DETAILED ACTION
Status of Claims
The following is a Final Office Action in response to applicant’s amendments received on 11/03/2025.
Claims 1, 4, 9, 10, 12, and 17 are amended. Claims 19-20 are newly added. Claims 5-8 and 13-16 are amended. Claims 1-4, 9-12, and 17-20 are being considered in this Office Action. Claims 1-4, 9-12, and 17-20 are currently pending.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 11/03/2025 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Response to Amendments
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action.
In response to applicant’s amendments, claims objection with respect to claims 1, 4, 7, 10, 12 are withdrawn. Applicant amended claims to overcomes claims objections.
With respect to 35 U.S.C. 112(b) to claims 4 and 12, applicant’s amendments address the indefinite rejections by clarifying how the gas use feature, gas demand data, expected gas use feature, and gas maintenance are derived or processed across these layers into parent claims 1 and 10. The 35 U.S.C. 112(b) is withdrawn.
Applicant's arguments and amendments with respect to the §101 rejection to the claims. The arguments are primarily raised in light of applicant’s amendments and therefore moot. An updated 35 U.S.C. 101 will address applicant’s amendments.
Applicant's arguments with respects to the §103 rejection have been considered, and are found persuasive. The closest prior of art listed either in singularly or in combination, fail to anticipate or render the below limitation obvious, which is pointed out in Applicant's arguments of 11/03/2025 pgs. 25-38 in addition to the newly amended limitations, and this adequately reflects the Examiner's opinion to withdraw the 35 U.S.C. 103 rejection.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1-4, 9-12, and 17-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-patentable subject matter. The claims are directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Claims 1-4, 9-12, and 17-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. The eligibility analysis in support of these findings is provided below, in accordance with the “Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance” (MPEP 2106).
With respect to Step 1 of the eligibility inquiry (as explained in MPEP 2106), it is first noted that the method (claims 1-4, 9, 18-20) and system (claims 10-12 and 17) are directed to an eligible category of subject matter (i.e., process, machine, and article of manufacture respectively). Thus, Step 1 is satisfied.
With respect to Step 2, and in particular Step 2A Prong One of MPEP 2106, it is next noted that the claims recite an abstract idea of gas resource dispatching plan by reciting concepts performed in the human mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion), which falls into the “mental process” group within the enumerated groupings of abstract ideas set forth in the MPEP 2106.04 wherein 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)). The claims further recite methods of organizing human activity), which falls into the “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity” group within the enumerated groupings of abstract ideas. The limitations reciting the abstract idea are highlighted in italics and the limitation directed to additional elements highlighted in bold, as set forth in exemplary claim 10, are: An Internet of Things (IoT) system for gas resource dispatching based on a smart gas call center, wherein the IoT system includes a smart gas user platform, a smart gas service platform, a smart gas management platform, a smart gas sensor network platform, and a smart gas object platform that interact sequentially, and the smart gas management platform at least includes a smart operation management sub-platform and a smart gas data center; the smart gas data center is configured to obtain gas use data and gas demand data of different types of gas users and send the gas use data and the gas demand data to the smart operation management sub-platform for processing, the gas demand data including a demand time and a demand volume; and the smart operation management sub-platform is configured to: determine a gas use feature based on the gas use data, the gas use feature at least including the gas use data of the different types of gas users at a plurality of first times; predict, based on the gas use feature, the gas demand data, and gas maintenance data of the smart gas call center, whether a gas supply of at least one of a plurality of second times meet a gas demand, wherein the gas maintenance data includes an estimated maintenance start time, an estimated gas supply restoration time, a current maintenance work order, and an estimated maintenance work order, a prediction result of predicting whether the gas supply of at least one of the plurality of second times meets the gas demand includes a first prediction result and a second prediction result, the first prediction result is that the gas supply of the at least one of the plurality of the second times is incapable of meeting the gas demand, and the second prediction result is that the gas supply of the at least one of the plurality of the second times is capable of meeting the gas demand; and in response to the prediction result is the first prediction result, obtain, based on the smart gas call center, feedback information of the different types of gas users; predict user satisfactions based on the feedback information; adjust first important coefficients based on the user satisfactions, wherein to adjust the first important coefficients based on the user satisfactions, the smart operation management sub-platform is further configured to: in response to at least one of the user satisfactions being higher than a satisfaction threshold, lower the first important coefficients corresponding to the at least one of the user satisfactions; weight the first important coefficients of a plurality of gas users corresponding to different gas pipelines to determine a second important coefficient of the different gas pipelines; determine, based on the second important coefficient, ratios of gas supply volumes to gas demand volumes of the different gas pipelines; adjust a gas dispatching plan, wherein the gas dispatching plan at least includes a gas storage plan and a gas transmission plan, the gas storage plan includes at least one of a gas storage time, a gas storage volume, or a gas storage area, the gas storage area includes an area where a backup gas storage device or a backup gas pipeline is located, the gas transmission plan includes a supply priority of each gas pipeline, a supply source of each gas pipeline, and a gas supply volume of each gas pipeline, the supply source of each gas pipeline includes a gas supply based on a current pipeline and a gas supply based on the backup gas storage device or the backup gas pipeline; adjust each gas pipeline to supply gas from the current pipeline, or adjust each gas pipeline to supply gas from the backup gas storage device or the backup gas pipeline, based on the gas transmission plan; and pre-store a gas of a gas supply volume in the backup gas storage device or the backup gas pipeline located within the gas storage area corresponding to each gas pipeline during a gas storage period, based on the gas storage plan; in response to the prediction result is the second prediction result, determine the gas storage area according to the second important coefficient of each gas pipeline: send the adjusted gas dispatching plan to the smart gas data center and send the adjusted gas dispatching plan to the smart gas user platform via the smart gas service platform(post-solution activity). Claims 1 recites substantially the same limitations as claim 10, and therefore subject to the same rationale.
With respect to Step 2A Prong Two of the MPEP 2106, the judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. The additional elements are directed to an Internet of Things (IoT) system for gas resource dispatching based on a smart gas call center, wherein the IoT system includes a smart gas user platform, a smart gas service platform, a smart gas management platform, a smart gas sensor network platform, and a smart gas object platform that interact sequentially, and the smart gas management platform at least includes a smart operation management sub-platform and a smart gas data center; the smart gas data center is configured to obtain gas use data and gas demand data of different types of gas users and send the gas use data and the gas demand data to the smart operation management sub-platform (obtaining and sending information about to extra-solution activity), adjust each gas pipeline to supply gas from the current pipeline, or adjust each gas pipeline to supply gas from the backup gas storage device or the backup gas pipeline, based on the gas transmission plan(recited at high level of generality), and pre-store a gas of a gas supply volume in the backup gas storage device or the backup gas pipeline located within the gas storage area corresponding to each gas pipeline during a gas storage period, based on the gas storage plan(amounts to extra-solution activity). The examiner further notes the obtaining and sending information is an abstract idea and the use of a platform of IoT to perform those steps are considered “apply it”) for processing, send the adjusted gas dispatching plan to the smart gas data center and send the adjusted gas dispatching plan to the smart gas user platform via the smart gas service platform (obtaining and sending information amount to extra-solution activity). The examiner further notes the obtaining and sending information is an abstract idea and the use of a platform of IoT to perform those steps are considered “apply it”) and non-transitory computer readable storage medium storing computer instructions, wherein when the computer instructions are executed by a processor. However, these elements fail to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they fail to provide an improvement to the functioning of a computer or to any other technology or technical field, fail to apply the exception with a particular machine, fail to effect a transformation of a particular article to a different state or thing, and fail to apply/use the abstract idea in a meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment. Furthermore, these elements have been fully considered, however they are directed to the use of generic computing elements (Applicant’s Specification paragraphs [0021] and [0121] describe high level general purpose computer) to perform the abstract idea, which is not sufficient to amount to a practical application and is tantamount to simply saying “apply it” using a general purpose computer, which merely serves to tie the abstract idea to a particular technological environment (computer based operating environment) by using the computer as a tool to perform the abstract idea, which is not sufficient to amount to particular application. It is notable that mere physicality or tangibility of an additional element or elements is not a relevant consideration in Step 2A Prong Two. As the Supreme Court explained in Alice Corp., mere physical or tangible implementation of an exception does not guarantee eligibility. Alice Corp. Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank Int’l, 573 U.S. 208, 224, 110 USPQ2d 1976, 1983-84 (2014) ("The fact that a computer ‘necessarily exist[s] in the physical, rather than purely conceptual, realm,’ is beside the point"). See also Genetic Technologies Ltd. v. Merial LLC, 818 F.3d 1369, 1377, 118 USPQ2d 1541, 1547 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (steps of DNA amplification and analysis are not "sufficient" to render claim 1 patent eligible merely because they are physical steps).
Accordingly, because the Step 2A Prong One and Prong Two analysis resulted in the conclusion that the claims are directed to an abstract idea, additional analysis under Step 2B of the eligibility inquiry must be conducted in order to determine whether any claim element or combination of elements amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
With respect to Step 2B of the eligibility inquiry, it has been determined that the claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. The additional limitations are directed to: an Internet of Things (IoT) system for gas resource dispatching based on a smart gas call center, wherein the IoT system includes a smart gas user platform, a smart gas service platform, a smart gas management platform, a smart gas sensor network platform, and a smart gas object platform that interact sequentially, and the smart gas management platform at least includes a smart operation management sub-platform and a smart gas data center; the smart gas data center is configured to obtain gas use data and gas demand data of different types of gas users and send the gas use data and the gas demand data to the smart operation management sub-platform (obtaining and sending information amount to data gathering and outputting information) for processing, send the adjusted gas dispatching plan to the smart gas data center and send the adjusted gas dispatching plan to the smart gas user platform via the smart gas service platform (sending information amounts to data gathering and outputting information) and non-transitory computer readable storage medium storing computer instructions, wherein when the computer instructions are executed by a processor, adjust each gas pipeline to supply gas from the current pipeline, or adjust each gas pipeline to supply gas from the backup gas storage device or the backup gas pipeline, based on the gas transmission plan(recited at high level of generality), and pre-store a gas of a gas supply volume in the backup gas storage device or the backup gas pipeline located within the gas storage area corresponding to each gas pipeline during a gas storage period, based on the gas storage plan to implement the abstract idea. These elements have been considered, but merely serve to tie the invention to a particular operating environment (i.e., computer-based implementation), though at a very high level of generality and without imposing meaningful limitation on the scope of the claim. In addition, Applicant’s Specification ([0021] and [0121]) describes generic off-the-shelf computer-based elements for implementing the claimed invention, and which does not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea, which is not enough to transform an abstract idea into eligible subject matter. Such generic, high-level, and nominal involvement of a computer or computer-based elements for carrying out the invention merely serves to tie the abstract idea to a particular technological environment, which is not enough to render the claims patent-eligible, as noted at pg. 74624 of Federal Register/Vol. 79, No. 241, citing Alice, which in turn cites Mayo. The examiner notes with respect to “pre-store a gas of a gas supply volume in the backup gas storage device or the backup gas pipeline located within the gas storage area corresponding to each gas pipeline during a gas storage period, based on the gas storage plan”, the MPEP 2106.5(d)(II) provides the following computer functions as well‐understood, routine, and conventional functions when they are claimed in a merely generic manner (e.g., at a high level of generality) or as insignificant extra-solution activity as the courts have recognized: Storing and retrieving information in memory, Versata Dev. Group, Inc. v. SAP Am., Inc., 793 F.3d 1306, 1334, 115 USPQ2d 1681, 1701 (Fed. Cir. 2015); OIP Techs., 788 F.3d at 1363, 115 USPQ2d at 1092-93. Example relevant to claimed inventions further include: i. Receiving or transmitting data over a network, e.g., using the Internet to gather data, Symantec, 838 F.3d at 1321, 120 USPQ2d at 1362 (utilizing an intermediary computer to forward information); TLI Communications LLC v. AV Auto. LLC, 823 F.3d 607, 610, 118 USPQ2d 1744, 1745 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (using a telephone for image transmission); OIP Techs., Inc., v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363, 115 USPQ2d 1090, 1093 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (sending messages over a network); buySAFE, Inc. v. Google, Inc., 765 F.3d 1350, 1355, 112 USPQ2d 1093, 1096 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (computer receives and sends information over a network); but see DDR Holdings, LLC v. Hotels.com, L.P., 773 F.3d 1245, 1258, 113 USPQ2d 1097, 1106 (Fed. Cir. 2014) ("Unlike the claims in Ultramercial, the claims at issue here specify how interactions with the Internet are manipulated to yield a desired result‐‐a result that overrides the routine and conventional sequence of events ordinarily triggered by the click of a hyperlink." (emphasis added)); ii. Performing repetitive calculations, Flook, 437 U.S. at 594, 198 USPQ2d at 199 (recomputing or readjusting alarm limit values); Bancorp Services v. Sun Life, 687 F.3d 1266, 1278, 103 USPQ2d 1425, 1433 (Fed. Cir. 2012) ("The computer required by some of Bancorp’s claims is employed only for its most basic function, the performance of repetitive calculations, and as such does not impose meaningful limits on the scope of those claims."). It is notable that mere physicality or tangibility of an additional element or elements is not a relevant consideration in Step 2B. As the Supreme Court explained in Alice Corp., mere physical or tangible implementation of an exception is not in itself an inventive concept and does not guarantee eligibility: Alice Corp., 573 U.S. at 224, 110 USPQ2d at 1983-84 (alterations in original). See also Genetic Technologies Ltd. v. Merial LLC, 818 F.3d 1369, 1377, 118 USPQ2d 1541, 1547 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (steps of DNA amplification and analysis "do not, individually or in combination, provide sufficient inventive concept to render claim 1 patent eligible" merely because they are physical steps). Conversely, the presence of a non-physical or intangible additional element does not doom the claims, because tangibility is not necessary for eligibility under the Alice/Mayo test. Enfish, LLC v. Microsoft Corp., 822 F.3d 1327, 118 USPQ2d 1684 (Fed. Cir. 2016) ("that the improvement is not defined by reference to ‘physical’ components does not doom the claims"). See also McRO, Inc. v. Bandai Namco Games Am. Inc., 837 F.3d 1299, 1315, 120 USPQ2d 1091, 1102 (Fed. Cir. 2016), (holding that a process producing an intangible result (a sequence of synchronized, animated characters) was eligible because it improved an existing technological process).
In addition, when taken as an ordered combination, the ordered combination adds nothing that is not already present as when the elements are taken individually. There is no indication that the combination of elements integrates the abstract idea into a practical application. Their collective functions merely provide conventional computer implementation. Therefore, when viewed as a whole, these additional claim elements do not provide meaningful limitations to transform the abstract idea into a practical application of the abstract idea or that the ordered combination amounts to significantly more than the abstract idea itself.
The dependent claims have been fully considered as well (i.e., claim 2 recites the IoT system for gas resource dispatching based on a smart gas call center includes a smart gas user platform, a smart gas service platform, a smart gas management platform, a smart gas sensor network platform, and a smart gas object platform that interact sequentially, and the smart gas management platform at least includes a smart operation management sub-platform and a smart gas data center; the smart gas data center is configured to obtain the gas use data and the gas demand data and send the gas use data and the gas demand data to the smart operation management sub-platform for processing; and the smart operation management sub-platform is configured to process the gas use data and the gas demand data, send gas dispatching management information to the smart gas data center, and send the gas dispatching management information to the smart gas user platform via the smart gas service platform (obtaining and sending information about to extra-solution activity. The examiner further notes the obtaining and sending information is an abstract idea and the use of a platform of IoT to perform those steps are considered “apply it”), and claims 2, 4, 9, 12, and 17 recite various machine learning model, however the machine learning model are recited at high level of generality. The additional elements are directed to the use of generic computing elements (Applicant’s Specification [0021]-[0121] describe high level general purpose computer) to perform the abstract idea, which is not sufficient to amount to a practical application (as noted in the MPEP 2106) and is tantamount to simply saying “apply it” using a general purpose computer, which merely serves to tie the abstract idea to a particular technological environment (computer based operating environment) by using the computer as a tool to perform the abstract idea, which is not sufficient to amount to particular application. These elements have been considered, but merely serve to tie the invention to a particular operating environment (i.e., computer-based implementation), though at a very high level of generality and without imposing meaningful limitation on the scope of the claim. In addition, Applicant’s Specification ([0021]- [0121]) describes generic off-the-shelf computer-based elements for implementing the claimed invention, and which does not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea, which is not enough to transform an abstract idea into eligible subject matter. Further, the “machine learning model” merely represents computer/ processor environment automatically executing predefined models per changes in the input data/parameters, and mere instructions to apply/implement/automate an abstract idea in a particular technological environment and merely limiting the use of an abstract idea to a particular field or technological environment do not eliminate existence of an abstract idea, do not provide practical application for an abstract idea and do not provide significantly more to an abstract idea MPEP 2106.05(f) &(h). Further, applying machine learning approach as described in the claims and repeat until a stopping criteria is met) as described in the claimed invention does not necessarily alter the technology such as the computing device implementing these models or algorithms; and a possible improvement to the accuracy of resulting optimized model merely represent business model improvement rather than a technological one. Therefore, the argued improvements do not eliminate existence of an abstract idea, do not provide practical application for an abstract idea and do not provide significantly more to an abstract idea. Similar analysis applies to Step 2B, and the claims do not provide significantly more), however, similar to the finding for claims above, these claims are similarly directed to the abstract idea of certain method of organizing human activity, mathematical concept, and a mental process, without integrating it into a practical application and with, at most, a general purpose computer that serves to tie the idea to a particular technological environment, which does not add significantly more to the claims. The ordered combination of elements in the dependent claims (including the limitations inherited from the parent claim(s)) add nothing that is not already present as when the elements are taken individually. There is no indication that the combination of elements improves the functioning of a computer or improves any other technology. Their collective functions merely provide conventional computer implementation. Accordingly, the subject matter encompassed by the dependent claims fails to amount to significantly more than the abstract idea.
Examiner Notice
Claims 1-4, 9-12, and 17-20 are objected, but would be allowable, if they were amended in such a way to overcome the 35 USC 101 rejection set forth in the action.
The closet prior art of record is Shinji Wada (US 2022/0180453 A1, hereinafter “Wada”), Zehua Shao (US 2020/0293997 A1, hereinafter “Shao”), Mathew Fairlie (US 2005/0165511 A1, hereinafter “Fairlie”), Zhang Meng (CN111797320A, hereinafter “Meng”), and Qixin Chen (US 2019/0147464 A1, hereinafter “Chen”), either in singularity or in combination, fail to anticipate or render the limitation obvious.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
US 20120054017 A1
Relevant paragraphs: [0049]
Rao; Bindu Rama
US 20150149097 A1
Relevant paragraphs: [0023]-[0040] and Abstract
Wada; Shinji et al.
US 8224993 B1
Relevant paragraphs: Entire document
Brandwine; Eric J.
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to REHAM K ABOUZAHRA whose telephone number is (571)272-0419. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7:00 AM to 5:00 PM.
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, Brian Epstein can be reached at (571)-270-5389. 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.
/REHAM K ABOUZAHRA/ Examiner, Art Unit 3625 /BRIAN M EPSTEIN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3625
Prosecution Insights