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 .
Status of Claims
This is a final rejection in response to claims filed on 01/22/2026. Claims 1-15 are presently amended, remain pending and are examined herein.
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant’s claim for foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. 119 (a)-(d). The claims hold priority to JP 2022-100734 filed on 06/22/2022.
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 1-8 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 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. The term “more processors” appears in the following instances:
-“the DC user device comprises one or more processors,” in claim 1
-“the DC provider device comprises one or more processors” in claim 1
-“the one or more processors of the DC user device being configured...” in claim 1
-“the one or more processors of the DC provider device being configured...” in claim 1
-“the one or more processors of the DC provider are configured to execute:..” in claim 1
-“the power retailer device comprises one or more processors” in claim 1
-“the one or more processors of the power retailer device being configured to.” In claim 1
-“the one or more processors of the DC user device are further configured to store...” in claim 2
-“the one or more processors of the DC provider device are further configured to store...” in claim 2
-“the one or more processors of the DC retailer device are further configured to store...” in claim 2
Whilst there is support for “one processor” in the specification in at least paragraphs [0022], [0024], [0029], and [0031], there is no support for “more processors” of either the DC user, provider or retailer device. Furthermore, the specification only ever mentions that the “calculator” of each of these devices includes “a” processing device 501, wherein “the processing device is a device such as a CPU that reads and executes a program stored in the storage device 503. However, there is no indication in the specification that any of the devices are capable of having multiple processor working in concert to perform the claimed functions. Therefore, the claims recite new matter in that they recite “more processors.” The applicant’s citations for support for the amendments in the applicant’s remarks have been fully considered, but none of the provided sections provide support for “more processors” within a single device. Therefore, the applicant is advised to amend the claims such that each device only contains a singular “processor” (or “CPU” / “processing device” as supported in the specification).
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 1-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1: Is the claim to a Process, Machine, Manufacture, or Composition of Matter
The independent claims 1 and 9 are treated as the representative claims for the 2-step analysis. The dependent claims will be reanalyzed after the initial 2-step analysis on the independent claims. The representative claims are directed to:
Claims 1-8: A renewable energy certificate verification system configured to verify amortization of a renewable energy certificate, the renewable energy certificate verification system comprising:
Claim 9-15: A method for verifying a renewable energy certificate to verify amortization of the renewable energy certificate using a renewable energy certificate verification system including a data center (DC) user device assigned to a DC user, a DC provider device assigned to a DC provider, and a power retailer device assigned to a power retailer, the method comprising:
The claims above are directed to at least one of the potentially eligible subject matter categories, “process, machine, or manufacture” and are therefore to be further analyzed under step 2.
Step 2a Prong 1: Is the claim reciting a Judicial Exception(A Law of Nature, a Natural Phenomenon (Product of Nature), or An Abstract Idea?)
Claim 1 and 9 recite the following, wherein the abstract idea has been bolded and the additional elements are italicized:
Claim 1: A renewable energy certificate verification system configured to verify amortization of a renewable energy certificate, the renewable energy certificate verification system comprising:
a data center (DC) user device assigned to a DC user;
a DC provider device assigned to a DC provider;
a power retailer device assigned to a power retailer;
a power consumption table stored in at least one non-transitory memory and accessible by the DC user device, the DC provider device, and the power retailer device; and
a shared hash value table stored in at least one non-transitory memory and accessible by the DC provider device and an external organization system,
wherein:
the DC user device comprises one or more processors, at least one non-transitory memory, and a network interface, the one or more processors of the DC user device being configured, by execution of instructions stored in the at least one non-transitory memory of the DC user device, to (i) determine user power consumption in a time unit; and (ii) store, in the power consumption table, the user power consumption, for the time unit;
the DC provider device: comprises one or more processors, at least one non-transitory memory, and a network interface, the one or more processors of the DC provider device being configured, by execution of instructions stored in the at least one non-transitory memory of the DC provider device, to (i) determine provider power consumption in the time unit and (ii) store, in the power consumption table, the provider power consumption for the time unit;
the DC provider device further comprises a storage device having a secure region, and the one or more processors of the DC provider device are configured to execute, in the secure region, instructions that (iii) generate, for each time unit, a hash value based on the provider power consumption for the time unit, (iv) store the hash value in the shared hash value table, and (v) perform verification processing of amortized electric energy associated with the renewable energy certificate by determining that a verification result is correct when the amortized electric energy is less than or equal to the provider power consumption stored in the power consumption table for a corresponding time unit;
the power retailer device comprises one or more processors, at least one non-transitory memory, a network interface, and a power consumption measuring instrument or an interface thereto, the one or more processors of the power retailer device being configured, by execution of instructions stored in the at least one non-transitory memory of the power retailer device, to (vi) measure the provider power consumption in a certain period using the power consumption measuring instrument, and vii) determine retailer power consumption for the certain period when a measurement value of the provider power consumption is equal to a total value of all user power consumptions stored in the power consumption table for the certain period, and
the shared hash value table is shared with the external organization system to conceal the provider power consumption from the external organization system while enabling the external organization system to confirm integrity of the provider power consumption based on the hash value.
Claim 9:
A method for verifying a renewable energy certificate to verify amortization of the renewable energy certificate using a renewable energy certificate verification system including a data center (DC) user device assigned to a DC user, a DC provider device assigned to a DC provider, and a power retailer device assigned to a power retailer, the method comprising:
managing user power consumption in a time unit in the DC user device;
storing the user power consumption for the time unit in a power consumption table accessible by the DC user device, the DC provider device, and the power retailer device;
managing provider power consumption in the time unit in the DC provider device;
storing the provider power consumption for the time unit in the power consumption table;
executing, in a secure region of the DC provider device, instructions to generate a hash value based on the provider power consumption for the time unit and to store the hash value in a shared hash value table shared with an external organization system to conceal the provider power consumption from the external organization system;
executing, in the secure region, instructions to perform verification processing of amortized electric energy associated with the renewable energy certificate by determining that a verification result is correct when the amortized electric energy is less than or equal to the provider power consumption stored in the power consumption table for a corresponding time unit;
measuring the provider power consumption in a certain period in the power retailer device using a power consumption measuring instrument; and
determining retailer power consumption when a measurement value of the provider power consumption is equal to a total value of all the user power consumptions stored in the power consumption table for the certain period.
When evaluating the bolded limitations of the claims under the broadest reasonable interpretation in light of the specification, it is clear that representative claims 1, and 9 recite an abstract idea within the category of “certain methods of organizing human activity.” This abstract idea grouping found in MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(II) includes concepts related to “fundamental economic principles or practices,” “commercial or legal interactions,” and “managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people.” The present invention falls under “commercial or legal interactions” which include agreements in the form of contracts, legal obligations, advertising, marketing or sales activities or behaviors, and business relations. The claims in bold above at least recite an abstract idea because the steps fall within “commercial or legal interactions” wherein the data analysis steps are recited at such a high level of generality, such as being merely rule-based mathematical steps(“correct when the amortized electric energy is less than or equal to”).
Finally, the steps of outputs are merely providing the shared hash value table as a form of verification to external organizations, with the intended outcome of concealing the provider power consumption...while confirming integrity of the provider power consumption based on the hash value. Even considering that a hash value is shared as opposed to the actual power consumption, this is still a business relation under “commercial interactions” or “legal interactions” because it is merely performing a high-level data analysis step and outputting the results of the analysis to the provider organization. Furthermore, all of the steps are “legal obligations” because they merely comply with the legal obligation of verifying amortization of a renewable energy certificate. See present specification which describes the problem, “[0008] Unfortunately, when a data center (DC) consumes power, a DC provider that rents a device such as a server or an installation place thereof and a DC user who uses the device or the installation place are on different sides. [0009]Then, the DC user is responsible for reducing CO2 emission, so that the DC user needs to purchase a renewable energy certificate. The DC user also needs to correctly amortize the purchased renewable energy certificate, so that reliability of power consumption for each DC user is required. [0010] Combination of the PDC and the TEE is premised on reliability of the DC provider, and the reliability cannot be secured in a case where there is fraud or a problem. [0011] It is an object of the present invention to provide a renewable energy certificate verification system of guaranteeing validity of power consumption data for each DC user while causing a DC provider and the DC user to conceal the power consumption data from an external organization.” Therefore, it is clear that the system merely intends to comply with the legal obligation of accurate REC verification.
Even when considering the amended steps of “(i) determine user/provider power consumption in a time unit; and (ii) store, in the power consumption table, the user/provider power consumption, for the time unit;” (iii) generate, for each time unit, a hash value based on the provider power consumption for the time unit, (iv) store the hash value in the shared hash value table, and (v) perform verification processing of amortized electric energy associated with the renewable energy certificate by determining that a verification result is correct when the amortized electric energy is less than or equal to the provider power consumption stored in the power consumption table for a corresponding time unit;”, these steps are recited at a high-level of generality such that they are merely “certain methods of organizing human activity” because the broadest reasonable interpretation of the steps encapsulate instructions to an individual to carry out “commercial or legal interactions.” For example, determining power consumption in a time unit, and storing the consumption in a table merely encapsulates generic data collection and data input. Furthermore, generating a hash value, and storing the hash value merely claims any way to generate the hash such that it encapsulates “certain methods of organizing human activity.” Furthermore, “perform verification processing...by determining that a verification result is correct when the amortized electric energy is less than or equal to” is merely a rule-based data processing step, such that it falls within “business relations” or “marketing or sales activities and behaviors.”
Therefore, each of the bolded elements represents data collection, processing, and output steps towards performing the “commercial or legal interaction” of tracking and certifying renewable energy certificates, therefore the claims recite an abstract idea under “certain methods of organizing human activity.
Step 2A Prong 2: Does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application?
Claims 1, and 9 recite the following additional elements:
(a) a data center (DC) user device assigned to a DC user; (in claims 1 and 9)
(b) a DC provider device assigned to a DC provider; and (in claims 1 and 9)
(c) a power retailer device assigned to a power retailer, (in claims 1 and 9)
(d) one or more processors (in claim 1)
(e) at least one non-transitory memory (in claim 1)
(f) network interface (in claim 1)
(g) storage device having a secure region, (in claim 1)
(h) a power consumption measuring instrument or an interface thereto (in claims 1 and 9)
(i) in a secure region of the DC provider device (in claim 9)
The additional elements are no more than a recitation of the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea or other exception on a generic computing device. In this case, the abstract idea of verifying amortization of a renewable energy certificate are merely instructed to be performed on generic computers or generic computing components such as DC user device, DC provider device, power retailer device, one or more processors, at least one non-transitory memory, network interface, storage device having a secure region, a power consumption measuring instrument or an interface thereto, and a secure region of the DC provider device. Since the claims merely recite the idea of the outcome or solution without providing a specific technical implementation, the claims are recited a high level of generality such that they are equivalent to “apply it.” (See MPEP 2106.05(f)). Using non-transitory devices, storage devices having a secure region, and a secure of the various “devices” is no more than using devices in their ordinary capacity to perform economic or other tasks (using storage devices to store tables). Similarly, using a network device (or network interface card “NIC” as recited in the specification) is merely using a network interface card in its ordinary capacity to transmit information. Finally, using a “power consumption measurement instrument” is merely reciting the collection of data at a high level of generality that it merely encapsulates any device that senses the data. Even when considering the additional elements in combination, the networked DC user devices, DC provider devices, and power retailer devices are not recited at a level of specificity such that it would be apparent to one of ordinary skill in the art that an improvement to computer functionality or technology or a technical field is reflected within the scope of the claims. See MPEP 2106.05(a) for improvements to computer functionality, technology, or field of use. Therefore, the claims are directed to an abstract idea without integration into a practical application.
Step 2B: Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception?
Claims 1, and 9 recite the following additional elements:
(a) a data center (DC) user device assigned to a DC user; (in claims 1 and 9)
(b) a DC provider device assigned to a DC provider; and (in claims 1 and 9)
(c) a power retailer device assigned to a power retailer, (in claims 1 and 9)
(d) one or more processors (in claim 1)
(e) at least one non-transitory (in claim 1)
(f) network interface (in claim 1)
(g) storage device having a secure region, (in claim 1)
(h) a power consumption measuring instrument or an interface thereto (in claims 1 and 9)
(i) in a secure region of the DC provider device (in claim 9)
These additional elements have not been found to include significantly more for the same reasons set forth in the Prong 2 rejection, specifically because the additional elements are generic computing devices being used to carry out the abstract idea, as outlined in MPEP 2106.05(f). Furthermore, no improvements to these computing devices have been purported since they are generic computing components instructed to perform the abstract idea or are generic devices operating in their ordinary capacity. Even when viewed as a whole, nothing in the claims meaningfully limits the use of the abstract idea such that it is significantly more (an inventive concept). Therefore, the claims are directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Dependent Claims 2-8 and 10-15 have been analyzed, both individually and in combination with the claims they depend on, under the full 2-step eligibility analysis.
Regarding claims 2 and 11, the claims further define the abstract idea by adding the additional steps of approving the user and provider power consumption, and determines the consumption when both the user and provider approve the power consumption amount. This is merely more of the same abstract idea of commercial interactions because it merely checks whether both values agree before the approving the power consumption amount. Since the claims merely repeats the same additional elements of ‘processors of the DC user device, processors of the DC provider device, processors of the power retailer device,’ and the additional functions are still merely using generic computing devices to carry out the abstract idea, the additional elements are still “apply it” level elements. Even when considering the additional elements individually or as an ordered combination, the claims 2 and 11 are directed to an abstract idea without integration to a practical application. Even viewed as a whole, the claims are patent ineligible because they fail to provide significantly more than the abstract idea.
Regarding claim 3 further define the abstract idea by adding the additional steps of managing a power distribution unit measurement value in a time unit, storing the PDU measurement value in the power consumption table, managing a distribution board measurement value in a time unit, storing the distribution board value in the power consumption table, and measuring the provider power consumption for a certain period of time with a power consumption measuring instrument. The steps in bold are merely more of the same abstract idea because they recite mere data collection steps towards performing the same commercial interactions that are business interactions. The fact that the measurement value is originally sourced from a “power distribution unit” or “distribution board” does not elevate to the level of an additional element because it merely labelling the measurement value data, but it does not positively recite the power distribution unit or distribution board and it does not perform any functional steps with the board. Therefore, the claims in bold merely recite an abstract idea. The additional element of measuring the power consumption with a power consumption measuring instrument is merely an “apply it” level element because it merely using a device in its ordinary capacity to carry out the abstract idea(using a measuring instrument to measure). Therefore, nothing in the claims, even when viewed as a whole, meaningfully limits the claims such that they provide an integration into a practical application or significantly more. Thus claim 3 is still patent ineligible under 35 U.S.C. 101.
Regarding claims 4 and 12, the claims further define the abstract idea by adding the additional steps of performing verification processing of amortized electric energy, and determining that the verification result is correct when the amortized electric energy is equal to or less than the provider power consumption. This is more of the same abstract idea because it merely recite data interactions that are still “commercial or legal interactions” because verifying that values match is merely a business interaction. Even when considering the additional element (instructions in the secure region), individually or in combination with the previous additional elements set forth in the claims depended upon, the additional elements fail to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Therefore, nothing in the claims, even when viewed as a whole, meaningfully limits the claims such that they provide an integration into a practical application or significantly more. Thus claims 4 and 12 are still patent ineligible under 35 U.S.C. 101.
Regarding claims 5, 10 and 13, the claims further define the abstract idea by adding the steps of providing a shared hash value table between the provider, measurement organization, and issuance verification organization whilst concealing the power consumption from the measurement organization and the issuance verification organization. Similarly, claims 6 and 14 provide further interactions such “transfer the renewable energy certificate when payment of the order received is completed,” and “notifies the issuance verification organization of a verification result.” These are more of the same abstract idea because it merely recite business relationships between the three parties, whilst still performing the same “commercial interaction” of tracking power consumption. Even when considering this further limitations with the previous additional elements (DC user device, DC provider device), the claims are not integrated into a practical application. Even when viewed as a whole, meaningfully limits the claims such that they provide an integration into a practical application or significantly more. Thus claims 5, 6, 10, 13, and 14 are still patent ineligible under 35 U.S.C. 101.
Claims 7, 8 and 15 merely further define the abstract idea by adding the steps of performing the storing the amortization verification unit, processing amortized energy, and storing the shared hash value on a “storage device.” This is more of the same abstract idea because the steps are still the same “commercial or legal interaction” but now limited to being performed “by executing instructions in the secure region.” This is an apply it level additional element because it is merely instructions to perform the abstract idea on a generic computing device such as a storage device. Even when considering this additional element individually or in combination with the previous additional elements set forth in the claims depended upon, the additional elements fail to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Therefore, nothing in the claims, even when viewed as a whole, meaningfully limits the claims such that they provide an integration into a practical application or significantly more. Thus claims 7, 8 and 15 are still patent ineligible under 35 U.S.C. 101.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-15 would be allowable if rewritten or amended to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) and 35 U.S.C. 101 set forth in this Office action. More specifically, representative claim 1 (also representative of claim 9) has been heavily amended to now require: a power consumption table stored in at least one non-transitory memory and accessible by the DC user device, the DC provider device, and the power retailer device; and
a shared hash value table stored in at least one non-transitory memory and accessible by the DC provider device and an external organization system,
wherein:
the DC user device comprises one or more processors, at least one non-transitory memory, and a network interface, the one or more processors of the DC user device being configured, by execution of instructions stored in the at least one non-transitory memory of the DC user device, to (i) determine user power consumption in a time unit; and (ii) store, in the power consumption table, the user power consumption, for the time unit;
the DC provider device: comprises one or more processors, at least one non-transitory memory, and a network interface, the one or more processors of the DC provider device being configured, by execution of instructions stored in the at least one non-transitory memory of the DC provider device, to (i) determine provider power consumption in the time unit and (ii) store, in the power consumption table, the provider power consumption for the time unit;
the DC provider device further comprises a storage device having a secure region, and the one or more processors of the DC provider device are configured to execute, in the secure region, instructions that (iii) generate, for each time unit, a hash value based on the provider power consumption for the time unit, (iv) store the hash value in the shared hash value table, and (v) perform verification processing of amortized electric energy associated with the renewable energy certificate by determining that a verification result is correct when the amortized electric energy is less than or equal to the provider power consumption stored in the power consumption table for a corresponding time unit;
the power retailer device comprises one or more processors, at least one non-transitory memory, a network interface, and a power consumption measuring instrument or an interface thereto, the one or more processors of the power retailer device being configured, by execution of instructions stored in the at least one non-transitory memory of the power retailer device, to (vi) measure the provider power consumption in a certain period using the power consumption measuring instrument, and vii) determine retailer power consumption for the certain period when a measurement value of the provider power consumption is equal to a total value of all user power consumptions stored in the power consumption table for the certain period, and
the shared hash value table is shared with the external organization system to conceal the provider power consumption from the external organization system while enabling the external organization system to confirm integrity of the provider power consumption based on the hash value.
In view of these claim amendments, the prior art of record (particularly the combination of Mayne/PwC/Navarro) fails to teach or suggest the secure-region hash generation and storage in a shared hash value table for external integrity confirmation while concealing provider consumption. More specifically, Mayne teaches “transparent” matching via blockchain tokens, as opposed to concealing the provider power consumption from external organization systems, while remaining verifiable. Furthermore, neither PwC nor Navarro remedy this deficiency.
Furthermore, the prior art of record also fails to teach the specific metering and summation conditions exactly as they are recited in the amended claim language, which requires determining that a verification result is correct when the amortized electric energy is less than or equal to the provider power consumption stored in the power consumption table for a corresponding time unit.
Thus, given the specific data processing steps, and the specific data arrangement features now required in the claims as amended, even the prior art yielded in an updated search fails to teach, or render obvious the claim limitations. For at least these reasons, claims 1 and 9 distinguish over the prior art. By virtue of their dependency on claims 1 and 9, claims 2-8 and 10-15 also distinguish over the prior art, and would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) and 35 U.S.C. 101 set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 01/22/2026 have been fully considered.
Regarding drawing objections, the applicant’s corrections and specification amendments correct the issues raised in the objection, therefore, the objection is withdrawn.
In response to the applicant’s remarks over the claims interpretability over 112(f) the amendments to the claims no longer invoke a means + function, thus the claims are no longer interpreted using 112(f).
Regarding claim rejections under 112(f), the amendments eliminate the basis for the 112(f) driven 112(a) and 112(b) rejections. However, the amendments to the claims raise new issues under 112(a) in regards to the support for “more processors” which is not found in the original disclosure.
Regarding applicant’s remarks over claim rejections under 35 U.S.C. 101, the arguments have been fully considered but are not persuasive for the reasons set forth herein. The applicant asserts that the present claims improve computer-enabled verification by providing privacy-preserving integrity confirmation using secure-region execution and cryptographic commitments. However, the examiner respectfully disagrees. Regarding the applicant’s arguments that the amendments no longer reflect the “commercial or legal interaction” categorization for facilitating the tracking and certification of RECs, the applicant asserts that they require a “specific technical mechanism for enabling verification while preventing disclosure of sensitive provider consumption data to external organizations.” However, the examiner disagrees with the notion that claiming that the “secure region” of a device, and the generation of a hash value, shared on a table with an external organization system is an improvement to any computer functionality or technical field. When claimed as broadly at it is claimed, there is nothing describing exactly how the hash values are generated, or any particular mechanism that enables the external organization system to verify the amortization without revealing the consumption. Hashing the data alone is merely part of the abstract idea, and using hashing in its ordinary capacity to convey information to an external organization is merely conveying business relations between two entities. Furthermore, the improvement under MPEP 2106.05(a), is analyzed in step 2a Prong 2 and step 2b of the 2 step analysis, meaning that the abstract idea alone cannot provide the improvement. MPEP 2106.05(a) states, “It is important to note, the judicial exception alone cannot provide the improvement. The improvement can be provided by one or more additional elements. See the discussion of Diamond v. Diehr, 450 U.S. 175, 187 and 191-92, 209 USPQ 1, 10 (1981)) in subsection II, below. In addition, the improvement can be provided by the additional element(s) in combination with the recited judicial exception.” Thus the applicant’s argument that the claims require cryptographic commitments (hash values) generated and protected within a secure execution/storage region and then shared outward for integrity confirmation without plaintext disclosure is not persuasive because it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., cryptographic commitments, integrity confirmation without plaintext disclosure) are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993). Furthermore, since the improvement consideration is not considered in Step 2A, Prong one, the claims at least recite an abstract idea under “certain methods of organizing human activity,” and the improvement is analyzed in regards to the additional elements in Step 2a, Prong Two and step 2b.
Regarding the applicant’s arguments over step 2A, Prong two, the applicant alleges that the amendments directly address the MPEP 2106.05(f) concern, by reciting concrete architecture and operation that meaningfully limits the claims. However, even when considering the amendments, merely reciting one or more processors (in claim 1), (e) at least one non-transitory memory (in claim 1), (f) network interface (in claim 1), (g) storage device having a secure region, (in claim 1), and (h) a power consumption measuring instrument or an interface thereto, does not meaningfully limit the computing infrastructure in a manner that makes it more than a general purpose computer, being these are merely generic computing components. MPEP 2106.05(b) states, “If applicant amends a claim to add a generic computer or generic computer components and asserts that the claim recites significantly more because the generic computer is 'specially programmed' (as in Alappat, now considered superseded) or is a 'particular machine' (as in Bilski), the examiner should look at whether the added elements integrate the exception into a practical application or provide significantly more than the judicial exception. Merely adding a generic computer, generic computer components, or a programmed computer to perform generic computer functions does not automatically overcome an eligibility rejection. Alice Corp. Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank Int’l, 573 U.S. 208, 223-24, 110 USPQ2d 1976, 1983-84 (2014). See In re Alappat, 33 F.3d 1526, 1545, 31 USPQ2d 1545, 1558 (Fed. Cir. 1994); In re Bilski, 545 F.3d 943, 88 USPQ2d 1385 (Fed. Cir. 2008)”
Furthermore, in response the applicant’s assertion that the secure-region limitation is not a field-of-use limitation or aspirational result, the applicant’s argument is not persuasive because the examiner is not convinced that the hash generation, hash storage, and amortization verification results in a “material change of the nature of the recited system.” This is merely a generic computer, specially programmed. Nothing in the specification specifically recites how the “secure region” is an improved computer component. Furthermore, the prevention of tampering and unauthorized disclosure is a result of the software limitations, but not due an improvement to computer functionality. Thus, the broadest reasonable interpretation of “secure region” in view of the specification is any memory-based storage component on the generic computer.
In response to the applicant’s assertion that the claims recite a specific privacy-preserving integrity mechanism, the applicant’s arguments are not persuasive because the generation of time-unit hash values, storing those values, then sharing the values to an external organization does not provide any technical improvements, since it is recited with such generality that it allows for any technique of hashing, storing, and sharing values. There is no specific improvement or a new technique to hashing that improves upon the verifiability and integrity of metered data, other than what is inherent within generally linking to “hashing” as a technical field.
In response the applicant’s assertions that the claims remain tethered to “concrete measured power consumption values and to a defined verification condition” executed within the secure region, this amendment also fails to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or provide significantly more, because determining whether “amortized electric energy less than equal to provider power consumption for corresponding time units” is merely a generic use of computing to track energy credits, which still falls within “certain methods of organizing human activity.”
Therefore, the applicant’s arguments that the claims are integrated into a practical application through a specific secure-execution and cryptographic commitment architecture are not persuasive, because the security features are still part of the abstract idea and the “cryptographic commitment architecture” does not reflect an improvement to any field of hashing techniques and does not even mentioned cryptography at all. While hashing is a component of cryptography, the field of cryptography itself or any specific cryptographical encryption techniques are not recited in the scope of the claims.
In regards to the applicant’s arguments in Step 2B, the applicant asserts a concrete improvement in the technical operation of the overall verification system by enabling external integrity confirmation under confidentiality constraints, while reducing susceptibility to tampering at the provider device by requiring secure-region execution and storage. However, this argument is not persuasive because the specification does not make it apparent to one of ordinary skill in the art that such an improvement over prior art systems is reflected. MPEP 2106.05(a) states, “If it is asserted that the invention improves upon conventional functioning of a computer, or upon conventional technology or technological processes, a technical explanation as to how to implement the invention should be present in the specification. That is, the disclosure must provide sufficient details such that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize the claimed invention as providing an improvement. The specification need not explicitly set forth the improvement, but it must describe the invention such that the improvement would be apparent to one of ordinary skill in the art.” An improvement to a particular “secure-region” of a device, should be accompanied with a description of security has been improved in this particular region of the device. The use of hashing to provide “security” alone does not reflect an improvement, especially when it merely recites hashing at a high level of generality. Finally, “enabling external integrity confirmation under confidentiality constraints,” is merely an improvement to the abstract idea itself, as the claims do not reflect an improvement to any technical field in regards to how confidentiality is ensured. MPEP 2106.05(a) states, “Notably, the court did not distinguish between the types of technology when determining the invention improved technology. However, it is important to keep in mind that an improvement in the abstract idea itself (e.g. a recited fundamental economic concept) is not an improvement in technology.”
Therefore, claims 1 and 9 remain rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101, and since the dependent claims are also a further extension of the abstract idea without integration into a practical application or significantly more, and the applicant has not provided specific counter-arguments regarding the dependent claims, claims 2-8 and 10-15 also remain rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101.
Regarding applicant’s arguments over the claim rejections under 35 U.S.C. 103, the applicant’s arguments have been fully considered and are persuasive, withdrawing the rejections under 35 U.S.C. 103 in view of the amended claims. Particularly, the applicant’s argument that the combination of Mayne/PwC/Navarro) fails to teach or suggest the secure-region hash generation and storage in a shared hash value table for external integrity confirmation while concealing provider consumption is persuasive. More specifically, Mayne teaches “transparent” matching via blockchain tokens, as opposed to concealing the provider power consumption from external organization systems, while remaining verifiable. Furthermore, neither PwC nor Navarro remedy this deficiency, nor would they have rendered that claims obvious as amended. For at least these, reasons, the rejections to the claims under 35 U.S.C. 103 have been withdrawn.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
- Rangasamy et al. (US 10819556 B1) discloses a data center monitoring agent which receives data generated by customer assets via smart meters and stores power consumption data in a data topic map, structured as a hash table, with mappings stored to hash buckets and hashes of event identifiers used as the lookup key. Rangasamy discloses that the assets can be related to “energy credits,” but does not go into further detail.
- Gajic et al. (NPL, A Distributed Ledger-Based Automated Marketplace for the Decentralized Trading of Renewable Energy in Smart Grids. Energies, 15(6), 2121. https://doi.org/10.3390/en15062121 (Year: 2022)) discloses a distributed ledger-based automated marketplace for decentralized trading of renewable energy credits in smart grids, with amortization (power promise), metering consumption, notaries (specialized network participants to monitor fraud, double spending, and transaction validation).
-Kumar et al. (US20220327538) discloses the use of blockchain to secure environmental data in a trusted manner using a hash value of the data stored in the block, allowing the veracity of the environmental data to be verified, without exposing the contents of the original data to the verifying bodies.
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 NICO LAUREN PADUA whose telephone number is (703)756-1978. The examiner can normally be reached Mon to Fri: 8:30 to 5:00pm.
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, Jessica Lemieux can be reached at (571) 270-3445. 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.
/NICO L PADUA/Junior Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3626
/JESSICA LEMIEUX/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3626
Prosecution Insights