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
Claims 1-21 have been cancelled.
Claims 22-41 have been added.
Claims 22-41 are currently pending and have been examined.
Response to Applicant's Remarks
Claim Objections
Applicant’s remarks, see Page(s) 8, filed 19 May 2026, with respect to the claim objections of claims 13-20, have been fully considered, and are moot, in view of the claim amendments and claim cancelations. Therefore, the claim objections have been withdrawn.
35 U.S.C. § 112
Applicant’s remarks, see Page(s) 8, filed 19 May 2026, with respect to the 35 U.S.C. § 112 rejections of claims 8-13, have been fully considered, and are moot, in view of the claim amendments and claim cancelations. Therefore, the 35 U.S.C. § 112 rejections have been withdrawn.
35 U.S.C. § 101
Applicant’s remarks, see Page(s) 8-14, filed 19 May 2026, with respect to the 35 U.S.C. § 101 rejections of claims 1-21, have been fully considered, and are moot, in view of the claim amendments and claim cancelations. Therefore, the 35 U.S.C. § 101 rejections have been withdrawn. However, as necessitated by the claim amendments and claim additions, a new ground of rejection has been provided below.
35 U.S.C. § 103
Applicant’s remarks, see Page(s) 14-16, filed 19 May 2026, with respect to the 35 U.S.C. § 103 rejections of claims 1-21, have been fully considered, and are moot, in view of the claim amendments and claim cancelations. Therefore, the 35 U.S.C. § 103 rejections have been withdrawn.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: “a hardware interface configured to physically transfer captured electrical energy…” in claim 22.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 22-41 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim(s) 22 recite(s) the limitation "verify the unique physical identifier via a mobile device application scan". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim(s). Additionally, it is unclear if “the unique physical identifier” is the same identifier as the “unique machine-readable identifier linked to a digital asset wallet associated with a corresponding user account”. Claims that are dependent upon the claim(s) listed above are therefore rejected. Appropriate correction and/or explanation is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claim(s) 22-41 is/are 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(s) 22 recite(s) a system and series of steps for tracking energy collection and executing contracts with customers, which under broadest reasonable interpretation, is analogous to concepts performed in the human mind (observation, evaluation, judgement, opinion) and commercial or legal interactions, such as agreements in the form or contracts. These concepts are grouped as mental processes and certain methods of organizing human activity.
The limitation(s) of, ‘track an amount of the electrical energy stored…’; ‘verify transfer of a quantity of electrical energy…’; ‘record…the quantity of transferred electrical energy’; ‘execute a smart contract…’, as drafted, recite a process that, under broadest reasonable interpretation, is/are mental processes and certain methods of organizing human activity. Accordingly, the claim(s) recite(s) an abstract idea.
The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim(s) recite(s) the additional element(s) of ‘a plurality of renewable energy capturing devices’, ‘a solar energy capturing device’, ‘a wind-powered electrical generation device’, ‘a water-flow-powered electrical generation device’, ‘at least one portable energy storage device’, ‘a rechargeable battery pack’, ‘a digital asset wallet’, ‘a hardware interface’, ‘a control processor’, ‘a mobile device application’. These additional elements are recited at a high-level of generality such that in conjunction with the abstract limitations, they amount to no more than:
mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components (i.e., generic computer components performing generic computer functions) (‘a control processor’, ‘a mobile device application’). In their broadest reasonable interpretation, the additional element(s) comprise(s) only a processor, instructions in memory, a display, a receiver, and a transmitter, being used to implement the functions of the abstract idea. Accordingly, the claims do not amount to more than a recitation of the words "apply it" (or an equivalent) or more than mere instructions to implement an abstract idea or other exception in a generic computing environment (see MPEP 2106.05(f) Mere Instructions to Apply an Exception). Thus, even when viewed in combination, these additional elements do not integrate the recited judicial exception into a practical application and the claim(s) is/are directed to the judicial exception.
generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use (‘a plurality of renewable energy capturing devices’, ‘a solar energy capturing device’, ‘a wind-powered electrical generation device’, ‘a water-flow-powered electrical generation device’, ‘at least one portable energy storage device’, ‘a rechargeable battery pack’, ‘a digital asset wallet’, ‘a hardware interface’).
Claim(s) 23-41 further recite(s) the system and series of steps for tracking energy collection and executing contracts with customers, which under broadest reasonable interpretation, is analogous to concepts performed in the human mind (observation, evaluation, judgement, opinion) and commercial or legal interactions, such as agreements in the form or contracts. These concepts are grouped as mental processes and certain methods of organizing human activity. Accordingly, the claim(s) recite(s) an abstract idea.
The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim(s) recite(s) the additional element(s) of ‘solar panels’, ‘wind turbines’, ‘a water turbine’, ‘an artificial intelligence engine’, ‘a plurality of portable energy storage devices’, ‘a plurality of cables’. These additional elements are recited at a high-level of generality such that in conjunction with the abstract limitations, they amount to no more than generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use.
As analyzed above, the limitations as an ordered combination, are merely applying the abstract idea in a generic computing environment and generally linking the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use. In addition, the claims do not improve functionality of a computer or improve any other technology. Thus, claims 22-41 are ineligible as the claims do not recite additional elements which result in significantly more than the abstract idea itself.
Novel/Non-Obvious Subject Matter
The subject matter of claims 22-41 is not taught by the cited prior art and is considered novel/non-obvious. However, claims 22-41 remain rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 as described above.
The closest prior art of record is Bangalore (U.S. Patent App. Pub. No. 20220140610), Bathen (U.S. Patent App. Pub. No. 20220318779), Ashley (U.S. Patent App. Pub. No. 20200148072), Maini (U.S. Patent App. Pub. No. 20120059766), Kim (U.S. Patent App. Pub. No. 20120161713), Wallander (U.S. Patent App. Pub. No. 20230058782), Mullins (U.S. Patent App. Pub. No. 20220403808), and Ong (U.S. Patent App. Pub. No. 20220036330).
The cited prior art, taken either individually or in combination, fails to teach or suggest at least one portable energy storage device comprising a rechargeable battery pack having at least one input port, a weather-resistant housing, and a unique machine-readable identifier linked to a digital asset wallet associated with a corresponding user account; and a control processor configured to: verify the unique physical identifier via a mobile device application scan, track an amount of the electrical energy stored within a selected one of the at least one portable energy storage device, verify transfer of a quantity of electrical energy from the selected portable energy storage device, record, within a digital asset wallet associated with the corresponding customer account, the quantity of transferred electrical energy associated with the verified transfer, and execute a smart contract to selectively allocate a digital asset to the corresponding customer account responsive to the verified transfer of electrical energy from the at least one portable energy storage device.
Conclusion
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 Wayne S Murray whose telephone number is (571)272-4306. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8am-5pm.
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, Jeffrey Zimmerman can be reached at (571) 272-4602. 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.
/Wayne S. Murray/Examiner, Art Unit 3628
Prosecution Insights