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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
Claims 1-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more.
Specifically, representative Claim 1 recites:
“A power consumption behavior analyzing method suitable for a power consumption behavior analyzing device that includes a processor and a storage unit, wherein the storage unit stores a plurality of power consumption data records and a plurality of household data records of a plurality of household ends, and the power consumption behavior analyzing method is executed by the processor to at least perform the following steps: generating, according to the plurality of power consumption data records, a plurality of power consumption curves corresponding to the plurality of household ends, wherein each of the power consumption curves is plotted based on a plurality of average power consumption values at predetermined time points, respectively, and extracting a plurality of feature points for each of the power consumption curves, wherein each of the feature points is an extreme point or an inflection point based on plotted data points of the power consumption curve corresponding thereto; acquiring the household data records corresponding to the plurality of household ends, respectively, wherein the household data records include a plurality of feature parameter values respectively used to describe a plurality of household features; performing a correlation analysis according to the household data records and the power consumption data records of the feature points, to obtain the household features corresponding to correlations of the feature points according to a correlation threshold value, and to use the obtained household features as key features, wherein the step of performing the correlation analysis includes using a correlation matrix to find the household features that are most relevant to power consumption corresponding to the feature points; clustering, according to the key features, the power consumption data records to obtain a plurality of household power consumption characteristic curves, wherein the plurality of household power consumption characteristic curves correspond to a plurality of power consumption patterns, respectively; and calculating similarities respectively between a power consumption curve of a to-be-analyzed household end and the household power consumption characteristic curves, and marking the to-be-analyzed household end as the power consumption pattern corresponding to the household power consumption characteristic curve that has the highest similarity among the calculated similarities.”
The claim limitations in the abstract idea have been highlighted in bold above; the remaining limitations are “additional element”.
Under the Step 1 of the eligibility analysis, we determine whether the claims are to a statutory category by considering whether the claimed subject matter falls within the four statutory categories of patentable subject matter identified by 35 U.S.C. 101: Process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter. The above claim is considered to be in a statutory category (process).
Under the Step 2A, Prong One, we consider whether the claim recites a judicial exception (abstract idea). In the above claim, the highlighted portion constitutes an abstract idea because, under a broadest reasonable interpretation, it recites limitations that fall into/recite an abstract idea exceptions. Specifically, under the 2019 Revised Patent Subject matter Eligibility Guidance, it falls into the groupings of subject matter when recited as such in a claim limitation that falls into the grouping of subject matter when recited as such in a claim limitation, that covers mathematical concepts - mathematical relationships, mathematical formulas or equations, mathematical calculations and mental processes — concepts performed in the human mind including an observation, evaluation, judgement, and/or opinion.
For example, steps of “extracting a plurality of feature points for each of the power consumption curves, wherein each of the feature points is an extreme point or an inflection point based on the plotted data points of the corresponding power consumption curve” are treated as belonging to the mental process grouping. This mental step represents a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind. That is, nothing in the claim element precludes the step from practically being performed in the mind. In the context of this claim, it encompasses the user making mental decisions (evaluation/judgement) with regards to identifying feature points as an extreme point or an inflection point.
The steps of “generating, according to the plurality of power consumption data records, a plurality of power consumption curves corresponding to the plurality of household ends, and extracting a plurality of feature points for each of the power consumption curves, wherein each of the feature points is an extreme point or an inflection point based on plotted data points of the power consumption curve corresponding thereto; performing a correlation analysis according to the household data records and the power consumption data records of the feature points, to obtain the household features corresponding to correlations of the feature points according to a correlation threshold value, and to use the obtained household features as key features, wherein the step of performing the correlation analysis includes using a correlation matrix to find the household features that are most relevant to power consumption corresponding to the feature points; clustering, according to the key features, the power consumption data records to obtain a plurality of household power consumption characteristic curves, wherein the plurality of household power consumption characteristic curves correspond to a plurality of power consumption patterns, respectively; and calculating similarities respectively between a power consumption curve of a to-be-analyzed household end and the household power consumption characteristic curves, and marking the to-be-analyzed household end as the power consumption pattern corresponding to the household power consumption characteristic curve that has the highest similarity among the calculated similarities” are treated as belonging to the mathematical calculations grouping.
Next, under the Step 2A, Prong Two, we consider whether the claim that recites a judicial exception is integrated into a practical application.
In this step, we evaluate whether the claim recites additional elements that
integrate the exception into a practical application of that exception.
The above claims comprise the following additional elements:
Claim 1: A power consumption behavior analyzing method suitable for a power consumption behavior analyzing device that includes a processor and a storage unit, wherein the storage unit stores a plurality of power consumption data records and a plurality of household data records of a plurality of household ends, and the power consumption behavior analyzing method is executed by the processor to at least perform the following steps: wherein each of the power consumption curves is plotted based on a plurality of average power consumption values at predetermined time points, respectively and acquiring the household data records corresponding to the plurality of household ends, respectively, wherein the household data records include a plurality of feature parameter values respectively used to describe a plurality of household features.
Claim 9: A power consumption behavior analyzing device, comprising: a processor; and a storage unit configured to store a plurality of power consumption data records and a plurality of household data records of a plurality of household ends, wherein the processor is configured to perform the following steps, generating, according to the plurality of power consumption data records, a plurality of power consumption curves corresponding to the plurality of household ends; wherein each of the power consumption curves is plotted based on a plurality of average power consumption values at predetermined time points, respectively , acquiring the household data records corresponding to the plurality of household ends, respectively, wherein the household data records include a plurality of feature parameter values respectively used to describe a plurality of household features
The above additional element of a power consumption behavior analyzing method suitable for a power consumption behavior analyzing device is generically recited, not meaningful, do not represent a particular machine and/or eligible transformation, they do not indicate a practical application. In addition, with regards to a step of acquiring the household data records corresponding to the plurality of household ends, respectively, wherein the household data records include a plurality of feature parameter values respectively used to describe a plurality of household features and wherein each of the power consumption curves is plotted based on a plurality of average power consumption values at predetermined time points, respectively, the step corresponds to mere data gathering and outputting results that is recited in generality and is not meaningful- represents insignificant extra-solution activity.
Additionally, the above additional elements of a processor and a storage unit, are examples of generic computer equipment that are generically recited and therefore are not qualified as a particular machine. According to MPEP (2106.05(g)), the additional element represents extra-solution activity when “all uses of the recited judicial exception require such data gathering or data output”. See Mayo, 566 U.S. at 79, 101 USPQ2d at 1968; OIP Techs., Inc. v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363, 115 USPQ2d 1090, 1092-93 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (presenting offers and gathering statistics amounted to mere data gathering).
Therefore, the claims are directed to a judicial exception and require further analysis under the Step 2B.
However, the above claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception (Step 2B analysis) because these additional elements/steps are well-understood and conventional in the relevant art based on the prior art of record including references in the submitted IDS (5/29/2023) by the Applicant (Sun and Rebec).
The independent claims, therefore, are not patent eligible.
With regards to the dependent claims, claims 2-5, 7-8,10-13, and 15-16 provide additional features/steps which are either part of an expanded abstract idea of the independent claims (additionally comprising mathematical/mental/organizing human activity process steps (Claims 2-5, 7-8,10-13, and 15-16) or adding additional elements/steps that are not meaningful as they are recited in generality and/or not qualified as particular machine/ and/or eligible transformation and, therefore, do not reflect a practical application as well as not qualified for “significantly more” based on prior art of record.
Response to Arguments
USC § 101
Applicant's arguments filed 11/12/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
The Applicant argues on pgs. (7-8), “Applicant respectfully disagrees with the Examiner's characterization. As explained below, the claimed subject matter is not directed to any judicial exception under Step 2A Prong One of the 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance ("2019 PEG"), nor does it recite a mathematical concept or mental process. Furthermore, even if any abstract idea were implicated, the claims as a whole integrate such idea into a practical application that improves the functioning of a power consumption analysis system, thereby satisfying Step 2A Prong Two” and “Specifically, as described in paragraph [0036] of the present application, the "power consumption curve" represents a set of obtained power usage data points, each corresponding to an average power consumption value at a predetermined time point. The step of "extracting feature points" identifies extreme points and inflection points from these measured data points. Such operation is not a mathematical abstraction or mental judgment, but rather a concrete computational procedure applied to digital sensor data, implemented by a processor… Accordingly, this limitation does not recite a mathematical concept or mental process, but rather represents a concrete feature-extraction operation implemented by a machine on real data, which is technical in nature”.
The Examiner disagrees and submits that “extracting feature points from each of the power consumption curves” was grouped under mental process because identifying which points are extreme or inflection are judgements that can be made by the human mind.
Additionally, the Examiner disagrees and submits that “performing a correlation analysis” was grouped under mathematical concepts because it involves analyzing the statistical relationship between power consumption and other factors and according to MPEP 2106.04(a)(2), It is important to note that a mathematical concept need not be expressed in mathematical symbols, because "[w]ords used in a claim operating on data to solve a problem can serve the same purpose as a formula." In re Grams, 888 F.2d 835, 837 and n.1, 12 USPQ2d 1824, 1826 and n.1 (Fed. Cir. 1989). See, e.g., SAP America, Inc. v. InvestPic, LLC, 898 F.3d 1161, 1163, 127 USPQ2d 1597, 1599 (Fed. Cir. 2018) (holding that claims to a ‘‘series of mathematical calculations based on selected information’’ are directed to abstract ideas); Digitech Image Techs., LLC v. Elecs. for Imaging, Inc., 758 F.3d 1344, 1350, 111 USPQ2d 1717, 1721 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (holding that claims to a ‘‘process of organizing information through mathematical correlations’’ are directed to an abstract idea); and Bancorp Servs., LLC v. Sun Life Assurance Co. of Can. (U.S.), 687 F.3d 1266, 1280, 103 USPQ2d 1425, 1434 (Fed. Cir. 2012).
The Applicant argues on pg. (8), “With respect to "correlation analysis," Applicant has amended claim 1 to clearly define a specific implementation: " ... using a correlation matrix to find the household features that are most relevant to power consumption corresponding to the feature points." This amendment transforms what might otherwise be viewed as a generic "correlation analysis" into a definite computational technique employing a correlation matrix and correlation ranking…The claimed correlation matrix and thresholding steps are directed to structurally-defined data processing that produces tangible analytical results enabling subsequent operations. Therefore, the "correlation analysis" limitation, as amended, no longer falls within the realm of abstract ideas but rather constitutes a concrete data-processing mechanism.”.
The Examiner respectfully disagrees and submits that improvements in the abstract idea are not qualified improvements to demonstrate a practical application.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Sang Hun Lee (US20110231027) discloses monitoring power consumption for a circuit breaker having a sensor.
Chris Mrakas (US20110288905) discloses a system for efficient consumption of consumable or resource such as electricity, gas, or the like for a household or business.
Lucas Spicer (US20120016524) discloses a method for managing energy of a home or other structure and calculate and predict energy efficiency while presenting variations of cost and power consumption to a user.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SHARAH ZAAB whose telephone number is (571)272-4973. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 7:00 am - 4:30 pm.
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, Catherine Rastovski can be reached on 571-272-0349. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/SHARAH ZAAB/Examiner, Art Unit 2863
/Catherine T. Rastovski/Supervisory Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2863