational;
(j) outputting, by the computing system, the processed monthly electricity billing data and any highlighted anomalies to at least one display or storage device, wherein the output is configured to support timely operational review and informed decision- making by building operators or other authorized stakeholders.
The limitations of receiving and organizing electricity billing data; computing average monthly prices; computing average monthly daily consumption; combining charging data; establishing a baseline; computing monthly rates; comparing the data to thresholds; and diagnosing and presenting anomalies, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind, and/or certain methods of organizing human activity but for the recitation of generic computer components. (Note: the Examiner’s language (e.g. “receiving and organizing electricity billing data”; “computing an average monthly prices;” etc.) is an abbreviated reference to the rather detailed method steps and is not an oversimplification of the claim language; the Examiner employing such shortcuts (that refer to more specific steps) when attempting to explain the rejection). That is, other than reciting “by a processor,” nothing in the claim element precludes the step from practically being performed in the mind, and/or performed as organized human activity. Aside from the general technological environment (addressed below), it covers purely mental concepts and/or certain methods of organizing human activity processes, and the mere nominal recitation of a generic network appliance (e.g. an interface for inputting or outputting data, or generic network-based storage devices and displays) does not take the claim limitation out of the mental processes and/or certain methods of organizing human activity grouping.
It is similar to other abstract ideas held to be non-statutory by the courts. For example, the utilizing statistical tools to process data and to output the estimated values - said functions could be performed by a human using mental steps or basic critical thinking, which are types of activities that have been found by the courts to represent abstract ideas (e.g., mental comparison regarding a sample or test subject to a control or target data in Ambry, Myriad CAFC, or the diagnosing an abnormal condition by performing clinical tests and thinking about the results in In re Grams, 888 F.2d 835 (Fed. Cir. 1989) (Grams)). In Grams, the recited functions require obtaining data or patient information (from sensors), and analyze that data to ascertain the existence and identity of an abnormality or estimated responses, and possible causes thereof. While said functions are performed by a computer, they are in essence a mathematical algorithm, in that they represent "[a] procedure for solving a given type of mathematical problem." Gottschalk v. Benson, 409 U.S. 63, 65, 93 S.Ct. 253, 254, 34 L.Ed.2d 273 (1972). Moreover, the Federal Circuit has held, “without additional limitations, a process that employs mathematical algorithms to manipulate existing information to generate additional information is not patent eligible.” Digitech Image Techs., LLC v. Elecs. for Imaging, Inc., 758 F.3d 1344, 1351 (Fed. Cir. 2014). See id. Further, “analyzing information by steps people go through in their minds, or by mathematical algorithms, without more, [are] essentially mental processes within the abstract-idea category.” Elec. Power, 830 F.3d at 1354; see also Synopsys, Inc. v. Mentor Graphics Corp., 839 F.3d 1138, 1146 (Fed. Cir. 2016). “[T]he fact that the required calculations could be performed more efficiently via a computer does not materially alter the patent eligibility of the claimed subject matter.” Bancorp Servs., L.L.C. v. Sun Life Assurance Co. of Can. (U.S.), 687 F.3d 1266, 1278 (Fed. Cir. 2012). See, also, Parker v. Flook, - a mathematical formula for computing “alarm limits” in a catalytic conversion process.
As per receiving, storing and outputting data limitations, it has been held that “As many cases make clear, even if a process of collecting and analyzing information is ‘limited to particular content’ or a particular ‘source,’ that limitation does not make the collection and analysis other than abstract.” SAP Am., Inc. v. InvestPic, LLC, 898 F.3d 1161, 1168 (Fed. Cir. 2018) (citation omitted); see also In re Jobin, 811 F. App’x 633, 637 (Fed. Cir. 2020) (claims to collecting, organizing, grouping, and storing data using techniques such as conducting a survey or crowdsourcing recited a method of organizing human activity, which is a hallmark of abstract ideas).
All these cases describe the significant aspects of the claimed invention, albeit at another level of abstraction. See Apple, Inc. v. Ameranth, Inc., 842 F.3d 1229, 1240-41 (Fed. Cir. 2016) ("An abstract idea can generally be described at different levels of abstraction. As the Board has done, the claimed abstract idea could be described as generating menus on a computer, or generating a second menu from a first menu and sending the second menu to another location. It could be described in other ways, including, as indicated in the specification, taking orders from restaurant customers on a computer.").
Therefore, if a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Processes”, and/or “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea. (Step 2A – Prong 1: Yes).
Step 2A – Prong 2
In Prong Two, the Examiner determines whether claim 56, as a whole, recites additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application of the exception, i.e., whether the additional elements apply, rely on, or use the judicial exception in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on the judicial exception, such that the claim is no more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the judicial exception. See Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. at 54-55. If the additional elements do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application, then the claim is directed to the judicial exception. See id., 84 Fed. Reg. at 54. “An additional element [that] reflects an improvement in the functioning of a computer, or an improvement to other technology or technical field” is indicative of integrating a judicial exception into a practical application. See Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. at 55.
The Examiner determined that this judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application, because there are no meaningful limitations that transform the exception into a patent eligible application. In particular, the claim recites additional elements – using a processor to perform the functions/steps of receiving and organizing electricity billing data; computing average monthly prices; computing average monthly daily consumption; combining charging data; establishing a baseline; computing monthly rates; comparing the data to thresholds; and diagnosing and presenting anomalies. However, the processor in each step is recited (or implied) at a high level of generality, i.e., as a generic processor performing a generic computer functions of processing data, including receiving, storing, comparing, and outputting data. This generic processor limitation is no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. See MPEP 2106.05(f). The processor that performs the recited functions merely automates these functions which can be done mentally or manually. Thus, while the additional elements have and execute instructions to perform the abstract idea itself, this also does not serve to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application as it merely amounts to instructions to "apply it." The claim only manipulates abstract data elements into another form, and does not set forth improvements to another technological field or the functioning of the computer itself and, instead, uses computer elements as tools in a conventional way to improve the functioning of the abstract idea identified above.
Further, looking at the limitations as an ordered combination adds nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually; there is no indication that the combination of elements improves the functioning of a computer or improves any other technology, - their collective functions merely provide conventional computer implementation. None of the additional elements "offers a meaningful limitation beyond generally linking 'the use of the [system] to a particular technological environment,' that is, implementation via computers." Alice Corp., slip op. at 16 (citing Bilski v. Kappos, 561 U.S. 610, 611 (U.S. 2010)). The recited steps do not control or improve operation of a machine (MPEP 2106.05(a)), do not effect a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing (MPEP 2106.05(c)), and do not apply the judicial exception with, or by use a particular machine (MPEP 2106.05(b)), but, instead, require receiving, comparing, storing and outputting data.
As per receiving, storing and outputting data limitations, these recitations amount to mere data gathering and/or outputting, is insignificant post-solution or extra-solution component and represents nominal recitation of technology. Insignificant "post-solution” or “extra-solution" activity means activity that is not central to the purpose of the method invented by the applicant. However, “(c) Whether its involvement is extra-solution activity or a field-of-use, i.e., the extent to which (or how) the machine or apparatus imposes meaningful limits on the execution of the claimed method steps. Use of a machine or apparatus that contributes only nominally or insignificantly to the execution of the claimed method (e.g., in a data gathering step or in a field-of-use limitation) would weigh against eligibility”. See Bilski, 138 S. Ct. at 3230 (citing Parker v. Flook, 437 U.S. 584, 590, 198 USPQ 193, ___ (1978)). Thus, claim drafting strategies that attempt to circumvent the basic exceptions to § 101 using, for example, highly stylized language, hollow field-of-use limitations, or the recitation of token post-solution activity should not be credited. See Bilski, 130 S. Ct. at 3230.
Therefore, the method as a whole outputs only data structure, - everything remains in the form of a code stored in the computer memory. Accordingly, even in combination, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. Therefore, the claim is directed to an abstract idea. (Step 2A – Prong 2: No).
Step 2B
If a claim has been determined to be directed to a judicial exception under revised Step 2A, examiners should then evaluate the additional elements individually and in combination under Step 2B to determine whether the provide an inventive concept (i.e., whether the additional elements amount to significantly more than the exception itself).
The Examiner determined that the claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional element of using a processor to perform the steps of receiving and organizing electricity billing data; computing average monthly prices; computing average monthly daily consumption; combining charging data; establishing a baseline; computing monthly rates; comparing the data to thresholds; and diagnosing and presenting anomalies amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. The claim is now re-evaluated in Step 2B to determine if it is more than what is well-understood, routine, conventional activity in the field.
The system would require a processor and memory in order to perform basic computer functions of accepting data input, storing information in a database, retrieving information from a database, comparing information, manipulating information, and outputting said information. These components are not explicitly recited and therefore must be construed at the highest level of generality.
Based on the Specification, the invention utilizes existing, conventional sensors, communication networks, and generic processors which can be found in mobile devices or desktop computers, conventional memory and display devices. And the functions performed by said generic computer elements are basic functions of a computer - performing a mathematical operation, receiving, storing and outputting data - have recognized by the courts as routine and conventional activity. Specifically, regarding the recited functions, MPEP 2106.05(d)(II) defines said functions as routine and conventional, or as insignificant extra-solution activity:
i. Receiving or transmitting data over a network, e.g., using the Internet to gather data, Symantec, 838 F.3d at 1321, 120 USPQ2d at 1362 (utilizing an intermediary computer to forward information); TLI Communications LLC v. AV Auto. LLC, 823 F.3d 607, 610, 118 USPQ2d 1744, 1745 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (using a telephone for image transmission); OIP Techs., Inc., v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363, 115 USPQ2d 1090, 1093 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (sending messages over a network); buySAFE, Inc. v. Google, Inc., 765 F.3d 1350, 1355, 112 USPQ2d 1093, 1096 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (computer receives and sends information over a network); but see DDR Holdings, LLC v. Hotels.com, L.P., 773 F.3d 1245, 1258, 113 USPQ2d 1097, 1106 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (“Unlike the claims in Ultramercial, the claims at issue here specify how interactions with the Internet are manipulated to yield a desired result‐‐a result that overrides the routine and conventional sequence of events ordinarily triggered by the click of a hyperlink.” (emphasis added));
ii. Performing repetitive calculations, Flook, 437 U.S. at 594, 198 USPQ2d at 199 (recomputing or readjusting alarm limit values); Bancorp Services v. Sun Life, 687 F.3d 1266, 1278, 103 USPQ2d 1425, 1433 (Fed. Cir. 2012) (“The computer required by some of Bancorp’s claims is employed only for its most basic function, the performance of repetitive calculations, and as such does not impose meaningful limits on the scope of those claims.”); collecting and comparing known information in Classen 659 F.3d 1057, 100 U.S.P.Q.2d 1492 (Fed. Cir. 2011)
iii. Electronic recordkeeping, Alice Corp., 134 S. Ct. at 2359, 110 USPQ2d at 1984 (creating and maintaining “shadow accounts”); Ultramercial, 772 F.3d at 716, 112 USPQ2d at 1755 (updating an activity log);
iv. Storing and retrieving information in memory, Versata Dev. Group, Inc. v. SAP Am., Inc., 793 F.3d 1306, 1334, 115 USPQ2d 1681, 1701 (Fed. Cir. 2015); OIP Techs., 788 F.3d at 1363, 115 USPQ2d at 1092-93;
v. Electronically scanning or extracting data from a physical document, Content Extraction and Transmission, LLC v. Wells Fargo Bank, 776 F.3d 1343, 1348, 113 USPQ2d 1354, 1358 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (optical character recognition); and
vi. A web browser’s back and forward button functionality, Internet Patent Corp. v. Active Network, Inc., 790 F.3d 1343, 1348, 115 USPQ2d 1414, 1418 (Fed. Cir. 2015).
Below are examples of other types of activity that the courts have found to be well-understood, routine, conventional activity when they are claimed in a merely generic manner (e.g., at a high level of generality) or as insignificant extra-solution activity:
i. Recording a customer’s order, Apple, Inc. v. Ameranth, Inc., 842 F.3d 1229, 1244, 120 USPQ2d 1844, 1856 (Fed. Cir. 2016);
iii. Restricting public access to media by requiring a consumer to view an advertisement, Ultramercial, Inc. v. Hulu, LLC, 772 F.3d 709, 716-17, 112 USPQ2d 1750, 1755-56 (Fed. Cir. 2014);
iv. Presenting offers and gathering statistics, OIP Techs., 788 F.3d at 1362-63, 115 USPQ2d at 1092-93;
v. Determining an estimated outcome and setting a price, OIP Techs., 788 F.3d at 1362-63, 115 USPQ2d at 1092-93; and
vi. Arranging a hierarchy of groups, sorting information, eliminating less restrictive pricing information and determining the price, Versata Dev. Group, Inc. v. SAP Am., Inc., 793 F.3d 1306, 1331, 115 USPQ2d 1681, 1699 (Fed. Cir. 2015).
Thus, the background of the current application does not provide any indication that the processor is anything other than a generic, off-the-shelf computer component, and the Symantec, TLI, and OIP Techs. court decisions cited in MPEP 2106.05(d)(II) indicate that mere collection or receipt of data over a network is a well‐understood, routine, and conventional function when it is claimed in a merely generic manner (as it is here). Accordingly, a conclusion that the collecting step is well-understood, routine, conventional activity is supported under Berkheimer Option 2. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept.
Following to the second step of the Mayo analysis, the Examiner did not find “significantly more” by using a particular machine, through specific limitations that are not well-understood, routine, and conventional, and by going beyond linking the abstract idea to a particular technological environment. The claimed steps do not require a particular machine. In fact, the Specification fails to describe or even mention any particular computer configuration, any processor requirements, any specifics or required hardware, it merely uses a generic terms such as “a processor”, ”a memory”, the “internet”, etc. The Specification discloses:
[0081] FIG. 9 illustrates a non-limiting exemplary utility billing data analysis system 22; the exemplary system comprising an input device 22(1), a user interface 22(2), a display device 22(3), a network adapter 22(4), a processor 22(5), a graphic processing unit 22(7), a non-transitory storage medium 22(8), random access memory 22(9), and data processing
software 22(6). The system may be connected to the internet through internet connection 20 and/or internet connection 24 to access data from a utility company bill generation and cloud storage system 18; as well as to store the processed data to cloud storage 25; and to deliver a copy of the processed information to end users' inboxes 30.
[0082] FIG. 10 illustrates a non-limiting exemplary cloud storage system 25 connected to the internet through internet network 24; the exemplary cloud storage system comprising a software dashboard 25(1); a knowledge library 25(2); a documents library 25(3); and utility bills storage medium 25(4).
Thus, neither claims nor the Specification identify a particular machine, because the Specification imply a vast array of computer elements that are encompassed by the various embodiments envisioned by the Applicant. The operations of receiving, storing, analyzing, and outputting data are primitive computer operations found in any computer system. See In re Katz Interactive Call Processing Patent Litig., 639 F.3d 1303, 1316 (Fed. Cir. 2011) (“Absent a possible narrower construction of the required hardware, the recited functions can be achieved by any general-purpose computer without special programming.”). Therefore, none of the claimed or implied memory storage, computer processor, or automatic operation provide “something more” that transforms the abstract idea into eligible subject matter.
In addition, as was noted earlier, except for the generic computer elements, there is nothing recited in the claim that goes beyond the abstract idea itself. Therefore, there is nothing recited that fails to be well-understood, routine, and conventional, and the claims are not linked to any particular technological environment, because so many computer options are articulated.
Also, the claim does not involve a non-conventional and non-generic arrangement of known, conventional pieces, as asserted, by receiving information from an external source of data. The receiving of data from an external source over a network, such as via the Internet, can fairly be characterized as insignificant extra-solution activity that does not receive patentable weight. See Bilski, 545 F.3d 943, 963 (Fed. Cir. 2008) (en banc), aff’d sub nom Bilski v. Kappos, 561 U.S. 593 (2010) (characterizing data gathering steps as insignificant extra-solution activity).
Similar to Electric Power Group v Alstom S.A. (Fed Cir, 2015-1778, 8/1/2016) (Power Group), claim’ invocation of computers, networks, and displays does not transform the claimed subject matter into patent-eligible applications. Claim 56 does not require any nonconventional computer, network, or display components, or even a “non-conventional and non-generic arrangement of known, conventional pieces,” but merely call for performance of the claimed recoding, analyzing and outputting functions on a set of generic computer components and display devices. Nothing in the claim, understood in light of the specification, requires anything other than off-the-shelf, conventional computer, network, and display technology for gathering, sending, and presenting the desired information.
Further, the recited functions do not improve the functioning of computers itself, including of the processor(s) or the network elements. There are no physical improvements in the claim, like a faster processor or more efficient memory, and there is no operational improvement, like mathematical computation that improve the functioning of the computer. Applicant did not invent a new type of computer; Applicant like everyone else programs their computer to perform functions. The Supreme Court in Alice indicated that an abstract claim might be statutory if it improved another technology or the computer processing itself. Using a (programmed) computer to implement a common business practice does neither. The Federal Circuit has recognized that "an invocation of already-available computers that are not themselves plausibly asserted to be an advance, for use in carrying out improved mathematical calculations, amounts to a recitation of what is 'well-understood, routine, [and] conventional.'" SAP Am., Inc. v. InvestPic, LLC, 890 F.3d 1016, 1023 (Fed. Cir. 2018) (alteration in original) (citing Mayo v. Prometheus, 566 U.S. 66, 73 (2012)). Apart from the instructions to implement the abstract idea, they only serve to perform well-understood functions (e.g., receiving, storing, retrieving, comparing and transmitting data—see the Specification as well as Alice Corp.; Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Symantec Corp., 838 F.3d 1307 (Fed. Cir. 2016); and Versata Dev. Group, Inc. v. SAP Am., Inc., 793 F.3d 1306, 1334 (Fed. Cir. 2015) covering the well-known nature of these computer functions). Looking at the limitations as an ordered combination adds nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually; there is no indication that the combination of elements improves the functioning of a computer or improves any other technology. Their collective functions merely provide conventional computer implementation. “However, it is not apparent how appellant’s programmed digital computer can produce any synergistic result. Instead, the computer will simply do the job it is instructed to do. Where is there any surprising or unexpected result? The unlikelihood of any such result is merely one more reason why patents should not be granted in situations where the only novelty is in the programming of general purpose digital computers”. See Sakraida v. Ag. Pro, Inc., 425 U.S. 273 [ 96 S.Ct. 1532, 47 L.Ed.2d 784], 189 USPQ 449 (1976) and A P Tea Co. V. Supermarket Corp., 340 U.S. 147 [ 71 S.Ct. 127, 95 L.Ed. 162], 87 USPQ 303 (1950).
For example, in comparison to the decision in Enfish, LLC v. Microsoft Corporation, No. 2015-2044, slip op. at *11 (Fed. Cir. May 12, 2016) (Enfish), claim 56 of the current application does not provide specific improvements in computer capabilities. In Enfish, Court found that claims are directed to a specific improvement to the way computers operate, - a particular database technique - in how computers could carry out one of their basic functions of storage and retrieval of data. The present case is different: the focus of the claims is not on such an improvement in computers as tools, but on certain independently abstract ideas that use computers as tools. There is no technological improvement described in the current application; the recited steps of receiving and organizing electricity billing data; computing average monthly prices; computing average monthly daily consumption; combining charging data; establishing a baseline; computing monthly rates; comparing the data to thresholds; and diagnosing and presenting anomalies do not improve the functioning of computers itself, including of the processor(s) or the network elements; do not recite physical improvements in the claim, like a faster processor or more efficient memory, and do not provide operational improvement, like mathematical computation that improve the functioning of the computer. The claimed invention merely utilizes conventional computing and network elements for transmitting, processing and storing data. The conclusion that the claim 56 of the instant invention is not directed to an improvement of an existing technology is bolstered by the Specification teachings that the claimed invention achieves other benefits, such as “fight climate change and save on operating expenses” (Specification, [0006]). Thus, the current application’ solution to the problem of decreasing cost of business operations is not technological, but “business solution”, or “entrepreneurial.” Therefore, claim 56 does not provide a specific means or method that improves the relevant technology, but, instead, is directed to a result or effect that itself is the abstract idea and merely invoke generic processes and machinery.
Furthermore, there is no transformation recited in the claim as understood in view of 35 USC 101. The recited steps merely represent abstract ideas which cannot meet the transformation test because they are not physical objects or substances. Bilski, 545 F.3d at 963. Said steps are nothing more than mere manipulation or reorganization of data, which does not satisfy the transformation prong. It is further noted that the underlying idea of the recited functions could be performed via pen and paper or in a person's mind. Moreover, “We agree with the district court that the claimed process manipulates data to organize it in a logical way such that additional fraud tests may be performed. The mere manipulation or reorganization of data, however, does not satisfy the transformation prong.” and “Abele made clear that the basic character of a process claim drawn to an abstract idea is not changed by claiming only its performance by computers, or by claiming the process embodied in program instructions on a computer readable medium. Thus, merely claiming a software implementation of a purely mental process that could otherwise be performed without the use of a computer does not satisfy the machine prong of the machine-or-transformation test”. CyberSource, 659 F.3d 1057, 100 U.S.P.Q.2d 1492 (Fed. Cir. 2011)
Therefore, the claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception, because, when considered separately and in combination, the claim elements do not add significantly more to the exception. Considered separately and as an ordered combination, the claim elements do not provide an improvement to another technology or technical field; do not provide an improvement to the functioning of the computer itself; do not apply the judicial exception by use of a particular machine; do not effect a transformation or reduce a particular article to a different state or thing; and do not add a specific limitation other than what is well-understood, routine and conventional in the operation of a generic computer. None of the hardware recited "offers a meaningful limitation beyond generally linking 'the use of the [method] to a particular technological environment,' that is, implementation via computers." Id., slip op. at 16 (citing Bilski v. Kappos, 561 U.S. 610, 611 (U.S. 2010)). As per “A novel computer-implemented algorithmic structure” recitation, these limitations do not add significantly more because they are simply an attempt to limit the abstract idea to a particular technological environment, that is, implementation via computers.” Id., slip op. at 16 (citing Bilski v. Kappos, 561 U.S. 610, 611 (U.S. 2010)). Limiting the claims to the particular technological environment is, without more, insufficient to transform the claim into patent-eligible applications of the abstract idea at their core.
Accordingly, claim 56 is not directed to significantly more than the exception itself, and is not eligible subject matter under § 101. (Step 2B: No).
Further, although the Examiner takes the steps recited in the independent claim as exemplary, the Examiner points out that limitations recited in dependent claims 57-75 further narrow the abstract idea but do not make the claims any less abstract. Dependent claims 57-75 each merely add further details of the abstract steps recited in claim 56 without including an improvement to another technology or technical field, an improvement to the functioning of the computer itself, or meaningful limitations beyond generally linking the use of an abstract idea to a particular technological environment. These claims "add nothing of practical significance to the underlying idea," and thus do not transform the claimed abstract idea into patentable subject matter. Ultramercial, 772 F.3d at 716. Therefore, dependent claims 57-75 are also directed to non-statutory subject matter.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 11/12/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that the claimed invention is not directed to an abstract idea, but is directed to a specific technological improvement in the way computers process and analyze irregular, non-standardized utility billing data by reconciling changes in utility costs with their causal components - usage, pricing, and number of billing days - even when such data are inconsistent or non-aligned across accounts or time
periods.
The Examiner respectfully disagrees and maintains, that the claim, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind, and/or certain methods of organizing human activity but for the recitation of generic computer components, and the mere nominal recitation of a generic network appliance (e.g. an interface for inputting or outputting data, or generic network-based storage devices and displays) does not take the claim limitation out of the mental processes and/or certain methods of organizing human activity grouping. Regarding “in ways that humans cannot feasibly replicate” statement, it is noted that mental processes, e.g., receiving, organizing, computing, combining, comparing and diagnosing, as recited in claim 56, remain unpatentable even when automated to reduce the burden on the user of what once could have been done with pen and paper. CyberSource Corp. at 1375 (“That purely mental processes can be unpatentable, even when performed by a computer, was precisely the holding of the Supreme Court in Gottschalkv. Benson, [409 U.S. 63 (1972)].”). Further, in Content Extraction & Transmission LLC v. Wells Fargo Bank, National Ass’n, Nos. 13-1588,-1589, 14-1112, -1687 (Fed. Cir. Dec. 23, 2014) the Federal Circuit affirmed that such limitations (parsing and extracting the data) were generally directed to “the abstract idea of 1) collecting data, 2) recognizing certain data within the collected data set, and 3) storing that recognized data in a memory.” The Court explained that ”[t]he concept of data collection, recognition, and storage is undisputedly well-known,” and noted that “humans have always performed these functions.” Id. The Court then rejected CET’s argument that the claims were patent eligible because they required hardware to perform functions that humans cannot, such as processing and recognizing the stream of bits output by the scanner. Comparing the asserted claims to “the computer-implemented claims in Alice,” the Court concluded that the claims were “drawn to the basic concept of data recognition and storage,” even though they recited a scanner. Id. at 8. Mental processes, e.g., parsing and extracting data, as recited in claim 1, remain unpatentable even when automated to reduce the burden on the user of what once could have been done with pen and paper. CyberSource Corp. at 1375 (“That purely mental processes can be unpatentable, even when performed by a computer, was precisely the holding of the Supreme Court in Gottschalkv. Benson, [409 U.S. 63 (1972)].”).
Even accepting Applicant’s argument regarding the hardware used, it also is insufficient, without more, to establish patent eligibility that “[t]he human mind is not equipped to execute the claimed method”. Although “a method that can be performed by human thought alone is merely an abstract idea and is not patent-eligible under § 101,” CyberSource Corp. v. Retail Decisions, Inc., 654 F.3d 1366, 1373 (Fed. Cir. 2011), it does not automatically follow that methods requiring physical components, i.e., methods that arguably cannot be performed entirely in the human mind, are, therefore, not directed to abstract ideas. See, e.g., In re TLI Commc'ns LLC Patent Litig., 823 F.3d 607, 611 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (“[N]ot every claim that recites concrete, tangible components escapes the reach of the abstract-idea inquiry.”); FairWarning IP, LLC v. Latric Sys., Inc., 839 F.3d 1089, 1098 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (“[T]he inability for the human mind to perform each claim step does not alone confer patentability.”).
Therefore, the claimed method essentially uses statistical tools to process received data and to output estimated values - said functions could be performed by a human using mental steps or basic critical thinking, which are types of activities that have been found by the courts to represent abstract ideas (e.g., mental comparison regarding a sample or test subject to a control or target data in Ambry, Myriad CAFC, or the diagnosing an abnormal condition by performing clinical tests and thinking about the results in In re Grams, 888 F.2d 835 (Fed. Cir. 1989) (Grams)). “[T]he fact that the required calculations could be performed more efficiently via a computer does not materially alter the patent eligibility of the claimed subject matter.” Bancorp Servs., L.L.C. v. Sun Life Assurance Co. of Can. (U.S.), 687 F.3d 1266, 1278 (Fed. Cir. 2012). Based on the Specification, the invention utilizes existing, conventional sensors, communication networks, and generic processors which can be found in mobile devices or desktop computers, conventional memory and display devices. And the functions performed by said generic computer elements are basic functions of a computer - performing a mathematical operation, receiving, storing and outputting data - have recognized by the courts as routine and conventional activity. the recited functions do not improve the functioning of computers itself, including of the processor(s) or the network elements.
Further, contrary to Applicant’s statement, there is no technological improvement recited in the claim; there are no physical improvements in the claim, like a faster processor or more efficient memory, and there is no operational improvement, like mathematical computation that improve the functioning of the computer. Applicant speculates that the claimed invention reduces computational overhead in the processing and analysis of heterogeneous electricity billing data by eliminating line-item analysis, but does not provide any estimation of how much computational resources as well as cost of operation (e.g. cost of energy consumed) would be necessary to implement the current invention. Thus, Applicant did not invent a new type of computer, but programs their computer to perform functions; except for the generic computer elements, there is nothing recited in the claim that goes beyond the abstract idea itself. The Supreme Court in Alice indicated that an abstract claim might be statutory if it improved another technology or the computer processing itself. Using a (programmed) computer to implement a common business practice does neither. The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception, because, when considered separately and in combination, the claim elements do not add significantly more to the exception. Considered separately and as an ordered combination, the claim elements do not provide an improvement to another technology or technical field; do not provide an improvement to the functioning of the computer itself; do not apply the judicial exception by use of a particular machine; do not effect a transformation or reduce a particular article to a different state or thing; and do not add a specific limitation other than what is well-understood, routine and conventional in the operation of a generic computer. None of the hardware recited "offers a meaningful limitation beyond generally linking 'the use of the [method] to a particular technological environment,' that is, implementation via computers." Id., slip op. at 16 (citing Bilski v. Kappos, 561 U.S. 610, 611 (U.S. 2010)).
Applicant further argues that the pending claims are patent eligible similar to decisions in Enfish, McRO, DDR, BASCOM, and Finjan.
The Examiner respectfully disagrees. In comparison to the decision in Enfish, LLC v. Microsoft Corporation, No. 2015-2044, slip op. at *11 (Fed. Cir. May 12, 2016) (Enfish), claim 56 of the current application does not provide specific improvements in computer capabilities. In Enfish, Court found that claims are directed to a specific improvement to the way computers operate, - a particular database technique - in how computers could carry out one of their basic functions of storage and retrieval of data. The present case is different: the focus of the claims is not on such an improvement in computers as tools, but on certain independently abstract ideas that use computers as tools. There is no technological improvement described in the current application; the recited steps of receiving and organizing electricity billing data; computing average monthly prices; computing average monthly daily consumption; combining charging data; establishing a baseline; computing monthly rates; comparing the data to thresholds; and diagnosing and presenting anomalies do not improve the functioning of computers itself, including of the processor(s) or the network elements; do not recite physical improvements in the claim, like a faster processor or more efficient memory, and do not provide operational improvement, like mathematical computation that improve the functioning of the computer. The claimed invention merely utilizes conventional computing and network elements for transmitting, processing and storing data. The conclusion that the claim 56 of the instant invention is not directed to an improvement of an existing technology is bolstered by the Specification teachings that the claimed invention achieves other benefits, such as “fight climate change and save on operating expenses” (Specification, [0006]). Thus, the current application’ solution to the problem of decreasing cost of business operations is not technological, but “business solution”, or “entrepreneurial.” Therefore, claim 56 does not provide a specific means or method that improves the relevant technology, but, instead, is directed to a result or effect that itself is the abstract idea and merely invoke generic processes and machinery.
Furthermore, compare to McRO, Inc. dba Planet Blue v. Bandai Namco Games America Inc., 120 USPQ2d 1091 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (McRO), claim 56 does not recite any improvement of a technical field. The claims in McRO aim to automate a 3-D animator’s tasks, specifically, determining when to set keyframes and setting those keyframes, which is accomplished through rules that are applied to the timed transcript to determine the morph weight outputs, wherein said rules configured to produce more realistic speech by ‘taking into consideration the differences in mouth positions for similar phonemes based on context.’” Thus, the basis for the McRO Court’s decision was that the claims were directed to an improvement in computer-related technology (allowing computers to produce ‘accurate and realistic lip synchronization and facial expressions in animated characters’ that previously could only be produced by human animators).” The specification in McRO underlined how the claimed rules enabled the automation of specific animation tasks that previously could not be automated.
Contrary to claims in McRO, claim 56 does not recite any improvement in computer-related technology; there is no improvements in the operation of a computer or a computer network per se, there is no improvements claimed as a set of ‘rules’ (basically mathematical relationships) that improve computer-related technology by allowing computer performance of a function not previously performable by a computer.” The claimed steps of receiving and organizing electricity billing data; computing average monthly prices; computing average monthly daily consumption; combining charging data; establishing a baseline; computing monthly rates; comparing the data to thresholds; and diagnosing and presenting anomalies represent a collection of conventional steps performed by a computer - receiving data, manipulating data, and outputting manipulated data on a conventional display. Claim 56 does not require any nonconventional computer, network, or display components, or even a “non-conventional and non-generic arrangement of known, conventional pieces,” but merely call for performance of the claimed receiving, storing, comparing and outputting data on a set of generic computer components and display devices. Nothing in the claim, understood in light of the specification, requires anything other than off-the-shelf, conventional computer, network, and display technology for gathering, calculating and presenting the desired information. Said computing elements are recited at a high level of generality and perform the basic functions of a computer, such as performing a mathematical operation and receiving and outputting data, that would be needed to apply the abstract idea via computer. Therefore, claim 56 does not include any recitation that improve computer-related technology by allowing computer performance of a function not previously performable by a computer.”
Further, in comparison to the decision in DDR, the claims at issue remain ineligible. In DDR, the claim includes additional elements of "1) stor[ing] 'visually perceptible elements' corresponding to numerous host Web sites in a database, with each of the host Web sites displaying at least one link associated with a product or service of a third-party merchant, 2) on activation of this link by a Web site visitor, automatically identif[ying] the host, and 3) instruct[ing] an Internet web server of an 'outsource provider' to construct and serve to the visitor a new, hybrid Web page that merges content associated with the products of the third-party merchant with the stored 'visually perceptible elements' from the identified host Web site." The court held that, unlike in Ultramercial, the claim does not generically recite "use the Internet" to perform a business practice, but instead recites a specific way to automate the creation of a composite Web page by an outsource provider that incorporates elements from multiple sources in order to solve a problem faced by Web sites on the Internet.
Contrary to DDR, claim 56 is drawn to the application of principles outside of the scientific realm -- such as principles related to commercial or business interaction. While the claims are set within an electronic commerce environment, claim 56 address a business challenge that is not particular to the Internet. As stated in the Specification [0006], the invention is concern with “fight climate change and save on operating expenses”. Thus, the current application’ solution to the problem of decreasing cost of business operations is not a problem unique to computer technologies, and said claims are drawn to the application of principles outside of the scientific realm -- such as principles related to commercial or business interaction. Unlike the situation in DDR Holdings, Applicant does not identify any problem particular to computer networks and/or the Internet that claim 56 overcomes. Instead, based on the specification teachings, claim 56 uses a conventional, general purpose computer to perform generic computer functions, i.e., accessing memory, receiving, storing, comparing and outputting data.
Further, in comparison to BASCOM Global Internet Services, Inc. v. AT&T Mobility LLC (Fed. Cir. 2016) (BASCOM), the claim at issue remains ineligible. In BASCOM, the Federal Circuit seemed to focus on the "technical aspects" of the claimed invention and stated that while filtering content on the Internet was already a known concept, the patent describes how its particular arrangement of elements is a technical improvement over prior art ways of filtering such content (e.g., prior art filters were either susceptible to hacking and dependent on local hardware and software, or confined to an inflexible one size-fits-all scheme). “An inventive concept may be found in the non-conventional and non-generic arrangement of the additional elements, i.e., the installation of a filtering tool at a specific location, remote from the end-users, with customizable filtering features specific to each end user.”
Contrary to BASCOM, claim 56 does not include any recitation directed to the non-conventional and non-generic arrangement of the additional elements. Claim 56 requires only conventional, generic computer elements like a processor, a memory, displays, for receiving and manipulating data, and an Internet connection for communicating said data and outputting the results of computations. These generic computer elements are recited at a high level of generality and perform the basic functions of a computer (in this case, performing a mathematical operation, receiving/transmitting and storing data) that would be needed to apply the abstract idea via a computer. Merely using generic computer components to perform the above identified basic computer functions (transmitting, generating and computing data) to practice or apply the judicial exception does not constitute a meaningful limitation that would amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Further, the particular arrangement of the generic elements, as specifically recited in claim 56, is not novel or unique. Based on the Specification, there is no explicit advantage of any particular configuration of the claimed computer implemented method. The Specification broadly identified the hardware used:
[0081] FIG. 9 illustrates a non-limiting exemplary utility billing data analysis system 22; the exemplary system comprising an input device 22(1), a user interface 22(2), a display device 22(3), a network adapter 22(4), a processor 22(5), a graphic processing unit 22(7), a non-transitory storage medium 22(8), random access memory 22(9), and data processing
software 22(6). The system may be connected to the internet through internet connection 20 and/or internet connection 24 to access data from a utility company bill generation and cloud storage system 18; as well as to store the processed data to cloud storage 25; and to deliver a copy of the processed information to end users' inboxes 30.
Thus, the particular arrangements of the claimed elements is irrelevant for the functions performed by said elements (receiving, computing and outputting data), and for the benefits achieved by the claimed invention - “fight climate change and save on operating expenses” (Specification, [0006]). These benefits are not directed to a specific improvement to the way computers operate, but merely represent advantages in business operations. Accordingly, contrary to BASCOM, claim 56 does not provide a technical improvement, and does not require the non-conventional and non-generic arrangement of the additional elements.
Further, compare to Finjan, claim 56 remains ineligible. In Finjan, the method of claim 1 employs a new way of providing computer security which was not done before by a computer – generating a security profile (a new kind of file) which allows access to be tailored for different users and ensures that threats are identified before the file reaches a user’s computer. The security profile “identifies suspicious code” allows the system to accumulate and utilize newly available, behavior-based information about potential threats without utilizing a conventional “code-matching” techniques which simply look for the presence of known viruses. Therefore, claim 1 in Finjan is
directed to a non-abstract improvement in computer functionality, rather than the abstract idea of computer security based on said “code-matching” techniques.
Contrary to Finjan, claim 56 of the current application does not provide any unique technique of data processing resulting in improving operation of a computer, and utilizes conventional calculation techniques to assess criteria of interest, e.g. a baseline derived from historical electricity billing, anomalies in combined usage, pricing, and billing metrics, etc. The recited steps do not improve the functioning computers itself, including of the processor(s) or the network elements. There are no physical improvements in the claim, like a faster processor or more efficient memory, and there is no operational improvement, like mathematical computation that improve the functioning of the computer. The Supreme Court in Alice indicated that an abstract claim might be statutory if it improved another technology or the computer processing itself. Using a (programmed) computer to implement a common business practice does neither. The claimed invention merely utilizes conventional computing and network elements for accessing, manipulating and outputting data. Therefore, contrary to Finjan, claim 56 does not provide a unique computational techniques was not done before by a computer, but, instead, is directed to a result or effect that itself is the abstract idea and merely invoke generic processes and machinery.
As per Applicant’s argument that the invention is novel, the Examiner notes that the analysis under Alice step one is whether the claims as a whole are “directed to” an abstract idea, regardless of whether the prior art demonstrates that the idea or other aspects of the claim are known, unknown, conventional, unconventional, routine, or not routine. See Diamond v. Diehr, 450 U.S. 175, 188–89 (1981) (“The ‘novelty’ of any element or steps in a process, or even of the process itself, is of no relevance in determining whether the subject matter of a claim falls within the § 101 categories of possibly patentable subject matter.”); Am. Axle & Mfg., Inc. v. NeapCo Holdings LLC, 939 F.3d 1355, 1362 n.3 (Fed. Cir. 2019) (“[I]t makes no difference to the section 101 analysis whether the use of [ineligible subject matter] was known in the prior art.”); Data Engine, 906 F.3d at 1011 (“The eligibility question is not whether anyone has ever used tabs to organize information. That question is reserved for §§ 102 and 103. The question of abstraction is whether the claim is ‘directed to’ the abstract idea itself.”).
Therefore, claims 56-75 are ineligible.
Conclusion
The prior art search has been conducted, with no significant prior art found.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Igor Borissov whose telephone number is 571-272-6801. If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner's supervisor Kambiz Abdi can be reached on 571-272-6702. 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 http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free).
/IGOR N BORISSOV/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3685 12/27/2025