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 .
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 10/29/25 has been entered.
Status of Claims
Due to communications filed 10/29/25, the following is a non-final office action. Claims 1, 12 and 17 are amended. Claim 4 is cancelled. Claims 1-3 and 5-21 are pending in this application and are rejected as follows.
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 1-3 and 5-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C, 101 because the claimed invention is directed toa judicial exception (l.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more.
With regard to the present claims 1-3 and 5-21, these claim recites a series of steps and, therefore, is a process, and ultimately, is statutory.
In addition, the claim recites a judicial exception. The claims as a whole recite “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity”. The claimed invention is a method that allows for access, analysis, update and communication of electronic power records, which are implemented through commercial or legal interactions (including agreements in the form of contracts, legal obligations, advertising, marketing or sales activities or behaviors; business relations). The mere nominal recitation of a generic computer/computer network does not take the claim out of the “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity” grouping. Thus, the claim recites an abstract idea.
Furthermore, the claims are not integrated into a practical application. The claim as a whole merely describes how to generally “apply” the concept of accessing, analyzing, updating and communicating power information in a computer environment. The claimed computer components are recited at a high level of generality and are merely invoked as tools to perform an existing power records update process. Simply implementing the abstract idea on a generic computer is not a practical application of the abstract idea.
Finally, the claims do not recite an inventive concept. As noted previously, the claim as a whole merely describes how to generally “apply” the concept of accessing, analyzing, updating and communicating information related to power records in a computer environment. Thus, even when viewed as a whole, nothing in the claim adds significantly more (i.e., an inventive concept) to the abstract idea. The claim is ineligible.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 10/29/25 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Claim 1 has been amended to recite in part: “wherein the at least one DER provides an
amount of exported power to the electric power grid”, “wherein, based on the polling of the at
least one DER, the server platform induces the at least one DER to change the amount of
exported power to the electric power grid”, “wherein the at least one DER changes the amount of
exported power to the electric power grid to a new amount of exported power in response to the
inducement from the server platform”, and “wherein, in response to the inducement from the
server platform, the at least one DER provides the new amount of exported power to the electric
power grid”. With reference to step 2A, Prong Two, Applicant argues that that the limitation of “wherein the at least one DER changes the amount of exported power to the electric power grid to a new amount of exported power in response to the inducement from the server platform” is not merely recording or updating of information in a database or memory structure, not a simple calculation. However, Examiner respectfully disagrees. Claim 1 is directed to the abstract idea of facilitating energy transactions and payments, which is a certain method of organizing human activity. The limitation of “wherein the at least one DER changes the amount of exported power to the electric power grid to a new amount of exported power in response to the inducement from the server platform” merely represents generic control of conventional grid components and does not amount to an improvement in the functioning of the computer, grid, or other technology. The claim does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application nor does it provide an inventive concept and therefore is ineligible under 101.
With regard to Step 2B, Applicant argues that claim 1 allows a server to integrate monetary considerations of the grid directly into the workflow of control of the grid, which provides a significant technological improvement in the field of grid operations. However, Examiner respectfully disagrees. Claim 1 does not tie the data and payment steps to a specific improvement in the functioning of the grid or computer. The present system only measures energy for billing an triggers payments, which are post-processing business steps that do not change how electricity is generated, transmitted or controlled, and as written appear to support financial settlement and not technical control. The claim discloses “collecting revenue grade data”, which measures billing accuracy and not operational control, and “Automatically collecting payment”, which are basically commercial transaction automation, and both happen separately from the grid’s physical control loop and do not change how the grid is controlled or how the power is dispatched. Claim 1 therefore may improve the business process surrounding energy billing, but does not improve the technology of grid operations.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Akiba Robinson whose telephone number is 571-272-6734 and email is Akiba.Robinsonboyce@USPTO.gov. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Thursday 6:30am-4:30pm.
If attempts to reach the Examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the Examiner's supervisor, Resha Desai can be reached on 571-270-7792. 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 (I N USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
Any inquiry of a general nature or relating to the status of this application or proceeding should be directed to the receptionist whose telephone number is (703) 305-3900.
November 12, 2025
/AKIBA K ROBINSON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3628