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
The following Final office action is in response to applicant’s claims amendments/Remarks filed on 09/05/2025.
Priority Date: FOR >(IES 2023/0020)-(02/03/2023)
Claim Status:
Amended claims: 1-2, 4-6, 8, and 10
Canceled claim: 3
Pending claims : 1-2, and 4-13
Note:
Claim objection & Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(b) are withdrawn for correction.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
1. 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.
2. Claims 1-2, and 4-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter. In particular, claims are directed to a judicial exception (abstract idea) without significantly more.
3. When considering subject matter eligibility under 35 U.S.C. 101, (Step-1) it must be determined whether the claim is directed to one of the four statutory categories of invention, i.e., process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter. (Step-2A) If the claim does fall within one of the statutory categories, it must then be determined whether the claim is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., law of nature, natural phenomenon, and abstract idea), and (Step-2B) if so, it must additionally be determined whether the claim is a patent-eligible application of the exception. If an abstract idea is present in the claim, any element or combination of elements in the claim must be sufficient to ensure that the claim amounts to significantly more than the abstract idea itself.
Examples of abstract ideas grouping include (a) mental processes; (b) certain methods of organizing human activities [ i. Fundamental Economic Practices; ii. Commercial or Legal Interaction; iii. Managing Personal Behavior or Relations or Interactions between People], and (c) mathematical relationships/formulas. Alice Corporation Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank International, et al., 573 U.S. (2014).
Claim Analysis is based on MPEP § 2106.
4. 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. In the instant case, the claim(s) as a whole, considering all claim elements both individually and in combination, do not amount to significantly more than an abstract idea.
5. Under Alice-Step (1): In the instant case, the independent claim 1 is directed towards a method for providing electrical power consumption cost payment information which contains the steps of:
receiving, determining, transmitting, generating, allocating, monitoring, transmitting.
The claim recites a series of steps and, therefore, is a process.
6. Under Alice-Step (2A)-Prong 1: The claim 1 recites a method for providing electrical power consumption cost payment information is akin to the abstract idea subject matter grouping of:
(Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity as ‘Fundamental economic practice to Managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people including, teaching, and following rules or instructions). As such, the claims include an abstract idea. The specific limitations of the invention are identified to encompass the abstract idea include: (receiving a client request…; determining a client identity…; determining a cost…; transmitting a cost indication…;determining the response …; allocating the amount to be paid…;monitoring a total allocated amount…; and transmitting a payment request…threshold amount).
As stated above, this abstract idea falls into the subject matter grouping (b) of: (Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity as ‘Managing personal behavior or relationships or commercial interactions between people’).
7. Under Alice-Step (2A)-Prong 2: When considered individually and in combination, the instant claims do not integrate the exception into a practical application because the steps of:
(…using the trained artificial intelligence model application; do not apply, rely on, or use the judicial exception in a manner that imposes a meaningful limitation on the judicial exception (i.e. the abstract idea).
The instant recited claims including additional elements (i.e. “receiving…, transmitting, determining, transmitting....”); and an interface on a client device; these do not improve the functioning of the computer or improve another technology or technical field nor do they recite meaningful limitations beyond generally linking the use of an abstract idea to a particular technological environment. The limitations merely use a generic computer device (Specification [0045]: processor, memory, instructions, storage medium, client device, and electrical communication) as tools to perform an abstract idea. Therefore, the claims are directed to an abstract idea.
8. Under Alice-Step (2B): Additionally, the claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements (Claims: e.g., processor, artificial intelligence model application, equations, instructions, memory, electrical communication, client device and storage medium) amount to no more than generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or merely using generic components as tool to perform an abstract idea.
In conclusion, merely “linking/applying” the exception using generic computer components does not constitute ‘significantly more’ than the abstract idea. (MPEP § 2106.05 (f) (h)). Therefore, the claims are not patent eligible under 35 USC 101.
The analysis above applies to independent claim 10.
9. Dependent claims:
The dependent claims have also been examined and do not correct the deficiencies of the independent claims.
Claims 2, 4-9 recite limitations that further define the same abstract idea that is noted in Claim 1. In additional they recite the additional elements of receiving and transmitting signals from the client devices. The signals are recited at a high-level of generality (sending and receiving information) such that it amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Even in combination, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application and do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself. The claims are ineligible.
Claim 11 recites limitations that further define the same abstract idea that is noted in Claim 10. In additional it recites the additional element of “a forecast application” for performing the abstract idea of determining cost. The forecast application is recited at a high-level of generality (software for determining cost) such that it amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Even in combination, this additional elements does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application and do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself. The claim is thus ineligible.
Claims (11-12, and 13) recite limitations that further define the same abstract idea that is noted in Claim 10. In addition, they recite the additional elements of a training application for training the trained artificial intelligence model application based on feedback messages, wherein the trained artificial intelligence model application employs at least one of an autoregressive language model, and a deep learning model.
The training of the machine learning model using feedback messages, and at least one of an autoregressive model or a deep learning model recites only the idea of a solution (training the machine learning model using feedback messages and another model) and fails to recite details of how the solution to the problem is accomplished, other than a high level “using feedback messages and an either an autoregressive language model or a deep learning model”.
Therefore this type of recitation is equivalent to the words “Apply it” and therefore the claim limitations when considered alone and in combination do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application and does not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself. The claims are therefore ineligible See MPEP 2106.05(f)(1).
10. Therefore, claims 1-2, and 4-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 as being directed to non-statutory subject matter.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of AIA 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 for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 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 4-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over SEIFERT et al (US 2022/0114552 A1) in view of KIM et al (US 2025/0124080 A).
Ref claim 1, SEIFERT discloses a method for providing a response to a client request comprising (para [0074], via application program 30 includes an Energy Audit, …an artificial Intelligence [AI] application 30c and /or energy project management application 30e…), the steps of:
a) Receiving a client request over an interface from a client device, the client request being in the form of at least one of an image, text, audio and video data (para [0185], The SMS (IETF) Request for comments (RFC)…mobile phone devices to short text messages…);
b) Determining a client identity associated with at least one of a user issuing the request and the client device (para [0126]; via authentication for user and device authentication…);
c) Determining cost for responding to the request by querying a trained artificial intelligence model application, wherein the cost is based on at least in part a function of electrical power consumption by the trained artificial intelligence model application to generate a response (para [0244]; FIG. 11D at Step 192 for services component on electronic portal with energy retrofit services…,[0074]; Energy Audit with Artificial Intelligence application [AI]..…);
d) Transmitting a cost indication to the client device based at least in part on the determined costs (para [0016]; via An electronic energy retrofit project portal…pricing, quoting…,[0034], FIG. 1; via e-energy audit and processing and display system 10 …[0061], FIG. 2; e-energy project display system 28…application 30 presents GUI 34…interface to a user.. );
[[e) Generating the response to the client request using the trained artificial intelligence model application; f) Transmitting the response to the client device;]]
g) Allocating an amount to be paid by the client entity for the transmission of the response to the client device, with or without concurrently requiring payment of the amount, wherein the amount is based at least in part on the cost indication; h) Monitoring a total allocated amount associated with the client identity (para [0216]; via a laser meter is used to measure distance, a GPS to measure location, e-meters to measure energy input/output [implied e-energy cost to be paid ]… ); and
i) Transmitting a payment request, wherein the payment request is for at least partially settling the total allocated amount associated with the client identity when the total allocated amount exceeds at least one of a predetermined threshold amount and a preset period of time since allocating the amount (para [0225]; via At Step 124, an energy audit summary report 146 is created …identified in the building 136 [implied time since allocating the amount]...).
SEIFERT does not explicitly disclose the step of e) Generating response to the client request using the trained artificial intelligence model application; f) Transmitting the response to the client device.
However, Kim being in the same field of invention discloses the step of e) Generating response to the client request using the trained artificial intelligence model application; f) Transmitting the response to the client device (para [0026]; via a method of operating an artificial intelligence device (para [0129-230]; via the FIGs. 6-8…).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention was made to modify the features mentioned by SEIFERT to include the disclosures as taught by Kim to facilitate the response to client request for power consumption amount payment.
Ref claim 2, SEIFERT discloses the method of claim 1, wherein the determination of cost in step c is based at least in part on a forecast calculation of at least one of estimated or required electrical power for the trained artificial intelligence model application to determine at least one of (i) a response to the request, and (ii) a partial response to the client request (para [0016]; via An electronic energy retrofit project portal…pricing, quoting…,[0034], FIG. 1; via e-energy audit and processing and display system 10 …[0061], FIG. 2; e-energy project display system 28…application 30 presents GUI 34…interface to a user.. ).
Claim 3,(canceled).
Ref claim 4, SEIFERT discloses the method of claims 1, wherein step c is performed after the step e .
Ref claim 5, SEIFERT discloses the method of claim 1, comprising the steps of :
j) Receiving an authorization signal, the authorization signal indicating that the user of the client device is accepting to allocate an amount that correlates to the cost indication for receiving the response to the client request (para [0126]; authentication for user and device authentication…).
Ref claim 6, SEIFERT discloses the method of claim 5, wherein step f) comprises:
transmitting a first part of the response and transmitting at least a second part of the response, wherein the step d) is performed prior to transmitting the second part of the response and/or wherein the second part of the response is only transmitted if the authorization signal in accordance with step j) is received (para [0126]; authentication for user and device authentication…).
Ref claim 7, SEIFERT discloses the method of claim 5, comprising the steps of:
k) receiving a further client request over the interface from the client device; l) determining whether a further authorization signal is received, the further authorization signal indicating that the user of the client device is accepting to allocate a further amount for a further response; and m) transmitting a further response to the client device, only if it is determined in step l) that the authorization signal has been received (para [0126]; authentication for user and device authentication…).
Ref claim 8, SEIFERT discloses the method of claim 1, comprising the step of:
n) issuing at least one invitation message offering a reward for feedback on the provided receiving a message from the client device, o) receiving a feedback message from the client device on the response as transmitted in step f; p) using the feedback message to train the trained model application; and q) reducing the allocated amount to be paid in response to receiving the feedback message (para [0244]; FIG. 11D at Step 192 for services component on electronic portal with energy retrofit services…,[0074]; Energy Audit with Artificial Intelligence application [AI]..…).
Ref claim 9, SEIFERT discloses the method of claim 8, further comprising the step of determining a quality index of the feedback message, wherein for a particular feedback message, at least one of the steps p) and q) are only performed if the quality index meets a pre-set criteria with respect to a predefined threshold value (para [0225]; via At Step 124, an energy audit summary report 146 is created …identified in the building 136 [implied time since allocating the amount]...).
Claim 10 recites substantially similar limitations to claim 1 and thus rejected using the same art and rationale in the rejection of claim 1 as set forth above.
Ref claim 11, SEIFERT discloses the system according to claim 10, wherein the at least one processor is for further executing : a forecast application adapted to determine costs for at least one of the response based at least in part on: - an estimated electrical power consumption for determining the response; - a required electrical power actually consumed in determining the response; - an estimated electrical power consumption for at least partially determining the response; and - a required electrical power actually consumed in at least partially determining the response (para [0225]; via At Step 124, an energy audit summary report 146 is created …identified in the building 136 [implied time since allocating the amount]...).
Ref claim 12, SEIFERT discloses the system according to claim 10, wherein the at least one processor is for further executing : a training application for training the trained artificial intelligence model application based on feedback messages, wherein the payment application is adapted to reduce the allocated amount to be paid if a feedback message received from the further participant is used to train the trained model (para [0244]; FIG. 11D at Step 192 for services component on electronic portal with energy retrofit services…,[0074]; Energy Audit with Artificial Intelligence application [AI]..…).
Ref claim 13, SEIFERT discloses the system according to claim 10, wherein the trained artificial intelligence model application employs at least one of an autoregressive language model, and a deep learning model (para [0244]; FIG. 11D at Step 192 for services component on electronic portal with energy retrofit services…,[0074]; Energy Audit with Artificial Intelligence application [AI]..…).
RESPONSE TO ARGUMENTS:
Applicant's arguments filed on 9/05/2025 have been fully considered and they are deemed to be non-persuasive:
Response to Applicant’s arguments with respect to the 35 USC 103 rejection is addressed in the above rejection with change of MENG et al to SEIFERT et al for priority date claims clarifications.
Applicant argues further with 101 rejection in substance that "The claims are Not Directed to an Abstract Idea and the claims Recite” Significantly More" than abstract idea, and noted PEG-2019 [Step-2A-Prong One-Prong two & Step-2B].
Applicant also noted analogy with the court cases and MPEP §2106.04(a).
In addition to 101 rejections Applicant noted about 103 rejections with applied prior arts.
In response:
Examiner respectfully disagrees. Updated claim analysis as a whole including amended features are provided above again based on the latest Patent Eligibility Guidance [2019-PEG].
Claims 1-2, and 4-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (abstract idea) without significantly more. The rejection of the previous action was a direct result of the Supreme Court's decision in Alice Corp. Pty. Ltd v. CLS Bank I'ntl. 573 U.S. (2014). Under Alice.
APPLICANT’s REMARKS:
STATUS OF CLAIMS: Noted.
CLAIM OBJECTION AND 35 U.S.C. X112 REJECTIONS: Withdrawn.
35 U.S.C. §103 REJECTIONS:
“In the Office Action, pending claims 1-13 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. §103 as unpatentable over Patent Application Publication No. US 2025/0117551 Al to Meng ("Meng") in view of Patent Application Publication No. US 2025/0124080 Al to Kim ("Kim").
Meng Does Not Qualify as a Prior Art Reference under 35 U.S.C. X103:
…;…;…;….;
B. The Claimed Invention is Not Obvious under 35 U.S.C. X103 over Kim Alone:
…;….;..;….;
Thus, Applicant contends that these claims are not obvious under 35 U.S.C. §103 based on Kim alone.”
In Response: Examiner noted the Priority Date-error & changed Prior art “MENG” to “SEIFERT”,
IV. 35 U.S.C. §101 REJECTIONS:
“In the Office Action, pending claims 1-13 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. §101 as allegedly being directed to non-statutory subject matter, namely an "abstract idea." Applicant respectfully contends that Office erroneously characterized the invention for Alice two-prong test. Notably, for both the first and second prongs of test, the Office characterized the invention as directed to a "method for providing electrical power consumption payment information," which appears only one step, i.e., step c), of the nine (9) method steps claimed in pending claim 1. …;…;
Claim 1 does not recite, and the record does not describe, a process that can be performed in the human mind or by hand or by any generic computer but it is explicitly to be implemented in a computer system having the noted specialized functionality. MPEP §2106.04(a) makes clear that a claim does not recite a mental process if the human mind is not equipped to perform the steps, and that computer-implemented mathematical concepts are not mental processes if the scale or complexity precludes human execution. …;…;
Consequently, reconsideration and withdrawal of the Section 101 rejections as to the independent claims 1 and 10 are respectfully requested.
IN RESPONSE to IV: Examiner Disagrees:
Under Alice-Step (2A)-Prong 1: A method for deriving financial information from electrical power consumption cost payment accounts is akin to the abstract idea subject matter grouping of:
(Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity as ‘Fundamental economic practice to Managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people including, teaching, and following rules or instructions). As such, the claims include an abstract idea. The specific limitations of the invention are identified to encompass the abstract idea include: (receiving a client request…;determinng…the client device; transmitting cost indication…; generating…model application; allocating amount…;monitoring…;transmitting a payment request…since allocating the amount.)
As stated above, this abstract idea falls into the subject matter grouping (b) of: (Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity as ‘Fundamental economic practice to Managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people including social activities, teaching, and following rules or instructions’).
Under Alice-Step (2A)-Prong 2: When considered individually and in combination, the instant claims do not integrate the exception into a practical application because the steps of:
(receiving a client request…;determinng…the client device; transmitting cost indication…;generating…model application; allocating amount…;monitoring…;transmitting a payment request…since allocating the amount.)
do not apply, rely on, or use the judicial exception in a manner that imposes a meaningful limitation on the judicial exception (i.e. the abstract idea).
The instant recited claims including additional elements (i.e. “(receiving a client request…;determinng…the client device; transmitting cost indication…; generating…model application; allocating amount…;monitoring…;transmitting a payment request…since allocating the amount.”)
do not improve the functioning of the computer or improve another technology or technical field nor do they recite meaningful limitations beyond generally linking the use of an abstract idea to a particular technological environment. The limitations merely use a generic computing technology (Specification [0021-45]: processor, memory, instructions, storage medium, and electrical communication) as tools to perform an abstract idea or merely add insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception. (MPEP § 2106.05 (f) (g)). Therefore, the claims are directed to an abstract idea.
Under Alice-Step (2B): Additionally, the claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements (Claims: e.g., processor, machine learning, equations, instructions, memory, electrical communication, and storage medium) amount to no more than generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or merely using generic components as tool to perform an abstract idea. In conclusion, merely “linking/applying” the exception using generic computer components does not constitute ‘significantly more’ than the abstract idea. (MPEP § 2106.05 (f) (h)). Therefore, the claims are not patent eligible under 35 USC 101.
Moreover, In support of “Mental Process ”or “Method of organizing Human activity”: It is to be noted that “the claimed invention is similar to Electric Power Group, LLC v. Alstom S.A., 830 F.3d 1350, 1354, 119 USPQ2d 1739, 1742 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (mental processes: “a claim to "collecting information, analyzing it, and displaying certain results of the collection and analysis," where the data analysis steps are recited at a high level of generality such that they could practically be performed in the human mind ). MPEP 2106.04(a)(2), 2106.05(a)(g)(h)”
THE REJECTIONS [35 U.S.C. §103] OF CLAIMS 2, 4-9, AND 11-13 SHOULD BE WITHDRAWN:
“Claims 2, 4-9, and 11-13, directly or indirectly, depend upon and incorporate directly or indirectly all the limitations of their respective base claims 1 and 10, and are likewise allowable for all the reasons stated above with regard to claims 1 and 10. Accordingly, withdrawal of the [35 U.S.C. §§101] and 103 rejections of these claims are likewise requested.”
IN RSPONSE to V: Examiner Disagrees:
However, SEIFERT discloses [obviously] in view of Kim, all limitations as stated with 103 rejections above.
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.
The prior arts made of record and not relied upon are considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Brown et al (US 12242937 B1) discloses Building Management System With Generative AI-Based Root Cause Prediction.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to HATEM M. ALI whose telephone number is (571) 270-3021, E-mail: Hatem.Ali@USPTO.Gov and FAX (571)270-4021. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday from 8:00 AM to 6:00 PM ET.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, 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, ABHISHEK VYAS can be reached on (571) 270-1836. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
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. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/HATEM M ALI/
Examiner, Art Unit 3691
/ABHISHEK VYAS/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3691