DETAILED ACTION
The following is a Final Office Action in response to the Amendment/Remarks received on 12 December 2025. Claim 9 has been amended. Claims 10-18 are newly added. Claims 1-18 are 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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see Remarks, pg. 9, filed 12 December 2025 with respect to objected claim 9 have been fully considered and are persuasive in light of the claim amendments filed on 12 December 2025. The objection of claim 9 has been withdrawn.
Applicant's arguments, see Remarks, pgs. 9-18, filed 12 December 2025 with respect to rejected claims 1-9 under 35 U.S.C. 101 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
With respect to the Applicant’s argument,
First, claim 1 provides an improvement to the technological field of optimization by address the technical problem that, "even when each individual system is optimized, a total of the plurality of individual systems may not be considered as optimal. Consequently, an effect of the optimization decreases." Applicant's Specification at ¶ 0006. The system of claim 1 suppresses a decrease in the effect of optimization by (i) using a host system to derive a second incentive value based on a plurality of optimization calculation results and (ii) using an individual control unit of an individual system to perform again the optimization calculation to minimize a weighted sum of at least the objective function value and the second incentive value derived by the host control unit. See Applicant's Specification at TI 0007, 0012, 0043-0044, 0052-0053, 0114-0116. This improvement to the technological field of optimization illustrates that the integration of the alleged abstract idea into a practical application. See MPEP § 2106.05(a) (citing Enfish, LLC V. Microsoft Corp., 822 F.3d 1327, 1335-36 (Fed. Cir. 2016). (see Remarks, pg. 10, paragraph 3)
The Examiner respectfully disagrees.
The Examiner recognizes the Applicant has set forth an advantage of use (i.e. a benefit of “… suppresses a decrease in the effect of optimization …”) without providing any arguments/rationales/evidence to why the additional elements amount to an improvement (i.e. enhancement) in the functioning of a computer or an improvement (i.e. enhancement) to another technology or technical field (see MPEP 2106.05(a)(II); i.e. “a technical field of optimization”). Hence, the Applicant’s argument is found unpersuasive.
In regards to the Applicant’s argument,
Setting the parameters of the electric power through the electric device of the individual system effects a particular transformation of the claimed "electric device," which is a particular article, to a different state (e.g., a state in which the parameters of the electric power through the electric device are set to the objective function and a constraint condition). See MPEP § 2106.04(d)(I). Therefore, claim 1 effects a transformation of a particular machine to a different state, which courts have found indicative of a claim integrating an exception into a practical applications. See MPEP § 2106.04(d)(f). See also id. at § 2106.05(c) ("If such a transformation [of a particular article to a different state or thing] exists, the claims are likely to be significantly more than any recited judicial exception or to integrate any recited judicial exception into a practical application."). (see Remarks, pg. 10, paragraph 4 - pg. 11, paragraph 1)
The Examiner respectfully disagrees.
2106.05(c) Particular Transformation [R-07.2022]
Where a transformation is recited in a claim, the following factors are relevant to the analysis:
1. The particularity or generality of the transformation. According to the Supreme Court, inventions comprising processes of "‘tanning, dyeing, making waterproof cloth, vulcanizing India rubber [or] smelting ores’ . . . are instances . . . where the use of chemical substances or physical acts, such as temperature control, changes articles or materials [in such a manner that is] sufficiently definite to confine the patent monopoly within rather definite bounds." Gottschalk v. Benson, 409 U.S. 63, 70, 175 USPQ 673, 676 (1972) (discussing Corning v. Burden, 15 How. (56 U.S.) 252, 267-68 (1854)). Therefore, a more particular transformation would likely provide significantly more.
2. The degree to which the recited article is particular. A transformation applied to a generically recited article or to any and all articles would likely not provide significantly more than the judicial exception. A transformation that can be specifically identified, or that applies to only particular articles, is more likely to provide significantly more (or integrates a judicial exception into a practical application).
3. The nature of the transformation in terms of the type or extent of change in state or thing. A transformation resulting in the transformed article having a different function or use, would likely provide significantly more, but a transformation resulting in the transformed article merely having a different location, would likely not provide significantly more (or integrate a judicial exception into a practical application). For example, a process that transforms raw, uncured synthetic rubber into precision-molded synthetic rubber products, as discussed in Diamond v. Diehr, 450 U.S. 175, 184, 209 USPQ 1, 21 (1981)), provides significantly more (or integrate a judicial exception into a practical application).
4. The nature of the article transformed. Transformation of a physical or tangible object or substance is more likely to provide significantly more (or integrate a judicial exception into a practical application) than the transformation of an intangible concept such as a contractual obligation or mental judgment.
5. Whether the transformation is extra-solution activity or a field-of-use (i.e., the extent to which (or how) the transformation imposes meaningful limits on the execution of the claimed method steps). A transformation 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 not provide significantly more (or integrate a judicial exception into a practical application). For example, in Mayo the Supreme Court found claims regarding calibrating the proper dosage of thiopurine drugs to be patent ineligible subject matter. The Federal Circuit had held that the step of administering the thiopurine drug demonstrated a transformation of the human body and blood. Mayo, 566 U.S. at 76, 101 USPQ2d at 1967. The Supreme Court disagreed, finding that this step was only a field-of-use limitation and did not provide significantly more than the judicial exception. Id. See MPEP § 2106.05(g) & (h) for more information on insignificant extra-solution activity and field of use, respectively.
Claim 1 recites “… set parameters of the electric power through the electric device to the objective function and a constraint condition …”. The Examiner emphasizes and maintains setting parameters of electric power is directed to merely gathering data to establish a condition for operating an electric device which neither integrates the abstract idea into a practical application (see MPEP 2106.05(g)) nor provides significantly more than the abstract idea (MPEP 2106.05(d)(II)). Hence, the Applicant’s argument is found unpersuasive.
With respect to the Applicant’s arguments,
Therefore, claim 1 implements the alleged abstract idea with a particular machine that is integral to the claim, which courts have found indicative of a claim integrating an exception into a practical applications. MPEP § 2106.04(d)(I). (see Remarks, pg. 12, paragraph 2)
By definition, computer components are only "generic" if all computers have those components. See https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/generic (defining "generic" as "relating to or characteristic of a whole group or class"). Because not all computers include a battery, are connected to an energy source of electric power, and are configured to receive or transmit electric power from or to the energy source, the claimed "electric device that includes a battery, is connected to an energy source of electric power, and is configured to receive or transmit electric power from or to the energy source" is not a generic computer component, and, as such, each of the claimed "plurality of individual systems" is not a generic computer (and neither is the claimed "optimization system"). Moreover, because not all computers include a plurality of individual systems and a host system, the claimed "optimization system," which includes the claimed "host system" and the claimed "plurality of individual systems," the claimed "host system" and the claimed "plurality of individual systems" are not generic computer components, and the claimed "optimization system" is not a generic computer. (see Remarks, pg. 13, paragraph 2)
The Examiner respectfully disagrees.
MPEP 2106.05(b) Particular Machine [R-07.2022]:
The Particularity or Generality of the Elements of the Machine or Apparatus
The particularity or generality of the elements of the machine or apparatus, i.e., the degree to which the machine in the claim can be specifically identified (not any and all machines). One example of applying a judicial exception with a particular machine is Mackay Radio & Tel. Co. v. Radio Corp. of America, 306 U.S. 86, 40 USPQ 199 (1939). In this case, a mathematical formula was employed to use standing wave phenomena in an antenna system. The claim recited the particular type of antenna and included details as to the shape of the antenna and the conductors, particularly the length and angle at which they were arranged. 306 U.S. at 95-96; 40 USPQ at 203. Another example is Eibel Process, in which gravity (a law of nature or natural phenomenon) was applied by a Fourdrinier machine (which was understood in the art to have a specific structure comprising a headbox, a paper-making wire, and a series of rolls) arranged in a particular way to optimize the speed of the machine while maintaining quality of the formed paper web. Eibel Process Co. v. Minn. & Ont. Paper Co., 261 U.S. 45, 64-65 (1923).
It is important to note that a general purpose computer that applies a judicial exception, such as an abstract idea, by use of conventional computer functions does not qualify as a particular machine. Ultramercial, Inc. v. Hulu, LLC, 772 F.3d 709, 716-17, 112 USPQ2d 1750, 1755-56 (Fed. Cir. 2014). See also TLI Communications LLC v. AV Automotive LLC, 823 F.3d 607, 613, 118 USPQ2d 1744, 1748 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (mere recitation of concrete or tangible components is not an inventive concept); Eon Corp. IP Holdings LLC v. AT&T Mobility LLC, 785 F.3d 616, 623, 114 USPQ2d 1711, 1715 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (noting that Alappat’s rationale that an otherwise ineligible algorithm or software could be made patent-eligible by merely adding a generic computer to the claim was superseded by the Supreme Court’s Bilski and Alice Corp. decisions). If applicant amends a claim to add a generic computer or generic computer components and asserts that the claim recites significantly more because the generic computer is 'specially programmed' (as in Alappat, now considered superseded) or is a 'particular machine' (as in Bilski), the examiner should look at whether the added elements integrate the exception into a practical application or provide significantly more than the judicial exception. Merely adding a generic computer, generic computer components, or a programmed computer to perform generic computer functions does not automatically overcome an eligibility rejection. Alice Corp. Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank Int’l, 573 U.S. 208, 223-24, 110 USPQ2d 1976, 1983-84 (2014). See In re Alappat, 33 F.3d 1526, 1545, 31 USPQ2d 1545, 1558 (Fed. Cir. 1994); In re Bilski, 545 F.3d 943, 88 USPQ2d 1385 (Fed. Cir. 2008)
U.S. Patent Publication No. 2023/0073260 A1 (instant application):
In FIG. 1, for the convenience of description, one electric device 30 is exemplified in one individual system 20. However, the number of electric devices 30 included in the individual system 20 is not limited to one, and may be two or more. Moreover, when a plurality of electric devices 30 are present in the individual system 20, types of the plurality of electric devices 30 may be different from one another, or may be partially or entirely the same. Moreover, the types of the electric devices 30 in each individual system 20 may be different among the plurality of individual systems 20, or may be the same in a part or the entirety of the individual systems 20. (pg. 2, par. [0027])
The electric device 30 of the individual system 20b is, for example, a battery (storage battery). The battery is charged through use of the electric power supplied from the electric power system 22. Moreover, the battery can discharge the stored electric power to supply the electric power to the electric power system 22. The individual system 20b is, for example, a storage electric power facility in which the above-mentioned battery is installed. For example, the storage electric power facility may charge the battery when a load on the electric power system 22 is low, and may supply the stored electric power to the electric power system 22 when the load on the electric power system 22 is high. (pg. 2, par. [0029])
The individual system 20c is, for example, a charging station (so-called “EV power station”) which can charge a battery of a vehicle. The vehicle herein is an electric vehicle, a hybrid vehicle, or the like on which a battery which supplies electric power to a drive source is mounted. A vehicle, such as an electric vehicle or a hybrid vehicle, is hereinafter sometimes referred to as “EV.” The electric device 30 of the individual system 20c is, for example, a charger which converts the electric power of the electric power system 22, and supplies the converted electric power to the battery of the EV. For example, in the individual system 20c, a plurality of chargers may be installed. (pg. 2, par. [0030])
The electric device 30 is not limited to the specifically exemplified electric device 30, and may be any electric device which can receive or supply the electric power from or to the electric power system 22. Moreover, the individual system 20 is not limited to the exemplified individual system 20, and may appropriately be set based on the type, the scale, or the like of the electric device 30. Moreover, the plurality of individual systems 20 may be installed in premises different from one another, or a part or the entirety thereof may be installed in common premises. (pg. 2, par. [0031])
The Examiner respectfully maintains the Applicant has merely summarized the components of the claimed optimization system. In addition, the Applicant has presented a broad and conclusionary statement without any explanations/arguments/rationales as to how an individual control unit comprising an first central processing unit and one or more first memories of each of a plurality individual systems and a host control unit comprising a second central processing unit and one or more second memories of a host system are more than a generic computer/computer components (as addressed in step 2A, prong two and Step 2B of the subject matter eligibility requirement in the Non-Final Office Action mailed on 1 October 2025) that perform the claimed judicial exceptions by a use of conventional computer functions (as addressed in step 2A, prong one of subject matter eligibility requirement in the Non-Final Office Action mailed on 1 October 2025). Further, the claimed “individual system” of the plurality of individual systems includes a “electric device”, given the broadest reasonable interrupted in light of the specification, has been interpreted as a storage electric power facility (i.e. the individual system including the electric device) that includes a battery (i.e. storage battery or any other device that receives or supplies electric power) that is charged and supplies stored energy and EV power station (i.e. the individual system including the electric device) that includes a battery (i.e. storage battery or any other device that receives or supplies electric power) which is charged and supplies stored energy. The Examiner maintains the battery in the storage electric power facility and the battery in the EV power station are directed to a field of use; and the Applicant has not presented any explanations/arguments/rationales as to how the battery in the storage electric power facility and the battery in the EV power station more than generally links the judicial exception (see MPEP 2106.05(h)) as set forth in the rejection of claim 1 under 35 U.S.C. 101 of Non-Final Office Action mailed on 1 October 2025).
In addition, the Examiner notes the Applicant has not addressed the rejection of claim 1 under 35 U.S.C. 101 as set forth 1 October 2025. The Applicant has set forth an argument to a limitation of “… computers include a battery, are connected to an energy source of electric power, and are configured to receive or transmit electric power from or to the energy source …” which is not recited in claim 1. Claim 1 recites "… each of the plurality of individual systems includes: an electric device that includes a battery, is connected to an energy source of electric power, and is configured to receive or transmit electric power from or to the energy source; and an individual control unit comprising a first central processing unit and one or more first memories, wherein the individual control unit is configured to perform an optimization calculation that minimizes a weighted sum of at least an objective function value and a first incentive value …” and “… the host system includes a host control unit comprising a second central processing unit and one or more second memories, and the host control unit is configured to derive a second incentive value based on a plurality of optimization calculation results …”. In summary, claim 1 recites each of the plurality of individual systems include an electric device and an individual control unit and a host system includes a host control unit comprising a second central processing unit and one or more second memories; wherein claim 1 does not recite not an electric device includes an individual control unit and a host control unit includes of a host system. Hence, the Applicant’s arguments are found unpersuasive.
In regards to the Applicant’s arguments,
Claims 2-9 depend on independent claim 1 and are not directed to an abstract idea for at least the same reasons as independent claim 1 as well as the additional limitations claims 2-9 recite. (see Remarks, pg. 14, paragraph 2)
For example, as not all computers include any of a storage electric power facility and a charging station capable of charging a vehicle of a battery, a generic computer (or generic computer components) includes neither "a storage electric power facility" nor "a charging station capable of charging a battery of a vehicle," as recited in new claim 5. For another example, because not all computers include these features, a generic computer (or generic computer components) does not include "a business site" as recited in new claim 6 and certainly not "a plant, a warehouse, or an office," as recited in new claim 7. For still another example, because not all computers include these features, a generic computer (or generic computer components) does not include "a motor, an air conditioning facility, or an illumination facility" as recited in new claim 8. Thus, like claim 1, claims 5-8 implement the alleged abstract idea with a particular machine that is integral to the claims, which courts have found indicative of a claim integrating an exception into a practical application. MPEP § 2106.04(d)(f). (see Remarks, pg. 14, paragraph 3)
The Examiner respectfully disagrees.
The Examiner refers to the above response, pg. 2, paragraph 4 - pg. 6, paragraph 6 of this Office action, and the arguments herein as addressed.
In addition, the Applicant has set forth an argument directed to a limitation of a computer includes “a storage electric power facility”, “a charging station capable of charging a vehicle of a battery”, "a business site", "a plant, a warehouse, or an office," and "a motor, an air conditioning facility, or an illumination facility". The Examiner maintains claims 5-8 further details components of individual systems and a host system and not an individual control unit or a host control unit. Hence, the Applicant’s arguments are found unpersuasive.
With respect to the Applicant’s arguments,
Therefore, claim 9 effects a transformation of a particular machine to a different state, which courts have found indicative of a claim integrating an exception into a practical applications. See MPEP § 2106.04(d)(f). See also id. at § 2106.05(c) ("If such a transformation [of a particular article to a different state or thing] exists, the claims are likely to be significantly more than any recited judicial exception or to integrate any recited judicial exception into a practical application."). (see Remarks, pg. 15, paragraph 2)
Claim 1 recites that "the individual control unit is further configured to set parameters of the electric power through the electric device to the objective function and a constraint condition," and claim 9 further requires the parameters to which the electric power through the electric device are set "inhibit[] reverse power flow through the electric device of the at least one of the plurality of individual systems." The rejection of claim 9 is improper because the Patent Office failed proper weight to the requirement that the parameters be set such that "reverse power flow through the electric device of the at least one of the plurality of individual systems" is inhibited. (see Remarks, pg. 18, paragraph 2)
The Examiner respectfully disagrees.
2106.05(c) Particular Transformation [R-07.2022]
Where a transformation is recited in a claim, the following factors are relevant to the analysis:
1. The particularity or generality of the transformation. According to the Supreme Court, inventions comprising processes of "‘tanning, dyeing, making waterproof cloth, vulcanizing India rubber [or] smelting ores’ . . . are instances . . . where the use of chemical substances or physical acts, such as temperature control, changes articles or materials [in such a manner that is] sufficiently definite to confine the patent monopoly within rather definite bounds." Gottschalk v. Benson, 409 U.S. 63, 70, 175 USPQ 673, 676 (1972) (discussing Corning v. Burden, 15 How. (56 U.S.) 252, 267-68 (1854)). Therefore, a more particular transformation would likely provide significantly more.
2. The degree to which the recited article is particular. A transformation applied to a generically recited article or to any and all articles would likely not provide significantly more than the judicial exception. A transformation that can be specifically identified, or that applies to only particular articles, is more likely to provide significantly more (or integrates a judicial exception into a practical application).
3. The nature of the transformation in terms of the type or extent of change in state or thing. A transformation resulting in the transformed article having a different function or use, would likely provide significantly more, but a transformation resulting in the transformed article merely having a different location, would likely not provide significantly more (or integrate a judicial exception into a practical application). For example, a process that transforms raw, uncured synthetic rubber into precision-molded synthetic rubber products, as discussed in Diamond v. Diehr, 450 U.S. 175, 184, 209 USPQ 1, 21 (1981)), provides significantly more (or integrate a judicial exception into a practical application).
4. The nature of the article transformed. Transformation of a physical or tangible object or substance is more likely to provide significantly more (or integrate a judicial exception into a practical application) than the transformation of an intangible concept such as a contractual obligation or mental judgment.
5. Whether the transformation is extra-solution activity or a field-of-use (i.e., the extent to which (or how) the transformation imposes meaningful limits on the execution of the claimed method steps). A transformation 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 not provide significantly more (or integrate a judicial exception into a practical application). For example, in Mayo the Supreme Court found claims regarding calibrating the proper dosage of thiopurine drugs to be patent ineligible subject matter. The Federal Circuit had held that the step of administering the thiopurine drug demonstrated a transformation of the human body and blood. Mayo, 566 U.S. at 76, 101 USPQ2d at 1967. The Supreme Court disagreed, finding that this step was only a field-of-use limitation and did not provide significantly more than the judicial exception. Id. See MPEP § 2106.05(g) & (h) for more information on insignificant extra-solution activity and field of use, respectively.
The Examiner maintains the limitation of “setting the parameters of the electric power through the electric device of at least one of the plurality of individual systems to the objective function and the constraint condition inhibits reverse power flow through the electric device of the at least one of the plurality of individual systems” in claim 9 was given patentable weight as evident by the Examiner’s claim interpretation of claim 9 and the rational set for in the rejection of claim 9 in the Non-Final Office Action mailed on 1 October 2025. Further, the Examiner emphasizes and maintains setting parameters of electric power is directed to merely gathering data to establish a condition for operating an electric device which neither integrates the abstract idea into a practical application (see MPEP 2106.05(g)) nor provides significantly more than the abstract idea (MPEP 2106.05(d)(II)). Hence, the Applicant’s argument is found unpersuasive.
Claims 1 and 10 stand objected to and claims 1-18 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 as set forth below.
Applicant’s Interview Request
Upon review of the applicant’s reply filed on 12 December 2025, the Applicant’s interview request (Remarks, pg. 19, paragraph 3) has been denied since it does not appear an interview would result in expediating an allowance of the instant application (see MPEP 713.01(IV)).
Claim Objections
Claims 1 and 10 are objected to because of the following informalities:
The following claims recite limitations that lack sufficient antecedent basis for the limitations in the claims:
Claim 1 recites “the total electric power demand” in lines 13-14. Suggested claim language: “a total electric power demand”; and has been interpreted as such for the purpose of examination.
Claim 10 recites “the total electric power demand” in line 13. Suggested claim language: “a total electric power demand”; and has been interpreted as such for the purpose of examination.
Appropriate correction is required.
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 1-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Claim 1:
At step 1, the claim recites “(a)n optimization system”, therefore is a machine, which is a statutory category of invention.
At step 2A, prong one, the claim recites “… perform an optimization calculation that minimizes a weighted sum of at least an objective function value and a first incentive value, wherein the first incentive value is configured to cause a total imbalance amount to approach a set value, the total imbalance amount indicates an extent to which a total electric power supply of the plurality of individual systems and the total electric power demand of the plurality of individual systems are balanced …, and performing the optimization calculation includes deriving an optimization calculation result that includes a prediction value of a demand for electric power received from the energy source in a corresponding one of the plurality of individual systems”; “… derive a second incentive value based on a plurality of optimization calculation results, and each of the plurality of optimization calculation results is derived by the individual control unit of a corresponding one of the plurality of individual systems …”; and “… perform again the optimization calculation to minimize a weighted sum of at least the objective function value and the second incentive value derived by the host control unit”.
The limitations of “… perform an optimization calculation that minimizes a weighted sum of at least an objective function value and a first incentive value, wherein the first incentive value is configured to cause a total imbalance amount to approach a set value, the total imbalance amount indicates an extent to which a total electric power supply of the plurality of individual systems and the total electric power demand of the plurality of individual systems are balanced …”; “… each of the plurality of optimization calculation results is derived by the individual control unit of a corresponding one of the plurality of individual systems …”; “… performing the optimization calculation includes deriving an optimization calculation result that includes a prediction value of a demand for electric power received from the energy source in a corresponding one of the plurality of individual systems” and “… perform again the optimization calculation to minimize a weighted sum of at least the objective function value and the second incentive value derived by the host control unit” (see U.S. Patent Publication No. 2023/0073260 A1 (instant application): pg. 3, par. [0037]-[0039], pg. 4, par. [0051] and [0053] and pg. 5, par. [0069]-[0075]) are processes performed by use of mathematical calculations.
If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitations per use of mathematical calculations, then it falls within the “Mathematical Concepts” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
The limitation of “… derive a second incentive value based on a plurality of optimization calculation results, and each of the plurality of optimization calculation results is derived by the individual control unit of a corresponding one of the plurality of individual systems …” (see U.S. Patent Publication No. 2023/0073260 A1 (instant application): pg. 3, par. [0047], pg. 4, par. [0049], and pg. 7, par. [0098-[0100]]) is a process performed by use of a mathematical calculation.
If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitations per use of mathematical calculations, then it falls within the “Mathematical Concepts” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
At step 2A, prong two, the judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim recites “a plurality of individual systems”; “a host system configured to communicate to and from the plurality of individual systems”; “… each of the plurality of individual systems includes: electric device that includes a battery, is connected to an energy source of electric power, and is configured to receive or transmit electric power from or to the energy source; and an individual control unit comprising a first central processing unit and one or more first memories, …”; “… the individual control unit is further configured to set parameters of the electric power through the electric device to the objective function and a constraint condition …”; and “… the host system includes a host control unit comprising a second central processing unit and one or more second memories …”.
The limitations of “… each of the plurality of individual systems includes: … an individual control unit comprising a first central processing unit and one or more first memories”; and “… the host system includes a host control unit comprising a second central processing unit and one or more second memories …” are recited at a high level of generality and recited so generically that they represent no more than mere instructions to apply the judicial exception on a computer component (see MPEP 2106.05(f)).
The limitation of “… each of the plurality of individual systems includes: electric device that includes a battery, is connected to an energy source of electric power, and is configured to receive or transmit electric power from or to the energy source …” is generally recited at a high level of generality and merely limits the abstract idea to a field of use (e.g. an optimization system). The Courts have found “a claim directed to a judicial exception cannot be made eligible ‘simply by having the applicant acquiesce to limiting the reach of the patent for the formula to a particular technological use.’ Diamond v. Diehr, 450 U.S. 175, 192 n.14, 209 USPQ 1, 10 n. 14 (1981). Thus, limitations that amount to merely indicating a field of use or technological environment in which to apply a judicial exception do not amount to significantly more than the exception itself, and cannot integrate a judicial exception into a practical application.” (MPEP 2106.05(h)).
The limitation of “… communicate to and from …” represents mere data gathering and outputting of information. The limitation of “… communicate to and from …” is recited at a high level of generally and recited so generically it represents no more than insignificant extra-solution activities of gathering and outputting data (see MPEP 2106.05(g)).
The limitation “… set parameters of the electric power through the electric device to the objective function and a constraint condition …” represents mere data gathering. The limitation is recited at a high level of generality and so generically it represents an insignificant extra-solution activity of gathering data (see MPEP 2106.05(g)).
Accordingly, these additional elements neither individually nor in combination integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. Thus, the claim is directed to an abstract idea.
At step 2B, the claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As previously discussed with respect to the integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the addition of the elements of “… each of the plurality of individual systems includes: … an individual control unit comprising a first central processing unit and one or more first memories; and “… the host system includes a host control unit comprising a second central processing unit and one or more second memories …” amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components. Mere instructions to apply an exception using generic computer components cannot provide an inventive concept. See MPEP 2106.05(d)(II), “Courts have held computer‐implemented processes not to be significantly more than an abstract idea (and thus ineligible) where the claim as a whole amounts to nothing more than generic computer functions merely used to implement an abstract idea, such as an idea that could be done by a human analog (i.e., by hand or by merely thinking).”
The additional elements of “… each of the plurality of individual systems includes: electric device that includes a battery, is connected to an energy source of electric power, and is configured to receive or transmit electric power from or to the energy source …” merely limit the abstract idea to a field of use. Wherein, limiting the invention to a field of use cannot provide an inventive concept. Thus, the claim is not patent eligible. (MPEP 2106.05(h)).
The limitation of “… communicate to and from …”, as discussed above, amounts to no more than mere data gathering and outputting (i.e. data transmission). In addition, the limitations are well-understood, routine and conventional; wherein the courts have found limitations directed to obtaining and transmitting data, recited at high level of generality, to be well-understood, routine and conventional. See MPEP 2106.05(d)(II), “receiving or transmitting data over a network”.
The limitation of “… set parameters of the electric power through the electric device to the objective function and a constraint condition …”, as discussed above, represents an insignificant extra-solution activity of data gathering. Further, the limitation is well-understood, routine and conventional; wherein the courts have found limitations directed to obtaining data, recited at high level of generality, to be well-understood, routine and conventional. See MPEP 2106.05(d)(II), “storing and retrieving information in memory”.
Considering the additional elements individually and in combination and the claim as a whole, the additional elements do not provide significantly more than the abstract idea. The claim is not patent eligible.
Claim 2:
At step 2A, prong one the claim recites “… derive a prediction value of the total imbalance amount based on the plurality of optimization calculation results …” and “… derive the second incentive value based on the prediction value of the total imbalance amount”.
The limitation of “… “… derive a prediction value of the total imbalance amount based on the plurality of optimization calculation results …” (see U.S. Patent Publication No. 2023/0073260 A1 (instant application): pgs. 3-4, par. [0048], [0053], and [0054] and pgs. 6-7, par. [0089]-[0095]) is a process performed by use of a mathematical calculation.
If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitations per use of mathematical calculations, then it falls within the “Mathematical Concepts” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
The limitation of “… derive the second incentive value based on the prediction value of the total imbalance amount” (see U.S. Patent Publication No. 2023/0073260 A1 (instant application): pg. 3, par. [0047], pg. 4, par. [0049], and pg. 7, par. [0098]) is a process performed by use of a mathematical calculation.
If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitations per use of mathematical calculations, then it falls within the “Mathematical Concepts” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
At step 2A, prong two, the judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim recites “the host control unit”.
The limitation of “the host control unit” is recited at a high level of generality and recited so generically that it represents no more than mere instructions to apply the judicial exception on a computer component (see MPEP 2106.05(f)).
Accordingly, the additional element does not individually integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. Thus, the claim is directed to an abstract idea.
At step 2B, the claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As previously discussed with respect to the integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the addition of the element of “the host control unit” amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components. Mere instructions to apply an exception using generic computer components cannot provide an inventive concept. See MPEP 2106.05(d)(II), “Courts have held computer‐implemented processes not to be significantly more than an abstract idea (and thus ineligible) where the claim as a whole amounts to nothing more than generic computer functions merely used to implement an abstract idea, such as an idea that could be done by a human analog (i.e., by hand or by merely thinking).”
Considering the additional element individually and the claim as a whole, the additional element does not provide significantly more than the abstract idea. The claim is not patent eligible.
Claim 3:
At step 2A, prong one the claim recites “… repeat the derivation of the second incentive value until the derived prediction value of the total imbalance amount falls within a predetermined range …” and “… repeat the optimization calculation based on the second derived incentive value each time the second incentive value is derived”.
The limitation of “… repeat the derivation of the second incentive value until the derived prediction value of the total imbalance amount falls within a predetermined range …” (see U.S. Patent Publication No. 2023/0073260 A1 (instant application): pg. 3, par. [0047], pg. 4, par. [0053], and pg. 7, par. [0098]-[0100]) is a process performed by use of a mathematical calculation.
If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitations per use of mathematical calculations, then it falls within the “Mathematical Concepts” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
The limitation of “… repeat the optimization calculation based on the second derived incentive value each time the second incentive value is derived” (see U.S. Patent Publication No. 2023/0073260 A1 (instant application): pg. 4, par. [0051], [0053], and [0054] and pg. 7, par. [0098] and [0099]) is a process performed by use of a mathematical calculation.
If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitations per use of mathematical calculations, then it falls within the “Mathematical Concepts” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
At step 2A, prong two, the judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim recites “the host control unit” and “the individual control unit”.
The limitations of “the host control unit” and “the individual control unit” (i.e. with respect to the limitation of “… each of the plurality of individual systems includes: … an individual control unit comprising a first central processing unit and one or more first memories” in claim 1) are recited at a high level of generality and recited so generically that they represent no more than mere instructions to apply the judicial exception on a computer component (see MPEP 2106.05(f)).
Accordingly, these additional elements neither individually nor in combination integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. Thus, the claim is directed to an abstract idea.
At step 2B, the claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As previously discussed with respect to the integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the addition of the elements of “the host control unit” and “the individual control unit” (i.e. with respect to the limitation of “… each of the plurality of individual systems includes: … an individual control unit comprising a first central processing unit and one or more first memories” in claim 1) amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components. Mere instructions to apply an exception using generic computer components cannot provide an inventive concept. See MPEP 2106.05(d)(II), “Courts have held computer‐implemented processes not to be significantly more than an abstract idea (and thus ineligible) where the claim as a whole amounts to nothing more than generic computer functions merely used to implement an abstract idea, such as an idea that could be done by a human analog (i.e., by hand or by merely thinking).”
Considering the additional elements individually and in combination and the claim as a whole, the additional elements do not provide significantly more than the abstract idea. The claim is not patent eligible.
Claim 4:
The limitation of “individual control unit is configured to start performing the optimization calculation at each interrupt timing that arrives at a predetermined control cycle” in claim 4 further details the optimization calculation by the optimization the individual control unit in claim 1 and the limitation of “the host control unit is configured to start deriving the second incentive value at a timing of reception of one of the plurality of optimization calculation results from any one of the plurality of individual systems” further details the derivation (i.e. calculation) by the host control unit in claim 1; and the claim stands rejected for the same rational as set forth above in claim 1.
Claim 5:
At step 2A, prong two, the judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim recites “a first individual system that is a storage electric power facility”; and “a second individual system that is a charging station capable of charging a battery of a vehicle”.
The limitations of “a first individual system that is a storage electric power facility”; and “a second individual system that is a charging station capable of charging a battery of a vehicle” (i.e. with respect to the limitation of “… each of the plurality of individual systems includes: electric device that includes a battery, is connected to an energy source of electric power, and is configured to receive or transmit electric power from or to the energy source …” in claim 1) are generally recited at a high level of generality and merely limit the abstract idea to a field of use (e.g. an optimization system). The Courts have found “a claim directed to a judicial exception cannot be made eligible ‘simply by having the applicant acquiesce to limiting the reach of the patent for the formula to a particular technological use.’ Diamond v. Diehr, 450 U.S. 175, 192 n.14, 209 USPQ 1, 10 n. 14 (1981). Thus, limitations that amount to merely indicating a field of use or technological environment in which to apply a judicial exception do not amount to significantly more than the exception itself, and cannot integrate a judicial exception into a practical application.” (MPEP 2106.05(h)).
Accordingly, these additional elements neither individually nor in combination integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. Thus, the claim is directed to an abstract idea.
At step 2B, the claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As previously discussed with respect to the integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the addition of the elements of “a first individual system that is a storage electric power facility”; and “a second individual system that is a charging station capable of charging a battery of a vehicle” (i.e. with respect to the limitation of “… each of the plurality of individual systems includes: electric device that includes a battery, is connected to an energy source of electric power, and is configured to receive or transmit electric power from or to the energy source …” in claim 1) amount to no more than merely limiting the abstract idea to a field of use (e.g. an optimization system). Wherein, limiting the invention to a field of use cannot provide an inventive concept. Thus, the claim is not patent eligible. (MPEP 2106.05(h)).
Considering the additional elements individually and in combination and the claim as a whole, the additional elements do not provide significantly more than the abstract idea. The claim is not patent eligible.
Claim 6:
At step 2A, prong two, the judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim recites “… the plurality of individual systems further comprises a third individual system that is a business site”.
The limitation of “… the plurality of individual systems further comprises a third individual system that is a business site” (i.e. with respect to the limitation of “… each of the plurality of individual systems includes: electric device that includes a battery, is connected to an energy source of electric power, and is configured to receive or transmit electric power from or to the energy source …” in claim 1) is generally recited at a high level of generality and merely limits the abstract idea to a field of use (e.g. an optimization system). The Courts have found “a claim directed to a judicial exception cannot be made eligible ‘simply by having the applicant acquiesce to limiting the reach of the patent for the formula to a particular technological use.’ Diamond v. Diehr, 450 U.S. 175, 192 n.14, 209 USPQ 1, 10 n. 14 (1981). Thus, limitations that amount to merely indicating a field of use or technological environment in which to apply a judicial exception do not amount to significantly more than the exception itself, and cannot integrate a judicial exception into a practical application.” (MPEP 2106.05(h)).
Accordingly, the additional element does not individually integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. Thus, the claim is directed to an abstract idea.
At step 2B, the claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As previously discussed with respect to the integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the addition of the element of “… the plurality of individual systems further comprises a third individual system that is a business site” (i.e. with respect to the limitation of “… each of the plurality of individual systems includes: electric device that includes a battery, is connected to an energy source of electric power, and is configured to receive or transmit electric power from or to the energy source …” in claim 1) amounts to no more than merely limiting the abstract idea to a field of use (e.g. an optimization system). Wherein, limiting the invention to a field of use cannot provide an inventive concept. Thus, the claim is not patent eligible. (MPEP 2106.05(h)).
Considering the additional element individually and the claim as a whole, the additional element does not provide significantly more than the abstract idea. The claim is not patent eligible.
Claim 7:
The limitation of claim 7 merely further details “the plurality of individual systems” in claim 6 and is herein rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 for the rationale set forth above in claim 6.
Claim 8:
At step 2A, prong two, the judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim recites “… the electric device of the business site is a motor, an air conditioning facility, or an illumination facility”.
The limitation of “… the electric device of the business site is a motor, an air conditioning facility, or an illumination facility” (i.e. with respect to the limitation of “… each of the plurality of individual systems includes: electric device that includes a battery, is connected to an energy source of electric power, and is configured to receive or transmit electric power from or to the energy source …” in claim 1 and with respect to the limitation of “the plurality of individual systems further comprises a third individual system that is a business site” in claim 6) is generally recited at a high level of generality and merely limits the abstract idea to a field of use (e.g. an optimization system). The Courts have found “a claim directed to a judicial exception cannot be made eligible ‘simply by having the applicant acquiesce to limiting the reach of the patent for the formula to a particular technological use.’ Diamond v. Diehr, 450 U.S. 175, 192 n.14, 209 USPQ 1, 10 n. 14 (1981). Thus, limitations that amount to merely indicating a field of use or technological environment in which to apply a judicial exception do not amount to significantly more than the exception itself, and cannot integrate a judicial exception into a practical application.” (MPEP 2106.05(h)).
Accordingly, the additional element does not individually integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. Thus, the claim is directed to an abstract idea.
At step 2B, the claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As previously discussed with respect to the integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the addition of the element of “… the electric device of the business site is a motor, an air conditioning facility, or an illumination facility” (i.e. with respect to the limitation of “… each of the plurality of individual systems includes: electric device that includes a battery, is connected to an energy source of electric power, and is configured to receive or transmit electric power from or to the energy source …” in claim 1 and with respect to the limitation of “the plurality of individual systems further comprises a third individual system that is a business site” in claim 6) amounts to no more than merely limiting the abstract idea to a field of use (e.g. an optimization system). Wherein, limiting the invention to a field of use cannot provide an inventive concept. Thus, the claim is not patent eligible. (MPEP 2106.05(h)).
Considering the additional element individually and the claim as a whole, the additional element does not provide significantly more than the abstract idea. The claim is not patent eligible.
Claim 9:
The limitation of claim 9 merely further details “… set parameters of the electric power through the electric device to the objective function and the constraint condition …” in claim 1 (i.e. the limitation of claim 9 further describes the parameters that are set in claim 1) and is herein rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 for the rationale set forth above in claim 1.
Claim 10:
Claim 10 represents an equivalent method claim to claim 1 and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 for the same rationale as set forth in claim 1.
Claim 11:
Claim 11 represents an equivalent method claim to claim 2 and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 for the same rationale as set forth in claim 2.
Claim 12:
Claim 12 represents an equivalent method claim to claim 3 and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 for the same rationale as set forth in claim 3.
Claim 13:
Claim 13 represents an equivalent method claim to claim 4 and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 for the same rationale as set forth in claim 4.
Claim 14:
Claim 14 represents an equivalent method claim to claim 5 and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 for the same rationale as set forth in claim 5.
Claim 15:
Claim 15 represents an equivalent method claim to claim 6 and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 for the same rationale as set forth in claim 6.
Claim 16:
Claim 16 represents an equivalent method claim to claim 7 and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 for the same rationale as set forth in claim 7.
Claim 17:
Claim 17 represents an equivalent method claim to claim 8 and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 for the same rationale as set forth in claim 8.
Claim 18:
Claim 18 represents an equivalent method claim to claim 9 and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 for the same rationale as set forth in claim 9.
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 energy systems.
U.S. Patent Publication No. 2012/0212173 A1 discloses a method for managing the recharging of at least one battery and a battery recharging device implementing such a method.
U.S. Patent Publication No. 2017/0102434 A1 discloses an electrical energy storage system includes a battery configured to store and discharge electric power to an energy grid, a power inverter configured to use battery power setpoints to control an amount of the electric power stored or discharged from the battery, and a controller.
U.S. Patent Publication No. 2022/0137580 A1 discloses a central plant with an asset allocator configured to determine an optimal distribution of the energy loads across various sub-plants of the central plant during curtailment periods.
U.S. Patent Publication No. 2023/0096126 A1 discloses a smart grid information processing apparatus is applied to a smart grid including a transmission grid being connected to a plurality of electrical equipment units and a communication network transmitting information of at least an amount of electric energy transmitted through the transmission grid.
U.S. Patent Publication No. 2023/0261467 A1 discloses site controllers for aggregation of distributed energy resources.
U.S. Patent Publication No. 2026/0004368 A1 discloses a method for optimizing a network load in at least one predefined sector of an electrical network of at least one network operator using a prediction model for load management.
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JENNIFER L NORTON whose telephone number is (571)272-3694. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 9:00 am - 5:30 p.m..
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.
/JENNIFER L NORTON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2117