DETAILED ACTION
The following is an initial Office Action upon examination of the above-identified application on the merits. Claims 1-15 are pending in this application.
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 .
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
Priority
Applicant’s claim for the benefit of a prior-filed application under 35 U.S.C. 119(e) or under 35 U.S.C. 120, 121, 365(c), or 386(c) is acknowledged. Applicant has not complied with one or more conditions for receiving the benefit of an earlier filing date under 35 U.S.C. 120.
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Information Disclosure Statement
The examiner has considered the information disclosure statements (IDS) submitted on 4 January 2024.
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 use the word “means” or “step” but are nonetheless not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph because the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure, materials, or acts to entirely perform the recited function. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: first acquisition unit, second acquisition unit, calculation unit, and output unit in claims 14 and 15.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are not being interpreted to cover only the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant intends 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 remove the structure, materials, or acts that performs the claimed function; or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) does/do not recite sufficient structure, materials, or acts to perform the claimed function.
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 a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more. The claim(s) recite(s), in part, acquiring a sum of electric energy usages, in a specified period, of a previously specified first device group among all devices provided at a facility and of a second device group that is among the all devices and is different from the first device group; acquiring an electric energy usage of the first device group in the specified period; reducing the sum in accordance with the electric energy usage of the first device group and calculating an electricity charge for the facility in the specified period, based on an electric energy after the reduction; and outputting information representing the electricity charge for the facility. This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because claims are directed to abstract ideas of concepts performed in the human mind (mental process -- acquiring a sum of electric energy usages, in a specified period, of a previously specified first device group among all devices provided at a facility and of a second device group that is among the all devices and is different from the first device group and acquiring an electric energy usage of the first device group in the specified period) and mathematical concepts (reducing the sum in accordance with the electric energy usage of the first device group and calculating an electricity charge for the facility in the specified period, based on an electric energy after the reduction). The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because claims are directed to abstract ideas and extra-solution activities that do not have a physical or tangible form, such as mere data gathering, insignificant application, and/or mere instructions to apply a judicial exception.
The following is an analysis based on 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance (2019 PEG).
Step 1, Statutory Category?
Claims 1-13 are directed to an electricity charge output method.
Claim 14 is are directed to an electricity charge output device.
Claim 15 is are directed to a non-transitory computer readable storage medium.
Claims 1-15 are directed to at least one of the four statutory categories.
Step 2A, Prong One, Judicial Exception Recited?
Claims 1-15 are directed to abstract ideas of concepts performed in the human mind (mental process -- acquiring a sum of electric energy usages, in a specified period, of a previously specified first device group among all devices provided at a facility and of a second device group that is among the all devices and is different from the first device group and acquiring an electric energy usage of the first device group in the specified period) and mathematical concepts (reducing the sum in accordance with the electric energy usage of the first device group and calculating an electricity charge for the facility in the specified period, based on an electric energy after the reduction).
As per claim 1, this claim similarly recites the limitations of “acquiring a sum of electric energy usages, in a specified period, of a previously specified first device group among all devices provided at a facility and of a second device group that is among the all devices and is different from the first device group; acquiring an electric energy usage of the first device group in the specified period; reducing the sum in accordance with the electric energy usage of the first device group and calculating an electricity charge for the facility in the specified period, based on an electric energy after the reduction.” As drafted, these limitations encompass concepts performed in the human mind and mathematical concepts. Mathematical concepts cover mathematical relationships and mathematical formulas or equations.
As per claim 2, this claim recites the limitations of “in the reducing the sum, a product of the electric energy usage of the first device group and a coefficient previously associated with the first device group is reduced from the sum.” As drafted, these limitations encompass mathematical concepts. Mathematical concepts cover mathematical relationships and mathematical formulas or equations.
As per claim 5, this claim recites the limitations of “acquiring information representing outside air temperature in the specified period; and adjusting the coefficient associated with the air conditioner in accordance with the acquired outside air temperature.” As drafted, these limitations encompass concepts performed in the human mind and mathematical concepts. Mathematical concepts cover mathematical relationships and mathematical formulas or equations.
As per claim 6, this claim recites the limitations of “acquiring information representing whether there was a person in the specified period in a room in which the first device group is provided; and adjusting the coefficient depending on whether the information representing that there was a person in the room has been acquired.” As drafted, these limitations encompass concepts performed in the human mind and mathematical concepts. Mathematical concepts cover mathematical relationships and mathematical formulas or equations.
As per claim 7, this claim recites the limitations of “detecting whether a plurality of devices, of an identical type, included in the first device group simultaneously operated in the specified period; and adjusting the coefficient associated with each of the plurality of devices of the identical type when detection is made that the plurality of devices of the identical type simultaneously operated.” As drafted, these limitations encompass concepts performed in the human mind and mathematical concepts. Mathematical concepts cover mathematical relationships and mathematical formulas or equations.
As per claim 8, this claim recites the limitations of “acquiring information representing an operating time of the first device group in the specified period; and adjusting the coefficient in accordance with the operating time.” As drafted, these limitations encompass concepts performed in the human mind and mathematical concepts. Mathematical concepts cover mathematical relationships and mathematical formulas or equations.
As per claim 9, this claim recites the limitations of “adjusting the coefficient in accordance with a number of previously designated one or more devices included in the first device group.” As drafted, these limitations encompass mathematical concepts. Mathematical concepts cover mathematical relationships and mathematical formulas or equations.
As per claim 10, this claim recites the limitations of “acquiring, from the facility, first information on a user of the first device group and second information representing a use history of the first device group; and adjusting the coefficient, based on one or more of an acquisition amount of the first information, an acquisition amount of the second information, a content of the first information, and a content of the second information.” As drafted, these limitations encompass concepts performed in the human mind and mathematical concepts. Mathematical concepts cover mathematical relationships and mathematical formulas or equations.
As per claims 14 and 15, these claims similarly recite the limitations of “a first acquisition unit that acquires a sum of electric energy usages, in a specified period, of a previously specified first device group among all devices provided at a facility and of a second device group that is among the all devices and is different from the first device group; a second acquisition unit that acquires an electric energy usage of the first device group in the specified period; a calculation unit that reduces the sum in accordance with the electric energy usage of the first device group and calculates an electricity charge for the facility in the specified period, based on an electric energy after the reduction.” As drafted, these limitations encompass concepts performed in the human mind and mathematical concepts. Mathematical concepts cover mathematical relationships and mathematical formulas or equations.
Claims 3, 4, 11 and 12 further elaborate upon the recited abstract ideas in claim 2.
Claims 13 further elaborate upon the recited abstract ideas in claim 12.
Claims 1-15 are directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more. Claim(s) 1-15 are directed to abstract ideas (concepts performed in the human mind and mathematical concepts).
Step 2A, Prong Two, Integrated into a Practical Application?
The claims recite the following additional limitations:
As per claims 1-15, these claims similarly recite the limitation of “acquiring a sum of electric energy usages, in a specified period, of a previously specified first device group among all devices provided at a facility and of a second device group that is among the all devices and is different from the first device group; acquiring an electric energy usage of the first device group in the specified period; outputting information representing the electricity charge for the facility.” As drafted, these limitations encompass no more than an insignificant extra-solution activity of data gathering. Extra-solution activity includes both pre-solution and post-solution activity. An example of pre-solution activity is a step of gathering data for use in a claimed process, e.g., a step of obtaining information about credit card transactions, which is recited as part of a claimed process of analyzing and manipulating the gathered information by a series of steps in order to detect whether the transactions were fraudulent. See MPEP 2106.05(g).
The additional elements recite insignificant extra-solution activity as pre-solution data gathering and post solution data outputting and do not provide integration into a practical application. The additional claim limitations, claim elements together and claims in their entirety do not provide integration into a practical application. The additional claim limitations, claim elements together and claims in their entirety do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or provide an inventive concept (significantly more than the abstract idea). The concept described in the claim(s) is not meaningfully different than those concepts found by the courts to be abstract ideas. As such, the description in the claims describes the concept identified as an abstract idea (data gathering, data outputting and data transmission). The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because they do not integrate the exception into a practical application of the exception.
Claims 1-15 do not integrate the recited abstract ideas into a practical application.
Step 2B, Inventive Concept (Significantly More)?
When considered both individually and as an ordered combination, the additional elements and elements of claims 1-15 do not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception for the same reasons discussed above as to why the additional limitations do not integrate the abstract ideas into a practical application. The additional elements of outlined in Step 2A performing functions as designed simply accomplish execution of the abstract ideas. The additional limitations identified as insignificant extra-solution activity above are carried over and they also do not provide significantly more.
As per claims 1-15, these claims similarly recite the limitation of “acquiring a sum of electric energy usages, in a specified period, of a previously specified first device group among all devices provided at a facility and of a second device group that is among the all devices and is different from the first device group; acquiring an electric energy usage of the first device group in the specified period; outputting information representing the electricity charge for the facility.” As drafted, these limitations encompass insignificant extra-solution activity. See MPEP 2106.05(g), Courts have held found mere data gathering and insignificant application to be insignificant extra-solution activity.
Considering the additional elements individually and in combination and the claims as a whole, the additional elements do not provide significantly more than the abstract idea. Hence, the claims are not patent eligible.
Claims 1-15 are therefore drawn to ineligible subject matter as they are directed to abstract ideas without significantly more.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1-5, 7-9 and 11-15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1)/102(a)(2) as being anticipated by JP 2002230101 A to CHIHIRO et al.
As per claim 1, the CHIHIRO et al. reference discloses an electricity charge output method comprising, by a computer (see [0008], “electric power provider (ESP) 10”): acquiring a sum of electric energy usages (see [0034], “total nominal (or rated) power consumption”), in a specified period (see [0033], “one year”), of a previously specified first device group (see [0034], “same maker, same manufacturer”) among all devices (see [0013], “electric equipment”) provided at a facility (see [0016,0017], “store 5, factory 6”) and of a second device group (“plurality of manufacturers”) that is among the all devices (“electric equipment”) and is different from the first device group (“same maker, same manufacturer”); acquiring an electric energy usage (see [0034], “total nominal (or rated) power consumption”) of the first device group (“same maker, same manufacturer”) in the specified period (“one year”); reducing the sum (see [0018], “discount of the electricity rate”) in accordance with the electric energy usage (nominal (or rated) power consumption”) of the first device group (see [0018], “power supply discount target product”) and calculating an electricity charge (“customer's electricity rate”) for the facility (“store 5, factory 6”) in the specified period (“one year”), based on an electric energy after the reduction (see [0018], “customer's electricity rate”); and outputting information (see [0018], “customer is notified”) representing the electricity charge (“customer's electricity rate”) for the facility (“store 5, factory 6”).
As per claim 2, the CHIHIRO et al. reference discloses in the reducing the sum (“discount of the electricity rate”), a product of the electric energy usage of the first device group (see [0031], “P (nominal power consumption of equipment)”) and a coefficient (“coefficient k”) previously associated with the first device group (see [0033], “cumulative total of devices of the same maker”) is reduced from the sum (“discount of the electricity rate”).
As per claim 3, the CHIHIRO et al. reference discloses the coefficient (“coefficient k”) is determined depending on a type of the first device group (see [0037], “only products of the same manufacturer purchased in the past year or only the past three years”).
As per claim 4, the CHIHIRO et al. reference discloses the coefficient (“coefficient k”) is determined depending on an operation state (see [0038-0039], “variable depending on the season or are variable depending on the usage schedule”) of the first device group in the specified period (see [0037], “only products of the same manufacturer purchased in the past year or only the past three years”).
As pe claim 5, the CHIHIRO et al. reference discloses the first device group (see [0037], “only products of the same manufacturer”) includes an air conditioner (see [0003], “air conditioners”), and the method further comprises, by the computer: acquiring information representing outside air temperature (“season and temperature”) in the specified period (see [0037], “only products of the same manufacturer purchased in the past year or only the past three years”); and adjusting the coefficient (see [0038-0039], “variable depending on the season or are variable depending on the usage schedule”) associated with the air conditioner (“air conditioners”) in accordance with the acquired outside air temperature (“season and temperature”).
As per claim 7, the CHIHIRO et al. reference discloses by the computer (“electric power provider (ESP) 10”): detecting whether a plurality of devices (see [0013], “electric equipment”), of an identical type (see [0034], “same maker, same manufacturer”), included in the first device group (see [0034], “same maker, same manufacturer”) simultaneously operated in the specified period (see [0033], “one year”); and adjusting the coefficient (“coefficient k”) associated with each of the plurality of devices (“electric equipment”) of the identical type (“same maker, same manufacturer”) when detection is made that the plurality of devices (“electric equipment”) of the identical type (“same maker, same manufacturer”) simultaneously operated.
As per claim 8, the CHIHIRO et al. reference discloses by the computer (“electric power provider (ESP) 10”): acquiring information representing an operating time (see [0038-0039], “variable depending on the season or are variable depending on the usage schedule”) of the first device group (“same maker, same manufacturer”) in the specified period (“one year”); and adjusting the coefficient (“coefficient k”) in accordance with the operating time (“variable depending on the season or are variable depending on the usage schedule”).
As per claim 9, the CHIHIRO et al. reference discloses by the computer (“electric power provider (ESP) 10”), adjusting the coefficient (“coefficient k”) in accordance with a number of previously designated one or more devices (see [0029], “45 products in total (10 products for manufacturer A, 20 products for B, 15 products for C)”) included in the first device group (“same maker, same manufacturer”).
As per claim 11, the CHIHIRO et al. reference discloses by the computer (“electric power provider (ESP) 10”), outputting information (see [0018], “customer is notified”) representing the coefficient (“coefficient k”) to be displayed on a display (see [0014], “display 5b”).
As per claim 12, the CHIHIRO et al. reference discloses by the computer (“electric power provider (ESP) 10”), outputting information (see [0018], “customer is notified”) representing a time series change (see [0031], “Xtm (average usage time)”), in the coefficient (“coefficient k”), in the specified period (“one year”) to be displayed on a display (see [0014], “display 5b”).
As per claim 13, the CHIHIRO et al. reference discloses by the computer (“electric power provider (ESP) 10”), outputting information (“customer is notified”) representing how the coefficient (“coefficient k”) is determined, the information being to be displayed on the display (“display 5b”) in association with the time series change (“Xtm (average usage time)”) in the coefficient (“coefficient k”).
As per claim 14, the CHIHIRO et al. reference discloses an electricity charge output device comprising: a first acquisition unit (see [0008], “electric power provider (ESP) 10”) that acquires a sum of electric energy usages (see [0034], “total nominal (or rated) power consumption”), in a specified period (see [0033], “one year”), of a previously specified first device group (see [0034], “same maker, same manufacturer”) among all devices (see [0013], “electric equipment”) provided at a facility (see [0016,0017], “store 5, factory 6”) and of a second device group (“plurality of manufacturers”) that is among the all devices (“electric equipment”) and is different from the first device group (“same maker, same manufacturer”); a second acquisition unit (“electric power provider (ESP) 10”) that acquires an electric energy usage (see [0034], “total nominal (or rated) power consumption”) of the first device group (“same maker, same manufacturer”) in the specified period (“one year”); a calculation unit (“electric power provider (ESP) 10”) that reduces the sum (see [0018], “discount of the electricity rate”) in accordance with the electric energy usage (nominal (or rated) power consumption”) of the first device group (see [0018], “power supply discount target product”) and calculates an electricity charge (“customer's electricity rate”) for the facility (“store 5, factory 6”) in the specified period (“one year”), based on an electric energy after the reduction (see [0018], “customer's electricity rate”); and an output unit (see [0014], “display 5b”) that outputs information (see [0018], “customer is notified”) representing the electricity charge (“customer's electricity rate”) for the facility (“store 5, factory 6”).
As per claim 15, the CHIHIRO et al. reference discloses a non-transitory computer readable storage medium storing a program causing a computer to function as: a first acquisition unit (see [0008], “electric power provider (ESP) 10”) that acquires a sum of electric energy usages (see [0034], “total nominal (or rated) power consumption”), in a specified period (see [0033], “one year”), of a previously specified first device group (see [0034], “same maker, same manufacturer”) among all devices (see [0013], “electric equipment”) provided at a facility (see [0016,0017], “store 5, factory 6”) and of a second device group (“plurality of manufacturers”) that is among the all devices (“electric equipment”) and is different from the first device group (“same maker, same manufacturer”); a second acquisition unit (“electric power provider (ESP) 10”) that acquires an electric energy usage (see [0034], “total nominal (or rated) power consumption”) of the first device group (“same maker, same manufacturer”) in the specified period (“one year”); a calculation unit (“electric power provider (ESP) 10”) that reduces the sum (see [0018], “discount of the electricity rate”) in accordance with the electric energy usage (nominal (or rated) power consumption”) of the first device group (see [0018], “power supply discount target product”) and calculates an electricity charge (“customer's electricity rate”) for the facility (“store 5, factory 6”) in the specified period (“one year”), based on an electric energy after the reduction (see [0018], “customer's electricity rate”); and an output unit (see [0014], “display 5b”) that outputs information (see [0018], “customer is notified”) representing the electricity charge (“customer's electricity rate”) for the facility (“store 5, factory 6”).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
The following references are cited to further show the state of the art with respect to electricity billing at various rates:
US 10,073,479 B2 to Jang et al.
WO 2022/239293 A1 to FUJIMURA et al.
JP 6965747 B2
JP 6760734 B2
JP 5149753 B2
JP 4920003 B2
KR 20160047990 A to YOUNG
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Crystal J Barnes-Bullock whose telephone number is (571)272-3679. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8 am - 5 pm.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Robert Fennema can be reached at 571-272-2748. 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.
/CRYSTAL J BARNES-BULLOCK/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2117 6 January 2026