DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
1. 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
2. Applicant's arguments received11/20/2025 have been fully considered but are moot in view of the new ground(s) of rejection. Detailed response is given in sections 3-8 as set forth below in this Office Action.
Regarding the claim eligibility, Applicant argues that (REMARKS, p.2):
PNG
media_image1.png
202
665
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Examiner respectfully disagrees. Applicant is advised that, according to MPEP 2106 and the 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance (2019 PEG), the Office determines claim eligibility under 35 U.S.C. § 101 using the Alice framework. The analysis under Step 2A - Prong 1 evaluates whether the claim recites a judicial exception. Step 2A - Prong 2 asks if the claim recites additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application, and, if necessary, Step 2B further analyzes whether or not the claim provides an Inventive Concept. That is, the claim needs to be analyzed limitation by limitation, and/or element by element, following the MPEP/2019 PEG guidelines.
In the instant case, focusing on what the inventors have invented exactly and giving the broadest reasonable interpretation (BRI) to the claims, Examiner asserts that the pending claims 1-6 are directed to an abstract idea of monitoring power consumption of a facility without reciting any additional element that amounts to “significantly more” than the judicial exception (see detailed analyses set forth in section 4 below). In particular, Examiner asserts that the additional limitation “(S3) output the calculated degree of change to a display to enable a user to revise an energy conservation control plan for the facility based on the outputted calculated degree of change” recited in claim 1 encompasses a process of displaying/outputting the results from the identified abstract idea. Under the BRI, this additional limitation is considered merely an insignificant post-solution activity attached to the judicial exception, while displaying results outputted from the abstract idea to enable or allow a user to revise/analyze other data information based on the results of the abstract idea is treated as an ancillary part of the abstract idea. As such, the additional limitation in question is not qualified for meaningful limitations to integrate the identified judicial exception into a practical application (see MPEP 2106.04(d) and 2106.05(g)). At most, it generally links the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use. Furthermore, the limitation in question does not provide any inventive concept or reflect a qualified improvement. See MPEP 2106.05.
Applicant is advised that simply setting forth advantages (i.e. benefits) of use without providing any rational/evidence to how/why the claimed elements amount to significantly more than the judicial exception could be treated as mere instructions to apply the judicial exception on a computer component (MPEP 2106.05(f)), but not qualified for an improvement (i.e. enhancement) in the functioning of a computer or an improvement to another technology or technical field. The key is to show that the claim goes beyond just performing a calculation and provides a practical application or significant improvement through the use of that calculation. See MPEP 2106.04(d)(I) and 2106.05(a).
Applicant's arguments regarding the rejection under 35 USC 102/103 in reference to the amended claims are moot in view of the new ground(s) of teaching from the HASLETT reference.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
3. The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 101 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
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.
4. Claims 1-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more.
Under the 2019 PEG (now been incorporated into MPEP 2106), the revised procedure for determining whether a claim is "directed to" a judicial exception requires a two-prong inquiry into whether the claim recites: (1) any judicial exceptions, including certain groupings of abstract ideas (i.e., mathematical concepts, certain methods of organizing human interactions such as a fundamental economic practice, or mental processes); and (2) additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application (see MPEP § 2106.05(a)-(c), (e)-(h)).
Only if a claim (1) recites a judicial exception and (2) does not integrate that exception into a practical application, do we then look to whether the claim: (3) adds a specific limitation beyond the judicial exception that is not "well-understood, routine, conventional" in the field (see MPEP § 2106.0S(d)); or (4) simply appends well-understood, routine, conventional activities previously known to the industry, specified at a high level of generality, to the judicial exception.
Claims 1-6 are directed to an abstract idea of monitoring power consumption of a facility.
Specifically, representative claim 1 recites:
A power consumption monitoring apparatus for a facility comprising a processor, the processor being configured to:
(S1) refer to facility operation history information to extract occurrence times at which a predetermined event has occurred in each of a reference period and a period of interest, the reference period serving as a reference for analyzing power consumption of a facility, and the period of interest serving as a subject of analysis;
(S2) calculate a degree of change in an operation pattern of the facility obtained from a probability distribution of the occurrence times at which the predetermined event has occurred in the period of interest, relative to an operation pattern of the facility obtained from a probability distribution of the occurrence times at which the predetermined event has occurred in the reference period; and
(S3) output the calculated degree of change to a display to enable a user to revise an energy conservation control plan for the facility based on the outputted calculated degree of change.
The claim limitations in the abstract idea have been highlighted in bold above; the remaining limitations are “additional elements”.
The highlighted portion of the claim constitutes an abstract idea under the 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance and the additional elements are NOT sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exceptions, as analyzed below:
Step
Analysis
1. Statutory Category ?
Yes.
Apparatus/System
2A - Prong 1: Judicial Exception Recited?
Yes.
Under its broadest reasonable interpretation (BRI), the limitation S1 recited in the bolded portion of claim 1 encompasses a mental process, namely concepts that can be performed in the human mind or with pen and paper. The particulars of the data and information such as “facility operation history information”, “the reference period serving as a reference for analyzing power consumption of a facility” and “the period of interest serving as a subject of analysis”, etc., are mere data characterization and descriptive of the information being determined/observed.
Under its BRI, the limitation S2 encompasses mathematical concepts, namely a series of calculations leading to one or more numerical results or answers, which also encompasses mental processes, i.e. data manipulation and/or calculation, that can be performed in the human mind or by a human using a pen and paper.
Nothing in the claimed limitations precludes these limitations from practically being performed in the mind and/or using a pen and paper.
As such, the bolded portion listed above falls within a combination of the “Mathematical Concepts” and “Mental Process” Groupings of Abstract Ideas defined by the 2019 PEG.
2A - Prong 2: Integrated into a Practical Application?
No.
The claim as a whole does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application.
The phrase “power consumption monitoring” as recited in the preamble is considered merely a field of use limitation.
The “processor” is recited at a high level of generality, According to the MPEP 2106.04(a)(2), if a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers mental processes except for the mention of generic computer components performing computing activities via basic function of the computer, then the claim is likely considered to be directed to an ineligible abstract idea, as it essentially describes a mental process that could be performed by a human without the computer components adding any significant practical application beyond the abstract concept itself.
Under the BRI, the limitation S3 encompasses a process of displaying/outputting the results from the abstract idea which is not qualified for meaningful limitations to integrate the identified judicial exception into a practical application because it represents merely an insignificant post-solution activity attached to the identified judicial exception. At most, it generally links the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use. See MPEP 2106.04(d) and 2106.05(g). Furthermore, displaying the results from the abstract idea thereby enabling or allowing a user to revise/analyze the results itself is an ancillary part of the abstract idea which can be performed by a human in mind or using a pen and paper.
In general, the claim as a whole does not meet any of the following criteria to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application:
An additional element reflects an improvement in the functioning of a computer, or an improvement to other technology or technical field;
an additional element that applies or uses a judicial exception to effect a particular treatment or prophylaxis for a disease or medical condition;
an additional element implements a judicial exception with, or uses a judicial exception in conjunction with, a particular machine or manufacture that is integral to the claim;
an additional element effects a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing; and
an additional element applies or uses the judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment, such that the claim as a whole is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception.
Various considerations are used to determine whether the additional elements are sufficient to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. However, in all of these respects, the claim fails to recite additional elements which might possibly integrate the claim into a particular practical application. Instead, based on the above considerations, the claim would tend to monopolize the algorithm across a wide range of applications.
2B: Claim provides an Inventive Concept?
No.
Focusing on what the inventors have invented exactly, it is considered that the “core” of pending claim 1 is directed to an abstract algorithm of analyzing existing data and identifying differences of data distribution. The claim does not recite any additional element that amounts to “significantly more” or an “inventive concept” under the 2019 PEG (see also MPEP 2106.05).
The claim is therefore ineligible under 35 USC 101.
The dependent claims 2-6 inherit attributes of the independent claim 1, but do not add anything which would render the claimed invention a patent eligible application of the abstract idea. These claims merely extend (or narrow) the abstract idea which do not amount for "significant more" because they merely add details to the algorithm which forms the abstract idea as discussed above.
Hence the claims 1-6 are treated as ineligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. § 101.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
5. The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use,
on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention; or
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an
application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the
effective filing date of the claimed invention.
6. Claims 1-3 and 6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by HASLETT et al. (US 20180239311 A1).
Regarding claim 1, HASLETT discloses a power consumption monitoring apparatus for a facility (Figs. 1 and 6: the Home Environment Management Systems (HEMS); see also para. 0050-0052) comprising a processor (e.g., the processor or a central server of the HEMS; see also para. 0052, 0066, 0083), the processor being configured to: refer to facility operation history information (para. 0014: “The method may comprise comparing recent data with historical data”) to extract occurrence times at which a predetermined event (e.g., “appliance usage”) has occurred in each of a reference period and a period of interest (para. 0006: “creating and storing a persona of the occupant comprising the patterns of appliance usage by the occupant”; para. 0008-0010, 0014, 0089, 0136-0137), the reference period (para. 0089: “The long-term state may represent the data gathered over the last year or two”) serving as a reference for analyzing power consumption of a facility, and the period of interest (e.g., the period based on which the “current state” is established) serving as a subject of analysis (para. 0088-0089, 0137); calculate a degree of change (e.g., “risk of under or over-heating” or “a satisfaction score for all provision plans 208; see para. 0109-0110) in an operation pattern of the facility obtained from a probability distribution of the occurrence times at which the predetermined event has occurred in the period of interest, relative to an operation pattern of the facility obtained from a probability distribution of the occurrence times at which the predetermined event has occurred in the reference period (para. 0011: “By comparing personas it will be possible to … ”; para. 0014: “The method may comprise comparing recent data with historical data … The method may comprise the use of probabilities associated with the likelihood of a pattern of appliance usage occurring at a particular time (i.e. of day, week, month, year) or in a particular sequence with one or more other patterns of appliance usage”; see also Fig. 7 and related text and para. 0107-0111); and output the calculated degree of change (para. 0111-0116) to a display (para. 0030) to enable a user to revise an energy conservation control plan for the facility based on the outputted calculated degree of change (para. 0112: “The system will then communicate with the occupants (if that is considered desirable based on their persona) and if possible 222 before implementing the agreed or top scoring plan 224”; see also para. 0116-0119).
Regarding claim 2, HASLETT discloses: wherein the predetermined event is a power-on or power-off event of the facility (para. 0048, 0053, 0069).
Regarding claim 3, HASLETT discloses: wherein when the facility is an air conditioning facility (para. 0007, 0081), the predetermined event is an event that a setting of the air conditioning facility has been changed to match a predetermined occurrence condition (para. 0060: “ … to set the temperature outside of subject 12's comfort zone …”).
Regarding claim 6, HASLETT discloses: wherein when multiple events are set as the predetermined event (by inherency, each occupant's “persona” sets multiple events as the predetermined event; see para. 0050-0051, 0053), the processor calculates a degree of change for each event and weights the degrees of change that are calculated for the respective events, to calculate a single degree of change (para. 0060: “… if one subject is more dominant than the other with respect to the control of the heating, the HEMS should recognise this from their persona and adjust the temperature accordingly.”; para. 0062: “the interaction with the user is through the adaptive user interface 12, which can understand what is important to the user from their persona …”; see also para. 0064, 0071, 0097).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
7. The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is
not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102 of this title, if the differences between the
claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been
obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in
the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in
which the invention was made.
8. Claims 4 and 5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over HASLETT et al. in view of KAMULETE (US 20200410403 A1).
Regarding claims 4 and 5, HASLETT does not mention explicitly: wherein the processor calculates a KL divergence or a JS divergence as a degree of change; wherein the processor calculates a KS test statistic or an Anderson-Darling test statistic as a degree of change.
KAMULETE discloses a technique for detecting data drift between a first dataset and a second dataset (Abstract), comprising: calculating a KL divergence as a degree of drift or change (para. 0051-0052, 0054); and calculating a KS test statistic as a degree of drift or change (para. 0054).
It is well-known in the art that KL divergence is commonly utilized for measuring the difference between two distributions and the amount of change. Since HASLETT teaches the general condition of assessing the degree of change (para. 0011, 0014, 0110), in view of KAMULETE, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify HASLETT to arrive the claimed invention by incorporating KAMULETE’s teaching of KL-divergence and KS-test analyses to evaluate said degree of change. Doing so would allow to identify unexpected changes to data structure in big data environments with high fidelity (KAMULETE, para. 0003, 0051) and help reduce the computation size and complexity and may speed up the process for obtaining a good match between the measured data and a hypothesised pattern of appliance usage (HASLETT, para. 0014). The mere application of a known technique to a specific instance by those skilled in the art would have been obvious.
Conclusion
9. 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 extension fee 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 date of this final action.
Contact Information
10. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to XIUQIN SUN whose telephone number is (571)272-2280. The examiner can normally be reached 9:30am-6:00pm.
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, Shelby A. Turner can be reached on (571) 272-6334. 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.
/X.S/Examiner, Art Unit 2857
/SHELBY A TURNER/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2857