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 .
Response to Amendment
Claims 21-40 are pending
Claims 21, 23, 25,28, 30-33, 36-38 have been amended
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 1/23/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Regarding claim 21, the applicant argues that the claim is not directed to mental processes, the claims are directed to a specific technical solution in a particular technological field, the claims integrate any alleged abstract idea into a practical application and that the elements are not routine and conventional viewed as a whole (Remarks pages 7-17). However, according to MPEP 2106.04(a)(2), Claims can still recite a mental process even if they are claimed as being performed on a computer. Thus, assigning an electronic unique first customer key to a first customer group and storing the electronic unique first customer key in a key database in communication with the meter server and associating one or more meters of the plurality of meters with the first customer group to form a digital set of first customer meters are viewed as mental processes performed in a computer environment. The applicant argues that the claim is directed to a specific technical solution in a particular technological field, however according to MPEP 2106.05(h) the claim does not provide significantly more elements to be considered a technical solution in the particular technological field. It is also for this reason that the claim does not integrate any alleged abstract idea into a practical application; the additional elements do not provide significantly more than the abstract idea when viewed as a whole. The applicant further argues the elements are not routine and conventional when viewed as a whole, however according to MPEP 2106.05(d), the claim elements are similar to elements that the courts have recognized as well-understood, routine, conventional activity. For example, assigning an electronic unique first customer key to a first customer group and associating one or more meters of the plurality of meters with the first customer group to form a digital set of first customer meters is viewed by the courts as electronic recordkeeping, Alice Corp. Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank Int'l, 573 U.S. 208, 225, 110 USPQ2d 1984 (2014) (creating and maintaining "shadow accounts"); Ultramercial, 772 F.3d at 716, 112 USPQ2d at 1755 (updating an activity log); storing electronic information associated with the set of first customer meters is viewed by the courts as 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. Providing a user interface that allows users to select how to register in relation to customer groups and authenticating and controlling access to meter data based on the unique customer key is viewed by the courts as insignificant extra-solution activity according to MPEP 2106.05(g), selecting type of data to be manipulated (Selecting information, based on types of information and availability of information in a power-grid environment, for collection, analysis and display, Electric Power Group, LLC v. Alstom S.A., 830 F.3d 1350, 1354-55, 119 USPQ2d 1739, 1742 (Fed. Cir. 2016), Requiring a request from a user to view an advertisement and restricting public access, Ultramercial, 772 F.3d at 715-16, 112 USPQ2d at 1754). Accordingly, the applicant’s arguments regarding the claim not directed to mental processes, the claim being directed to a specific technical solution in a particular technological field, the claim integrating any alleged abstract idea into a practical application and that the elements are not routine and conventional viewed as a whole are not persuasive and the rejection is maintained.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
PNG
media_image1.png
930
645
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
681
881
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 21, the claim recites A method of implementing a utility meter management system comprising: communicating, via a meter server, with a plurality of meters through a network, wherein each meter of the plurality of meters includes a network interface; maintaining a meter database having a meter identification number associated with each meter of the plurality of meters, wherein the meter database is in communication with the meter server; assigning an electronic unique first customer key to a first customer group and storing the electronic unique first customer key in a key database in communication with the meter server; associating one or more meters of the plurality of meters with the first customer group to form a digital set of first customer meters; storing electronic information associated with the set of first customer meters; providing, via a user interface, a user an option to register as a new customer group or to register with the first customer group; authenticating the user to provide access to the first customer group if the user selects to register with the first customer group via the user interface; and providing access to the electronic information associated with the set of first customer meters if the user is authenticated with the first customer group.
Step
Analysis
1: Statutory Category?
Yes. The claim recites a method; therefore, it is a process
2A - Prong 1: Judicial Exception Recited?
Yes. The claim recites the limitation of assigning an electronic unique first customer key to a first customer group. This limitation, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind; for example, assigning unique keys to a group can be done by a human with pen and paper.
The claim recites the limitation of associating one or more meters of the plurality of meters with the first customer group to form a digital set of first customer meters. This limitation, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind; for example, associating meters from a plurality of meters to form a set of meters can be done by a human with pen and paper.
The claim recites the limitation of providing a user an option to register as a new customer group or to register with the first customer group. This limitation, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind; the limitation recites a certain method of organizing human activity because they describe managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people (including social activities, and following rules or instructions).
The claim recites the limitation of authenticating the user to provide access to the first customer group if the user selects to register with the first customer group. This limitation, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, recite: (I) a mental process because they can be performed in the human mind; and (II) a certain method of organizing human activity because they describe managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people (including social activities, and following rules or instructions).
The claim recites the limitation of providing access to the electronic information associated with the set of first customer meters if the user is authenticated with the first customer group. This limitation, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, recite a certain method of organizing human activity because they describe managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people (including social activities, and following rules or instructions.
The claim as a whole recites a method of organizing human interactions. The claimed invention is a method for assigning keys to a user group, associating meters with the user group, which further allows for users to register and authenticate customer groups in order to provide access to the meter information based on the authentication, which is a method of managing interactions between people. The mere nominal recitation of a generic content server and generic network-based storage devices does not take the claim out of the methods of organizing human interactions grouping. Thus, the claim recites an abstract idea.
2A - Prong 2: Integrated into a Practical Application?
No.
the following additional elements merely recites the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the abstract idea, or merely includes instructions to implement the abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform the abstract idea: a meter server; a network; a network interface; a meter database; a key database; a user interface; storing the first customer key in a key database in communication with the meter server; storing electronic information associated with the set of first customer meters; providing, via a user interface, a user an option to register as a new customer group or to register with the first customer group
the following additional elements does no more than generally link the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use, because they are merely an incidental or token addition to the claim that does not alter or affect how the process steps of implementing a utility meter management system are performed: communicating, via a meter server, with a plurality of meters through a network, wherein each meter of the plurality of meters includes a network interface; maintaining a meter database having a meter identification number associated with each meter of the plurality of meters, wherein the meter database is in communication with the meter server;
the following additional elements merely adds insignificant extra-solution activity to the abstract idea: storing the first customer key in a key database in communication with the meter server; storing electronic information associated with the set of first customer meters; providing, via a user interface, a user an option to register as a new customer group or to register with the first customer group
The claim as a whole merely describes how to generally “apply” the concept of assigning keys to a user group, associating meters with the user group, providing a user registration option, authenticating the user and providing access to user meter information in a computer environment. The claimed computer components are recited at a high level of generality and are merely invoked as tools to perform an existing customer meter information authentication process. Simply implementing the abstract idea on a generic computer is not a practical application of the abstract idea. Thus, taken alone, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Looking at the limitations as an ordered combination adds nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually.
2B: Claim provides an Inventive Concept?
No.
These additional elements have been recognized by the courts as being well-understood, routine, conventional activity:
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)
Electronic recordkeeping, Alice Corp. Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank Int'l, 573 U.S. 208, 225, 110 USPQ2d 1984 (2014) (creating and maintaining "shadow accounts"); Ultramercial, 772 F.3d at 716, 112 USPQ2d at 1755 (updating an activity log)
As noted previously, the claim as a whole merely describes how to generally “apply” the concept of assigning keys to a user group, associating meters with the user group, providing a user registration option, authenticating the user and providing access to customer meter information; all of which is done in a computer environment. Thus, even when viewed as a whole, nothing in the claim adds significantly more (i.e., an inventive concept) to the abstract idea. The claim is ineligible.
In addition, claim 22 is further recites the element(s) “… wherein authenticating the user to provide access to the first customer group includes requesting the first customer key from the user.”, which is simply more calculations/mental-steps, value numbers, extra solution activities routine and/or conventional structure(s) previously known to the pertinent industry.
Furthermore, Claim 22 does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because this limitation(s) is simply routine and conventional structures previously known to the pertinent industry that serve to generate the data to be processed by implementing the idea on a computer, and/or recitation of generic computer structure and also serve to perform generic computer functions that are well-understood routine, and conventional activities previously known to the pertinent industry.
Claim 23 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more. Claim 23 depends on claim 21, therefore, it has the abstract idea and also has the routine and conventional structure above said claims.
In addition, claim 23 is further recites the element(s) “… wherein information associated with the first customer meters includes a meter identification (ID), ratio of current transformer to potential transformer (CT/PT ratio), energy scaling, and/or hookup information.”, which are/is simply more calculations/mental-steps, value numbers, extra solution activities routine and/or conventional structure(s) previously known to the pertinent industry.
Furthermore, Claim 23 does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because these/this limitation(s) are/is simply routine and conventional structures previously known to the pertinent industry that serve to generate the data to be processed by implementing the idea on a computer, and/or recitation of generic computer structure and also serve to perform generic computer functions that are well-understood routine, and conventional activities previously known to the pertinent industry.
Claim 24 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more. Claim 24 depends on claim 21, therefore, it has the abstract idea and also has the routine and conventional structure above said claims.
In addition, claim 24 is further recites the element(s) “… further comprising registering a first new meter with the meter server and generating a meter ID for the first new meter.”, which are/is simply more calculations/mental-steps, value numbers, extra solution activities routine and/or conventional structure(s) previously known to the pertinent industry.
Furthermore, Claim 24 does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because these/this limitation(s) are/is simply routine and conventional structures previously known to the pertinent industry that serve to generate the data to be processed by implementing the idea on a computer, and/or recitation of generic computer structure and also serve to perform generic computer functions that are well-understood routine, and conventional activities previously known to the pertinent industry.
Claim 25 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more. Claim 25 depends on claim 24, which depends on claim 21, therefore, it has the abstract idea and also has the routine and conventional structure above said claims.
In addition, claim 25 is further recites the element(s) “… wherein registering the first new meter includes the server receiving a register meter API command from the first new meter over the network.”, which are/is simply more calculations/mental-steps, value numbers, extra solution activities routine and/or conventional structure(s) previously known to the pertinent industry.
Furthermore, Claim 25 does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because these/this limitation(s) are/is simply routine and conventional structures previously known to the pertinent industry that serve to generate the data to be processed by implementing the idea on a computer, and/or recitation of generic computer structure and also serve to perform generic computer functions that are well-understood routine, and conventional activities previously known to the pertinent industry.
Claim 26 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more. Claim 26 depends on claim 24, which depends on claim 21, therefore, it has the abstract idea and also has the routine and conventional structure above said claims.
In addition, claim 26 is further recites the element(s) “… wherein the received condition monitoring data comprises vibration data and the plurality of non-fault state condition monitoring data comprises vibration data and the plurality of fault state condition monitoring data comprises vibration data, and wherein the transformation of the non-fault state condition monitoring data to fault state condition monitoring data comprises a shift in a vibration amplitude peak.”, which are/is simply more calculations/mental-steps, value numbers, extra solution activities routine and/or conventional structure(s) previously known to the pertinent industry.
Furthermore, Claim 26 does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because these/this limitation(s) are/is simply routine and conventional structures previously known to the pertinent industry that serve to generate the data to be processed by implementing the idea on a computer, and/or recitation of generic computer structure and also serve to perform generic computer functions that are well-understood routine, and conventional activities previously known to the pertinent industry.
Claim 27 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more. Claim 27 depends on claim 24, which depends on claim 21, therefore, it has the abstract idea and also has the routine and conventional structure above said claims.
In addition, claim 27 is further recites the element(s) “… further comprising allowing the user to search for the meter ID for the first new meter and associate the first new meter with the first customer group.”, which are/is simply more calculations/mental-steps, value numbers, extra solution activities routine and/or conventional structure(s) previously known to the pertinent industry.
Furthermore, Claim 27 does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because these/this limitation(s) are/is simply routine and conventional structures previously known to the pertinent industry that serve to generate the data to be processed by implementing the idea on a computer, and/or recitation of generic computer structure and also serve to perform generic computer functions that are well-understood routine, and conventional activities previously known to the pertinent industry.
Claim 28 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more. Claim 28 depends on claim 21, therefore, it has the abstract idea and also has the routine and conventional structure above said claims.
In addition, claim 28 is further recites the element(s) “… further comprising storing a list of users associated with the first electronic unique customer key.”, which are/is simply more calculations/mental-steps, value numbers, extra solution activities routine and/or conventional structure(s) previously known to the pertinent industry.
Furthermore, Claim 28 does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because these/this limitation(s) are/is simply routine and conventional structures previously known to the pertinent industry that serve to generate the data to be processed by implementing the idea on a computer, and/or recitation of generic computer structure and also serve to perform generic computer functions that are well-understood routine, and conventional activities previously known to the pertinent industry.
Claim 29 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more. Claim 29 depends on 21, therefore, it has the abstract idea and also has the routine and conventional structure above said claims.
In addition, claim 29 is further recites the element(s) “… further comprising communicating with a client device through a web interface.”, which are/is simply more calculations/mental-steps, value numbers, extra solution activities routine and/or conventional structure(s) previously known to the pertinent industry.
Furthermore, Claim 29 does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because these/this limitation(s) are/is simply routine and conventional structures previously known to the pertinent industry that serve to generate the data to be processed by implementing the idea on a computer, and/or recitation of generic computer structure and also serve to perform generic computer functions that are well-understood routine, and conventional activities previously known to the pertinent industry.
Regarding claim 30, the claim recites a method of implementing a utility meter management system comprising: receiving a first register meter application programming interface (API) command from a web service enabled first meter; registering the web service enabled first meter with a meter server, the meter server configured to store information related to a plurality of meters; receiving a second register meter API command from a web service enabled second meter; registering the web service enabled second meter with the meter server; storing information associated with the first meter as first meter data; storing information associated with the second meter as second meter data; assigning a unique first API key to a first customer group; assigning a unique second API key to a second customer group; limiting access to the first meter data to users authenticated with the first API key; and limiting access to the second meter data to users authenticated with the second API key.
Step
Analysis
1: Statutory Category?
Yes. The claim recites a method; therefore, it is a process
2A - Prong 1: Judicial Exception Recited?
Yes. The claim recites the limitation of assigning a unique first API key to a first customer group. This limitation, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind; for example, assigning unique keys to a group can be done by a human with pen and paper.
The claim recites the limitation of assigning a unique second API key to a second customer group. This limitation, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind; for example, assigning unique keys to a group can be done by a human with pen and paper.
The claim recites the limitation of limiting access to the first meter data to users authenticated with the first API key. This limitation recites a certain method of organizing human activity because they describe managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people (including social activities, and following rules or instructions).). The mere nominal recitation of meter data and encryption key does not take the claim out of the methods of organizing human interactions grouping. Thus, the claim recites an abstract idea.
The claim recites the limitation of limiting access to the second meter data to users authenticated with the second API key. This limitation recites a certain method of organizing human activity because they describe managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people (including social activities, and following rules or instructions). The mere nominal recitation of meter data and encryption key does not take the claim out of the methods of organizing human interactions grouping. Thus, the claim recites an abstract idea.
The claim as a whole recites a method of organizing human interactions. The claimed invention is a method for assigning keys to a user group, associating meters with the user group, which further allows for users to register and authenticate customer groups in order to provide access to the meter information based on the authentication, which is a method of managing interactions between people. The mere nominal recitation of a generic content server and generic network-based storage devices does not take the claim out of the methods of organizing human interactions grouping. Thus, the claim recites an abstract idea.
2A - Prong 2: Integrated into a Practical Application?
No.
the following additional elements merely recites the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the abstract idea, or merely includes instructions to implement the abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform the abstract idea: application programming interface(API), web service enabled first and second meter
the following additional elements does no more than generally link the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use, because they are merely an incidental or token addition to the claim that does not alter or affect how the process steps of implementing a utility meter management system are performed: registering the web service enabled first meter with a meter server; registering the web service enabled second meter with the meter server
The claim as a whole merely describes how to generally “apply” the concept of assigning keys to a user group, and limiting access to user meter information in a computer environment. The claimed computer components are recited at a high level of generality and are merely invoked as tools to perform an existing customer meter information authentication process. Simply implementing the abstract idea on a generic computer is not a practical application of the abstract idea. Thus, taken alone, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Looking at the limitations as an ordered combination adds nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually.
2B: Claim provides an Inventive Concept?
No.
the following additional elements merely adds insignificant extra-solution activity to the abstract idea: receiving a first register meter application programming interface (API) command from a web service enabled first meter; receiving a second register meter API command from a web service enabled second meter; storing information associated with the first meter as first meter data; storing information associated with the second meter as second meter data; the meter server configured to store information related to a plurality of meters
These additional elements have been recognized by the courts as being well-understood, routine, conventional activity:
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)
Electronic recordkeeping, Alice Corp. Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank Int'l, 573 U.S. 208, 225, 110 USPQ2d 1984 (2014) (creating and maintaining "shadow accounts"); Ultramercial, 772 F.3d at 716, 112 USPQ2d at 1755 (updating an activity log)
As noted previously, the claim as a whole merely describes how to generally “apply” the concept of assigning keys to a user group, and limiting access to user meter information; all of which is done in a computer environment. Thus, even when viewed as a whole, nothing in the claim adds significantly more (i.e., an inventive concept) to the abstract idea. The claim is ineligible.
Claim 31 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more. Claim 31 depends on 30, therefore, it has the abstract idea and also has the routine and conventional structure above said claims.
In addition, claim 31 is further recites the element(s) “… further comprising communicating a first meter ID from the meter server to a client device after registering the web service enabled first meter.”, which are/is simply more calculations/mental-steps, value numbers, extra solution activities routine and/or conventional structure(s) previously known to the pertinent industry.
Furthermore, Claim 31 does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because these/this limitation(s) are/is simply routine and conventional structures previously known to the pertinent industry that serve to generate the data to be processed by implementing the idea on a computer, and/or recitation of generic computer structure and also serve to perform generic computer functions that are well-understood routine, and conventional activities previously known to the pertinent industry.
Claim 32 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more. Claim 32 depends on 30, therefore, it has the abstract idea and also has the routine and conventional structure above said claims.
In addition, claim 32 is further recites the element(s) “… further comprising writing CT/PT ratio, energy scaling, and/or hookup information associated with the web service enabled first meter and the second meter into a meter database associated with the meter server.”, which are/is simply more calculations/mental-steps, value numbers, extra solution activities routine and/or conventional structure(s) previously known to the pertinent industry.
Furthermore, Claim 32 does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because these/this limitation(s) are/is simply routine and conventional structures previously known to the pertinent industry that serve to generate the data to be processed by implementing the idea on a computer, and/or recitation of generic computer structure and also serve to perform generic computer functions that are well-understood routine, and conventional activities previously known to the pertinent industry.
Claim 33 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more. Claim 33 depends on 30, therefore, it has the abstract idea and also has the routine and conventional structure above said claims.
In addition, claim 33 is further recites the element(s) “… further comprising providing data associated with the web service enabled first meter to an authenticated user with the first API key.”, which are/is simply more calculations/mental-steps, value numbers, extra solution activities routine and/or conventional structure(s) previously known to the pertinent industry.
Furthermore, Claim 33 does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because these/this limitation(s) are/is simply routine and conventional structures previously known to the pertinent industry that serve to generate the data to be processed by implementing the idea on a computer, and/or recitation of generic computer structure and also serve to perform generic computer functions that are well-understood routine, and conventional activities previously known to the pertinent industry.
Claim 34 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more. Claim 34 depends on 30, therefore, it has the abstract idea and also has the routine and conventional structure above said claims.
In addition, claim 34 is further recites the element(s) “… wherein the first register meter API command is received over a network.”, which are/is simply more calculations/mental-steps, value numbers, extra solution activities routine and/or conventional structure(s) previously known to the pertinent industry.
Furthermore, Claim 34 does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because these/this limitation(s) are/is simply routine and conventional structures previously known to the pertinent industry that serve to generate the data to be processed by implementing the idea on a computer, and/or recitation of generic computer structure and also serve to perform generic computer functions that are well-understood routine, and conventional activities previously known to the pertinent industry.
Claim 35 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more. Claim 35 depends on 30, therefore, it has the abstract idea and also has the routine and conventional structure above said claims.
In addition, claim 35 is further recites the element(s) “… further comprising receiving the first API key from a user and providing and add meter request to the user.”, which are/is simply more calculations/mental-steps, value numbers, extra solution activities routine and/or conventional structure(s) previously known to the pertinent industry.
Furthermore, Claim 35 does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because these/this limitation(s) are/is simply routine and conventional structures previously known to the pertinent industry that serve to generate the data to be processed by implementing the idea on a computer, and/or recitation of generic computer structure and also serve to perform generic computer functions that are well-understood routine, and conventional activities previously known to the pertinent industry.
Claim 36 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more. Claim 36 depends on claim 35, which depends on 30, therefore, it has the abstract idea and also has the routine and conventional structure above said claims.
In addition, claim 36 is further recites the element(s) “… further comprising allowing the user to search for the web service enabled first meter using a meter ID.”, which are/is simply more calculations/mental-steps, value numbers, extra solution activities routine and/or conventional structure(s) previously known to the pertinent industry.
Furthermore, Claim 36 does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because these/this limitation(s) are/is simply routine and conventional structures previously known to the pertinent industry that serve to generate the data to be processed by implementing the idea on a computer, and/or recitation of generic computer structure and also serve to perform generic computer functions that are well-understood routine, and conventional activities previously known to the pertinent industry.
Regarding claim 37, the claim recites a cloud-based meter management system comprising: a web service enabled meter; a server that receives and stores meter log data pushed to the server from the web service enabled meter; a client device configured to communicate with the server and access the meter log data stored on the server, the client device including a user interface; wherein the user interface provides a first registration option and a second registration option, the first registration option configured to create a unique customer group and the second registration option configured to join an existing customer group; wherein a unique application programming interface (API) key is generated when the first registration option is selected; and wherein the unique API key is used to register the web service enabled meter with the customer group when the second registration option is selected; and wherein the unique API key is used to verify that the web service enabled meter has legitimate access to the server to push meter log data.
Step
Analysis
1: Statutory Category?
Yes. The claim recites a system; therefore, it is a machine
2A - Prong 1: Judicial Exception Recited?
Yes.
The claim recites the limitation of using the unique API key to verify that the web service enabled meter has legitimate access to the server to push meter log data. This limitation recites a certain method of organizing human activity because they describe managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people (including social activities, and following rules or instructions).). The mere nominal recitation of meter data and encryption key does not take the claim out of the methods of organizing human interactions grouping. Thus, the claim recites an abstract idea.
The claim as a whole recites a method of organizing human interactions. The claimed invention is a method for assigning keys to a user group, associating meters with the user group, which further allows for users to register and authenticate customer groups in order to provide access to the meter information based on the authentication, which is a method of managing interactions between people. The mere nominal recitation of a generic content server and generic network-based storage devices does not take the claim out of the methods of organizing human interactions grouping. Thus, the claim recites an abstract idea.
2A - Prong 2: Integrated into a Practical Application?
No.
the following additional elements merely recites the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the abstract idea, or merely includes instructions to implement the abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform the abstract idea: application programming interface(API), web service enabled meter; a server that receives and stores meter log data pushed to the server from the web service enabled meter; a client device configured to communicate with the server and access the meter log data stored on the server, the client device including a user interface;
the following additional elements does no more than generally link the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use, because they are merely an incidental or token addition to the claim that does not alter or affect how the process steps of implementing a utility meter management system are performed: wherein the user interface provides a first registration option and a second registration option, the first registration option configured to create a unique customer group and the second registration option configured to join an existing customer group;
The claim as a whole merely describes how to generally “apply” the concept of assigning keys to a user group, and limiting access to user meter information in a computer environment. The claimed computer components are recited at a high level of generality and are merely invoked as tools to perform an existing customer meter information authentication process. Simply implementing the abstract idea on a generic computer is not a practical application of the abstract idea. Thus, taken alone, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Looking at the limitations as an ordered combination adds nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually.
2B: Claim provides an Inventive Concept?
No.
the following additional elements merely adds insignificant extra-solution activity to the abstract idea: wherein a unique application programming interface (API) key is generated when the first registration option is selected; and wherein the unique API key is used to register the web service enabled meter with the customer group when the second registration option is selected;
These additional elements have been recognized by the courts as being well-understood, routine, conventional activity:
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)
Electronic recordkeeping, Alice Corp. Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank Int'l, 573 U.S. 208, 225, 110 USPQ2d 1984 (2014) (creating and maintaining "shadow accounts"); Ultramercial, 772 F.3d at 716, 112 USPQ2d at 1755 (updating an activity log)
As noted previously, the claim as a whole merely describes how to generally “apply” the concept of assigning keys to a user group, and limiting access to user meter information; all of which is done in a computer environment. Thus, even when viewed as a whole, nothing in the claim adds significantly more (i.e., an inventive concept) to the abstract idea. The claim is ineligible.
Claim 38 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more. Claim 38 depends on 37, therefore, it has the abstract idea and also has the routine and conventional structure above said claims.
In addition, claim 38 is further recites the element(s) “… wherein the server is configured to query its database for the meter because of the client device sending the unique API key to the server when the second registration option is selected.”, which are/is simply more calculations/mental-steps, value numbers, extra solution activities routine and/or conventional structure(s) previously known to the pertinent industry.
Furthermore, Claim 38 does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because these/this limitation(s) are/is simply routine and conventional structures previously known to the pertinent industry that serve to generate the data to be processed by implementing the idea on a computer, and/or recitation of generic computer structure and also serve to perform generic computer functions that are well-understood routine, and conventional activities previously known to the pertinent industry.
Claim 39 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more. Claim 39 depends on claim 38, which depends on 37, therefore, it has the abstract idea and also has the routine and conventional structure above said claims.
In addition, claim 39 is further recites the element(s) “… wherein the server returns a notification to the client device indicating that the meter is already registered when the query locates the web service enabled meter.”, which are/is simply more calculations/mental-steps, value numbers, extra solution activities routine and/or conventional structure(s) previously known to the pertinent industry.
Furthermore, Claim 39 does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because these/this limitation(s) are/is simply routine and conventional structures previously known to the pertinent industry that serve to generate the data to be processed by implementing the idea on a computer, and/or recitation of generic computer structure and also serve to perform generic computer functions that are well-understood routine, and conventional activities previously known to the pertinent industry.
Claim 40 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more. Claim 40 depends on claim 38, which depends on 37, therefore, it has the abstract idea and also has the routine and conventional structure above said claims.
In addition, claim 40 is further recites the element(s) “… wherein the server registers the web service enabled meter with the customer group and stores information associated with the web service enabled meter in a database.”, which are/is simply more calculations/mental-steps, value numbers, extra solution activities routine and/or conventional structure(s) previously known to the pertinent industry.
Furthermore, Claim 40 does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because these/this limitation(s) are/is simply routine and conventional structures previously known to the pertinent industry that serve to generate the data to be processed by implementing the idea on a computer, and/or recitation of generic computer structure and also serve to perform generic computer functions that are well-understood routine, and conventional activities previously known to the pertinent industry.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant’s disclosure.
US 20030179714 A1; Gilgenbach, Alan M. et al. is a Meter monitoring and tamper protection system and method.
US 20100302064 A1; Rodgers; Mark E. is a method for deactivating a utility meter.
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 CARL F.R. TCHATCHOUANG whose telephone number is (571)272-3991. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8:00am -5:00am.
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, Huy Phan can be reached at 571-272-7924. 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.
/CARL F.R. TCHATCHOUANG/Examiner, Art Unit 2858
/HUY Q PHAN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2858