DETAILED ACTION
The following is a Non-Final Office Action in response to the Request for Continued Examination (RCE) received on 12 May 2026. Claims 1-10 have been previously cancelled. Claims 11-13 and 30 have been amended. Claims 11-30 remain pending in this application.
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 .
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments, filed 12 May 2026, with respect to the rejection of claim(s) 11-30 under 35 USC 101 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
In response to applicant's argument that the present invention is not directed to an obvious mathematical fact, Examiner disagrees. As drafted, the limitations “setting a limit value correlated with available power set for each of the consumers for a specific time period, wherein the processor sets the limit value such that when the predicted value of one consumer each of the plurality of consumers for the specific time period is smaller than the predicted value of power usage of other consumers or smaller than an actual value of power usage in an equipment device of the one consumer, a value obtained by dividing the limit value by the predicted value is larger than when the predicted value is larger than the predicted value of power usage of other consumers or larger than an actual value of power usage in an equipment device of the one consumer” are mathematical concepts. Mathematical concepts cover mathematical relationships and mathematical formulas or equations. This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because claims are directed to abstract ideas of mathematical concepts without significantly more.
Examiner notes that the claims do not recite the obvious mathematical fact of dividing a certain fixed number by a larger number provides a smaller number, while dividing the same fixed number by a smaller number provides a larger number as stated in the Remarks page 8 of 10.
Claim(s) 11-30 remain rejected under 35 USC 101.
Applicant's arguments, filed 12 May 2026, with respect to the rejection of claim(s) 11 and 30 under 35 USC 102 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
In response to applicant's argument that Koji fails to disclose, teach, and/or suggest each and every limitation of the claims, Examiner disagrees. Koji discloses system supervisory control means for determining whether or not it is required to adjust electric energy used by users, and calculating the adjustment amount of the electric energy used if it is required to adjust electric energy used, and control means for controlling adjustment of the electric energy used by a plurality of users on the basis of the adjustment amount of the electric energy used thus calculated. The fact that the inventor has recognized another advantage which would flow naturally from following the suggestion of the prior art cannot be the basis for patentability when the differences would otherwise be obvious. See Ex parte Obiaya, 227 USPQ 58, 60 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1985).
Claim(s) 11 and 30 remain rejected under 35 USC 102.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
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.
The claims are generally narrative and indefinite, failing to conform with current U.S. practice. They appear to be a literal translation into English from a foreign document and are replete with grammatical and idiomatic errors. Examiner is unclear of the following limitation: the processor sets the limit value such that when the predicted value of one consumer of the plurality of consumers for the specific time period is smaller than the predicted value of power usage of other consumers or smaller than an actual value of power usage in an equipment device of the one consumer, a value obtained by dividing the limit value by the predicted value is larger than when the predicted value is larger than the predicted value of power usage of other consumers or larger than an actual value of power usage in an equipment device of the one consumer. This limitation does not read as dividing a certain fixed number by a larger number provides a smaller number, while dividing the same fixed number by a smaller number provides a larger number as stated in the Remarks page 8 of 10. Clarification is needed in the claims to clearly convey the mathematical concept.
Claims 11-16 and 21-30 recite the limitation “a value.” There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. The claims also recite “a target value,” “a predicted value,” “a limit value,” and “an actual value.” Ambiguity is caused by the presence of “a value.”
Dependent claims do not perfect the deficiencies of the independent claim and are, therefore, rejected under the same rationale.
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.
Claims 11-30 remain 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. The claim(s) recite(s), in part, acquiring a predicted value of power usage for each of the plurality of consumers; and setting a limit value correlated with available power set for each of the consumers for a specific time period, wherein the processor sets the limit value such that when the predicted value of one consumer each of the plurality of consumers for the specific time period is smaller than the predicted value of power usage of other consumers or smaller than an actual value of power usage in an equipment device of the one consumer, a value obtained by dividing the limit value by the predicted value is larger than when the predicted value is larger than the predicted value of power usage of other consumers or larger than an actual value of power usage in an equipment device of the one consumer. This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the claims are directed to abstract ideas of concepts performed in the human mind (mental process -- acquiring a predicted value of power usage for each of the plurality of consumers) and mathematical concepts (setting a limit value correlated with available power set for each of the consumers for a specific time period, wherein the processor sets the limit value such that when the predicted value of one consumer each of the plurality of consumers for the specific time period is smaller than the predicted value of power usage of other consumers or smaller than an actual value of power usage in an equipment device of the one consumer, a value obtained by dividing the limit value by the predicted value is larger than when the predicted value is larger than the predicted value of power usage of other consumers or larger than an actual value of power usage in an equipment device of the one consumer). The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the claims are directed to abstract ideas and extra-solution activities that do not have a physical or tangible form, such as mere data gathering, insignificant application, and/or mere instructions to apply a judicial exception.
The following is an analysis based on 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance (2019 PEG).
Step 1, Statutory Category?
Claims 11-29 are directed to a power control system.
Claim 30 is directed to a non-transitory computer readable medium.
Claims 11-30 are directed to at least one of the four statutory categories.
Step 2A, Prong One, Judicial Exception Recited?
Claims 11-30 remain directed to abstract ideas of concepts performed in the human mind (mental process -- acquiring a predicted value of power usage for each of the plurality of consumers) and mathematical concepts (setting a limit value correlated with available power set for each of the consumers for a specific time period, wherein the processor sets the limit value such that when the predicted value of one consumer each of the plurality of consumers for the specific time period is smaller than the predicted value of power usage of other consumers or smaller than an actual value of power usage in an equipment device of the one consumer, a value obtained by dividing the limit value by the predicted value is larger than when the predicted value is larger than the predicted value of power usage of other consumers or larger than an actual value of power usage in an equipment device of the one consumer) given the broadest reasonable interpretation.
As per claim 11 and 30, these claims similarly recite the limitations of “acquiring a predicted value of power usage for each of the plurality of consumers and setting a limit value correlated with available power set for each of the consumers for a specific time period, wherein the processor sets the limit value such that when the predicted value of one consumer each of the plurality of consumers for the specific time period is smaller than the predicted value of power usage of other consumers or smaller than an actual value of power usage in an equipment device of the one consumer, a value obtained by dividing the limit value by the predicted value is larger than when the predicted value is larger than the predicted value of power usage of other consumers or larger than an actual value of power usage in an equipment device of the one consumer.” As drafted, these limitations encompass mathematical concepts and concepts performed in the human mind. Mathematical concepts cover mathematical relationships and mathematical formulas or equations.
As per claims 12, 14-19, these claims similarly recite the limitations of “the processor sets the limit value.” As drafted, these limitations encompass mathematical concepts and concepts performed in the human mind. Mathematical concepts cover mathematical relationships and mathematical formulas or equations.
As per claim 13, this claim recites the limitation of “the processor corrects the limit value.” As drafted, these limitations encompass mathematical concepts. Mathematical concepts cover mathematical relationships and mathematical formulas or equations.
As per claim 20, this claim recites the limitation of “the processor sets the lower limit.” As drafted, these limitations encompass mathematical concepts and concepts performed in the human mind. Mathematical concepts cover mathematical relationships and mathematical formulas or equations.
As per claims 21-29, these claims similarly recite the limitations of “the processor sets, for one or more consumers included in the group, the limit value.” As drafted, these limitations encompass mathematical concepts and concepts performed in the human mind. Mathematical concepts cover mathematical relationships and mathematical formulas or equations.
Claims 11-30 remain directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more. Claim(s) 11-30 remain directed to abstract ideas (mathematical concepts and concepts performed in the human mind).
Step 2A, Prong Two, Integrated into a Practical Application?
The claims recite the following additional limitations:
As per claim 11, this claim similarly recites the limitation of “a processor and a memory.”
As per claim 30, this claim similarly recites the limitation of “a computer.”
As drafted, these limitations encompass no more than mere instructions to apply an exception. Claims that amount to nothing more than an instruction to apply the abstract idea using a generic computer do not render an abstract idea eligible. Use of a computer or other machinery in its ordinary capacity for economic or other tasks (e.g., to receive, store, or transmit data) or simply adding a general purpose computer or computer components after the fact to an abstract idea (e.g., a fundamental economic practice or mathematical equation) does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more. See MPEP 2106.05(f).
The additional elements recite mere instructions to apply an exception and do not provide integration into a practical application because they do no more than merely invoke computers or machinery as a tool to perform an existing process. The additional claim limitations, claim elements together and claims in their entirety do not provide integration into a practical application. The additional claim limitations, claim elements together and claims in their entirety do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or provide an inventive concept (significantly more than the abstract idea). The concept described in the claim(s) is not meaningfully different than those concepts found by the courts to be abstract ideas. As such, the description in the claims describes the concept identified as an abstract idea (data gathering, data outputting and data transmission). The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because they do not integrate the exception into a practical application of the exception.
Claims 11-30 do not integrate the recited abstract ideas into a practical application.
Step 2B, Inventive Concept (Significantly More)?
When considered both individually and as an ordered combination, the additional elements and elements of claims 11-30 do not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception for the same reasons discussed above as to why the additional limitations do not integrate the abstract ideas into a practical application. The additional elements of outlined in Step 2A performing functions as designed simply accomplish execution of the abstract ideas. The additional limitations identified as no more than mere instructions to apply an exception above are carried over and they also do not provide significantly more.
As per claims 11-30, these claims similarly recite the limitations of “acquiring a predicted value of power usage for each of the plurality of consumers and setting a limit value correlated with available power set for each of the consumers for a specific time period.” As drafted, these limitations encompass no more than mere instructions to apply an exception. See MPEP 2106.05(f).
Considering the additional elements individually and in combination and the claims as a whole, the additional elements do not provide significantly more than the abstract idea. Hence, the claims are not patent eligible.
Claims 11-30 remain therefore drawn to ineligible subject matter as they remain directed to abstract ideas without significantly more.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 11 and 30 remain rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1)/102(a)(2) as being anticipated by JP 2013247691 A to KOJI et al.
As per claim 11, the KOJI et al. reference discloses a power control system for performing power control such that a target value set for a group including a plurality of consumers is not exceeded, the system comprising: a processor (see FIG. 1, “system monitoring and control device 6”); a memory (see FIG. 3 and page 4, “storage device 60”) to store a program (see page 6, “adjustment execution determination table”) which, when executed by the processor (see FIG. 1, “system monitoring control device 6”), the processor (see FIG. 1, “system monitoring control device 6”) performs processes of: acquiring a predicted value of power usage (see page 5, “total demand prediction unit 62”) for each of the plurality of consumers (see page 7, “each of the consumers 41 to 4m”); and setting a limit value (see page 3, “supplyable upper limit values”) correlated with available power set (“distributed power sources 31 to 3n”) for each of the consumers (“each of the consumers 41 to 4m”) for a specific time period (see page 3, “several tens of minutes ahead or several hours ahead”), wherein the processor (“system monitoring and control device 6”) sets the limit value (“supplyable upper limit values”) such that when the predicted value (see page 5, “future total demand prediction value”) of one consumer of the plurality of consumers (“each of the consumers 41 to 4m”) for the specific time period (“several tens of minutes ahead or several hours ahead”) is smaller than the predicted value of power usage of other consumers or smaller than an actual value of power usage in an equipment device of the one consumer (see page 6, “<threshold value a”), a value (see page 6, “the relationship between the threshold value a and the threshold value b”) obtained by dividing the limit value by the predicted value is larger than when the predicted value is larger than the predicted value of power usage of other consumers or larger than an actual value of power usage in an equipment device of the one consumer (see page 6, “≧ threshold value a, ≧ threshold value b”).
As per claim 30, the KOJI et al. reference discloses a non-transitory computer readable medium storing a program for causing a computer that controls a system for performing power control such that a target value set for a group including a plurality of consumers is not exceeded, to perform: acquiring a predicted value of power usage (see page 5, “total demand prediction unit 62”) for each of the plurality of consumers (see page 7, “each of the consumers 41 to 4m”); and setting a limit value (see page 3, “supplyable upper limit values”) correlated with available power set (“distributed power sources 31 to 3n”) for each of the consumers (“each of the consumers 41 to 4m”) for a specific time period (see page 3, “several tens of minutes ahead or several hours ahead”), wherein in the setting, the computer (see FIG. 1, “system monitoring control device 6”) is caused to set the limit value (“supplyable upper limit values”) such that when the predicted value (see page 5, “future total demand prediction value”) of one consumer of the plurality of consumers (“each of the consumers 41 to 4m”) for the specific time period (“several tens of minutes ahead or several hours ahead”) is smaller than the predicted value of power usage of other consumers or smaller than an actual value of power usage in an equipment device of the one consumer (see page 6, “<threshold value a”), a value (see page 6, “the relationship between the threshold value a and the threshold value b”) obtained by dividing the limit value by the predicted value is larger than when the predicted value is larger than the predicted value of power usage of other consumers or larger than an actual value of power usage in an equipment device of the one consumer (see page 6, “≧ threshold value a, ≧ threshold value b”).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
The following references are cited to further show the state of the art with respect to performing power control not exceed contract power:
US 12,038,731 B2 to Nakagawa et al.
US 11,411,401 B2 to Berger et al.
US 10,175,709 B2 to Maitani et al.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Crystal J Barnes-Bullock whose telephone number is (571)272-3679. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8 am - 5 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, Robert Fennema can be reached at 571-272-2748. 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.
/CRYSTAL J BARNES-BULLOCK/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2117 8 June 2026
Prosecution Insights