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 .
Response to Amendment
The following is a FINAL Office action in reply to the Amendments and Arguments received on August 7, 2026.
Status of Claims
Claims 1 and 8 have been amended.
Claims 1-17 are currently pending and have been examined.
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 1-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1:
Claims 1-11 are drawn to methods while claim(s) 12-17 is/are drawn to an apparatus. As such, claims 1-17 are drawn to one of the statutory categories of invention (Step 1: YES).
Step 2A - Prong One:
Claim 1 (representative of independent claim(s) 12) recites the following steps:
A method for an energy reduction messaging system, the method comprising:
collecting a first set of energy consumption data from energy meters of a plurality of households at a first time;
generating daily energy usage profiles for each household of the plurality of households from the first set of energy consumption data;
extracting load shapes of the daily energy usage profiles using a load shape extraction method;
applying one or more clustering algorithms to the daily energy usage profiles to identify a first plurality of behavioral reference groups of households that share similar load shapes with respect to household energy usage;
labeling the first set of energy consumption data based on the first plurality of behavioral reference groups, and storing the labeled data
training a first classification model to classify each household of the plurality of households to a behavioral reference group of the first plurality of behavioral reference groups, based on the stored labeled first set of energy consumption data;
collecting a second set of energy consumption data from the plurality of households at a second time, the second time after the first time; operating with a first set of conditions being met; in response to the first set of conditions being met, automatically reclassifyinga subset of the plurality of households into the first plurality of behavioral reference groups using the trained first classification model;
operating with a second set of conditions being met; and in response to the second set of conditions being met:
automatically performing a second clustering analysis of the second set of energy consumption data to identify a second plurality of behavioral reference groups of households that share similar behavioral patterns with respect to household energy usage;
training a second classification model to classify each household of the plurality of households to a behavioral reference group of the second plurality of behavioral reference groups, based on the second set of energy consumption data; and
reclassifying the plurality of households into the second plurality of behavioral reference groups using the trained second classification model.
These steps, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, encompass mathematical relationships and/ or mathematical calculations (clustering analysis, classification models). These limitations therefore fall within the “mathematical concepts” subject matter grouping of abstract ideas.
Alternatively, these steps, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, encompass a human manually (e.g., in their mind, or using paper and pen) messaging household members of energy consumption (i.e., one or more concepts performed in the human mind, such as one or more observations, evaluations, judgments, opinions), but for the recitation of generic computer components. If one or more claim limitations, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation(s) in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the "mental processes" subject matter grouping of abstract ideas.
As such, the Examiner concludes that claim 1 recites an abstract idea (Step 2A - Prong One: YES).
Independent claim(s) 12 is determined to recite an abstract idea under the same analysis.
Step 2A - Prong Two:
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. The claim(s) recite the additional elements/limitations of:
an energy reduction messaging system
an energy usage profile database
An energy reduction messaging system, comprising: smart metering technology installed at a plurality of households that measure energy consumption data of the plurality of households in real-time or at predetermined intervals; a processor, and a non-transitory memory storing instructions that when executed, cause the processor to:
The requirement to execute the claimed steps/functions listed above is equivalent to adding the words ''apply it'' on a generic computer and/or mere instructions to implement the abstract idea on a generic computer. This/these limitation(s) do/does not impose any meaningful limits on producing the abstract idea and therefore do/does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application (see MPEP 2106.05(f)).
The Examiner has therefore determined that the additional elements, or combination of additional elements, do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Accordingly, the claim(s) is/are directed to an abstract idea (Step 2A -Prong Two: NO).
Step 2B:
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
As discussed above in "Step 2A - Prong 2", the requirement to execute the claimed steps/functions listed above is equivalent to adding the words "apply it" on a generic computer and/or mere instructions to implement the abstract idea on a generic computer. These limitations therefore do not qualify as "significantly more" (see MPEP 2106.05 (f)).
The Examiner has therefore determined that no additional element, or combination of additional claims elements is/are sufficient to ensure the claim(s) amount to significantly more than the abstract idea identified above (Step 2B: NO).
Regarding Dependent Claims:
Dependent claims 2-, 7, 9-11 and 13-17, fail to include any additional elements and are further part of the abstract idea as identified by the Examiner.
Dependent claim 8 include additional limitations that are part of the abstract idea except for:
the energy reduction messaging system
Prior Art
Examiner conducted a thorough search of the body of available prior art (see attached documents regards PTO-892 Notice of Reference Cited and PE2E Search History). Notably, Examiner discovered several patent literature documents that taught aspects of the invention, but no single disclosure taught “every element required by the claims under its broadest reasonable interpretation” [MPEP § 2131] to make a 35 USC § 102 rejection. Further, Examiner considered the individual elements of the recited claims taught across the prior art cited below but did not find it obvious to combine such disclosures [MPEP § 2142] to make a 35 USC § 103 rejection. In particular, Nock et al., U.S. Publication No. 20240072569 discloses, storing environmental data on a plurality of homes and grouping like households, however Nock is silent with respect to collecting second data and regrouping or reclassifying the household. Lin et al, U.S. Publication No. 2021/0272156 discloses monitoring energy usage at a plurality of homes and targeting like groups with a messaging campaign but is silent with respect to extracting load shapes; training classification model and reclassifying using the trained model.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed with respect to the rejection under 35 USC 101 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant Argues: The claims recite a specific technical solution to that problem and therefore integrate the alleged exception into a practical application.
Applicant’s alleged improvement is not directed to an improvement to computer functionality/capabilities, an improvement to a computer-related technology or technological environment, and do not amount to a technology-based solution to a technology-based problem. A showing that a claim is directed to any improvement does not automatically mean a claim is patent eligible (e.g., an improved business function or an improved idea itself is not patent eligible). In this case, collecting data, classifying the data and then reclassifying based on a trigger is an abstract idea, and an “improved” way of performing those steps is, if anything, an improvement to the idea itself.
Applicant Argues: As the Declaration explains, this condition-triggered, selective architecture "provides a technical mechanism that enables accurate household group management while substantially reducing the processing and memory resources consumed by the reclassification process," and permits reclassification "without re-running the clustering algorithm" at each event, thereby avoiding the cost that would otherwise be incurred.
Examiner respectfully disagrees. Examiner notes that as stated in the updated 101 rejection above, the particular “training…” and “reclassifying…" features of the claims are SO broad that they could reasonably be done mentally in the human mind as part of an observation, evaluation, judgement, or opinion. There is nothing in the claim language nor in the specification that would prohibit such an implementation. In fact, there is no limiting technology tied to these features at all other a generic memory and processor. Therefore, contrary to applicant's assertion, these claimed features can and should be deemed part of a recited abstract idea categorized in Mental Process. Therefore, the argument is not persuasive.
Applicant Argues: Accordingly, the additional elements do more than "apply it" on a generic computer; they impose meaningful limits by tying the recited operations to smart metering technology installed at the households and to a specific, resource-conserving order of operations that yields an improvement in the functioning of the energy management system itself.
Examiner respectfully disagrees. The Specification fails to clearly evidence how the use of a trained classification model is an actual technological improvement over, or differs from, the expected general concept of applying the classification model. It is unclear how the classification models are being integrated in any specialized manner that serves any specialized technical purpose/solution.
The claims are not rooted in machine learning technology, and the claims do not solve a technical problem that only arises in AI or machine learning. MPEP § 2106.05(a).
The amended limitations being referred to simply apply data analysis to train the generic classification models and do nothing more than use computational instructions to be implemented in a computer processing environment, simply to "apply it" without any improvement to the computer functionality or technology itself.
Applicant Argues: Claim 1, as amended, further recites that in response to a second set of conditions being met, the method performs a second clustering analysis of the second set of energy consumption data to identify a second plurality of behavioral reference groups, trains a second classification model based on that second clustering analysis, and reclassifies the plurality of households into the second plurality of behavioral reference groups using the trained second classification model.
Examiner respectfully disagrees. Referring to the Recentive Analytics v. Fox Corp decision, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit affirmed the district court’s dismissal of a patent infringement lawsuit brought by Recentive Analytics against Fox Corporation, where it was determined that the machine learning models employed were conventional. The Federal Circuit reaffirmed that iteratively training a learning model on data does not transform an abstract idea into a patent-eligible invention. Similarly, confining the trained machine learning model to a particular technological field is insufficient unless the implementation introduces a specific, non-generic improvement to computing technology and describes how this improvement is accomplished. It is important to note that most learning models are inherently trained on large, often complex datasets to generate predictions or classifications. It is not apparent that such a non-generic improvement is reflective in the instant claims as the claims do not provide any detail that addresses any improvement to the broadly claimed training step. As such the rejection is maintained.
Applicant Argues: The Office's analysis under Step 2A, Prong 2 identifies only three additional elements-"an energy reduction messaging system," "an energy usage profile database," and the system preamble reciting smart metering technology, a processor, and a non- transitory memory-and concludes that these amount to "apply it" on a generic computer. See Office action, pages 5 and 6. Applicant respectfully disagrees. That analysis fails to address the claimed ordered combination or the improvement it produces, as required by MPEP 2106.05. It is not the metering technology, processor, database, or memory considered individually, but the particular arrangement that results in the specific technical improvements.
In combination, the steps disclose a sequence of operations that include receiving data, analyzing data, and training/retraining a high-level recited classification model. The only arguable inventive aspect of this set of steps is the particulars of the information processed. Apart from such particulars as is known of those of ordinary skill , the claimed combination of operations amounts to a generic, routine and conventional sequence of generic, routine and conventional operations of a computer system. The recitation of load shapes is merely a graphical or numerical representation of the data and does not advance the claims.
None of the claims (independent or dependent) effects an improvement to another technology or technical field; nor does any of the claims amount to an improvement to the function of system.
Accordingly, Examiner concludes that there are no meaningful limitations in the claims that transform the judicial exception into a patent eligible application such that the claims amount to significantly more than the judicial exception itself.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 RASHIDA R SHORTER whose telephone number is (571)272-9345. The examiner can normally be reached Monday- Friday from 9am- 530pm. 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, Jessica Lemieux can be reached at (571) 270-3445. 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.
/RASHIDA R SHORTER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3626
Prosecution Insights