DETAILED ACTION
The present application is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
This Office Action is in response Applicant communication filed on 9/27/2023.
Claims
Claims 1-13 are currently pending in the application.
Information Disclosure Statements
The Information Disclosure Statements (IDS) that were filed on 9/27/2023 and 10/23/2024 have been considered.
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 token generation unit that issues…”, “a power supply control unit that supplies…”, and “a result token issuing unit that issues…” in claim 1. Further, claim 5 recites “an evaluation unit that evaluates…”, claim 8 recites “a token management unit that divides…”, and claim 11 recites “a token settlement unit that pays…”.
Because these claim limitation(s) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, they 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 Rejections - 35 USC § 112
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 1-12 are 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 pre-AIA the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Claim 1 recites “a token generation unit that issues…", “a power supply control unit that supplies…”, and “a result token issuing unit that issues…”. The claim limitations invoke 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
The specification fails to disclose the adequate structure and algorithm (e.g., the necessary steps and/or flowcharts) that perform the claimed functions in sufficient detail. When the disclosed structure is a computer programmed to carry out an algorithm, the disclosed structure is not the general purpose computer, but rather the special purpose computer programmed to perform the disclosed algorithm. In cases involving a special purpose computer-implemented means-plus-function limitation, the Federal Circuit has consistently required that the structure be more than simply a general purpose computer or microprocessor and that the specification must disclose an algorithm for performing the claimed function. Consideration of the understanding of one skilled in the art in no way relieves the patentee of adequately disclosing sufficient structure in the specification. The specification must explicitly disclose the algorithm for performing the claimed function, and simply reciting the claimed function in the specification will not be sufficient disclosure for an algorithm which, by definition, must contain a sequence of steps. Please see MPEP 2181 II B. The specification fails to disclose the algorithm (e.g., the necessary steps and/or flowcharts) that perform the claimed function in sufficient detail.
Similarly claim 5 recites “an evaluation unit that evaluates…”, claim 8 recites “a token management unit that divides…”, and claim 11 recites “a token settlement unit that pays…”. The specification fails to disclose the adequate structure and algorithm (e.g., the necessary steps and/or flowcharts) that perform the claimed functions in sufficient detail.
Further claims 2-12 are rejected as being dependent on claim 1 above.
Furthermore, Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, because the specification, while being enabling for supplying power generated by a specific source to the grid in exchange for the power reservation token, does not reasonably provide enablement for a demand system directly receiving a supply of the specific power in exchange for the power reservation token. The specification does not enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and/or use the invention commensurate in scope with these claims.
The enablement requirement refers to the requirement of 35 U.S.C. § l12(a) or first paragraph that the specification describe how to make and how to use the invention. The invention that one skilled in the art must be enabled to make and use is that defined by the claim(s) of the particular application or patent. The purpose of the requirement that the specification describe the invention in such terms that one skilled in the art can make and use the claimed invention is to ensure that the invention is communicated to the interested public in a meaningful way. The information contained in the disclosure of an application must be sufficient to inform those skilled in the relevant art how to both make and use the claimed invention.
Any analysis of whether a particular claim is supported by the disclosure in an application requires a determination of whether that disclosure, when filed, contained sufficient information regarding the subject matter of the claims as to enable one skilled in the pertinent art to make and use the claimed invention. The standard for determining whether the specification meets the enablement requirement is whether the claimed invention is enabled so that any person skilled in the art can make and use the invention without undue experimentation.
There are many factors to be considered when determining whether there is sufficient evidence to support a determination that a disclosure does not satisfy the enablement requirement and whether any necessary experimentation is "undue." These factors include:
A. The breadth of the claims;
B. The nature of the invention;
C. The state of the prior art;
D. The level of one of ordinary skill;
E. The level of predictability in the art;
F. The amount of direction provided by the inventor;
G. The existence of working examples; and
H. The quantity of experimentation needed to make or use the invention based on the
content of the disclosure.
A conclusion of lack of enablement means that, based on the evidence regarding each of the above factors, the specification, at the time the application was filed, would not have taught one skilled in the art how to make and/or use the full scope of the claimed invention without undue experimentation. See MPEP § 2164.
Regarding Claim 12, when applying the Wands factors to claim 12, the Examiner finds the following:
A. The breadth of the claims.
Claim 12 recites “a demand system that acquires the power reservation token and receives supply of the specific power in exchange for the power reservation token”. The specification states at [0013] that:
The demand system 60 includes a demand management agent 61 that handles information and a demand device 62 that consumes power.
Accordingly the demand system is the entity that consumes power. The broadest reasonable interpretation (BRI) of "an entity that consumes power" includes a user that receives power from an electric grid to power their home, appliances, etc..
Further, the specification states in [0017] that:
The demand management agent 61 of the demand system 60 acquires the power reservation token from the token management device 20 based on the operation plan of the demand device 62. The demand device 62 is supplied with power via the power grid G. A smart meter M capable of recording power supplied from the power grid Gin time series is attached to each of the demand devices 62.
Accordingly the demand system is being supplied with power via the power grid.
Furthermore, the specification states in [0015] that:
The result token generation device 30 generates a result token. The supply management agent 41 of the power generation system 40 causes the supply device 42 to generate power based on a command from the reservation token generation device 10 and causes the power grid G to output power. The supply devices 42 are various power generation devices, and include, for example, a solar power generation device, a wind power generation device, a wave power generation device, a geothermal power generation device, a thermal power generation device, a hydraulic power generation device, and the like.
Accordingly the supply devices are various power generation devices that generate a specific type of power such as solar power, wind power, geothermal power, thermal power, etc. and the power grid G outputs the power generated by the supply devices.
Therefore, the BRI of "a demand system that acquires the power reservation token and receives supply of the specific power in exchange for the power reservation token" recited in claim 12 includes a user receiving a specific type of power generated by a supply device from the electric grid to power their home/appliances. This specific type of power is received by the user in exchange for the power reservation token.
B. The nature of the invention.
As discussed above, the scope of the claim covers a way for a user to receive power generated by a specific type of power generation device. As discussed above, the specification recites that a specific type of power generation device can produce power for the grid which distributes the power to the demand system. The specification provides no disclosure or even a single example of how one would successfully implement a way for the demand system to acquire a specific type of power from the grid. Once the grid receives power generated from a variety of power generator types, the demand system has no way of knowing exactly what specific type of power is being received from the grid. For example, if you pour water (electricity) from a variety of different ponds (generation sources) into a bowl (the grid) and then pour some of the water from the bowl into a cup (the demand system), there is no way to guarantee that water from a specific pond will end up in that cup. Similarly, the demand system has no way of knowing that a specific type of power from the grid has been exchanged for the power reservation token.
C. The state of the prior art.
The Examiner finds that the prior art teaches a variety of techniques for supplying entities with power in exchange for tokens. The prior art also discusses techniques for distributed generation and storage of power. This enables the collection of energy from many sources so that utilities can efficiently manage consumer demand. Some techniques typically use renewable energy sources including hydro, solar, wind, and geothermal. However, none of these techniques disclose a way to ensure that a specific power type is received by a consumer in exchange for a token.
As discussed below, the prior art also discloses a number of techniques for collecting energy from a variety of source types so that the power can be distributed to users. However the applicant's disclosure is silent as to how it is known that a specific type of power is received by the customer in exchange for a token. Receiving electricity from the grid and determining exactly what type of generator created that electricity that is used by a consumer would require extensive experimentation because the pool of electricity available to users consists of many different sources.
D. The level of one of ordinary skill.
The Examiner finds that based on the prior art cited on the record, one of ordinary skill is able to generate a token that includes data specifying the type of energy to be provided at a specific date and time. Further, one of ordinary skill in the art can also gather power from multiple types of power generation sources and distribute that power to users. Yet, as noted above, the Examiner has not been able to identify such a disclosure in the prior art, and the Applicant's specification likewise has not filled in the gap between the skill in the art and the claimed invention.
Accordingly, one of skill in the art would not be able to rely upon even one successful example-either in the prior art or in Applicant's disclosure-as a starting point in figuring out how to implement a way to determine a specific type of power has been received by a user in exchange for a token. Rather, one of skill would be required to carry out a great deal of experimentation to develop a successful technique for calculating exactly what type of generator created the power that the user receives from the grid, as presented by the claims.
E. The level of predictability in the art.
The Examiner finds that the art in the present claims is unpredictable because there is no way to predict or control 1) what type of generators will be used to generate the power, 2) what type of power will be on the grid, and 3) what type of weather or other variables will affect the generation of power to meet the specific type identified in the token. Furthermore, because of the current state of the art for providing power from multiple types of power generators, the Examiner has identified that it would be difficult to trace back and ensure that the power received by the user is from a specific type of power generator. Thus, one of skill attempting to make and use the presently claimed invention would encounter a lot of unpredictability throughout the realm of possible scenarios encompassed by the claims and require a complete transformation of current power grids.
F. The amount of direction provided by the inventor.
As noted, while the specification at [0015] mentions:
The result token generation device 30 generates a result token. The supply management agent 41 of the power generation system 40 causes the supply device 42 to generate power based on a command from the reservation token generation device 10 and causes the power grid G to output power. The supply devices 42 are various power generation devices, and include, for example, a solar power generation device, a wind power generation device, a wave power generation device, a geothermal power generation device, a thermal power generation device, a hydraulic power generation device, and the like.
the specification does not contain any other mention of, or discussion of, a demand system that acquires the power reservation token and receives supply of the specific power in exchange for the power reservation token. The Examiner finds that the Applicant has provided zero guidance to one of skill in the art as to how to make and use the invention. At most, the specification discloses a way to control what types of power generation devices provide the power to the grid.
Accordingly, the Examiner finds that the Applicant has provided no guidance as to how to implement this aspect of the claimed invention.
G. The existence of working examples.
Just as the originally-filed disclosure does not show that Applicant had possession of the feature of a demand system that acquires the power reservation token and receives supply of the specific power in exchange for the power reservation token, the originally filed disclosure does not show that Applicant has or ever had-at the time the invention was filed-a working example.
H. The quantity of experimentation needed to make or use the invention based on the
content of the disclosure.
Based on the lack of guidance in the prior art when considering the vast scope of the claimed feature and the lack of even a single example in Applicant's possession, one of skill in the relevant art would need to conduct significant experimentation to make or use the invention capable of performing within the broadest reasonable scope of the claims. A person of skill in the relevant art would be required to conduct significant experimentation to even develop a single, well-controlled, working technique for carrying out the claimed invention; they would essentially be starting from scratch as Applicant has provided zero guidance. As noted above, while there are a number of well-controlled techniques that perform in limited applications, some with supplemental information, to exchange a token for power from the grid, it would require extensive experimentation and transformation of current electrical grids to ensure a specific type of power is exchanged for a token. Therefore, the amount of experimentation required to develop the invention as currently claimed-all ways of determining that specific type of power is exchanged for a token, would certainly be undue.
Conclusion
Therefore, the specification fails to enable one of skill in the relevant art to make and use the invention without undue experimentation because the claims-particularly with respect to receiving a specific type of power in exchange for a token makes the claimed subject matter unpredictable within the broad scope of possibilities, encompass elements that are not established in the art, encompass elements that the specification does not fully explain within the full scope of the claims, and would require significant experimentation to make and use the elements at the core of the invention. The scope of claim 12 is not fully enabled and would require undue experimentation by one of skill in the art to make and use the full scope of claim 12.
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 1-12 are 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 pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention. In this instant case,
Claim 1 recites “a token generation unit that issues…", “a power supply control unit that supplies…”, and “a result token issuing unit that issues…”. The claim limitations invoke 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. However, the claim(s) fail to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for the claimed function. The specification in paragraphs [0018]-[0020] recites that an arithmetic device 900 can include a CPU, ROM, RAM, input/output device, and communication device. However, this does not provide structure for the token generation unit, power supply control unit, and result token issuing unit which can be interpreted as software.
Similarly claim 5 recites “an evaluation unit that evaluates…”, claim 8 recites “a token management unit that divides…”, and claim 11 recites “a token settlement unit that pays…”. The specification fails to disclose the corresponding structure that perform the claimed functions in sufficient detail.
Furthermore, claims 2-12 are rejected as being dependent on claim 1 above.
Applicant may:
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; or
Amend the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites what structure, material, or acts perform the claimed function, 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 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:
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
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.
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.
Claim 1-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
In the instant case, claims 1-12 are directed to a system and claim 13 is directed to a method. Therefore, these claims fall within the four statutory categories of invention.
Claim 13 recites issuing a power reservation token that is used to exchange for power and issuing a result token that indicates the power was exchanged for the power reservation token. Specifically, the claim recites “issuing a power reservation token that is a right to use specific power that is power obtained by generating power using a specific type of energy; supplying power in exchange for the power reservation token; and issuing a result token indicating that the specific power supplied in exchange for the power reservation token is used”, which is grouped within the “mental processes” and “certain methods of organizing human activity” grouping of abstract ideas in prong one of step 2A of the Alice/Mayo test because the claims involve issuing a power reservation token that is used to exchange for power and issuing a result token that indicates the power was exchanged for the power reservation token which falls under the categories of “concepts performed in the human mind” and “managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people”. Accordingly, the claims recite an abstract idea (See pages 7, 10, Alice Corporation Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank International, et al., US Supreme Court, No. 13-298, June 19, 2014; MPEP § 2106.04(a)). Claim 1 is directed to a system that performs the same functions of claim 13. Therefore Claim 1 is also directed to the abstract idea of issuing a power reservation token that is used to exchange for power and issuing a result token that indicates the power was exchanged for the power reservation token.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because, when analyzed under prong two of step 2A of the Alice/Mayo test, the additional element(s) of claims 1 and 13, such as the use of the token generation unit, power supply control unit, and result token issuing unit, merely use(s) a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea. Specifically, the token generation unit, power supply control unit, and result token issuing unit perform(s) the steps or functions of issuing a power reservation token that is used to exchange for power and issuing a result token that indicates the power was exchanged for the power reservation token. The use of a processor/server as a tool to implement the abstract idea does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it requires no more than a computer performing functions that correspond to acts required to carry out the abstract idea. The additional elements do not involve improvements to the functioning of a computer, or to any other technology or technical field (MPEP § 2106.05(a)), the claims do not apply the abstract idea with, or by use of, a particular machine (MPEP § 2106.05(b)), and the claims do not apply or use the abstract idea in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment, such that the claim as a whole is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception (MPEP § 2106.05(e) and Vanda Memo). Therefore, the claims do not, for example, purport to improve the functioning of a computer. Nor do they effect an improvement in any other technology or technical field. Accordingly, the additional elements do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea, and the claims are directed to an abstract idea.
Claims 1 and 13 does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because, when analyzed under step 2B of the Alice/Mayo test (See MPEP § 2106.05), the additional element(s) of using a the token generation unit, power supply control unit, and result token issuing unit to perform the steps amounts to no more than using a computer or processor to automate and/or implement the abstract idea of issuing a power reservation token that is used to exchange for power and issuing a result token that indicates the power was exchanged for the power reservation token. As discussed above, taking the claim elements separately, the token generation unit, power supply control unit, and result token issuing unit perform(s) the steps or functions of the abstract idea. Viewed as a whole, the combination of elements recited in the claims merely recite the concept of issuing a power reservation token that is used to exchange for power and issuing a result token that indicates the power was exchanged for the power reservation token. Therefore, the use of these additional elements does no more than employ the computer as a tool to automate and/or implement the abstract idea. The use of a computer or processor to merely automate and/or implement the abstract idea cannot provide significantly more than the abstract idea itself (MPEP 2106.05(I)(A)(f) & (h)). Therefore, the claim is not patent eligible.
The dependent claims 2-12 further describe the abstract idea.
Claim 2 describes the result token data to include an identifier for specifying the type of energy, a time when the specific power is used, and an amount of power to be used.
Claim 3 describes the reservation token data to include a limit token that specifies a time when the specific power can be used.
Claim 4 describes the limit token data to include a cancellation condition where the power supply is cancelled under a predetermined condition.
Claim 5 recites the abstract idea of evaluating the token generation unit and giving the evaluation of the token generation unit that has generated the power reservation token to the power reservation token. The evaluation unit that performs the evaluating is merely a computer being used as a tool to perform the abstract idea.
Claim 6 describes the power reservation token to include a limit token and recites the abstract idea of evaluating based on a sum of power generation capacity of the supply device and the power amount issued by the token generation unit at same use date and time.
Claim 7 recites the abstract idea of evaluating the token generation unit based on a result in which the power supply control unit supplies power in exchange for the generated power reservation token.
Claim 8 describes the power reservation token as including an amount of available power. Claim 8 further recites the abstract idea of dividing the power reservation token and transferring the power reservation token to two or more entities wherein the sum of available power amount in the divided power reservation tokens is equal to or less than available power amount int the power reservation token before division.
Claim 9 describes where the power transaction system is available.
Claim 10 describes the specific type of energy.
Claim 11 recites the abstract idea of trading the power reservation token for compensation. The use of the token settlement unit to pay the compensation is merely using a computer as a tool to perform the abstract idea.
Claim 12 recites the abstract idea of acquiring the power reservation token and receiving supply of the specific power in exchange for the power reservation token. The use of the demand system is merely using a computer as a tool to perform the abstract idea.
The dependent claims do not include additional elements that integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or that provide significantly more than the abstract idea. Therefore, the dependent claims are also not patent eligible.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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)(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.
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
Claims 1, 2, 5, 7-10, 12, and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as disclosed by US 20230134095 A1 to Mitch.
Per claims 1 and 13, Mitch discloses a system and method comprising:
a token generation unit that issues a power reservation token that is a right to use specific power that is power obtained by generating power using a specific type of energy (e.g. in some embodiments, promissory tokens are issued by the control system and/or user(s), and recorded on a blockchain, to govern the provision of preferred energy at a future time. In some embodiments, such a control system, which may be a control system as that set forth with reference to FIG. 2, below, may be included within energy sourcing and distribution environment 100) (Sections [0017], [0041], [0042], [0044], [0055], and [0056]);
a power supply control unit that supplies power in exchange for the power reservation token (e.g. Next, in step 601, after obtaining its virtual asset(s)/token(s), example power consumer 652 may request to purchase preferred energy. In some such embodiments, such a request may be made using another form of promissory token (which, as all other tokens in this application may be, is issued and/or transmitted to a blockchain) referred to as a “buy preferred energy token,” which is recorded on blockchain 650. In some embodiments, such a buy preferred energy token includes a statement of an amount of preferred energy required in a transaction. In some embodiments, the buy preferred energy token may include any or all of the following information, in any possible combination or partial combination thereof and/or of other information: (i) a desired amount of preferred energy (e.g., in kilowatts); (ii) an address of the power consumer; (iii) a timestamp; and/or (iv) a digital signature, using a private/public cryptographic key pair of the power consumer)) (Sections [0061] and [0094]-[0097]);
a result token issuing unit that issues a result token indicating that the specific power supplied in exchange for the power reservation token is used (e.g. Next, in Step 602, after the power consumer 651 receives preferred energy from a local distribution entity user, such as example local distributor entity 653, a confirmation of that power delivery, in the form of a new form of token—referred to as a “confirm buy preferred energy token”—is issued and transmitted (recorded on blockchain 650)) (Sections [0062], [0063], [0097], and [0098]).
Note: the limitation “a result token indicating that the specific power supplied in exchange for the power reservation token is used” does not distinguish over the prior art because it is describing the result token and is not positively recited as a step/function of the claims. If the limitation had patentable weight then it would bring up enablement issues similar to that of claim 12 as discussed above.
Per claim 2, Mitch discloses all the limitations of claim 1 above. Mitch further discloses:
wherein the result token includes an identifier for specifying the specific type of energy, a time when the specific power is used, and an amount of power of the specific power used (e.g. In some embodiments, the confirm buy preferred energy token may include any or all of the following information, in any possible combination or partial combination thereof and/or of other information: (i) a cryptographic hash of the corresponding buy preferred energy token; (ii) an address of a local distributor entity that delivered the preferred energy; (iii) data concerning the amount of preferred energy delivered to the power consumer (in some embodiments, only if the amount is less than that indicated in the buy preferred energy token); (iv) a timestamp; and (v) a digital signature, using a public/private cryptographic key pair of the power consumer 651) (Section [0097]).
Per claim 5, Mitch discloses all the limitations of claim 1 above. Mitch further discloses:
further comprising an evaluation unit that evaluates the token generation unit and gives the evaluation of the token generation unit that has generated the power reservation token to the power reservation token (e.g. In some embodiments, a variety of users (e.g., the wholesale sellers, buyers, or auditors) may then investigate and evaluate the authenticity of transaction(s) as preferred (e.g., clean) energy transaction(s), by reviewing blockchain(s) of Wholesalers' Tier Blockchain System 819. In some embodiments, such users are provided with a GUI for viewing tools relaying data and/or information concerning the nature and/or amount of energy sold by a wholesaler or other seller purporting to sell preferred (e.g., clean) energy. As an example, in some embodiments, such a user is consortium or other association of users 815, and is provided with such a GUI, and may then independently view and validate data regarding energy sold by a seller on the Wholesalers' Tier Blockchain System, as shown by example data and information access connection arrow 822) (Section [0116]).
Per claim 7, Mitch discloses all the limitations of claim 5 above. Mitch further discloses:
wherein the evaluation of the token generation unit by the evaluation unit is based on a result in which the power supply control unit supplies power in exchange for the generated power reservation token (e.g. in some embodiments, the control system may begin by receiving a promise by a local distributor entity, such as any of local distributor entities 107 or example local distributor entity 451, to purchase preferred energy. In some embodiments, this promise is received in the form of a promissory token, as discussed above, issued, transmitted and recorded on the blockchain 450 (e.g., by the local distributor entity). Such a promissory token may be referred to as a “reserve preferred energy token” (or, in some instances in this application, as an “RPE token”). In some embodiments, a reserve preferred energy token may include data indicating an amount of preferred energy to be purchased, in a unit of measure (e.g., Kilowatts or Watts Peak). In some embodiments, such a reserve preferred energy token may also include the identity of (e.g., via a public key linked or otherwise associated with) a local distributor who sent the token. In some embodiments, such a reserve preferred energy token may also include a time stamp) (Sections [0056], [0058], and [0116]).
Per claim 8, Mitch discloses all the limitations of claim 1 above. Mitch further discloses:
wherein the power reservation token includes an amount of available power, the power transaction system further comprising a token management unit that divides the power reservation token and transfers the power reservation token to two or more entities (e.g. In subsequent step 405, once a particular number of confirm delivered preferred energy tokens have been issued and/or transmitted to the blockchain 450, by the wholesale entity, the corresponding local distribution entity(ies), such as local distributor entity 451, can then claim the amount of preferred power (“green energy”) subject to the tokens, using the control system. In some embodiments, this step is carried out, at least in part, by the local distributor entity 451 issuing and/or transmitting a token evidencing its claim of that amount of preferred power and readiness to receive that preferred power—a.k.a., a “claim preferred energy token.” Once the control system records the claim preferred energy token on the blockchain 450, a receiving wholesale distributor entity, such as example receiving wholesale distributor entity 453, which may be any of the wholesale regional distributor entities 105, discussed above, may then deliver the claimed amount of preferred energy to the local distributor entity 451. In some embodiments, the amount of energy stated in the claim preferred energy token must be less than or equal to the reserve preferred energy tokens initially transmitted by the local distributor entity. In other words, the local distributor entity 451 would not be permitted to claim more preferred energy in a single supply chain cycle, than it had reserved earlier, in step 401, in such embodiments) (Section [0061]);
a sum of available power amounts in the divided power reservation tokens is equal to or less than an available power amount in the power reservation token before the division (e.g. In subsequent step 405, once a particular number of confirm delivered preferred energy tokens have been issued and/or transmitted to the blockchain 450, by the wholesale entity, the corresponding local distribution entity(ies), such as local distributor entity 451, can then claim the amount of preferred power (“green energy”) subject to the tokens, using the control system. In some embodiments, this step is carried out, at least in part, by the local distributor entity 451 issuing and/or transmitting a token evidencing its claim of that amount of preferred power and readiness to receive that preferred power—a.k.a., a “claim preferred energy token.” Once the control system records the claim preferred energy token on the blockchain 450, a receiving wholesale distributor entity, such as example receiving wholesale distributor entity 453, which may be any of the wholesale regional distributor entities 105, discussed above, may then deliver the claimed amount of preferred energy to the local distributor entity 451. In some embodiments, the amount of energy stated in the claim preferred energy token must be less than or equal to the reserve preferred energy tokens initially transmitted by the local distributor entity. In other words, the local distributor entity 451 would not be permitted to claim more preferred energy in a single supply chain cycle, than it had reserved earlier, in step 401, in such embodiments) (Sections [0058], [0061], and [0062]).
Per claim 9, Mitch discloses all the limitations of claim 1 above. Mitch further discloses:
wherein the power transaction system is available at any power reception point (e.g. In various embodiments, preferred energy generation entities 103, wholesale regional distributor entities 105, local distributor entities 107; and local consumers 109 may be any type of such users, including but not limited to energy producing and consuming entities and/or individuals, as will be readily apparent to those of ordinary skill in the art. For example, in some embodiments, local consumers 109 may include individual or household residential consumers of energy, from other users of the control system (such as an electrical power utility company). In some embodiments, such local consumers 109 may be organized in local communities, such as example local user community 111, and any number of such communities, up to and including an Nth local user community 113) (Section [0043]).
Per claim 10, Mitch discloses all the limitations of claim 1 above. Mitch further discloses:
wherein the specific type of energy includes at least one of solar power, wind power, wave power, geothermal power, natural gas, fossil fuel, hydraulic power, and nuclear power (e.g. Also similarly, preferred energy generators 103 may include any number of sub-types and entities within each sub-type, such as example nuclear power generating entities 119, example wind power generating entities 121 and example solar power generating entities 123) (Section [0043]).
Per claim 12, Mitch discloses all the limitations of claim 1 above. Mitch further discloses:
further comprising a demand system that acquires the power reservation token and receives supply of the specific power in exchange for the power reservation token (e.g. n some embodiments, this step is carried out, at least in part, by the local distributor entity 451 issuing and/or transmitting a token evidencing its claim of that amount of preferred power and readiness to receive that preferred power—a.k.a., a “claim preferred energy token.” Once the control system records the claim preferred energy token on the blockchain 450, a receiving wholesale distributor entity, such as example receiving wholesale distributor entity 453, which may be any of the wholesale regional distributor entities 105, discussed above, may then deliver the claimed amount of preferred energy to the local distributor entity 451) (Section [0061] and [0066]).
Rejections under 35 § U.S.C. 103
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 3, 4, and 6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mitch, as applied to claim 1 above, in further view of US 20150356529 A1 (“Drake”).
Per claim 3, Although Mitch discloses a power reservation token used to exchange for power, Mitch does not specifically disclose:
wherein the power reservation token includes a limit token in which a date and time when the specific power can be used is designated in advance, and a general-purpose token in which a date and time when the specific power can be used is not designated in advance.
However Drake, in analogous art of token redemption, discloses:
wherein the power reservation token includes a limit token in which a date and time when the specific power can be used is designated in advance, and a general-purpose token in which a date and time when the specific power can be used is not designated in advance (e.g. in one implementation, redemption server 330 will expire token 331 after a predetermined time has passed after redemption server 330 transmitted token 331 to user device 310 if user device 310 does not use token 331 to redeem the media content. For another example, in a second implementation, redemption server 330 will expire token 331 when user device 310 uses token 331 to redeem the media content from retailer 370. In each implementation, redemption server 330 may store a database of the expired tokens so that redemption server 330 does not transmit an expired token to another user device) (Section [0045]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the power reservation token of Mitch to include an expiration date of when the token can be redeemed, as taught by Drake, in order to achieve the predictable result of encouraging user engagement, managing token circulation, and enhancing security.
Per claim 4, Mitch/Drake discloses all the limitations of claim 3 above. Drake further discloses:
wherein the limit token includes a limit token with cancellation condition in which power is not supplied under a predetermined condition and a limit token without cancellation in which power is supplied regardless of the predetermined condition (e.g. in one implementation, redemption server 330 will expire token 331 after a predetermined time has passed after redemption server 330 transmitted token 331 to user device 310 if user device 310 does not use token 331 to redeem the media content. For another example, in a second implementation, redemption server 330 will expire token 331 when user device 310 uses token 331 to redeem the media content from retailer 370. In each implementation, redemption server 330 may store a database of the expired tokens so that redemption server 330 does not transmit an expired token to another user device) (Section [0045]).
The motivation to combine Drake with Mitch is disclosed above with reference to claim 3.
Per claim 6, Mitch discloses all the limitations of claim 5 above. Mitch further discloses:
wherein the token generation unit is associated with a supply device that generates power (e.g. In some embodiments, such a control system may be at least partially present on the premises of any entity or individual using the control, system (a “user”). As an overview, some such possible entities or individuals, according to some embodiments, may include any of the following: A) energy generating parties, such as the pictured example preferred energy generation entities 103; B) wholesale or other early intermediate energy distributor entities, such as example wholesale regional distributor entities 105; C) other distributors of such energy, such as example local distributor entities 107; and/or consumers of such energy, such as example local consumers 109) (Sections [0041] and [0042]);
…and an available power amount are designated in advance (e.g. For example, in some embodiments, any of preferred energy generator entities 103 may view a GUI element presented on computer hardware of the control system, presenting information related to the demand for preferred energy. As discussed, such information related to demand, and/or contracted delivery times for preferred energy, may be based on promissory tokens recorded on a blockchain, with which the control system is in communication. Based on that information, in some embodiments, such preferred energy generator entities 103 may then plan for and provide an amount of preferred energy to be produced at times in the future) (Section [0044]);
the evaluation of the token generation unit by the evaluation unit is based on a sum of power generation capacity of the supply device and the power amount issued by the token generation unit at same use date and time (e.g. Based on that information, in some embodiments, such preferred energy generator entities 103 may then plan for and provide an amount of preferred energy to be produced at times in the future. For example, in some embodiments, the preferred energy generator entities 103 may view the number of promissory tokens evidencing an amount of a particular type of preferred energy required to be delivered at a particular point in time (e.g., solar energy, required for delivery in a pre-set amount of time, such as three hours), and set aside capacity to meet that obligation. In some embodiments, government(s) and/or industry consortium(s) may also be user(s) of the control system, and may adjust parameters of smart contracts to which they are a party, on such a blockchain, in reaction to such information, which they may similarly view through the control system. In this sense, promissory tokens may serve as evidence of levels of demand for preferred energy and/or particular types thereof, downstream in the energy production and distribution supply chain) (Section [0044], [0056], [0058], and [0116]).
Although Mitch discloses a power reservation token used to exchange for power in which the power reservation token includes the amount of preferred energy to be produced at times in the future so that the power suppliers can reserve the capacity in advance, Mitch does not specifically disclose:
the power reservation token includes a limit token in which a use date and time which is the date and time when the specific power can be used….
However Drake, in analogous art of token redemption, discloses:
the power reservation token includes a limit token in which a use date and time which is the date and time when the specific power can be used… (e.g. in one implementation, redemption server 330 will expire token 331 after a predetermined time has passed after redemption server 330 transmitted token 331 to user device 310 if user device 310 does not use token 331 to redeem the media content. For another example, in a second implementation, redemption server 330 will expire token 331 when user device 310 uses token 331 to redeem the media content from retailer 370. In each implementation, redemption server 330 may store a database of the expired tokens so that redemption server 330 does not transmit an expired token to another user device) (Section [0045]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the power reservation token of Mitch to include an expiration date of when the token can be redeemed, as taught by Drake, in order to achieve the predictable result of encouraging user engagement, managing token circulation, and enhancing security.
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mitch/Drake, as applied to claim 4 above, in further view of US 20200082360 A1 (“Regev”).
Per claim 11, Although Mitch/Drake discloses a power reservation token that is purchased and then used to exchange for power, Mitch/Drake does not specifically disclose:
wherein the power reservation token is traded as a compensation for money transfer, the power transaction system further comprising a token settlement unit that pays a compensation money to a purchaser of the limit token with cancellation condition when power is not supplied in exchange for the limit token with cancellation condition.
However Regev, in analogous art of token exchanges, discloses:
wherein the power reservation token is traded as a compensation for money transfer, the power transaction system further comprising a token settlement unit that pays a compensation money to a purchaser of the limit token with cancellation condition when power is not supplied in exchange for the limit token with cancellation condition (e.g. If User A cancels their order, the SmartSwap smart contract may be configured to issue a refund to User A in EZO, upon which the SmartSwap smart contract may be configured to terminate the operation commenced based on the received request) (Section [0044]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the power reservation token purchase of Mitch/Drake to include compensation payment if an exchange is cancelled, as taught by Regev, in order to achieve the predictable result of providing convenience to the user by allowing them to get a refund for their payment if the exchange order is cancelled.
Conclusion
The following prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
US Publication Number 20200005403 A1 to Patterson teaches a system and method that allows users to get paid with cryptocurrency tokens for providing electricity back onto the electrical grid. US Publication Number 20190172159 A1 to Sun teaches a blockchain network that matches electricity providers with consumers and allows the consumers to purchase electricity using tokens. US Publication Number 20200052613 A1 to Garrity teaches a system and method that allows users to purchase energy tokens by supplying power to the electric grid using a smart inverter. US Publication Number 20200175504 A1 to Abbott teaches a system and method that validates produced electricity using the blockchain and then applies the produced amount of electricity as the underlying value of a token. The tokens are then sold/traded to consumers who can use the tokens to consume electricity. US Publication Number 20220270190 A1 to Elgethum teaches a system and method that allows for the purchase of tokens which may then be exchanged for a consumable service or product such as electricity. NPL Open Access Same-Time Information System is an internet based system for obtaining electric power in North America.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to TIMOTHY P SAX whose telephone number is (571) 272-2935. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F 8-4:30.
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, Patrick McAtee can be reached at (571) 272-7575. 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.
/TS/
Examiner, Art Unit 3698
/PATRICK MCATEE/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3698