DETAILED ACTION
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 November 25, 2025 has been entered.
Response to Amendment
Applicant amended claims 1, 3, 4, 8, 11, 14, and 18.
Claims 1-20 are pending and have been examined.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed November 25, 2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Regarding Claim Objections
Examiner initially objected to claims 3 and 13 due to a grammatical error. Applicant amended the claims to address this issue (and establishing a proper antecedent basis in the independent claim). In view of these amendments, Examiner withdraws this objection.
Regarding 101 Rejections
Examiner initially rejected claims 1-20 under 35 USC 101 as being directed to non-statutory subject matter.
Applicant argued that the claims a recite a practical application of the judicial exception because it recites technological operation. Examiner does not find this argument persuasive. Applicant’s claims do not amount to a practical application because they recite technological operations, this is not a standard that is indicative of a practical application. However, this does describe the implementation of the abstract idea by generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment. Applicant is merely utilizing existing technology for its intended purpose. The benefits/utility that Applicant identified is the naturally flowing benefits that comes from utilizing a digital ledger/blockchain. Thus Applicant has not improved technology with its claims. Applicant is addressing a business problem with a business solution. Applicant is merely using existing technology (for its intended purpose) to implement the business solution. Any improvements lie in the abstract idea itself, not in underlying technology. It is not a technical solution to manage energy billing. The identified limitations do no amount to a practical application because they are a part of the abstract idea. Merely because these limitations have utility does not mean they impose meaningful constraints on the abstract idea. Outside of the abstract idea there remains only the computer implementation of the abstract idea and extra-solution activity. Neither of these are indicative of a practical application. Applicant’s claims do not address a technical limitation/deficiency in the art and thus does not amount to a practical application.
Applicant argued its claims are similar to those in Enfish and improve technology. Applicant merely alleges it is similar to Enfish and provides no analysis as to how it is similar to Enfish. Applicant’s claims do not improve the functioning of a computer, unlike those in in Enfish where a self-referential data table was not directed towards an abstract idea. In Enfish, those claims effectively created a new way of storing data and thus amount to a technical improvement. Applicant has not created a new type of memory or something similar such an improved processor. Applicant is merely using existing technology to perform the functions it was intended to do. As such Applicant’s claims are not similar to those in Enfish. Applicant is merely commercially managing energy billing (or anything else that is “metered” to measure consumption) based on operational parameters.
Applicant argued that they recite a combination of steps which recite something other than what is well understood, routine, and conventional. Examiner does not find this argument persuasive. A “useful combination of elements” is not the standard for determining if something is something other than what is well understood, routine, and conventional. Applicant merely repeats its above arguments that the technological implementation of the abstract idea amounts to eligible subject matter. Applicant has not explained how its limitations amount to something other than what is well understood, routine, and conventional. Merely because the claims have utility does not mean that they amount to eligible subject matter. Applicant again argued that Examiner has not provided the proper evidence/analysis that the claims are well-understood, routine and conventional. Examiner does not find this argument persuasive. Applicant is mistaken that Examiner must provide evidence that the underlying abstract idea is well-understood, routine and conventional. It is the additional elements that must be shown to be well-understood, routine and conventional. Outside of the abstract idea, there is only the computer implementation of the abstract idea and extra-solution activity. Examiner identified the portions of the claim that fall outside of the abstract idea and Examiner provided evidence that these are well-understood, routine and conventional limitations. Examiner has provided the proper evidence as required by Berkheimer.
Applicant argued that its claims are similar to those in DDR. Examiner does not find this argument persuasive. Applicant’s claims are not similar to those in DDR. In DDR the composite webpage described in the claims amounted to eligible subject matter because they addressed an issue specifically arising in the context on the technology. This is the basis for which the claims amounted to eligible subject matter; not because (at a high level) the claims could be considered as manipulating interactions between different devices or with the internet. Applicant’s claims are not similar in the way that actually amounts to eligible subject matter. It is not sufficient that the claims describe interactions between devices or that the claims occur in the context of the internet. This merely linked the judicial exception to a generic computing environment. Applicant is not addressing a problem specifically caused by technology such as a webpage that redirects a user to a third-party website.
Applicant argued that the dependent claims recite eligible subject matter as well. Examiner does not find this argument persuasive. Applicant merely identified limitations that reflect the technological implementation of the abstract idea in the dependent claims. As noted before this does not amount to eligible subject matter. Applicant is merely utilizing existing technology for its intended purpose and receiving the benefits from using that technology.
Examiner maintains this 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. The claims recite the abstract idea which may be summarized as generating a fund summary.
Step 1 Analysis
Applicants claims are directed to a process (claims 11-20) and a machine (claims 1-10).
Step 2A, Prong 1 Analysis
Claims 1 and 11 recite the abstract idea/limitations of:
automated management of one or more operational parameters pertaining to a service of an entity to a user,
store the one or more operational parameters usage in a secure time-stamped manner;
generate a set of data… indicative of real-time measurement of consumption of the one or more operational parameters;
wherein the… contract represents a(n)… agreement which is accessed and is automatically generated based on information received;
receiving the set of data…, said set of data… pertaining to one or more services of the entity to be availed by the user,
extracting a first set of attributes from the set of data… received,
said set of attributes pertaining to an incremental data that may pertain to usage or consumption of the one or more operational parameters of the service by the user;
comparing the first set of attributes with a set of parameters stored,
wherein the set of parameters pertaining to the one or more operational parameters of the service consumed by the user;
upon comparison, determining a difference in data,
said difference in data indicative of a discrepancy in the first set of attributes and the set of parameters,
upon detecting the discrepancy, execute a corrective instruction,
wherein the comparison is continued until the difference in data corresponds to zero;
generating a fund summary pertaining to an operational fund in exchange of the one or more services provided by the entity, based on of verified consumption attributes to prevent tampering or replay; and
auto-updating the… ledger with a date and a time stamp based on the generated fund summary to provide synchronization.
As drafted these limitations are a process that falls within the “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity grouping of abstract ideas; but for the recitation of generic computer components. These limitations, when read in view of the specification, describe the process of billing for the consumption of fuel/energy and resolving discrepancies in the billing. This is a commercial interaction If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, recites performance of the limitation as commercial/legal interactions then it falls within the “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity” grouping of abstract ideas. By reciting/claiming a certain method of organizing human activity, Applicant’s claims recite an abstract idea.
Step 2A, Prong 2 Analysis
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the claims only recite system components for implementing the abstract idea and extra-solution activity. The claims recite the additional limitations of a smart contract, the user device, one or more nodes, one or more smart metering units, one or more processors, a distributed ledger, a memory, a knowledgebase, nodes, smart metering units, network devices a distributed ledger network, energy sources, data packets, cryptographic hash; and they are recited at a high level of generality. These system components amount to no more than generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a technological environment and are not indicative of integration into a practical application. The limitations of:
receiving a set of data,
amount to insignificant extra-solution activity. These steps are mere sending and receiving of data, which courts have recognized as insignificant extra-solution activities; see MPEP 2106.05(d)(II)(i). These additional elements, when considered separately and as an ordered combination, do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claims as a whole do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claims are directed to an abstract idea without a practical application.
Step 2B Analysis
The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because, when considered separately and as an ordered combination, they do not add significantly more (also known as an “inventive concept”) to the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional element of a smart contract, the user device, one or more nodes, one or more smart metering units, one or more processors, a distributed ledger, a memory, a knowledgebase, network devices a distributed ledger network, energy sources, data packets, cryptographic hash; amount to no more than linking the abstract idea to a technological environment. For the same reason these elements are not sufficient to provide an inventive concept. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. The limitations of:
receiving a set of data,
amount to the sending and receiving data between devices, claimed at a high level of generality. These insignificant extra-solution activities are also well-understood, routine, and conventional as recognized by the federal courts See MPEP 2106.05(d)(II)(i). See also, Applicant’s specification paragraphs [0041-0045] and [0058-0060], about implementation of the abstract idea using general purpose or special purpose computing devices; and MPEP 2106.05(f) where applying a computer as a tool is not indicative of significantly more. Accordingly, these additional elements, when considered separately and as an ordered combination, do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. Thus Applicant’s claims are not patent eligible.
Dependent Claims Analysis
As for dependent claims 2, 4, 8-10, 12, 14 and 18-20, these claims recite limitations that further define the same abstract idea noted in independent claims 1 and 11. Therefore, claims 2, 4, 8-10, 12, 14 and 18-20 are considered ineligible subject matter for the reasons given above.
As for dependent claims 3, 5-7 13, and 15-17, these claims recite limitations that further define the same abstract idea noted in independent claims 1 and 11. In addition, the recite the additional elements of a blockchain, one or more radio frequency (RF) equipment, a rate card management module, an incremental data management module, a third computing device. The components 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. This is not indicative of a practical application or significantly more. Accordingly, these additional elements, when considered separately and as an ordered combination, do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application and do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself. Therefore, claims 3, 5-7 13, and 15-17 are considered ineligible subject matter.
Thus, the dependent claims 2-10 and 12-20 are not patent-eligible either.
Examiner Request
The Applicant is requested to indicate where in the specification there is support for amendments to claims should Applicant amend. The purpose of this is to reduce potential 35 USC 112(a) or 35 USC 112 first paragraph issues that can arise when claims are amended without support in the specification. The Examiner thanks the Applicant in advance.
Prior Art
There was no prior art rejection on file. Examiner has conducted an updated prior art search in view of the amended claims and cannot provide an art rejection at this time.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MICHAEL J WARDEN whose telephone number is (571)272-9602. The examiner can normally be reached M-F; 9-6 CDT.
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, Bennett M Sigmond can be reached at 303-297-4411. 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.
/MICHAEL J. WARDEN/
Examiner
Art Unit 3694
/BENNETT M SIGMOND/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3694