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 .
Remarks
Applicant’s arguments filed 08/21/2026, with respect to pending claims 1-10 have been fully considered and are directed to claims as amended. The arguments addressed to the 101 rejection are not persuasive.
The Applicant argues (Page 11, line 30- page 12, line 2 and lines 14-31):
“In any event, amended claims 1 and 6 integrate any alleged mathematical concepts into a practical application. Amended claim 1 does not end with the determination or output of an evaluation grade. It further requires controlling the energy storage station and a power system according to the state of the energy storage station indicated by the evaluation grade. Amended claim 6 similarly requires the processing unit to perform the claimed evaluation operations and then control the energy storage station and the power system according to the indicated state. The evaluation grade is therefore not merely displayed, observed, or provided as information forum specified decision-making. It is used to control physical energy-storage equipment and the associated power system.
…
Applicant does not rely on the mere presence of a generic processing unit. Rather, the claims recite a complete process in which operating indicators of an energy storage station are evaluated through the claimed ordered combination, the resulting evaluation grade represents the state of the energy storage station, and that state is used to control the energy storage station and the power system. The control limitation is functionally tied to the preceding evaluation operations and meaningfully limits how the result is used. It is neither a field-of-use limitation nor insignificant extra-solution activity. Considered as an ordered combination, the amended claims integrate any alleged mathematical concepts into a practical application and therefore are not directed to a judicial exception under Step 2A.
Even if the amended claims were considered directed to a judicial exception, they recite significantly more than the alleged exception. The claims require, in a specified sequence, objectively weighting evaluation indicators of an energy storage station; subjectively weighting the indicators using a mixed decision-making model that combines a decision-making trial and evaluation laboratory method with an analytic network process; determining comprehensive weights from the objective and subjective weights; determining an evaluation grade using a technique for order preference by similarity to an ideal solution; and controlling the energy storage station and the power system according to the state indicated by that grade. Claim 6 further requires a processing unit configured to perform this ordered evaluation and control process. These limitations, considered individually and as an ordered combination, amount to more than the performance of mathematical calculations on a generic computer.”
The Examiner respectfully disagrees. The amended limitation of “subsequently controlling both the energy storage station and a power system according to a state of the energy storage station indicated by the evaluation grade” does not integrate the claim into a particular practical application. There is no recitation of what the “power system” is that is being controlled, or how it is being controlled, and the recited “energy storage station” is very broadly recited. Therefore, the claims do not recite a particular machine, taking the factors in MPEP 2106.05(b) into account. Similarly, the term “controlling” is extremely broad, including a wide range of possible actions, so the claims do not recite a particular real-world transformation either, taking the factors in MPEP 2106.05(c) into account. At best, the claims establish a field-of-use in which the “determining” steps of the abstract idea are carried out, but they do not integrate the abstract idea limitations into a particular practical application. The limitation of “controlling both the energy storage station and a power system” are sufficiently lacking in specificity that they are considered to be equivalent to an instruction to “apply it” (meaning to apply the result of the abstract idea calculations), as discussed in MPEP 2106.05(f). The previous 101 rejections are therefore maintained, modified as necessary due to the amendments.
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 1-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more as addressed below.
The new 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance published in the Federal Register (Vol. 84 No. 4, Jan 7, 2019 pp 50-57) has been applied and the claims are deemed as being patent ineligible.
The current 35 USC 101 analysis is based on the current guidance (Federal Register vol. 79, No. 241. pp. 74618-74633). The analysis follows several steps. Step 1 determines whether the claim belongs to a valid statutory class. Step 2A Prong 1 identifies whether an abstract idea is claimed. Step 2A Prong 2 determines whether an abstract idea is integrated into a practical application. If the abstract idea is integrated into a practical application the claim is patent eligible under 35 USC 101. Last, Step 2B determines whether the claims contain something significantly more than the abstract idea. In most cases the existence of a practical application predicates the existence of an additional element that is significantly more.
Under Step 1 of the eligibility analysis, we determine whether the claims are to a statutory category by considering whether the claimed subject matter falls within the four statutory categories of patentable subject matter identified by 35 U.S.C.
101: Process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter. The claims below are considered to be in a statutory category (process or machine).
Under Step 1 of the analysis, claims 1 and 6 do belong to a statutory category, namely method or device claims.
Under Step 2A, Prong 1, the independent claim 1 includes abstract ideas as highlighted (using a bold font) below.
“1. A method for determining a grade of an energy storage station based on an index evaluation system, wherein the method comprises
obtaining, for at least one energy storage station, an indicator score of at least one evaluation indicator of the energy storage station;
utilizing an objective weighting method based on an indicator score of each evaluation indicator of the energy storage station to determine an objective weight of each evaluation indicator of the energy storage station;
utilizing a mixed decision-making model combining a decision-making trial and evaluation laboratory method and an analytic network process based on the indicator score of each evaluation indicator of the energy storage station to determine a subjective weight of each evaluation indicator of the energy storage station;
determining a comprehensive weight of each evaluation indicator of the energy storage station based on the objective weight and the subjective weight of each evaluation indicator of the energy storage station; and
utilizing, based on the comprehensive weight of each evaluation indicator of each energy storage station, a technique for order preference by similarity to an ideal solution to determine an evaluation grade of each energy storage station; and
subsequently controlling both the energy storage station and a power system according to a state of the energy storage station indicated by the evaluation grade.”
“6. A device for determining a grade of an energy storage station based on an index evaluation system, wherein the device comprises a processing unit configured to:
obtain, for at least one energy storage station, an indicator score of at least one evaluation indicator of the energy storage station;
utilize an objective weighting method based on an indicator score of each evaluation indicator of the energy storage station to determine an objective weight of each evaluation indicator of the energy storage station;
utilize a mixed decision-making model combining a decision-making trial and evaluation laboratory method and an analytic network process based on the indicator score of each evaluation indicator of the energy storage station to determine a subjective weight of each evaluation indicator of the energy storage station;
determine a comprehensive weight of each evaluation indicator of the energy storage station based on the objective weight and the subjective weight of each evaluation indicator of the energy storage station;
utilize, based on a comprehensive weight of each evaluation indicator of each energy storage station, a technique for order preference by similarity to an ideal solution to determine an evaluation grade of each energy storage station; and
subsequently controlling both the energy storage station and a power system according to a state of the energy storage station indicated by the evaluation grade.”
The highlighted steps indicated as an abstract idea are considered to be equivalent to mathematical steps or a fundamental aspect of mathematics or directed to mental processes performed in the human mind (including observation, evaluation and opinion).
Under Step 2A, Prong 2, the claims establish a general field-of-use in which the “determining” steps of the abstract idea are carried out, but they do not have additional elements which integrate the abstract idea limitations into a particular practical application. The step of “obtaining, for at least one energy storage station, an indicator score of at least one evaluation indicator of the energy storage station” is just a step of gathering data, which is insignificant extra solution activity. The step of “controlling both the energy storage station and a power system” according to a state of the station indicated by the determined evaluation grade does not introduce a particular machine (considering the factors in MPEP 2106.05(b) related to particularity or generality, whether the machine implements the steps, and whether it is merely establishing a field-of-use), and it does not introduce a particular real-world transformation (considering the similar factors in MPEP 2106.05(c)). There is a lack of particularity regarding both the energy storage station and the power system as recited, and a lack of particularity regarding the act of “controlling” them.
Under step 2B, the claims, taken as a whole, do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself for the same reasons discussed above with respect to Prong 2, and they would tend to monopolize the abstract idea over a wide range of practical applications, rather than being limited to a particular application of the abstract idea. Regarding the limitation of a “processing unit”, this additional limitation in relation to the computer, part of computer, computer product or computer system does not offer a meaningful limitation beyond generally linking the use of the method to a computer (see ALICE CORP. v. CLS BANK INT’L 573 U. S. 208 (2014)). Such limitations only use the computer as a tool to carry out the abstract idea, rather than constituting an improvement to the computer itself.
Dependent claims 3, 5, 8 and 10 merely extend the details of the abstract idea of mathematical concepts, adding more mathematical calculations or mental steps.
Dependent claims 2 and 7 just additionally describe the different types of data of the evaluation indicator.
Dependent claims 4 and 9 additionally comprise CRITIC weighing method, which merely adds details to the abstract idea.
Therefore claims 1-10 are rejected as ineligible under 35 U.S.C. 101.
Examiner note regarding the prior art of the record:
Regarding Claims 1 and 6:
Yang Xiao “Fuzzy Comprehensive Evaluation of Energy Storage Station Based on FAHP and Anti-Entropy Weight Method” discloses “evaluating the performance of energy storage power station from multiple perspectives is constructed, considering its operating status and adjustable capability, etc. A performance evaluation scheme based on optimal combination weight and fuzzy comprehensive evaluation is proposed. Firstly, the index system including the consistency of operating status, adjustable ability and health status is constructed. Secondly, a weighting method of subjectively and objectively considering expert experience and data inherent law is proposed. The subjective weights are calculated by fuzzy hierarchical analysis (FAHP), the objective weights are calculated by anti-entropy weighting method, and the optimal weights obtained by least squares.”, but Yang does not use the utilizing a mixed decision-making model combining a decision making trail and evaluation laboratory method and an analytic network process, mixed decision-making model.
Zhengsen “A multi-criteria decision-making framework for distributed generation projects investment considering the risk of electricity market trading” discloses
The investment decision of DG is actually a multi-criteria decision-making (MCDM) problem, nevertheless the current framework rarely considers the risk of market trading. Firstly, an index system including economic benefit, environmental and social benefit and market risk is established. Secondly, subjective and objective weight are combined by using game theory in weighting process. Among them, the subjective weight of each index is determined based on the plus-minus decision-making trial and evaluation laboratory model (plus-minus DEMATEL); para 2.2 MCDM methods Appropriate choice of MCDM method is a critical point of accurate evaluation and analysis. The research on MCDM mainly focuses on three aspects: weight determination, evaluation model selection and data pre-processing. The model of weight setting includes subjective weight and objective weight. Among them, subjective weighting methods includes AHP, ANP, BWM, and DEMATEL (Mobarak et al., 2022). Different models are used in different scenarios. AHP and BWM do not consider indicator interactions, whereas ANP and DEMATEL do. Zhengsen teaches objection weights of indicators (para 5.2.2) and combination weight (para 5.2.3) and comparative analysis (see para 5.5 ) where distributed power investment decisions the final evaluation results are compared with TOPSIS model. Zhengsen does not disclose determining a grade of an energy storage station based on an index evaluation system.
He et al., (US Pub.20210343086A1) discloses transformer condition evaluation method combining FAHP-DENATEL method …using the DEMATEL method on a subjective level, calculating a weight of each of a plurality of indicators of an indicator layer through the FAHP-DEMATEL method, calculating the weights of the indicators of the indicator layer through the CRITIC method on an objective level. He discloses the health condition of each transformers through the condition score of each of the transformer, but He does not disclose persuasively utilizing a mixed decision-making model combining a decision making trail and evaluation laboratory method and an analytic network process (multi-criteria decision-making (MCDM)) mixed decision-marking model for grade of an energy storage station.
Chen “Using a novel conjunctive MCDM approach based on DEMATEL, fuzzy ANP, and TOPSIS as an innovation support system for Taiwanese higher education” discloses “a decision-making trial and evaluation laboratory (DEMATEL) method is adapted to model complex interdependent relationships and construct a relation structure using measurement criteria for innovation evaluation. …. A technique for order preference by similarity to an ideal solution (TOPSIS) is finally utilized to find optimal alternatives for innovation configurations. Here, we combine DEMATEL, fuzzy ANP and TOPSIS approaches to develop a novel innovation support system (ISS), (see Abstract), e.g., Chen discloses the combined all three methods DEMATEL, fuzzy ANP and TOPSIS to increase complex relationships and utilize them do develop an innovation support system (ISS), but Chen does not disclose: utilizing, based on the comprehensive weight (based on the objective weight and the subjective weight utilizing a mixed decision-making model combining a decision making trail and evaluation laboratory method and an analytic network process)of each evaluation indicator of each energy storage station, a technique for order preference by similarity to an ideal solution method to determine an evaluation grade of each energy storage station.
The closest prior arts either singularity or in combination, fail to anticipate or render obvious the steps of:
“utilizing a mixed decision-making model combining a decision making trail and evaluation laboratory method and an analytic network process based on the indicator score of each evaluation indicator of the energy storage station to determine a subjective weight of each evaluation indicator of the energy storage station; determining a comprehensive weight of each evaluation indicator of the energy storage station based on the objective weight and the subjective weight of each evaluation indicator of the energy storage station; and utilizing, based on the comprehensive weight of each evaluation indicator of each energy storage station, a technique for order preference by similarity to an ideal solution to determine an evaluation grade of each energy storage station”.
Claims 1 and 6 are therefore distinguishable from the prior art of record. Claims 2-5 and 7-10 are also distinguished from the prior art of record due to their dependence on claims 1 and 6 respectively.
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 KALERIA KNOX whose telephone number is (571)270-5971. 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, Andrew Schechter can be reached at (571)2722302. 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.
/KALERIA KNOX/
Examiner, Art Unit 2857
/ANDREW SCHECHTER/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2857
Prosecution Insights