DETAILED ACTION
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office Action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 December 2025 has been entered.
Status of Claims
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.
This action is in reply to the remarks/arguments filed for Application 18/168,245 filed on 24 December 2025.
Claims 1 and 6 have been amended.
Claims 1-8 are currently pending and have been examined.
Response to Arguments
A. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101:
Claims 1-8 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 as being directed to non-statutory subject matter.
1. Applicant argues that the amended claims are directed to a practical application of any abstract idea and are patent eligible
Applicant’s argument is unpersuasive. The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because, when analyzed under prong two of step 2A, the additional elements of the claim such as a “information processing apparatus”, “smart grid”, represent the use of a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea and/or does no more than generally apply the abstract idea to a particular field of use. Therefore, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application as they do no more than represent a computer performing functions that correspond to (i.e. automate) implement the acts of using rules and/or instructions to facilitate a transaction in an automatic manner comprising the steps of merely receiving (“acquiring an electric power profile”), transmitting (“providing the electric power profile”, “making an application …”, “sending … a profile”), and processing (“approving … the application made”, “supplying”) data/information associated with the purchase transaction.
When analyzed under step 2B, the claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception itself. Viewed as a whole, the combination of elements recited in the claims merely describe the concept of using rules and/or instructions to facilitate a transaction in an automatic manner comprising the steps of merely receiving (“acquiring an electric power profile”), transmitting (“providing the electric power profile”, “making an application …”, “sending … a profile”), and processing (“approving … the application made”, “supplying”) data/information associated with the transaction using computer technology. Therefore, the use of these additional elements does no more than employ a computer as a tool to automate and/or implement the abstract idea, which cannot provide significantly more than the abstract idea itself (MPEP 2106.05(I)(A)(f) & (h)). Hence, claim 1 is not patent eligible.
The rejection is therefore maintained.
B. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103:
Claims 1-7 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as allegedly being unpatentable over Slutsker et al., US 2014/0324662 AI ("Slutsker"), in view of Okada, US 2003/0074304 AI ("Okada").
Claim 8 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as allegedly being unpatentable over Slutsker in view of Okada and Ding et al., US 2021/0312547 AI ("Ding").
Applicant’s arguments with regard to distinct differences between limitations of the instant application and the cited references have been considered and found persuasive. Accordingly, the rejection of the above claims on the grounds of 35 U.S.C. § 103 is withdrawn.
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 1-8 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, claim 1 is directed towards facilitating a commercial interaction (e.g., comparing and matching buyers and sellers dealing with power supply) in order to support a trading transaction. Claim 1 is directed to the abstract idea of using rules and/or instructions to facilitate a transaction in an automatic manner comprising the steps of merely receiving (“acquiring an electric power profile”), transmitting (“providing the electric power profile”, “making an application …”, “sending … a profile”), and processing (“approving … the application made”, “supplying”) data/information associated with the transaction, which is grouped under the certain methods of organizing human activity – fundamental economic principles, practices or concepts; sales activity; following set of instructions; commercial interactions (business relations); managing personal behavior of relationships or interactions between people (including social activities, teachings, following rules or instructions) grouping, in prong one of step 2A.
Claim 1 recites: “a process of recording profiles of the plurality of users;
a process of acquiring an electric power profile of electric power that is suppliable by one of the users who have the power that can be supplied;
a process of providing the electric power profile and supply conditions for supplying power to another user, wherein the supply conditions include information that can identify the industry or business content of the user who wishes to receive the power supply;
a process of making an application, to the one of the users having the suppliable electric power, to receive supply of the electric power, the application made by the other user;
a process of sending the profile of the user who applied in the application process, including information that can identify the industry or business content of the user who applied, to the user
a process of automatically approving, without necessitating any user operation by the user who received the application, the application made by the user who applied if the user who applied satisfies a predetermined supply condition based on the profile of the user who applied; and
a process of supplying, in response to the process of automatically approving, the electric power of the user who received the application to the user who applied.”
Linking and matching a seller or supplier with a buyer or purchaser of a good or service is an existing commercial practice and/or concept that is well known. Based on the underlined elements above, abstract ideas and/or concepts are identified. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because, when analyzed under prong two of step 2A, the additional elements of the claim such as a “information processing apparatus”, “smart grid”, represent the use of a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea and/or does no more than generally apply the abstract idea to a particular field of use. Therefore, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application as they do no more than represent a computer performing functions that correspond to (i.e. automate) implement the acts of using rules and/or instructions to facilitate a transaction in an automatic manner comprising the steps of merely receiving (“acquiring an electric power profile”), transmitting (“providing the electric power profile”, “making an application …”, “sending … a profile”), and processing (“approving … the application made”, “supplying”) data/information associated with the purchase transaction.
When analyzed under step 2B, the claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception itself. Viewed as a whole, the combination of elements recited in the claims merely describe the concept of using rules and/or instructions to facilitate a transaction in an automatic manner comprising the steps of merely receiving (“acquiring an electric power profile”), transmitting (“providing the electric power profile”, “making an application …”, “sending … a profile”), and processing (“approving … the application made”, “supplying”) data/information associated with the transaction using computer technology. Therefore, the use of these additional elements does no more than employ a computer as a tool to automate and/or implement the abstract idea, which cannot provide significantly more than the abstract idea itself (MPEP 2106.05(I)(A)(f) & (h)). Hence, claim 1 is not patent eligible.
In the instant case, claim 6 is directed towards facilitating a commercial interaction (e.g., comparing and matching buyers and sellers dealing with power supply) in order to support a trading transaction. Claim 6 is directed to the abstract idea of using rules and/or instructions to facilitate a transaction in an automatic manner comprising the steps of merely receiving (“acquiring an electric power demand profile”), transmitting (“providing the electric power profile”, “making an application …”, “sending … a profile”), and processing (“approving … the application made”, “supplying”) data/information associated with the transaction, which is grouped under the certain methods of organizing human activity – fundamental economic principles, practices or concepts; sales activity; following set of instructions; commercial interactions (business relations); managing personal behavior of relationships or interactions between people (including social activities, teachings, following rules or instructions) grouping, in prong one of step 2A.
Claim 6 recites: “record profiles of the plurality of users;
acquire an electric power demand profile of electric power that is suppliable by one of the users who have the power that can be supplied;
provide the electric power profile and supply conditions for supplying power to another user, wherein the supply conditions include information that can identify the industry or business content of the user who wishes to receive the power supply;
transmit an application for supplying electric power to meet the electric power demand to the user having suppliable power, the application made by the other user;
send the profile of the user who applied, including information that can identify the industry or business content of the user who applied, to the user having suppliable power;
automatically approve without any user operation, the application made by the user who applied, if the electric power profile of the user who applied satisfies a predetermined supply condition based on the electric power profile of the user who applied and send a notification of the result of the automatic approving to the user who applied; and
supply, in response to the approval, the electric power of the user having suppliable power to the user who applied.”
Linking and matching a seller or supplier with a buyer or purchaser of a good or service is an existing commercial practice and/or concept that is well known. Based on the underlined elements above, abstract ideas and/or concepts are identified. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because, when analyzed under prong two of step 2A, the additional elements of the claim such as a “information processing apparatus”, “smart grid”, represent the use of a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea and/or does no more than generally apply the abstract idea to a particular field of use. Therefore, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application as they do no more than represent a computer performing functions that correspond to (i.e. automate) implement the acts of using rules and/or instructions to facilitate a transaction in an automatic manner comprising the steps of merely receiving (“acquiring an electric power profile”), transmitting (“providing the electric power profile”, “making an application …”, “sending … a profile”), and processing (“approving … the application made”, “supplying”) data/information associated with the transaction.
When analyzed under step 2B, the claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception itself. Viewed as a whole, the combination of elements recited in the claims merely describe the concept of using rules and/or instructions to facilitate a transaction in an automatic manner comprising the steps of merely receiving (“acquiring an electric power profile”), transmitting (“providing the electric power profile”, “making an application …”, “sending … a profile”), and processing (“approving … the application made”, “supplying”) data/information associated with the transaction using computer computer-related technology and/or devices that merely perform as designed to function. Therefore, the use of these additional elements does no more than employ a computer as a tool to automate and/or implement the abstract idea, which cannot provide significantly more than the abstract idea itself (MPEP 2106.05(I)(A)(f) & (h)). Hence, claim 6 is not patent eligible.
Dependent claims 2-5 and 7-8 add further details and contain limitations that narrow the scope of the invention. However, these details do not result in significantly more than the abstract idea itself. As explained in the December 16, 2014 Interim Eligibility Guidance from the USPTO (in reference to the BuySAFE, Inc. v. Google, Inc. decision), further narrowing the details of an abstract idea does not change the § 101 analysis since a more narrow abstract idea does not make it any less abstract.
Viewed individually and in combination, these additional elements do not provide meaningful limitations to transform the abstract idea such that the claims amount to significantly more than the abstraction itself.
Accordingly, the present pending claims are not patent eligible and are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 as being directed to non-statutory subject matter.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Kozakura et al. (US 2020/0175615 A1) discloses an electric power trade apparatus and method. In Kozakura An electric power trade apparatus includes a memory and a processor. The processor is configured to perform determining whether it is possible to make a purchase concerning a purchase amount indicated in purchase requests received from respective purchasers of electric power having
received a power-saving request, on the basis of the purchase amount and a sellable amount indicated in sale requests received from respective sellers of electric power, upon receiving the purchase requests, transmitting information for enabling any given one of the purchasers to make a reply to the power-saving request upon determining that purchase concerning a corresponding one of the purchase requests is possible, and allocating, to the sale requests, respective sale amounts a sum of which is equal to the purchase amount, on the basis of the purchase amount and the sellable amount after the information is transmitted.
Claims 1-8 are rejected.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Clifford Madamba whose telephone number is 571-270-1239. The examiner can normally be reached on Mon-Thu 7:30-5:00 EST Alternate Fridays.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Ryan Donlon, can be reached at 571-272-3602. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/CLIFFORD B MADAMBA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3692
Prosecution Insights