Prosecution Insights
Last updated: April 19, 2026
Application No. 18/146,017

ENERGY TRADING SYSTEM

Non-Final OA §101
Filed
Dec 23, 2022
Examiner
PHAN, NICHOLAS K
Art Unit
3699
Tech Center
3600 — Transportation & Electronic Commerce
Assignee
Hygge Energy Inc.
OA Round
3 (Non-Final)
52%
Grant Probability
Moderate
3-4
OA Rounds
3y 6m
To Grant
73%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 52% of resolved cases
52%
Career Allow Rate
68 granted / 131 resolved
At TC average
Strong +21% interview lift
Without
With
+21.2%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
3y 6m
Avg Prosecution
33 currently pending
Career history
164
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
32.9%
-7.1% vs TC avg
§103
42.8%
+2.8% vs TC avg
§102
7.6%
-32.4% vs TC avg
§112
9.7%
-30.3% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 131 resolved cases

Office Action

§101
DETAILED ACTION Status of Claims Claims 1 and 5 have been amended. Claims 1-20 are currently pending and have been considered by the examiner. Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114 A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 24 October 2025 has been entered. Response to Arguments 101 Rejection: Applicant’s arguments have been considered and have been deemed unpersuasive by the examiner based upon the rationale provided in the following 101 rejection. Specifically, the examiner asserts that the newly added claim limitations, which are directed towards a second power sensor which comprises a power meter communicatively connected to the processor. When considering the BRI of the term “communicatively connected”, which can be considered to be simply “in electronic communication with” the examiner asserts that the second power sensor and its functionality cannot be considered to be within the scope of the claimed invention as it does not impart any functional limitation on the claimed method or energy trading system itself. As the additional element of the second power sensor is not a component of the claimed invention, any benefit derived from the structure of said power sensor cannot be considered to provide an improvement to the claimed invention itself. Therefore, the additional element cannot be considered to place the recited abstract idea into practical application nor amount to significantly more and the examiner must maintain the previously issued 101 rejection. 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 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. In the instant case, claims 1-4 and 9-14 are directed to a method and claims 5-8 and 15-20 are directed to an system/apparatus. Therefore, these claims fall within the four statutory categories of invention. Claim 1 recites the following: An energy trading method for providing generated power to one or more consumers and controlling power consumption at a consumer location, the power being generated by at least one energy production project, the energy production project comprising one or more energy resources, the method comprising: measuring, using a first power sensor, power generated from the at least one energy production project; operating at least one processor, the processor being coupled to the first power sensor, to: execute instruction stored on a first non-transitory memory configured to generate one or more investment tokens for at least one party, the one or more investment tokens representing investment in the at least on energy production project, and store a record of the one or more investment tokens on a first blockchain memory; execute instruction stored on a second non-transitory memory configured to generate one or more power tokens based on the measured power generation from the at least one energy production project, each power token representing a quantum of power generation by the at least one energy production project, and store a record of the one or more power tokens on a second blockchain memory; execute instruction stored on a third non-transitory memory configured to generate one or more consumer tokens and store a record of the consumer tokens on a third blockchain memory; receive a first request for at least one power token, the request being received from a consumer device associated with the consumer, the first request identifying an amount of consumer tokens with a value equal to or less than a corresponding value of the one or more consumer tokens stored on the third blockchain memory; match one or more power tokens from the one or more power tokens stored on the second blockchain memory to the first request; receive a second request for an amount of generated power, the second request being received from the consumer device, the second request comprising at least one of the one or more power tokens matched to the first request; transmit generated power to the consumer location based on the second request; in response to a measure of a power consumption at the consumer location reaching the amount of generated power requested in the second request, wherein the measurement of the power consumption at the consumer location is conducted by a second power sensor, store a record of the transmission of the generated power based on the second request on a fourth blockchain memory; and wherein the second power sensor comprises a power meter communicatively connected to the processor, the power meter configured to control power consumption at the consumer location to the amount of generated power requested in the second request: provide compensation to the at least one party as a function of the one or more power tokens generated based on the measure power generation from the at least one energy production project; and wherein the one or more investment tokens, the one or more power tokens, and the one or more consumer tokens are untethered to any tradable cryptocurrency. Regarding Step 2A Prong One, the claims recite the abstract idea of performing an economic transaction. Specifically, the claims recite the limitations underlined above which recite the process of performing an economic transaction which is grouped within the Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity grouping of abstract ideas in prong one of step 2A of the Alice/Mayo test (See MPEP § 2106.04) because the claims involve the process of performing an economic transaction. Accordingly, the claims recite an abstract idea (See pages 7, 10, Alice Corporation Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank International, et al., US Supreme Court, No. 13-298, June 19, 2014; 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. 50, 53-54 (January 7, 2019)). Regarding Step 2A Prong Two, the recited abstract idea is not integrated into a practical application because, when analyzed under prong two of step 2A of the Alice/Mayo test (See MPEP § 2106.04(d)), the additional element(s) of the claim(s) such as a “processor”, “power sensor”, “non-transitory memory”, and “blockchain memory”, merely use(s) a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea. Specifically, the “processor”, “power sensor”, “non-transitory memory”, and “blockchain memory” perform(s) the steps or functions underlined above. The use of a processor/computer as a tool to implement the abstract idea does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it requires no more than a computer performing functions that correspond to acts required to carry out the abstract idea. The additional elements do not involve improvements to the functioning of a computer, or to any other technology or technical field (MPEP 2106.05(a)), the claims do not apply or use the abstract idea to effect a particular treatment or prophylaxis for a disease or medical condition (Vanda Memo), the claims do not apply the abstract idea with, or by use of, a particular machine (MPEP 2106.05(b)), the claims do not effect a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing (MPEP 2106.05(c)), and the claims do not apply or use the abstract idea in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment, such that the claim as a whole is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception (MPEP 2106.05(e) and Vanda Memo). Therefore, the claims do not, for example, purport to improve the functioning of a computer. Nor do they effect an improvement in any other technology or technical field. Accordingly, the additional elements do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea, and the claims are directed to an abstract idea. The claim(s) do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because, when analyzed under step 2B of the Alice/Mayo test (See MPEP § 2106.05), the additional element(s) of “processor”, “power sensor”, “non-transitory memory”, and “blockchain memory” amounts to no more than using a computer or processor to automate and/or implement the abstract idea. As discussed above, taking the claim elements separately, the “processor”, “power sensor”, “non-transitory memory”, and “blockchain memory” perform(s) the steps or functions underlined above. These functions correspond to the actions required to perform the abstract idea. Viewed as a whole, the combination of elements recited in the claims merely recite performing an economic transaction. Therefore, the use of these additional elements does no more than employ the computer as a tool to automate and/or implement the abstract idea. The use of a computer or processor to merely automate and/or implement the abstract idea cannot provide significantly more than the abstract idea itself (MPEP 2106.05(I)(A)(f) & (h)). Therefore, the claim is not patent eligible. Dependent claims 2-4 and 6-20 further describe the recited abstract idea. The dependent claims do not include additional elements that integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or that provide significantly more than the abstract idea. Specifically: Claims 2, 4, 6, 8, and 14 merely recite additional limitations which are also directed towards the recited abstract idea. Claims 3, 7, 9-13 and 15-20 merely further describe the data and structure used to perform the recited abstract idea. Therefore, as the dependent claims do not include additional elements that integrate the abstract idea into a practical application nor provide significantly more than the abstract idea, the dependent claims are also not patent eligible. 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 NICHOLAS K PHAN whose telephone number is (571)272-6748. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 1 pm-9 pm 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, Neha Patel can be reached on 571-270-1492. 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. /NICHOLAS K PHAN/Examiner, Art Unit 3699 /NEHA PATEL/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3699
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Dec 23, 2022
Application Filed
Mar 28, 2024
Response after Non-Final Action
Sep 29, 2024
Non-Final Rejection — §101
Mar 28, 2025
Response Filed
Jun 24, 2025
Final Rejection — §101
Sep 24, 2025
Response after Non-Final Action
Oct 24, 2025
Request for Continued Examination
Nov 04, 2025
Response after Non-Final Action
Dec 27, 2025
Non-Final Rejection — §101 (current)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12530679
PERFORMING BILATERAL NEGOTIATIONS ON A BLOCKCHAIN
2y 5m to grant Granted Jan 20, 2026
Patent 12530686
DIRECT TRANSACTION DATA ENTRY CODING AND INTEGRATION
2y 5m to grant Granted Jan 20, 2026
Patent 12437301
REAL-TIME UPDATING OF A SECURITY MODEL
2y 5m to grant Granted Oct 07, 2025
Patent 12386989
SYSTEMS AND METHODS FOR BLOCKCHAIN-BASED PAYMENTS
2y 5m to grant Granted Aug 12, 2025
Patent 12333539
CARD FOR SECURE INTERACTIONS BY UTILIZING MULTIPLE CARD CREDENTIALS
2y 5m to grant Granted Jun 17, 2025
Study what changed to get past this examiner. Based on 5 most recent grants.

AI Strategy Recommendation

Get an AI-powered prosecution strategy using examiner precedents, rejection analysis, and claim mapping.
Powered by AI — typically takes 5-10 seconds

Prosecution Projections

3-4
Expected OA Rounds
52%
Grant Probability
73%
With Interview (+21.2%)
3y 6m
Median Time to Grant
High
PTA Risk
Based on 131 resolved cases by this examiner. Grant probability derived from career allow rate.

Sign in with your work email

Enter your email to receive a magic link. No password needed.

Personal email addresses (Gmail, Yahoo, etc.) are not accepted.

Free tier: 3 strategy analyses per month