DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
This office action is a response to an amendment filed 06/11/2026.
Claims 1, 2, and 4-11 are pending.
Claim 1 is amended.
Claim 11 is added.
Information Disclosure Statement
The Examiner has considered the references listed on the Information Disclosure Statement submitted on 06/11/2026.
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, 2, and 4-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
At step 1, claim 1 recites “A computer implemented method for generating parameters associated with at least one consumption event within a domicile…”, and therefore is a process, which is a statutory category.
At Step 2A, prong one, claim 1 recites a series of limitations that involve (under broadest reasonable interpretation: mentally) identifying at least one consumption event within a domicile that is consumption of a consumer product and selected from a group such as water usage, energy usage, and product usage, and wherein the (mental) identifying involves consideration of a combination of water, energy, and product data, then processing generated and gathered data to (e.g., mentally) calculate parameters associated with the at least one consumption event, wherein the parameters comprise consumption event parameters defining when the consumer product will be depleted based on the gathered data and in consideration of information that comprises a frequency and type of the (mentally) identified consumption events, and (mentally) preparing a recommendation that comprises alternative ways to use water, energy, and products to minimize the cost or amount of water, energy, or products used based on the parameters. This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because they are directed to the abstract ideas of mental limitations capable of being performed in the mind, and thus directed to the mental processes grouping.
Specifically, the abstract idea include the limitations of:
“…generating parameters associated with at least one consumption event within a domicile, the method comprising the steps of: identifying at least one consumption event defining (1) consumption of a consumer product, and (2) consumption selected from the group consisting of water usage and energy usage, and product usage that occurs when the consumption of the consumer product occurs; wherein identifying at least one consumption event comprises identifying the consumption event based on a combination of water usage data, energy usage data, and product usage data associated with a single activity performed within the domicile…processing the data … to calculate the parameters associated with the at least one consumption event, wherein the parameters comprise consumption event parameters defining when the consumer product will be depleted based on the energy usage or the water usage of the digitally enabled device or appliance; wherein the parameters defining when the consumer product will be depleted are based on a frequency and type of the identified consumption events; and preparing a recommendation that comprises alternative ways to use water, energy, and products to minimize the cost or amount of water, energy, or products used based on the parameters.” in claim 1.
As noted earlier, the limitations in question can essentially be interpreted to include a mental observation and/or mental judgment to identify at least one consumption event, such as by observing a combination of water usage, a product being consumed, and energy being consumed and/or by considering a combination of gathered data of said usage and consumption, and then mentally processing gathered data to mentally calculate (or by the use of an aid) parameters associated with the consumption, where the calculation of the parameters is done with the aim of calculating/determining depletion and in consideration of information of a frequency and type of identified consumption events, and finally, mentally preparing based on the parameters, recommendations on different ways to better use water, energy, and products to minimize cost or amount used of these elements. These limitations can essentially include a human consultant hired to assess consumption in a home by performing a calculation based on gathered data, and formulating a recommendation. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas.
At step 2A, prong 2, claim 1 recites usage data “associated with a single activity performed within the domicile” “generating data by at least one input data source within the domicile, wherein the input data source is a digitally enabled device or appliance; collecting the data “ and “a computer.”
At Step 2B, while the claims include additional elements as noted above in Step 2A prong 2, they are not sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. In particular, the recitation of computer, processors, or controllers, amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer components. These are recited at a high level of generality and recited so generically that the represent no more than mere instructions to apply the judicial exception on a computer (see MPEP 2106.05(f)). These limitations can also be viewed as nothing more than an attempt to generally link the use of the judicial exception to the technological environment of a computer (see MPEP2106.05(h)). Furthermore, the limitations generating data from specified intended use/field of use of intended sources or intended types of events, and collecting the data, amount to necessary data gathering, which the courts have found to be insignificant extra-solution activity, see MPEP 2106.05(g)(3). Accordingly, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to an abstract idea. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept.
The dependent claims 2 and 4-11, similarly recite an abstract idea of mental limitations capable of being performed in the mind and mathematical concepts, without significantly more. Claim 2 recites an intended use/field of use data source that does not impose meaningful limits on the claim because this aspect contributes only nominally or insignificantly to the execution of the claimed subject matter. Claims 3-7 and 10 also recite an intended use/field of use limitations and necessary data gathering. Claims 8 and 9 recite mere information output, which the courts have found to be insignificant extra-solution application activity, see MPEP 2106.05(g)(3). Claim 11, under broadest reasonable interpretation, recites a mental judgement of deciding how to modify a timing of a future consumption event (e.g., mentally determining a modified schedule).
The claims are not patent eligible.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed 06/11/2026 have been fully considered and are persuasive with regards to the previously cited art in relation to the instant claims as amended. The double patenting rejection of the previous office action is also presently overcome by the change in scope of the instantly amended claims in relation to the most recent pending claims of co-pending application no.18119415. Allowable subject matter, however, is not presently being indicated in view of the pending 35 USC § 101 rejection.
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Hu et al., US. Patent Publication No. 2014/0006329 teaches providing recommendations for resource consumption and recommendations for reducing costs based on consumption trend patterns that can include water, energy, gas consumption, but does not explicitly disclose consideration of identified events based on combination of usage data.
Alvo et al., US. Patent No. 11,640,636 teaches an automated replenishment of consumables correlation of consumables with device usage.
Godsey et al., US. Patent No. 10,438,276 teaches providing recommendations on scheduling product orders that can include use of monitoring sensors.
Conclusion
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 EMILIO J SAAVEDRA whose telephone number is (571)270-5617. The examiner can normally be reached M-F: 9:30am-5:30pm (EST).
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Robert E 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.
/EMILIO J SAAVEDRA/Primary Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2117
Prosecution Insights