DETAILED ACTION
The following FINAL Office Action is in response to Applicant’s Response filed on 11/26/2025.
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 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.
Status of Claims
Claims 1-4 and 6-9 were previously pending and subject to a non-final Office Action mailed 08/28/2025. Claims 1 and 6 were amended. Claims 1-4 and 6-9 are currently pending and are subject to the final Office Action below.
Response to Arguments
35 USC § 101
Applicant’s arguments, see pages 6-9, filed 11/26/2025, with respect to the 35 U.S.C. 101 rejection of Claims 1-4 and 6-9 has been fully considered and are not persuasive.
Applicant argues the limitation of “controlling”, Examiner respectfully disagrees. The limitation of “controlling” does not “enable a technological improvement by providing real-time control of electrical power delivery and enhanced safety for a shared battery system that would otherwise not be available”.
Applicant’s specification paragraph 21 states “As also depicted in FIG. 2, the dynamic management component 204 additionally outputs operating constraints to the battery 212. Such constraints can include, for example, operating constraints for the battery to be operated within specified safety limits, wherein such limits can be specified in the battery specification information in connection with the real-time demand from consumers/users.”
The battery receives operating constraints and must operate within such constraints in order to maintain safe conditions. Such features amount to generally linking the judicial exception to a field of use or technological environment which does not meaningfully limit the claim.
Further the limitations are not tied to the judicial exception in a meaningful way. Presently, the battery operating constraints are merely based on the pre-solution data that was gathered - real-time energy information (current, power, energy consumption, depth of discharge, energy level) and battery specification information. The battery functions within safety limits based on such information.
Applicant’s arguments would be more convincing if the delivery of power or the battery operation functions were controlled or changed based on the results of the abstract idea. To be clear, the battery as claimed would operate within specified safety limits regardless of the dynamic resource consumption analysis.
Regarding Applicant’s argument that the claims provide a technological improvement to the technical problem of how to efficiently and safely manage shared battery energy usage in real-time, Examiner respectfully disagrees. MPEP2106.05(a)(II) states “However, it is important to keep in mind that an improvement in the abstract idea itself (e.g. a recited fundamental economic concept) is not an improvement in technology. For example, in Trading Technologies Int’l v. IBG, 921 F.3d 1084, 1093-94, 2019 USPQ2d 138290 (Fed. Cir. 2019), the court determined that the claimed user interface simply provided a trader with more information to facilitate market trades, which improved the business process of market trading but did not improve computers or technology.”
The improvement (efficiently and safely managing shared battery energy usage in real-time) is merely the improvement of the judicial exception, namely the commercial interactions or business relations among users who share the battery.
Regarding Applicant’s well-known, routine, and conventional argument, Examiner respectfully disagrees as the claims were determined to recite an abstract idea and the additional elements amount to mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component, insignificant extra solution activity, or field of use.
Accordingly, the 35 U.S.C. 101 rejection is maintained.
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 1-4 and 6-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1
Claims 1-4 are directed to a method (i.e., a process) and Claims 6-9 recite a computer program product (i.e., a manufacture). Therefore, the claims all fall within one of the four statutory categories of invention.
Step 2A Prong 1
Independent Claim 1 and Claim 6 recites the limitations of:
determining a shared battery wear cost arising from a shared battery …, the shared battery wear cost being based on a shared battery cost over a rated life cycle of the shared battery;
for each of the two or more homes: measure…in real-time, current, power, energy consumption, depth of discharge, and energy level of the shared battery
receive…based on the real-time measurements, real-time energy information for energy consumed by the particular home of the two or more homes over a period of time, wherein the real-time energy information includes the current, the power, the energy consumption, the depth of discharge, and the energy level of the shared battery
determining, based on the real-time energy information, an equivalent shared battery capacity for the particular home based on a peak energy requirement of the particular home across the depth of discharge of the shared battery
determining, based on the real-time energy information, a home depth of discharge for the particular home based on the real-time energy information for energy consumed by the particular home over the period of time and the equivalent shared battery capacity for the particular home
determining, based on the real-time energy information, an effective energy consumption for the particular home in real-time based on the real-time energy consumed by the particular home over the period of time and a discharge cost factor
determining, based on the real-time energy information, an effective wear cost for the particular home based on home wear cost for the particular home and a discharge rate cost factor
determining, based on the real-time energy information, a dynamic resource consumption for energy used by the shared battery for the particular home based on an energy charge for a current discharge cycle in real-time, a discharge cost for the current discharge cycle in real-time, and the shared battery wear cost
outputting, in real-time…, the dynamic resource consumption for energy used by the shared battery for each of the two or more homes apportioning the shared battery wear cost across the two or more homes sharing the battery, the outputting comprises causing a display of the dynamic resource consumption…
Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity
The limitations stated above are processes that under broadest reasonable interpretation covers “certain methods of organizing human activity” (commercial interactions). Specifically, business relations in light of Applicant’s specification paragraph 14 “at least one embodiment of the invention includes dynamically pricing energy consumed (by a set of multiple users) from a shared battery system using real-time consumption data” and paragraph 78 “at least one embodiment of the present invention may provide a beneficial effect such as, for example, implementing a dynamic pricing mechanism for energy consumed from a shared battery system, apportioning battery wear-cost based on the usage patterns, and calculating the price of energy for each relevant customer”. Accordingly, the claims recite an abstract idea.
Mathematical Concepts
The limitation of “determining a shared battery wear cost arising from a shared battery…the shared battery wear cost being based on a shared battery cost over a rated life cycle of the shared battery” has a broadest reasonable interpretation that requires performing an arithmetic calculation (division) in order to obtain the shared battery wear cost i.e. shared battery cost divided by rated life cycle of the shared battery equals shared battery wear cost. The limitation of “determining” therefore recites a mathematical calculation.
The limitation of “determining, based on the real-time energy information, an equivalent shared battery capacity for the particular home based on a peak energy requirement of the particular home across the depth of discharge of the shared battery” has a broadest reasonable interpretation that requires performing an arithmetic calculation (division) in order to obtain the equivalent shared battery capacity i.e. peak energy requirement of particular home divided by a depth of discharge of the shared battery equals equivalent shared battery capacity. The limitation of “determining” therefore recites a mathematical calculation.
The limitation of “determining, based on the real-time energy information, a home depth of discharge for the particular home based on the real-time energy information for energy consumed by the particular home over the period of time and the equivalent shared battery capacity for the particular home” which has a broadest reasonable interpretation that requires performing an arithmetic calculation (for example, division as supported by Applicant’s specification) in order to obtain the home depth of discharge i.e. real-time energy consumed by the particular home over a period of time divided by the equivalent shared battery capacity for the particular home. The limitation of “determining” therefore recites a mathematical calculation.
The limitation of “determining, based on the real-time energy information, an effective energy consumption for the particular home in real-time based on the real-time energy consumed by the particular home over the period of time and a discharge cost factor” which has a broadest reasonable interpretation that requires performing an arithmetic calculation (for example, multiplication as supported by Applicant’s specification) in order to obtain the effective energy consumption i.e. real-time energy consumed by the particular home over the period of time multiplied by the discharge cost factor. The limitation of “determining” therefore recites a mathematical calculation.
The limitation of “determining, based on the real-time energy information, an effective wear cost for the particular home based on home wear cost for the particular home and a discharge rate cost factor” which has a broadest reasonable interpretation that requires performing an arithmetic calculation (for example, multiplication as supported by Applicant’s specification) in order to obtain the effective wear cost i.e. home wear cost for the particular home multiplied by the discharge rate cost factor. The limitation of “determining” therefore recites a mathematical calculation.
The limitation of “determining, based on the real-time energy information, a dynamic resource consumption for energy used by the shared battery for the particular home based on an energy charge for a current discharge cycle in real-time, a discharge cost for the current discharge cycle in real-time, and the shared battery wear cost” which has a broadest reasonable interpretation that requires performing an arithmetic calculation (for example, multiplication and addition as supported by Applicant’s specification) in order to obtain the dynamic resource consumption for energy used by the shared battery for the particular home i.e. first, energy charge for the current discharge cycle in real-time equals shared battery wear cost multiplied by energy consumption proportionality factor for the particular home in real-time; second, discharge cost for the current discharge cycle equals shared battery wear cost multiplied by the home cost proportionality factor for the particular home in real-time; third, the dynamic resource consumption for energy used by the battery for the particular home equals energy charge for the current discharge cycle in real-time plus discharge cost for the current discharge cycle in real-time. The limitation of “determining” therefore recites a mathematical calculation.
The grouping of “mathematical concepts” includes “mathematical calculations” as an exemplar of an abstract idea. Thus, the cited limitations of “determining”, “determining”, “determining”, “determining”, “determining”, and “determining” fall into the “mathematical concept” grouping of abstract ideas.
Mental Processes
In addition, under broadest reasonable interpretation, the determining limitations above include using simple arithmetic calculation (addition, multiplication, and division) to determine shared battery wear cost, equivalent shared battery capacity, home depth of discharge, effective energy consumption, effective wear cost, and dynamic resource consumption for energy can be practically performed in the human mind and even if most humans would use a physical aid (e.g., pen and paper, a slide rule, or a calculator) to help them complete the recited calculation, the use of such physical aid does not negate the mental nature of this limitation. Thus, the cited limitations of “determining”, “determining”, “determining”, “determining”, “determining”, and “determining” also fall into the “mental process” groupings of abstract ideas.
Accordingly, the “measuring”, “receiving”, “determining”, “determining”, “determining”, “determining”, “determining”, “determining”, and “outputting” limitations recite a judicial exception (an abstract idea that falls within the mathematical concept, organizing human activity, and mental process groupings) and the analysis must therefore proceed to Step 2A Prong 2.
Step 2A Prong 2
The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application.
Claim 6 recites a computer readable storage medium and a device. The additional elements of a computer readable storage medium and a device are recited at a high-level of generality such that it amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component.
Claims 1 and 6 also recite the additional elements of “a smart meter of that particular home” and “each meter display”. The smart meter is performing extra-solution activity specifically pre-solution activity that merely amounts to necessary data gathering before the dynamic resource consumption is determined. The meter display is performing extra-solution activity specifically post-solution activity that merely amounts to necessary data outputting as the meter display outputs the dynamic resource consumption to each particular home.
Additionally, the smart meter which is configured to measure current, power, energy consumption, depth of discharge, and energy level of the shared battery may be considered as limiting the application of abstract idea to battery data which was measured by the smart meter. See MPEP 2106.05(h) “For instance, a data gathering step that is limited to a particular data source (such as the Internet) or a particular type of data (such as power grid data or XML tags) could be considered to be both insignificant extra-solution activity and a field of use limitation. See, e.g., Ultramercial, 772 F.3d at 716, 112 USPQ2d at 1755 (limiting use of abstract idea to the Internet); Electric Power, 830 F.3d at 1354, 119 USPQ2d at 1742 (limiting application of abstract idea to power grid data); Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Erie Indem. Co., 850 F.3d 1315, 1328-29, 121 USPQ2d 1928, 1939 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (limiting use of abstract idea to use with XML tags).”
Regarding the “shared battery providing power across an electrical network to two or more homes, the electrical network providing electrical power from the shared battery and electrical power from an electrical grid to the two or more homes”, the shared battery and electrical network limits the abstract idea to a particular field of use, specifically for use with batteries and electrical grids as the electrical network provides electrical power from the shared battery and grid to the two or more homes. See MPEP 2106.05(h).
Regarding “controlling delivery of electrical power during the current discharge cycle by transmitting, in real time, operating constraints to the shared battery, the operating constraints being based on the real-time energy information together with battery specification information, and operating the shared battery within the operating constraints to maintain the specified safety limits during the current discharge cycle”, Applicant’s specification paragraph 21 states “As also depicted in FIG. 2, the dynamic management component 204 additionally outputs operating constraints to the battery 212. Such constraints can include, for example, operating constraints for the battery to be operated within specified safety limits, wherein such limits can be specified in the battery specification information in connection with the real-time demand from consumers/users.”
Thus, the battery merely receives operating constraints which allow it to operate safely. Such limitations amount to generally linking the judicial exception to a field of use or technological environment which does not meaningfully limit the claim. Further the limitations are not tied to the judicial exception in a meaningful way.
Accordingly, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application, whether individually or viewed in an ordered combination, because mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component, extra-solution activity, and field of use does not impose meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claims are directed to an abstract idea.
Step 2B
The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements of a computer readable medium and a device amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component.
Regarding the additional element of “a smart meter of that particular home” and “each meter display” which performed the extra-solution activity of pre-solution data gathering and post-solution data outputting, the specification paragraph 13 states, “Data derived from smart meters that measure each user's/customer's energy usage and/or consumption” and paragraph 55 states “recording a real-time energy supply level of the battery, wherein recording can include, for example, employing one or more smart meters configured to measure depth of discharge, current, power and/or energy level of the battery…can include outputting the determined dynamic price to each of the multiple users, wherein outputting can include, for example, displaying the determined dynamic price on a meter display”.
This manner of disclosing the smart meter and meter display indicates that it is sufficiently well-known within the art of energy/utility pricing that the specification does not need to describe the particulars of a smart meter and the meter display; thus, the smart meter discussed at this level of breadth is a generic computer with a display.
Additionally, as stated previously, the smart meter which is configured to measure current, power, energy, consumption, depth of discharge, and energy level of the shared battery may be considered as limiting the application of abstract idea to battery data which was measured by the smart meter. See MPEP 2106.05(h) “For instance, a data gathering step that is limited to a particular data source (such as the Internet) or a particular type of data (such as power grid data or XML tags) could be considered to be both insignificant extra-solution activity and a field of use limitation. See, e.g., Ultramercial, 772 F.3d at 716, 112 USPQ2d at 1755 (limiting use of abstract idea to the Internet); Electric Power, 830 F.3d at 1354, 119 USPQ2d at 1742 (limiting application of abstract idea to power grid data); Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Erie Indem. Co., 850 F.3d 1315, 1328-29, 121 USPQ2d 1928, 1939 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (limiting use of abstract idea to use with XML tags).”
Regarding the additional element of “shared battery providing power across an electrical network to two or more homes, the electrical network providing electrical power from the shared battery and electrical power from an electrical grid to the two or more homes”, the application specification paragraph 18 states “FIG. 1 depicts a shared battery 102, which feeds to a power management system 104, which ultimately delivers power (through a power network) and information (through a communication network) to various consumers/users such as home 106, home 108, and home 110” and paragraph 19 states “As also depicted in FIG. 2, the dynamic management component 204 receives input in the form of real-time usage data from a battery 212 that is shared by multiple users (such as user 214, user 216 and user 218) via an electrical network”.
This manner of disclosing the shared battery and the electrical network indicates that they are sufficiently well-known within the art of energy/utility pricing that the specification does not need to describe the particulars of a shared battery or an electrical network; thus, the shared battery and the electrical network discussed at this level of breadth is a generic battery and a generic network. Additionally, the additional elements limit the abstract idea to a particular field of use, specifically for use with batteries and electrical grids as the electrical network provides electrical power from the shared battery and grid to the two or more homes. See MPEP 2106.05(h).
Again, the limitations of “Controlling” amount to generally linking the judicial exception to a field of use or technological environment which does not meaningfully limit the claim. Further the battery merely receives operating constraints which allow it to operate safely; thus, the limitations are not tied to the judicial exception in a meaningful way.
None of the steps/functions of Claims 1 and 6 when evaluated individually or as an ordered combination amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. The additional elements are merely used to perform the limitations directed to mathematical concepts, organizing human activity, and mental processes, thus, the analysis does not change when considered as an ordered combination.
The additional elements of Claims 1 and 6 amount to no more than mere instructions to implement the abstract idea on a computer as the additional elements are merely used as tools to perform the existing process of calculations and determining a dynamic resource consumption, insignificant extra solution activity which are well understood, routine, and conventional, or field of use. Even when considered in combination, these additional elements represent mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component, insignificant extra solution activity, or field of use which cannot provide an inventive concept. Thus, the additional elements do not meaningfully limit the claim. See MPEP 2106.05(f). Accordingly, claims 1 and 6 are ineligible.
Dependent claims 2 and 7 merely add additional limitations that narrow down the abstract idea identified above. The limitations merely specify further how to calculate the wear cost; thus, narrowing the abstract idea of organizing human activity, mathematical concepts, and/or mental processes.
Dependent claims 3 and 8 merely add additional limitations that narrow down the abstract idea identified above. The limitations merely specify further recording real-time energy consumption which may be attributed to each of the homes; thus, narrowing the abstract idea of organizing human activity, mathematical concepts, and/or mental processes. Claims 3 and 8 again recites “the shared battery” which is an additional element Examiner noted as limiting the abstract idea to a particular field of use. See analysis above.
Dependent claims 4 and 9 merely add additional limitations that narrow down the abstract idea identified above. The limitations merely specify further that the dynamic resource consumption comprises a distinct price for each of the two or more homes; thus, narrowing the abstract idea of mathematical concepts, organizing human activity, and mental processes.
Thus, taken alone and when viewed as an ordered combination, nothing in dependent claims 2-4 and 7-9 amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. Claims 1-4 and 6-9 are ineligible.
Closest Prior Art
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of closest prior art: Current prior art alone or in combination fail to disclose every element of the independent claims. Examiner noting that the claims still have a 101 rejection.
The following are the closest prior art:
Kumazawa (US 8612362) taught splitting a battery wear cost among multiple users.
Salter (US2017/0140482) teaches a smart meter which monitors usage and consumption data.
Asghari et al. (US2014/0005852) teaches determining an estimated life of a battery under a specified usage pattern.
Jia et al. (US2015/0094968) teaches a demand-based pricing system for electric grid utilization.
Wendling et al. (US2015/0177282) teaches collecting power usage information within a household and displaying the total amount of energy used with an adjustment of load allocation relative to total energy used.
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 Lisa Ma whose telephone number is (571)272-2495. The examiner can normally be reached Monday to Thursday 7 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, Shannon Campbell can be reached on (571)272-5587. 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.
/L.M./Examiner, Art Unit 3628
/SHANNON S CAMPBELL/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3628