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 .
DETAILED ACTION
Status of Claims
Request for Continued Examination under 37 CFR 1.1141
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on February 23, 2026 has been entered.
This action is a Non-Final action on the merits in response to the application filed on 02/23/2026.
Claim 1 has been amended. Claims 3 and 11 have been cancelled. Claims 1, 2, 4 – 10 and 12-16 are currently pending and have been examined in this application.
Response to Amendment
Applicant’s amendment has been considered.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s remarks have been considered.
Applicant argues, “ Applicant submits that claim 1, as amended, clearly recites that the resulting output (the change history of the demand target) is applied to an actual control of the equipment appliance, which is not practically performed in the human mind.” (pgs. 5-6)
Examiner respectfully disagrees. The claims encompass Mental Processes related to observation and evaluation of data. For example, storing a demand target value, acquiring information on demand target value, generating a control instruction, and storing a change history could reasonably be performed with the human mind or a pen/paper or generic computer component. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea of Mental Processes.
The judicial exceptions are not integrated into a practical application. Claim 1 recites the additional elements of an equipment appliance, an information processing system comprising a memory and a processor. These are generic computer components recited at a high level of generality as performing generic computer functions (see ¶0057-¶0058, Fig 4).
For instance, the steps of storing demand target values in a demand control and storing a change history of the demand target value based on acquired information is generic data storage functionality. The steps of acquiring information on the demand target value input by a user is data gathering activity. The step of generating a control instruction for operating the equipment appliance based on the changed demand target value data gathering which can be performed with a pen/paper. The step of outputting the generated control instruction could reasonably be presenting the information or sending/receiving (broadly written). The step of control an operation of the equipment appliance based on the outputted control instruction is reasonably interpreted as manually applying the control instruction (i.e., a user setting the temperature based on outputted instruction). As written the claim limitation is not directly controlling the equipment appliance as there is no communication of a control instruction to the equipment appliance. There is no positive recitation of actually controlling the appliance or how it is done.
Further, based on MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III)(C), “Claims can recite a mental process even if they are claimed as being performed on a computer.” Here, generic computer components (e.g. a processor and memory) are performing generic computer functions such as storing demand target values, generating a control instruction for operating the equipment (data gathering/input), outputting the generated control instructions (presenting results or send/receive) and storing change history. The generic computer components are merely automating the limitations.
The remainder of Applicant’s arguments are moot in view of new grounds of rejection as necessitated by amendment.
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, 2, 4 – 10 and 12-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. Claim 1 recites:
[a memory] that stores a demand target value in the demand control; and
[a processor] configured to acquire information on the demand target value input by a user, the information including at least information identifying a user who has changed the demand target value,
[wherein the processor is further configured to:] generate a control instruction for operating the equipment appliance based on the changed demand target value;
output the generated control instruction;…
store a change history of the demand target value…
The limitation under its broadest reasonable interpretation covers Mental Processes related to observation and evaluation of data, but for the recitation of generic computer components (e.g. a processor and memory). For example, storing a demand target value, acquiring information on demand target value, generating a control instruction and storing a change history could reasonably be performed with the human mind or a pen/paper. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea of Mental Processes.
The dependent claims encompass the same abstract ideas. For instance, Claim 2 is directed to acquiring timing information on demand target value (data gathering); Claim 4 is directed to identifying the user based on login info; Claim 5 is directed to information related to change (data gathering); Claim 6 is directed to information of device used (data gathering); Claim 7 is directed to target value set for an appliance; Claim 8 is directed to target value set in a contract unit and Claims 9, 10 and 12-16 are directed to notifications (sending/receiving). Thus, the dependent claims further limit the abstract concepts found in the independent claims.
The judicial exceptions are not integrated into a practical application. Claim 1 recites the additional elements of an equipment appliance, an information processing system comprising a memory and a processor. These are generic computer components recited at a high level of generality as performing generic computer functions (see ¶0057-¶0058, Fig 4).
For instance, the steps of storing demand target values in a demand control and storing a change history of the demand target value based on acquired information is generic data storage functionality. The steps of acquiring information on the demand target value input by a user is data gathering activity. The step of generating a control instruction for operating the equipment appliance based on the changed demand target value data gathering which can be performed with a pen/paper. The step of outputting the generated control instruction could reasonably be presenting the information or sending/receiving (broadly written). The step of control an operation of the equipment appliance based on the outputted control instruction is reasonably interpreted as manually applying the control instruction (i.e., a user setting the temperature based on outputted instruction). As written the claim limitation is not directly controlling the equipment appliance as there is no communication of a control instruction to the equipment appliance.
Each of the additional limitations is no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer components (e.g. a processor). The combination of these additional elements is no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component (e.g. a processor). Therefore, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract ideas into a practical application because it does not impose meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. Therefore, the claims are directed to an abstract idea.
The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As stated above, the additional elements of a processing system, processor and a memory are considered generic computer components performing generic computer functions that amount to no more than instructions to implement the judicial exception. Mere, instructions to apply an exception using generic computer components cannot provide an inventive concept.
Further, the steps of storing demand target values and a change history of the demand target value based on the information on the demand target value and outputting the generated control instruction are considered extra-solution activity in Step 2A, this has been re-evaluated in Step 2B and determined to be well-understood, routine, conventional activity in the field. The background does not provide any indication that the information processing system (processor and memory) is anything other than a generic, off-the-shelf computer component, and indicates storing and retrieving information in a memory is well-understood, routine and conventional function when claimed in a generic manner (MPEP 2106.05(d)(II)) indicates i. Receiving or transmitting data over a network, e.g., using the Internet to gather data, Symantec, 838 F.3d at 1321 and iv. 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. For these reasons, there is no inventive concept. The claims are not patent eligible.
The dependent claims when analyzed both individually and in combination are also held to be ineligible for the same reason above and the additional recited limitations fail to establish that the claims are not directed to an abstract. The additional limitations of the dependent claims when considered individually and as an ordered combination do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea.
Looking at these limitations as an ordered combination and individually adds nothing additional that is sufficient to amount to significantly more than the recited abstract idea because they simply provide instructions to use generic computer components, to "apply" the recited abstract idea. Thus, the elements of the claims, considered both individually and as an ordered combination, are not sufficient to ensure that the claim as a whole amounts to significantly more than the abstract idea itself. Therefore, Claims 1, 2, 4 – 10 and 12-16 are not patent eligible.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 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.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 1, 2 and 4-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Yamaguchi et al. (WO 2013/028380) in view of Otani et al. (WO 2019/167340).
Claim 1:
Yamaguchi discloses:
An information processing system for performing setting related to demand control of an equipment appliance, the information processing system comprising: (see at least ¶0007-¶0008, a control device receives power demand information and user input settings)
a memory that stores a demand target value in the demand control; and (see at least ¶0043, a memory storing operating history; see also ¶0018)
a processor configured to acquire information on the demand target value input by a user, (see at least ¶0007-¶0008, control device includes input section for user setting input)
wherein the processor is further configured to: generate a control instruction for operating the equipment appliance based on the changed demand target value; (see at least ¶0007-¶0008, operation controller configured to control the operating state of the equipment based on user setting information; see also ¶0033, control devices receives information sent by broadcasting and controls the operating state of equipment)
output the generated control instruction; and (see at least ¶0007-¶0008, operation controller configured to control the operating state of the equipment based on user setting information; see also ¶0033, control devices receives information sent by broadcasting and controls the operating state of equipment)
store a change history of the demand target value based on the information on the demand target value acquired by the processor. (see at least ¶0044, history recording section)
While Kazuno discloses the above limitations, Kazuno does not explicitly disclose the following limitation; however, Otani does disclose:
the information including at least information identifying a user who has changed the demand target value, (see at least Figure 3 and associated text; see also pg. 3, change history information includes date/time and userid)
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, to combine the user setting information and history recording of Yamaguchi with the change history of Otani to assist in providing a clear record of past activities that can facilitate future decisions.
Claim 2:
Yamaguchi and Otani disclose claim 1. Yamaguchi further discloses:
wherein the processor acquires, as the information on the demand target value, information on a timing at which the demand target value is changed. (see at least ¶0014-¶0016, based on demand information a schedule is derived)
Claim 4:
While Yamaguchi and Otani disclose claim 1, Yamaguchi further discloses inputting user setting information (see ¶0017), Yamaguchi does not explicitly disclose the following limitation; however, Otani does disclose:
wherein the information identifying the user who has changed the demand target value is information identified by an authentication action performed by the user to log in to a system [for receiving an input of the information on the demand target value]. (see at least pg. 5, para 5, change history information from last login with the user ID of staff)
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, to combine the user setting information and history recording of Yamaguchi with the change history of Otani to assist in providing a clear record of past activities that can facilitate future decisions.
Claim 5:
While Yamaguchi and Otani disclose claim 1 and further discloses a demand target value (see ¶0007 and ¶0014, user setting information and power demand info), Yamaguchi does not explicitly disclose the following limitation; however, Otani does disclose:
wherein the processor acquires information indicating a reason for a change in the demand target value as the information on the demand target value. (see at least pg. 3, para 3, change history includes operation content and details)
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, to combine the user setting information and history recording of Yamaguchi with the change history of Otani to assist in providing a clear record of past activities that can facilitate future decisions.
Claim 6:
While Yamaguchi and Otani disclose claim 1 and further discloses a demand target value (see ¶0007 and ¶0014, user setting information and power demand info), Yamaguchi does not explicitly disclose the following limitation; however, Otani does disclose:
wherein the processor acquires, as the information on the demand target value, information on a device used by the user to input the demand target value. (see at least pg. 2, para 5, terminal device performs maintenance; see also pg. 5, para 6)
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, to combine the user setting information and history recording of Yamaguchi with the change history of Otani to assist in providing a clear record of past activities that can facilitate future decisions.
Claim 7:
Yamaguchi discloses claim 1. Yamaguchi further discloses:
wherein the demand target value is set for each equipment appliance that is a power consumption control target, and (see at least ¶0007, a receiving power demand information and user setting information; see also ¶0014)
the processor acquires an input related to the demand target value set for each equipment appliance that is the control target. ((see at least ¶0007, a receiving power demand information and user setting information; see also ¶0014)
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Yamaguchi et al. (WO 2013/028380) in view of Otani et al. (WO 2019/167340) further in view of Kazuno et al. (US 2016/004297).
Claim 8:
While Yamaguchi and Otani disclose claim 1, neither explicitly disclose the following limitation; however, Kazuno further discloses:
wherein the demand target value is set in a contract unit of electric power, and the processor acquires an input related to the demand target value set in the contract unit. (see at least ¶0003, contract demand is set to largest value of maximum demand power; see also ¶0035, reference power is defined by contract demand)
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, to combine the user setting information and history recording of Yamaguchi and the change history of Otani with the contract demand values of Kazuno to assist in managing operating states of equipment.
Claims 9 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Yamaguchi et al. (WO 2013/028380) in view of Otani et al. (WO 2019/167340) further in view of Hiroshi et al. (JP 2022112384).
Claim 9:
While Yamaguchi and Otani disclose claim 1, neither explicitly disclose the following limitation; however, Hiroshi does disclose:
wherein the processor is further configured to notify a manager of the information on the acquired demand target value. (see at least pg. 7, para 9-10 notification of the change in target value sent to local energy management device)
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, to combine the user setting information and history recording of Yamaguchi and the change history of Otani with the notification of change in target value of Hiroshi to facilitate the control of energy supply in a jurisdictional area (see Abstract).
Claim 15:
While Yamaguchi and Otani disclose claim 7, neither Yamaguchi nor Otani explicitly disclose the following limitation; however Hiroshi does disclose:
wherein the processor is further configured to notify a manager of the information on the acquired demand target value. (see at least pg. 7, para 9-10 notification of the change in target value sent to local energy management device)
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, to combine the user setting information and history recording of Yamaguchi and the change history of Otani with the notification of change in target value of Hiroshi to facilitate the control of energy supply in a jurisdictional area (see Abstract).
Claim 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Yamaguchi et al. (WO 2013/028380) in view of Otani et al. (WO 2019/167340) further in view of Kazuno et al. (US 2016/004297) further in view of Hiroshi et al. (JP 2022112384).
Claim 16:
While Yamaguchi, Otani and Kazuno disclose claim 8, neither explicitly disclose the following limitation; however Hiroshi does disclose:
wherein the processor is further configured to notify a manager of the information on the acquired demand target value. (see at least pg. 7, para 9-10 notification of the change in target value sent to local energy management device)
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, to combine the user setting information and history recording of Yamaguchi, the change history of Otani and the contract demand values of Kazuno with the notification of change in target value of Hiroshi to facilitate the control of energy supply in a jurisdictional area (see Abstract).
Claims 10 and 12 - 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Kazuno et al. (US 2016/004297) in view of Otani et al. (WO 2019/167340) further in view of Hiroshi et al. (JP 2022112384).
Claim 10:
While Yamaguchi and Otani disclose claim 2 and, neither explicitly disclose the following limitation; however, Hiroshi does disclose:
wherein the processor is further configured to notify a manager of the information on the acquired demand target value. (see at least pg. 7, para 9-10 notification of the change in target value sent to local energy management device)
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, to combine the user setting information and history recording of Yamaguchi and the change history of Otani with the notification of change in target value of Hiroshi to facilitate the control of energy supply in a jurisdictional area (see Abstract).
Claim 12:
While Yamaguchi and Otani disclose claim 4, neither explicitly disclose the following limitation; however Hiroshi does disclose:
wherein the processor is further configured to notify a manager of the information on the acquired demand target value. (see at least pg. 7, para 9-10 notification of the change in target value sent to local energy management device)
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, to combine the user setting information and history recording of Yamaguchi and the change history of Otani with the notification of change in target value of Hiroshi to facilitate the control of energy supply in a jurisdictional area (see Abstract).
Claim 13:
While Yamaguchi and Otani disclose claim 5 and, neither explicitly disclose the following limitation; however Hiroshi does disclose:
wherein the processor is further configured to notify a manager of the information on the acquired demand target value. (see at least pg. 7, para 9-10 notification of the change in target value sent to local energy management device)
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, to combine the user setting information and history recording of Yamaguchi and the change history of Otani with the notification of change in target value of Hiroshi to facilitate the control of energy supply in a jurisdictional area (see Abstract).
Claim 14:
While Yamaguchi and Otani disclose claim 6, neither explicitly disclose the following limitation; however Hiroshi does disclose:
wherein the processor is further configured to notify a manager of the information on the acquired demand target value. (see at least pg. 7, para 9-10 notification of the change in target value sent to local energy management device)
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, to combine the user setting information and history recording of Yamaguchi and the change history of Otani with the notification of change in target value of Hiroshi to facilitate the control of energy supply in a jurisdictional area (see Abstract).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered relevant but not applied:
Arar et al. (US 2018/0323643) discloses user selecting a target power demand for a particular time and determining any increase or decrease in the power demand and controlling demand schedules.
Any inquiry of a general nature or relating to the status of this application or concerning this communication or earlier communications from the Examiner should be directed to Renae Feacher whose telephone number is 571-270-5485. The Examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 9:00 am - 5:00 pm. If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the Examiner's supervisor, Beth Boswell can be reached at 571-272-6737.
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.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://portal.uspto.gov/external/portal/pair. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866.217.9197 (toll-free).
Any response to this action should be mailed to:
Commissioner of Patents and Trademarks
Washington, D.C. 20231
or faxed to 571-273-8300.
Hand delivered responses should be brought to the United States Patent and Trademark Office Customer Service Window:
Randolph Building
401 Dulany Street
Alexandria, VA 22314.
/Renae Feacher/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3625