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 .
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 2 June 2023 & 5 April 2024 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities:
reference character “218” has been used to designate in Fig. 2 - 218 "Determined identity", in page 7 line 37: "determined identity, and page 11 line 5: "the decision component.
reference characters " and in page have both been used to designate "d
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are:
a device prediction component configured to determine, based on first power consumption data indicative of a first power consumption associated with a premises within a first time period, a predicted identity of an active device at the premises within a second time period subsequent to the first time period in claim 17.
a device detection component configured to determine, based on second power consumption data indicative of a second power consumption associated with the premises within the second time period, a detected identity of the active device at the premises within the second time period in claim 17.
a decision component configured to determine, based on at least one of the predicted identity or the detected identity, a determined identity of the active device at the premises within the second time period. in claim 17.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Claim 17:
Three-Prong test for “a device prediction component”
Prong (A) (As above):
Yes;
“device prediction component” is a nonce with no specific structural meaning.
Prong (B) (As above):
Yes;
“configured to” is a linking word or phrase connecting the nonce to functional language.
Prong (C) (As above)
Yes;
There is insufficient structure for performing the claimed function of “determine, based on first power consumption data indicative of a first power consumption associated with a premises within a first time period, a predicted identity of an active device at the premises within a second time period subsequent to the first time period”.
Conclusion:
The limitation of “device prediction component” for claim 17 and its dependents 18-25 are interpreted under 112(f).
Note:
the initially filed specification (filed 2 June 2023) was searched for an interpretation of “a device prediction component configured to determine, based on first power consumption data indicative of a first power consumption associated with a premises within a first time period, a predicted identity of an active device at the premises within a second time period subsequent to the first time period.”
The following evidence supporting an interpretation was found:
Fig. 2- 204 “Device prediction component” & page 10 lines 19-22: “For example, at least one of the device prediction component 204, the device detection component 210 or the decision component 218 are further configured to process the first power consumption data to generate device usage data”
However, nothing more specific as to structure was found than material indicating that these components were capable of ‘processing’.
Therefore, for the purposes of examination “device prediction component” is interpreted as a computer or computer components capable of processing and/or determining and/or detecting.
Claim 17:
Three-Prong test for “a device detection component”
Prong (A) (As above):
Yes;
“device detection component” is a nonce with no specific structural meaning.
Prong (B) (As above):
Yes;
“configured to” is a linking word or phrase connecting the nonce to functional language.
Prong (C) (As above)
Yes;
There is insufficient structure for performing the claimed function of “determine, based on second power consumption data indicative of a second power consumption associated with the premises within the second time period, a detected identity of the active device at the premises within the second time period”.
Conclusion:
The limitation of “device detection component” for claim 17 and its dependents 18-25 are interpreted under 112(f).
Note:
the initially filed specification (filed 2 June 2023) was searched for an interpretation of “a device detection component configured to determine, based on second power consumption data indicative of a second power consumption associated with the premises within the second time period, a detected identity of the active device at the premises within the second time period”
The following evidence supporting an interpretation was found:
Fig. 2- 210 “Device prediction component” & page 10 lines 19-22: “For example, at least one of the device prediction component 204, the device detection component 210 or the decision component 218 are further configured to process the first power consumption data to generate device usage data”
However, nothing more specific as to structure was found than material indicating that these components were capable of ‘processing’.
Therefore, for the purposes of examination “device detection component” is interpreted as a computer or computer components capable of processing and/or determining and/or detecting.
Claim 17:
Three-Prong test for “a decision component”
Prong (A) (As above):
Yes;
“decision component” is a nonce with no specific structural meaning.
Prong (B) (As above):
Yes;
“configured to” is a linking word or phrase connecting the nonce to functional language.
Prong (C) (As above)
Yes;
There is insufficient structure for performing the claimed function of “determine, based on at least one of the predicted identity or the detected identity, a determined identity of the active device at the premises within the second time period”.
Conclusion:
The limitation of “decision component” for claim 17 and its dependents 18-25 are interpreted under 112(f).
Note:
the initially filed specification (filed 2 June 2023) was searched for an interpretation of “a decision component configured to determine, based on at least one of the predicted identity or the detected identity, a determined identity of the active device at the premises within the second time period.”
The following evidence supporting an interpretation was found:
page 10 lines 19-22: “For example, at least one of the device prediction component 204, the device detection component 210 or the decision component 218 are further configured to process the first power consumption data to generate device usage data”
However, nothing more specific as to structure was found than material indicating that these components were capable of ‘processing’.
Therefore, for the purposes of examination “decision component” is interpreted as a computer or computer components capable of processing and/or determining and/or detecting.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-25 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Regarding “Failure to particularly point out & distinctly claim [indefinite]”:
Claim 1 in lines 3-4 recites the limitation "a predicted identity of an active device at the premises within a second time period subsequent to the first time period", in lines 6-7 recites the limitation "a detected identity of the active device at the premises within the second time period" and in line 9 recites the limitation "a determined identity of the active device at the premises within the second time period". It is unclear what the difference between “predicted identity”, “detected identity”, and “determined identity” is; these limitations each seem to be directed towards ‘collecting power/current data from a premise and then determining what device(s) must have been operating in order to create that data’. For the purposes of examination (based on page 26 lines 4-6: "The device prediction component 504 therefore exploits the fact that people tend to exhibit a repetitive patterns of behavior." and based on Fig. 2/6) it is assumed that “Device prediction component 204”, “Device detection component 210” are both inputs to the “Determined identity 218”.
Claim 17 in lines 4-5 recites the limitation "a predicted identity of an active device at the premises within a second time period subsequent to the first time period", in lines 8-9 recites the limitation "a detected identity of the active device at the premises within the second time period", and in lines 11-12 recites the limitation "a determined identity of the active device at the premises within the second time period". It is unclear what the difference between “predicted identity”, “detected identity”, and “determined identity” is; these limitations each seem to be directed towards ‘collecting power/current data from a premise and then determining what device(s) must have been operating in order to create that data’. For the purposes of examination (based on page 26 lines 4-6: "The device prediction component 504 therefore exploits the fact that people tend to exhibit a repetitive patterns of behavior." and based on Fig. 2/6) it is assumed that “Device prediction component 204”, “Device detection component 210” are both inputs to the “Determined identity 218”.
Note 1: the claim 1 limitation of “and determining, based on at least one of the predicted identity or the detected identity” makes the distinction between ‘determining’, ‘predicting’, and ‘detecting’ less distinct.
Note 2: Fig. 2/6 shows data from “Determined identity 218” being directed to both “Device prediction component 204” & “Device detection component 210” and therefore any data that is input into either 204 or 210 can be reasoned to be inputs to the other as well (at least by way of element 218).
Regarding ”Lack of antecedent basis in the claims”:
Claims 2-16 in line 1 (for each) recites the limitation "The method of claim 1[2][3][4][5][6][8][11]". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim(s). There would be sufficient antecedent basis for “the device identification method”; there are multiple distinct limitations within claim 1 which could be considered to be ‘the method of claim 1’.
Note: the first instance of an element should be in the form “a [unique descriptive terminology]” and successive references to that element should be in the form “the [unique descriptive terminology]” where [unique descriptive terminology] is the same throughout the claims. This is necessary because similarly phrased elements can be patentably distinct.
Regarding “Claim Limitation Interpreted under 112(f) or pre-AIA 112, 6th Para., but disclosure of Structure, Material, or Acts for Performing Function Recited in Claim Lacking, Insufficient, or Not clearly Linked”
Claim 17:
Claim limitation(s):
“a device prediction component configured to determine, based on first power consumption data indicative of a first power consumption associated with a premises within a first time period, a predicted identity of an active device at the premises within a second time period subsequent to the first time period”
“a device detection component configured to determine, based on second power consumption data indicative of a second power consumption associated with the premises within the second time period, a detected identity of the active device at the premises within the second time period”
“a decision component configured to determine, based on at least one of the predicted identity or the detected identity, a determined identity of the active device at the premises within the second time period.”
invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function. The disclosure indicates no more regarding structure than that these elements are capable of "predicting", & "determining" & "detecting"; there is some processing/computing capability. Therefore, the claim is indefinite and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph.
Applicant may:
(a) Amend the claim so that the claim limitation will no longer be interpreted as a limitation under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph;
(b) Amend the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites what structure, material, or acts perform the entire claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(c) Amend the written description of the specification such that it clearly links the structure, material, or acts disclosed therein to the function recited in the claim, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)).
If applicant is of the opinion that the written description of the specification already implicitly or inherently discloses the corresponding structure, material, or acts and clearly links them to the function so that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize what structure, material, or acts perform the claimed function, applicant should clarify the record by either:
(a) Amending the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function and clearly links or associates the structure, material, or acts to the claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(b) Stating on the record what the corresponding structure, material, or acts, which are implicitly or inherently set forth in the written description of the specification, perform the claimed function. For more information, see 37 CFR 1.75(d) and MPEP §§ 608.01(o) and 2181.
Regarding ‘rejected for inheriting the rejected limitation(s) of a parent claim’:
Claims 2-16, & 18-25 are rejected for inheriting the rejected limitation(s) of parent claims 1 and 17 (respectively) without rectifying the issue(s) for which the parent claim(s) was rejected.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1-25 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Regarding “Description requirement and new matter situations”:
Claim 1 in lines 3-4 recites the limitation "a predicted identity of an active device at the premises within a second time period subsequent to the first time period", in lines 6-7 recites the limitation "a detected identity of the active device at the premises within the second time period" and in line 9 recites the limitation "a determined identity of the active device at the premises within the second time period".
Claim 17 in lines 4-5 recites the limitation "a predicted identity of an active device at the premises within a second time period subsequent to the first time period", in lines 7-8 recites the limitation "a detected identity of the active device at the premises within the second time period" and in line 9 recites the limitation "a determined identity of the active device at the premises within the second time period".
Note: both the ‘prediction’ and the ‘determination’ apparently require machine learning algorithms but it isn’t clear what the difference is.
Regarding ‘rejected for inheriting the rejected limitation(s) of a parent claim’:
Claims 2-16, & 18-25 are rejected for inheriting the rejected limitation(s) of parent claims 1 and 17 (respectively) without rectifying the issue(s) for which the parent claim(s) was rejected.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph:
Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claims 21-25 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends.
claim 21 claims "A telecommunications network..." and further specifies that it comprises "the device identification system". The scope of the "telecommunications network" is broader than the scope of the "device identification system". If claim embodiment 'A' is comprised of claim embodiment 'B' then the scope of 'A' is greater than that of 'B'.
claim 22 claims "a device prediction component" and further claims "the "device identification system of claim 17". The scope of the "device prediction component" plus "device identification system of claim 17" is broader than the scope of the "device identification system of claim 17". At least since "the device identification system of claim 17" did not include "a device prediction component".
Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements.
Regarding ‘rejected for inheriting the rejected limitation(s) of a parent claim’:
Claims 23-25 are rejected for inheriting the rejected limitation(s) of parent claims 22 without rectifying the issue(s) for which the parent claim(s) was rejected.
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.
PNG
media_image1.png
930
645
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
681
881
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Flow Diagrams from MPEP 2106(III) & MPEP 2106.04(II)(A), respectively.
Claims 1-25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because:
Claim 1:
Step
Analysis
Step 1:
Is the claim to a process, machine, manufacture or composition of matter?
Yes;
The claim is directed towards a “A method of operating an appliance”, which is a process and one of the four statutory categories.
Revised Step 2A Prong One:
Does the claim recite an abstract idea, law of nature, or natural phenomenon?
Yes;
The claim recites:
“determining, based on first power consumption data indicative of a first power consumption associated with a premises within a first time period, a predicted identity of an active device at the premises within a second time period subsequent to the first time period;”
“determining, based on second power consumption data indicative of a second power consumption associated with the premises within the second time period, a detected identity of the active device at the premises within the second time period; and”
“determining, based on at least one of the predicted identity or the detected identity, a determined identity of the active device at the premises within the second time period.”
Explanation:
Rule:
See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III): “The courts consider a mental process (thinking) that “can be performed in the human mind, or by a human using a pen and paper” to be an abstract idea.”
See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III)(C): “A Claim That Requires a Computer May Still Recite a Mental Process”
See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(I): “The mathematical concepts grouping is defined as mathematical relationships, mathematical formulas or equations, and mathematical calculations.”
Analysis:
At least under the broadest reasonable interpretation the limitations of:
“determining, based on first power consumption data … a predicted identity …”,
“determining, based on second power consumption data … a detected identity …”,
“determining, based on at least one of the predicted identity or the detected identity, a determined identity”
Are mathematical concepts or are mental processes that can be done in the mind.
Conclusion:
Therefore, the claim recites the abstract idea grouping of mathematical concepts or mental process(es).
Revised Step 2A Prong Two:
Does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application?
No;
The claim does not recite additional elements.
Note: “active device” and “premises” are not part of the claimed invention, but rather part of what the claimed invention acts upon and are generic in order to encompass many known technologies.
Note: an element directed towards collecting “power consumption data” at this level of generality would be insignificant extra solution activity (see MPEP 2106.05(g): “Below are examples of activities that the courts have found to be insignificant extra-solution activity: Mere Data Gathering:…”)
Step 2B:
Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception?
No;
The claim does not recite additional elements.
Conclusion:
Therefore, “claim is not eligible subject matter under 35 USC 101”.
Claim 2:
Step
Analysis
Step 1:
Is the claim to a process, machine, manufacture or composition of matter?
Yes;
The claim is directed towards a “A method of operating an appliance”, which is a process and one of the four statutory categories (as inherited from claim 1).
Revised Step 2A Prong One:
Does the claim recite an abstract idea, law of nature, or natural phenomenon?
Yes;
The claim recites:
The judicial exception(s) as inherited from claim 1.
Claim 2 additionally recites:
“wherein at least one of the predicted identity, the detected identity, or the determined identity indicates a version of a particular type of the active device.”
Explanation:
Rule:
See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III): “The courts consider a mental process (thinking) that “can be performed in the human mind, or by a human using a pen and paper” to be an abstract idea.”
See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III)(C): “A Claim That Requires a Computer May Still Recite a Mental Process”
See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(I): “The mathematical concepts grouping is defined as mathematical relationships, mathematical formulas or equations, and mathematical calculations.”
Analysis:
At least under the broadest reasonable interpretation the limitations of:
predicted identity, the detected identity, or the determined identity
are mathematical concepts or are mental processes that can be done in the mind.
Conclusion:
Therefore, the claim recites the abstract idea grouping of mathematical concepts or mental process(es).
Revised Step 2A Prong Two:
Does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application?
No;
The claim does not recite additional elements.
Step 2B:
Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception?
No;
The claim does not recite additional elements.
Conclusion:
Therefore, “claim is not eligible subject matter under 35 USC 101”.
Claim 3:
Step
Analysis
Step 1:
Is the claim to a process, machine, manufacture or composition of matter?
Yes;
The claim is directed towards a “A method of operating an appliance”, which is a process and one of the four statutory categories (as inherited from claim 2 and thereby from claim 1).
Revised Step 2A Prong One:
Does the claim recite an abstract idea, law of nature, or natural phenomenon?
Yes;
The claim recites:
The judicial exception(s) as inherited from claim 2 and thereby from claim 1.
Claim 3 additionally recites:
“wherein determining the detected identity comprises:”
“detecting, based on the second power consumption data, the particular type of the active device; and”
“after detecting the particular type of the active device, detecting, based on the second power consumption data, the version of the particular type of the active device.”
Explanation:
Rule:
See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III): “The courts consider a mental process (thinking) that “can be performed in the human mind, or by a human using a pen and paper” to be an abstract idea.”
See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III)(C): “A Claim That Requires a Computer May Still Recite a Mental Process”
See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(I): “The mathematical concepts grouping is defined as mathematical relationships, mathematical formulas or equations, and mathematical calculations.”
Analysis:
At least under the broadest reasonable interpretation the limitations of:
“determining the detected identity”, “detecting, based on … data”, “detecting, based on … data”
are mathematical concepts or are mental processes that can be done in the mind.
Conclusion:
Therefore, the claim recites the abstract idea grouping of mathematical concepts or mental process(es).
Revised Step 2A Prong Two:
Does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application?
No;
The claim does not recite additional elements.
Step 2B:
Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception?
No;
The claim does not recite additional elements.
Conclusion:
Therefore, “claim is not eligible subject matter under 35 USC 101”.
Claim 4:
Step
Analysis
Step 1:
Is the claim to a process, machine, manufacture or composition of matter?
Yes;
The claim is directed towards a “A method of operating an appliance”, which is a process and one of the four statutory categories (as inherited from claim 3 and thereby from claim 2 and thereby from claim 1).
Revised Step 2A Prong One:
Does the claim recite an abstract idea, law of nature, or natural phenomenon?
Yes;
The claim recites:
The judicial exception(s) as inherited from claim 3 and thereby from claim 2 and thereby from claim 1.
Claim 4 additionally recites:
“wherein detecting the version of the particular type of the active device comprises processing the second power consumption data using a hierarchical support vector machine.”
Explanation:
Rule:
See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III): “The courts consider a mental process (thinking) that “can be performed in the human mind, or by a human using a pen and paper” to be an abstract idea.”
See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III)(C): “A Claim That Requires a Computer May Still Recite a Mental Process”
See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(I): “The mathematical concepts grouping is defined as mathematical relationships, mathematical formulas or equations, and mathematical calculations.”
Analysis:
At least under the broadest reasonable interpretation the limitations of:
“processing … data using … support vector machine”
are mathematical concepts.
Conclusion:
Therefore, the claim recites the abstract idea grouping of mathematical concepts or mental processes.
Revised Step 2A Prong Two:
Does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application?
No;
The claim does not recite additional elements.
Step 2B:
Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception?
No;
The claim does not recite additional elements.
Conclusion:
Therefore, “claim is not eligible subject matter under 35 USC 101”.
Claim 5:
Step
Analysis
Step 1:
Is the claim to a process, machine, manufacture or composition of matter?
Yes;
The claim is directed towards a “A method of operating an appliance”, which is a process and one of the four statutory categories (as inherited from claim 1).
Revised Step 2A Prong One:
Does the claim recite an abstract idea, law of nature, or natural phenomenon?
Yes;
The claim recites:
The judicial exception(s) as inherited from claim 1.
Claim 5 additionally recites:
“further comprising processing the first power consumption data to generate device usage data representing an identity of at least one active device at the premises for each of at least one portion of the first time period, respectively.”
Explanation:
Rule:
See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III): “The courts consider a mental process (thinking) that “can be performed in the human mind, or by a human using a pen and paper” to be an abstract idea.”
See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III)(C): “A Claim That Requires a Computer May Still Recite a Mental Process”
See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(I): “The mathematical concepts grouping is defined as mathematical relationships, mathematical formulas or equations, and mathematical calculations.”
Analysis:
At least under the broadest reasonable interpretation the limitations of:
“processing … data to generate … data”
are either mental processes or mathematical concepts.
Conclusion:
Therefore, the claim recites the abstract idea grouping of mental processes or mathematical concepts.
Revised Step 2A Prong Two:
Does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application?
No;
The claim does not recite additional elements.
Step 2B:
Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception?
No;
The claim does not recite additional elements.
Conclusion:
Therefore, “claim is not eligible subject matter under 35 USC 101”.
Claim 6:
Step
Analysis
Step 1:
Is the claim to a process, machine, manufacture or composition of matter?
Yes;
The claim is directed towards a “A method of operating an appliance”, which is a process and one of the four statutory categories (as inherited from claim 5 and thereby from claim 1).
Revised Step 2A Prong One:
Does the claim recite an abstract idea, law of nature, or natural phenomenon?
Yes;
The claim recites:
The judicial exception(s) as inherited from claim 5 and thereby from claim 1.
Claim 6 additionally recites:
“wherein determining the predicted identity comprises processing the device usage data to determine the predicted identity.”
Explanation:
Rule:
See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III): “The courts consider a mental process (thinking) that “can be performed in the human mind, or by a human using a pen and paper” to be an abstract idea.”
See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III)(C): “A Claim That Requires a Computer May Still Recite a Mental Process”
See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(I): “The mathematical concepts grouping is defined as mathematical relationships, mathematical formulas or equations, and mathematical calculations.”
Analysis:
At least under the broadest reasonable interpretation the limitations of:
“predicted identity … processing … data to determine … identity”
are either mental processes or mathematical concepts.
Conclusion:
Therefore, the claim recites the abstract idea grouping of mental processes or mathematical concepts.
Revised Step 2A Prong Two:
Does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application?
No;
The claim does not recite additional elements.
Step 2B:
Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception?
No;
The claim does not recite additional elements.
Conclusion:
Therefore, “claim is not eligible subject matter under 35 USC 101”.
Claim 7:
Step
Analysis
Step 1:
Is the claim to a process, machine, manufacture or composition of matter?
Yes;
The claim is directed towards a “A method of operating an appliance”, which is a process and one of the four statutory categories (as inherited from claim 6 and thereby from claim 5 and thereby from claim 1).
Revised Step 2A Prong One:
Does the claim recite an abstract idea, law of nature, or natural phenomenon?
Yes;
The claim recites:
The judicial exception(s) as inherited from claim 6 and thereby from claim 5 and thereby from claim 1.
Claim 7 additionally recites:
“wherein processing the device usage data comprises processing the device usage data using a long short-term memory (LSTM) neural network.”
Explanation:
Rule:
See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III): “The courts consider a mental process (thinking) that “can be performed in the human mind, or by a human using a pen and paper” to be an abstract idea.”
See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III)(C): “A Claim That Requires a Computer May Still Recite a Mental Process”
See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(I): “The mathematical concepts grouping is defined as mathematical relationships, mathematical formulas or equations, and mathematical calculations.”
Analysis:
At least under the broadest reasonable interpretation the limitations of:
“using a … neural network”
are mathematical concepts.
Conclusion:
Therefore, the claim recites the abstract idea grouping of mental processes or mathematical concepts.
Revised Step 2A Prong Two:
Does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application?
No;
The claim does not recite additional elements.
Step 2B:
Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception?
No;
The claim does not recite additional elements.
Conclusion:
Therefore, “claim is not eligible subject matter under 35 USC 101”.
Claim 8:
Step
Analysis
Step 1:
Is the claim to a process, machine, manufacture or composition of matter?
Yes;
The claim is directed towards a “A method of operating an appliance”, which is a process and one of the four statutory categories (as inherited from claim 5 and thereby from claim 1).
Revised Step 2A Prong One:
Does the claim recite an abstract idea, law of nature, or natural phenomenon?
Yes;
The claim recites:
The judicial exception(s) as inherited from claim 5 and thereby from claim 1.
Claim 8 additionally recites:
“The method of claim 5, wherein the device usage data represents for each respective active device of the at least one active device, a version of a particular type of the respective active device.”
Explanation:
Rule:
See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III): “The courts consider a mental process (thinking) that “can be performed in the human mind, or by a human using a pen and paper” to be an abstract idea.”
See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III)(C): “A Claim That Requires a Computer May Still Recite a Mental Process”
See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(I): “The mathematical concepts grouping is defined as mathematical relationships, mathematical formulas or equations, and mathematical calculations.”
Analysis:
At least under the broadest reasonable interpretation the limitations of:
“data represents … type of …”
are mathematical concepts or mental processes.
Conclusion:
Therefore, the claim recites the abstract idea grouping of mental processes or mathematical concepts.
Revised Step 2A Prong Two:
Does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application?
No;
The claim does not recite additional elements.
Step 2B:
Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception?
No;
The claim does not recite additional elements.
Conclusion:
Therefore, “claim is not eligible subject matter under 35 USC 101”.
Claim 9:
Step
Analysis
Step 1:
Is the claim to a process, machine, manufacture or composition of matter?
Yes;
The claim is directed towards a “A method of operating an appliance”, which is a process and one of the four statutory categories (as inherited from claim 8 and thereby from claim 5 and thereby from claim 1).
Revised Step 2A Prong One:
Does the claim recite an abstract idea, law of nature, or natural phenomenon?
Yes;
The claim recites:
The judicial exception(s) as inherited from claim 8 and thereby from claim 5 and thereby from claim 1.
Claim 9 additionally recites:
“further comprising determining, based on the device usage data, whether the device usage data represents different versions of a same type of active device within different respective portions of the first time period.”
Explanation:
Rule:
See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III): “The courts consider a mental process (thinking) that “can be performed in the human mind, or by a human using a pen and paper” to be an abstract idea.”
See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III)(C): “A Claim That Requires a Computer May Still Recite a Mental Process”
See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(I): “The mathematical concepts grouping is defined as mathematical relationships, mathematical formulas or equations, and mathematical calculations.”
Analysis:
At least under the broadest reasonable interpretation the limitations of:
“data represents … type of …”
are mathematical concepts or mental processes.
Conclusion:
Therefore, the claim recites the abstract idea grouping of mental processes or mathematical concepts.
Revised Step 2A Prong Two:
Does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application?
No;
The claim does not recite additional elements.
Step 2B:
Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception?
No;
The claim does not recite additional elements.
Conclusion:
Therefore, “claim is not eligible subject matter under 35 USC 101”.
Claim 10:
Step
Analysis
Step 1:
Is the claim to a process, machine, manufacture or composition of matter?
Yes;
The claim is directed towards a “A method of operating an appliance”, which is a process and one of the four statutory categories (as inherited from claim 1).
Revised Step 2A Prong One:
Does the claim recite an abstract idea, law of nature, or natural phenomenon?
Yes;
The claim recites:
The judicial exception(s) as inherited from claim 1.
Claim 10 additionally recites:
“comprising disaggregating, from the second power consumption data, device-specific power consumption data indicative of a power consumption of the active device at the premises within the second time period,”
“wherein determining the detected identity comprises processing the device-specific power consumption data to determine the detected identity.”
Explanation:
Rule:
See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III): “The courts consider a mental process (thinking) that “can be performed in the human mind, or by a human using a pen and paper” to be an abstract idea.”
See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III)(C): “A Claim That Requires a Computer May Still Recite a Mental Process”
See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(I): “The mathematical concepts grouping is defined as mathematical relationships, mathematical formulas or equations, and mathematical calculations.”
Analysis:
At least under the broadest reasonable interpretation the limitations of:
“disaggregating, from … data, data indicative of …” & “determining the detected identity … processing … data to determine the detected identity.”
are mathematical concepts or mental processes.
Conclusion:
Therefore, the claim recites the abstract idea grouping of mental processes or mathematical concepts.
Revised Step 2A Prong Two:
Does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application?
No;
The claim does not recite additional elements.
Step 2B:
Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception?
No;
The claim does not recite additional elements.
Conclusion:
Therefore, “claim is not eligible subject matter under 35 USC 101”.
Claim 11:
Step
Analysis
Step 1:
Is the claim to a process, machine, manufacture or composition of matter?
Yes;
The claim is directed towards a “A method of operating an appliance”, which is a process and one of the four statutory categories (as inherited from claim 1).
Revised Step 2A Prong One:
Does the claim recite an abstract idea, law of nature, or natural phenomenon?
Yes;
The claim recites:
The judicial exception(s) as inherited from claim 1.
Claim 11 additionally recites:
“wherein determining the determined identity of the active device comprises determining the determined identity of the active device based on at least one of a first confidence score associated with the predicted identity or a second confidence score associated with the detected identity.”
Explanation:
Rule:
See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III): “The courts consider a mental process (thinking) that “can be performed in the human mind, or by a human using a pen and paper” to be an abstract idea.”
See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III)(C): “A Claim That Requires a Computer May Still Recite a Mental Process”
See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(I): “The mathematical concepts grouping is defined as mathematical relationships, mathematical formulas or equations, and mathematical calculations.”
Analysis:
At least under the broadest reasonable interpretation the limitations of:
“determining the determined identity … determining the determined identity … based on … confidence score associated with the predicted identity or … confidence score associated with the detected identity”
are mathematical concepts or mental processes.
Conclusion:
Therefore, the claim recites the abstract idea grouping of mental processes or mathematical concepts.
Revised Step 2A Prong Two:
Does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application?
No;
The claim does not recite additional elements.
Step 2B:
Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception?
No;
The claim does not recite additional elements.
Conclusion:
Therefore, “claim is not eligible subject matter under 35 USC 101”.
Claim 12:
Step
Analysis
Step 1:
Is the claim to a process, machine, manufacture or composition of matter?
Yes;
The claim is directed towards a “A method of operating an appliance”, which is a process and one of the four statutory categories (as inherited from claim 11 and thereby from claim 1).
Revised Step 2A Prong One:
Does the claim recite an abstract idea, law of nature, or natural phenomenon?
Yes;
The claim recites:
The judicial exception(s) as inherited from claim 11 and thereby from claim 1.
Claim 12 additionally recites:
“The method of claim 11, wherein determining the determined identity of the active device comprises determining that the determined identity of the active device corresponds to the predicted identity based on the first confidence score exceeding the second confidence score by an amount which meets or exceeds a threshold amount.”
Explanation:
Rule:
See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III): “The courts consider a mental process (thinking) that “can be performed in the human mind, or by a human using a pen and paper” to be an abstract idea.”
See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III)(C): “A Claim That Requires a Computer May Still Recite a Mental Process”
See MPEP 210