DETAILED ACTION
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 .
The following is a Final Office Action in response to communications received July 23, 2025. No Claim(s) have been canceled. Claims 1-5 have been amended. New claims 6-16 have been added. Therefore, claims 1-16 are pending and addressed below.
Priority
Application No. 18501480 filed 11/03/2023 claims foreign priority to 2022- 210403, filed 12/27/2022
Application Name/Assignee: TOYOTA JIDOSHA KABUSHIKI KAISHA
Inventor(s): Shimada, lbuki; Takeishi, Hiroki; Moriya, Koki; Ueda, Koji; Miyata, Al
Response to Amendment/Arguments
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
Applicant's arguments filed 07/23/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
In the remarks applicant recites the limitations arguing that the claimed limitations go beyond identification of power transaction and associated notification process as identified in the previous Office Action. Applicant argues that the claims incorporate a structured technical detailed system tied to an information processing device comprising processors/communication unit which utilizes digital balances stored in the memory and carries out operational processes through the processor. Applicant points to the limitations “increasing…a holding balance of power selling user by charging amount after …power…sold from power selling user to power buying user”, “reducing …holding balance of power buying user by the charging amount” which is not an abstract idea pointing to the specification para 0041 which discloses balances store in memory and processors executing transactions to those balances. Applicant’s argument is not persuasive. The specification in para 0041 makes clear that the technological elements are merely available as a tool in order to control balance settlements for specified time period and calculate expenditures paid for power in each specified time so that the amount of revenue in the power selling and expenditures in power purchasing differences are paid to the user. The specification does not support applicant’s argument that the focus of the invention is directed toward patent eligible subject matter rather than an accounting and transaction process using technology.
[0041] As an additional example or as an alternative, the control unit 11 may settle the holding balance every predetermined period of time (for example, one month). For example, the control unit 11 calculates a difference by subtracting the amount of expenditure paid by the same user by the purchased power in the same period from the amount of revenue obtained by the user by the selling power in the predetermined period. In this way, the control unit 11 may offset the amount of revenue in the electric power selling and the amount of expenditure in the electric power purchasing. The control unit 11 pays the calculated difference to the user by transfer or the like.
With respect to applicant’s argument to the limitations “increasing…a holding balance of power selling user by charging amount after …power…sold from power selling user to power buying user”, “reducing …holding balance of power buying user by the charging amount” is not an abstract idea, the increasing limitations merely applies technology “by the processor” at a high level where the technology is merely being applied to increase the amount of power balance (product available ) to be sold by charging an amount after the power is sold and reducing the amount of power balance (product available) by the amount charged (sold). This is simply applying generic technology to perform a transaction and accounting process where the sellers inventory of product is increased or reduced based on a transaction process. The rejection is maintained.
In the remarks applicant argues the amended dependent claims reinforce the details discussed above, where the method offsets revenue and expenditures over time, permitting partial payments from stored values and transfers outstanding differences. The dependent claims represent purposeful technical controls manage electric vehicles energy exchanges providing a practical application within a defined/structured environment. Applicant argues the amended claims aligns with reasoning DDR Holdings v Hotels where the courts found claims because they manipulate computer interactions to produce outcomes rooted in technology, nor conventional business practice. The present application, recite control and balances which is not abstract accounting. Rather the amended claim recite operations coupled with recited processor, communication unit and multiple user terminals which is more than an abstract idea. Applicant’s argument is not persuasive. DDR Holding v Holdings found patent eligibility in providing a technical solution to a problem rooted in technology. The method for offsets revenue and expenditures is not a method to address problems rooted in technology. The management of energy exchanges of an electric vehicle is a transaction process and does not improve any underlying technology or provide a solution to a problem rooted in the underlying technology (e.g. processors, communication unit, memory or multiple terminals). The dependent claims argued similar to the independent claims merely apply technology for a transaction and account process. The rejection is maintained.
In the remarks applicant argues the additional feature recited in the amended claims provide significantly more the any alleged abstract idea. Applicant points to the limitations “increasing…a holding balance of power selling user by charging amount after …power…sold from power selling user to power buying user”, “reducing …holding balance of power buying user by the charging amount” again arguing that the system claimed manages balances, validates power delivery and executes power transfers through communications between processors and terminals which is not generic or routine. Applicant argues the recited limitations unlike Electric Power Group conventional technical operations of collect data, analyze data and outputting the result or FairWarning conventional technical operations of data aggregation and display provide non-conventional steps. Applicant points to para 0004-0005, para 0040-0041 which disclose significant solution to support discounts/profits from sales.
[0004] In the above background art, the revenue from electric power selling is not taken into consideration.
[0005] In view of such circumstances, an object of the present disclosure is to 25 enable a user who sells electric power to obtain elect1ic power sales revenue.
Please note the specification does not focus on addressing issues related to technology or improvement thereof, but rather revenue from sales and enable a user to sell the power to obtain revenue which is a transaction process.
[0040] Additionally or alternatively, the control unit 11 may allow the power selling user SP to pay at least a portion of the charge amount from the stored balance stored in association with the user when the power selling user SP buys power at a later time. The charge amount is discounted by the amount paid from the holding balance.
[0041] As an additional example or as an alternative, the control unit 11 may settle the holding balance every predetermined period of time (for example, one month). For example, the control unit 11 calculates a difference by subtracting the amount of expenditure paid by the same user by the purchased power in the same period from the amount of revenue obtained by the user by the selling power in the predetermined period. In this way, the control unit 11 may offset the amount of revenue in the electric power selling and the amount of expenditure in the electric power purchasing. The control unit 11 pays the calculated difference to the user by transfer or the like.
Please note that the specification discloses using technology to allow the seller to pay a charge amount from a stored balance when selling power to a buyer where the charge amount is discounted by amount paid and settle the holding balance every predetermine time period where the balance increases/reduces in response to the net amount of revenue generated from sales which is a transaction and account process and not directed toward any underlying technology. With respect to the argument that the limitations “increasing…a holding balance of power selling user by charging amount after …power…sold from power selling user to power buying user”, “reducing …holding balance of power buying user by the charging amount” again arguing that the system claimed manages balances, validates power delivery and executes power transfers through communications between processors and terminals which is not generic or routine. Applicant’s argument is not persuasive. The use of the “processor” to perform the operations “increasing …holding balance”, and “reducing holding balance” are lacking technical details or disclosure on how the processor increases/reduces the holding balance beyond generic ability to transfer power. Transferring power without significantly more is a well-known process when the claim fails to limit any means for performing the increasing/reducing balance operations. The rejection is maintained.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102/103
In the remarks applicant argues the prior art reference Lim fails to teach the limitation “increasing, by the processor, a holding balance of the power selling user by the charging amount after electric power is sold from the power selling user to the power buying user: and reducing, by the processor, a holding balance of the power buying user by the charging amount.”. The examiner respectfully disagrees. The prior art explicitly illustrates and teaches in FIG. 8-9 and para 0042 the EV menu that provides charge to share, where the buyer receives the charged that is confirmed when transfer charge is accepted to proceed with charging amount accepted to the EV2EV.
However, the prior art reference Lim does not explicitly teach “processor” performing the operations of the claimed limitations, accordingly the 102 rejection has been withdrawn and a 103 rejection has been presented below.
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 1-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 because the instant application is directed to non-patentable subject matter. Specifically, the claims are directed toward at least one judicial exception without reciting additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. The rationale for this determination is in accordance with the guidelines of USPTO, applies to all statutory categories, and is explained in detail below.
In reference to claim(s) 1-3 and 6-10:
STEP 1. Per Step 1 of the two-step analysis, the claims are determined to include a method, as in independent Claim 1 and the dependent claims. Such methods fall under the statutory category of "process." Therefore, the claims are directed to a statutory eligibility category.
STEP 2A Prong 1. The claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. Method claim 1 recites a method step(s) 1) receiving buy request 2) receiving selling request 3) determining selling user and buyer user as parties of a transactions 4) determining power transaction matter indicating charging position and charging amount 5) transmitting power transaction matter to buyer user and seller terminal, 6) increasing a holding balance of power 7) reducing a holding balance of power. The claimed limitations which under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of a transaction activity.
It is clear from the Specification (including the claim language) that claim 1 focuses on an abstract idea, and not on an improvement to technology and/or a technical field. The Specification is titled “Information Processing Method and Storage Medium,” and discloses, in the Background section, that the focus of the invention is the service in which a power supply vehicle rushes to a host vehicle and supplies power to the host vehicle when a power supply request to the host vehicle is made” (Spec. ¶ 0003). The specification discloses the focus of the invention is the process for buying and selling power between participants in response to a request (Spec. ¶ 0004). Accordingly, in light of the specification, the claim limitations, when considered as a whole the claimed subject matter is directed toward a power transaction process which is enumerated in the sub-abstract category of a sales activity.
These concepts are enumerated in Section I of the 2019 revised patent subject matter eligibility guidance published in the federal register (84 FR 50) on January 7, 2019) is directed toward abstract category of methods of organizing human activity.
STEP 2A Prong 2The additional elements recited in the claim beyond the abstract idea include a generic communication unit applied to perform the operations at a high level of “receiving buying request”, “receiving selling request” and ”transmitting power transaction matter” to buyer/seller terminals lacking any technical disclosure with results oriented outcomes and thus is insignificant extra solution activity related to a transaction process. The additional element “via a processor” and “a communication unit” includes a generic processor to perform at a high level “determining a selling/buying user as parties of a transaction, “determining transaction matter”, “increasing holding balance of selling user and “reducing holding balance of buying user” lacking technical disclosure with results oriented outcomes of a transaction process where the product balance is adjusted based on the transaction which is merely applying technology to implement the transaction process
The functions are recited at a high-level of generality without any recitation of any technology to perform the claimed steps. The claim limitations and specification lacks technical disclosure on what the technical problem was and how the claimed limitations provide a technical solution to a technical problem rather than a solution to a problem found in the abstract idea. Taking the claim elements separately, the method at each step of the process is purely in terms of results desired and devoid of technical implementation or technology. Technology is not integral to the process as the claimed subject matter and the recited steps could be performed by any known means. Furthermore, the claimed functions do not provide an operation that could be considered as sufficient to provide a technological implementation or application of/or improvement to this concept (i.e. integrated into a practical application).
When the claims are taken as a whole, as an ordered combination, the combination of limitations 1-2 are directed toward insignificant extra solution business related transaction activity combination of limitations 3-4 are directed toward determining the parties of the transaction and charging position and amounts – transaction activity. The combination of limitations 1-4 and limitations 5-7 are directed toward in response to transmitting power transaction increasing a holding balance of power selling user by charging an amount sold and reducing a holding balance of power buyer by a charging amount – which is directed toward the balance of a power/product changing in response to power sold/power. The combinations of parts is not directed toward any technical process or technological technique or technological solution to a problem rooted in technology.
In addition, when the claims are taken as a whole, as an ordered combination, the combination of steps not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application as the claim process fails to impose meaningful limits upon the abstract idea. This is because additional elements or combination or elements recited in the claim are merely used/applied to perform the abstract idea and fails to apply or use the judicial exception in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on the judicial exception. The functions recited in the claims recite the concept of receiving buying/selling request and determining transaction participants and charging amounts of power balance used in a transaction which is a process directed toward a transaction activity
The integration of elements do not improve upon technology or improve upon computer functionality or capability in how computers carry out one of their basic functions. The integration of elements do not provide a process that allows computers to perform functions that previously could not be performed. The integration of elements do not provide a process which applies a relationship to apply a new way of using an application. The instant application, therefore, still appears only to implement the abstract idea. The steps are still a combination made to perform a transaction process and does not provide any of the determined indications of patent eligibility set forth in the 2019 USPTO 101 guidance. The claim limitation fail to provide additional elements beyond the abstract idea of a transaction process, and the claims do not show improved ways of, for example, an particular technical function for performing the abstract idea that imposes meaningful limits upon the abstract idea. Moreover, Examiner was not able to identify any specific technological processes. Accordingly, this additional element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to an abstract idea. The Specification describes a transaction process between a buyer and seller.
None of claimed steps provide a basis for finding that claim 1, when considered as a whole, reflects an improvement in computer functionality, an improvement in technology or a technical field, or that the claim otherwise integrates the recited abstract idea into a “practical application,” as that term is used in the 2019 Revised Guidance.
STEP 2B; The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because as discussed above with respect to concepts of the abstract idea into a practical application. The additional elements recited in the claim beyond the abstract idea include a processing device and processor used to perform the conventional operations of determining a power selling user request, determining a power transaction matter, increasing a holding balance and reducing a holding balance of power and a communication unit used to perform insignificant extra solution activity of receiving request and transmitting power matter to buying and selling user.
Similar to limitations referenced in Alice, the claimed functions of the processor and communication unit that are not enough to qualify as “significantly more” as the additional elements are used with an abstract idea amounting to no more than mere instructions to implement the abstract idea on a processor and/or communication unit requiring no more than a generic processors and communication units to perform generic computer functions that are well understood activities known to the industry. As a result, none of the hardware recited by the method claim offers a meaningful limitation beyond generally linking the use of the method to a particular technological environment, that is, implementation via computers. The claim limitations do not recite that any of the “devices” perform more than a high level generic function ... . None of the limitations recite technological implementation details for any of these steps, but instead recite only results desired to be achieved by any and all possible means... . Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. The claimed physical structures (processors) are generic computer components and tools to perform the generic computer functions. The computer components are recited at a high level of generality and merely automates the claimed transaction activity, acting as a generic computer to perform the abstract idea.
As to the data operated upon, "even if a process of collecting and analyzing information is 'limited to particular content' or a particular 'source,' that limitation does not make the collection and analysis other than abstract." SAP America, Inc. v. Invest Pic LLC, 898 F.3d 1161, 1168 (Fed. Cir. 2018).
Considered as an ordered combination, the computer components of Applicant’s claimed functions add nothing that is not already present when the steps are considered separately. The sequence of data reception-analysis modification-transmission is equally generic and conventional. See Ultramercial, Inc. v. Hulu, LLC, 772 F.3d 709, 715 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (sequence of receiving, selecting, offering for exchange, display, allowing access, and receiving payment recited as an abstraction), Inventor Holdings, LLC v. Bed Bath & Beyond, Inc., 876 F.3d 1372, 1378 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (sequence of data retrieval, analysis, modification, generation, display, and transmission), Two-Way Media Ltd. v. Comcast Cable Communications, LLC, 874 F.3d 1329, 1339 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (sequence of processing, routing, controlling, and monitoring). The ordering of the steps is therefore ordinary and conventional. The analysis concludes that the claims do not provide an inventive concept because the additional elements recited in the claims do not provide significantly more than the recited judicial exception.
According to 2106.05 well-understood and routine processes to perform the abstract idea is not sufficient to transform the claim into patent eligibility. As evidence the examiner provides:
According to MPEP 2106.05(d) II, the courts have recognized the following computer functions as well‐understood, routine, and conventional functions when they are claimed in a merely generic manner (e.g., at a high level of generality) or as insignificant extra-solution activity.
Receiving or transmitting data over a network, e.g., using the Internet to gather data, Symantec, 838 F.3d at 1321, 120 USPQ2d at 1362 (utilizing an intermediary computer to forward information); TLI Communications LLC v. AV Auto. LLC, 823 F.3d 607, 610, 118 USPQ2d 1744, 1745 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (using a telephone for image transmission); OIP Techs., Inc., v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363, 115 USPQ2d 1090, 1093 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (sending messages over a network); buySAFE, Inc. v. Google, Inc., 765 F.3d 1350, 1355, 112 USPQ2d 1093, 1096 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (computer receives and sends information over a network); but see DDR Holdings, LLC v. Hotels.com, L.P., 773 F.3d 1245, 1258, 113 USPQ2d 1097, 1106 (Fed. Cir. 2014) ("Unlike the claims in Ultramercial, the claims at issue here specify how interactions with the Internet are manipulated to yield a desired result‐‐a result that overrides the routine and conventional sequence of events ordinarily triggered by the click of a hyperlink." (emphasis added))
The specification nominally describes the additional elements:
[0017] The control unit 11 includes, for example, one or more general-purpose processors including Central Processing Unit (CPU) or Micro Processing Unit (MPU). The control unit 11 may include one or more dedicated processors specialized for a specific 15 process. The control unit 11 may include one or more dedicated circuits instead of the processor. The dedicated circuit may be, for example, a field-programmable gate array (FPGA) or an application-specific integrated circuit (ASIC). The control unit 11 may include an electronic control unit (ECU). The control unit 11 transmits and receives arbitrary information via the communication unit 12.
[0018] The communication unit 12 includes a communication module conforming to one or more wired or wireless local area network (LAN) standards for connecting to the network NW. The communication unit 12 may include modules corresponding to one or more mobile communication standards including Long Term Evolution (LTE), the fourth generation (4G), or the fifth generation (5G). The communication unit 12 may include a communication module and the like conforming to one or more short-range communication standards or specifications including Bluetooth (registered trademark), AirDrop (registered trademark), infrared data association (IrDA), ZigBee (registered trademark), FeliCa (registered trademark), or radio frequency identifier (RFID). The communication unit 12
transmits and receives information via the network NW.
[0019] The storage unit 13 includes a semiconductor memory, a magnetic memory, an optical memory, or a combination of at least two of them. However, the disclosure is not limited to this. The semiconductor memory is, for example, a random access memory (RAM) or a read-only memory (ROM). The RAM is, for example, a static random access memory (SRAM) or a dynamic random access memory (DRAM). The ROM is, for example, an electrically erasable programmable read-only memory (EEPROM). The storage unit 13 may function as, for example, a main storage device, an auxiliary storage device, or a cache memory. The storage unit 13 may store information on the result of analysis or processing by the control unit 11. The storage unit 13 may store various kinds of information and the like related to the operation or control of the information processing device 1. The storage unit 13 may store a system program, an application program, embedded software, and the like. The storage unit 13 may be provided outside the information processing device 1 and 10 accessed from the information processing device 1. The storage unit 13 includes a transaction DB.
[0020] The power selling user terminal 2 is, for example, a mobile terminal such as a mobile phone, a smartphone, a wearable device, or a tablet. Alternatively, the power selling user terminal 2 may be a general-purpose device such as a PC or a dedicated device. PC is an abbreviation for personal computer.
The remaining dependent claims—which impose additional limitations—also fail to claim patent-eligible subject matter because the limitations cannot be considered statutory. In reference to claims 2-3 and 6-10 these dependent claim have also been reviewed with the same analysis as independent claim 1. Dependent claim 2 is directed toward the charging position and amount is specified by selling or buying request – transaction activity. Dependent claim 3 is directed toward transaction matter indicates charging volume and time specified in transaction request – transaction activity. Dependent claim 6 is directed toward the power selling user to use the holding balance to pay a portion of charge amount- a transaction activity. Dependent claim 7 is directed toward discount charge amounts according to paid amount from holding balance – a transaction activity. Dependent claim 8 is directed toward settling holding balance every predetermined period -an accounting practice. Dependent claim 9 is directed toward a net revenue amount for each user from power selling and expenditure during a period of time- an accounting and transaction activity. Dependent claim 10 is directed toward paying a difference between revenue and expenditure to user – transaction activity based on accounting result.
The dependent claim(s) have been examined individually and in combination with the preceding claims, however they do not cure the deficiencies of claim 1. Where all claims are directed to the same abstract idea, “addressing each claim of the asserted patents [is] unnecessary.” Content Extraction & Transmission LLC v. Wells Fargo Bank, Nat 7 Ass ’n, 776 F.3d 1343, 1348 (Fed. Cir. 2014). If applicant believes the dependent claims 2-3 and 6-10 are directed towards patent eligible subject matter, they are invited to point out the specific limitations in the claim that are directed towards patent eligible subject matter.
In reference to claim(s) 4, 11, 13 and 15:
STEP 1. Per Step 1 of the two-step analysis, the claims are determined to include a non-transitory storage medium, as in independent Claim 4 and the dependent claims. Such mediums fall under the statutory category of "manufacture." Therefore, the claims are directed to a statutory eligibility category.
STEP 2A Prong 1. The claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. Medium claim 4 recites executable program causing processing device and communicable computer to execute 1) receiving buy request 2) transmitting buying request 3) displaying transaction matter received 4) increasing a holding balance of power 5) reducing a holding balance of power.
The claimed limitations which under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of a transaction activity. It is clear from the Specification (including the claim language) that claim 1 focuses on an abstract idea, and not on an improvement to technology and/or a technical field. The Specification is titled “Information Processing Method and Storage Medium,” and discloses, in the Background section, that the focus of the invention is the service in which a power supply vehicle rushes to a host vehicle and supplies power to the host vehicle when a power supply request to the host vehicle is made” (Spec. ¶ 0003). The specification discloses the focus of the invention is the process for buying and selling power between participants in response to a request (Spec. ¶ 0004). Accordingly, in light of the specification, the claim limitations, when considered as a whole the claimed subject matter is directed toward a power transaction process which is enumerated in the sub-abstract category of a sales activity.
These concepts are enumerated in Section I of the 2019 revised patent subject matter eligibility guidance published in the federal register (84 FR 50) on January 7, 2019) is directed toward abstract category of methods of organizing human activity.
STEP 2A Prong 2: The additional elements recited in the claim beyond the abstract idea include a generic communication unit applied to perform the operations at a high level of “receiving buying request”, “receiving selling request” and ”transmitting power transaction matter” to buyer/seller terminals lacking any technical disclosure with results oriented outcomes and thus is insignificant extra solution activity related to a transaction process. The additional element “via a processor” and “a communication unit” includes a generic processor to perform at a high level “determining a selling/buying user as parties of a transaction, “determining transaction matter”, “increasing holding balance of selling user and “reducing holding balance of buying user” lacking technical disclosure with results oriented outcomes of a transaction process where the product balance is adjusted based on the transaction which is merely applying technology to implement the transaction process
The functions are is recited at a high-level of generality such that it amounts to no more than applying the exception using generic computer components. The claim limitations and specification lacks technical disclosure on what the technical problem was and how the claimed limitations provide a technical solution to a technical problem rather than a solution to a problem found in the abstract idea. Taking the claim elements separately, the operation performed by the program medium operations at each of the process is purely in terms of results desired and devoid of implementation of details. The claim limitations and specification lacks technical disclosure on what the technical problem was and how the claimed limitations provide a technical solution to a technical problem rather than a solution to a problem found in the abstract idea. Technology is applied to perform the identified transaction activity and the recited steps could be performed by any known means. Furthermore, the claimed functions do not provide an operation that could be considered as sufficient to provide a technological implementation or application of/or improvement to this concept (i.e. integrated into a practical application).
When the claims are taken as a whole, as an ordered combination, the combination of limitations 1-3 are directed toward insignificant extra solution of receiving transaction request and transmitting and displaying the request and corresponding transaction details in a display –insignificant extra solution activity related to transaction activity. The combination of limitations 1-3 and 4-6 is directed toward displaying the transaction and performing an accounting process of reducing/increasing power balance of buyer/sellers in response to the transaction process. The combinations of parts is not directed toward any technical process or technological technique or technological solution to a problem rooted in technology.
In addition, when the claims are taken as a whole, as an ordered combination, the combination of steps not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application as the claim process fails to impose meaningful limits upon the abstract idea. This is because the claimed subject matter fails to provide additional elements or combination or elements to apply or use the judicial exception in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on the judicial exception. The functions recited in the claims recite the concept of receiving transaction request, transmitting the request and displaying transaction details which is a process directed toward a business practice. The additional elements “non-transitory storage medium storing a program, a processor and communication unit” which is merely applied at a high level of generality to perform the transaction and not directed toward any specific technology or technical process.
The claim provides no technical details regarding how the recited operations are performed as it relates to a technical process providing indications of patent eligibility. Instead, similar to the claims at issue in Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Capital One Financial Corp., 850 F.3d 1332 (Fed. Cir. 2017), “the claim language . . . provides only a result-oriented solution with insufficient detail for how a computer accomplishes it. Our law demands more.” Intellectual Ventures, 850 F.3d at 1342 (citing Elec. Power Grp. LLC v. Alstom, S.A., 830 F.3d 1350, 1356 (Fed. Cir. 2016)).
The recitation of the medium is not integrated in a manner in which is a process to improve upon technology or improve upon computer functionality or capability in how computers carry out one of their basic functions. The recited additional elements do not provide a process that allows computers to perform functions that previously could not be performed. The recited additional elements do not provide a process which applies a relationship to apply a new way of using an application. The instant application, therefore, still appears only to implement the abstract idea to the particular technological environments apply what generic computer functionality in the related arts. The operations are still a combination made to receive, transmit and display transaction related data and does not provide any of the determined indications of patent eligibility set forth in the 2019 USPTO 101 guidance. The additional steps only add to those abstract ideas using generic functions, and the claims do not show improved ways of, for example, an particular technical function for performing the abstract idea that imposes meaningful limits upon the abstract idea. Moreover, Examiner was not able to identify any specific technological processes that goes beyond merely confining the abstract idea in a particular technological environment, which, when considered in the ordered combination with the other steps, could have transformed the nature of the abstract idea previously identified. Accordingly, this additional element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to an abstract idea.
STEP 2B; The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because as discussed above with respect to concepts of the abstract idea into a practical application. The additional elements recited in the claim beyond the abstract idea include a non-transitory storage medium storing a program and a processing device and computer to execute the operations receiving, transmitting and displaying- some of the most basic functions of a computer and user terminal displaying. The additional elements recited in the claim beyond the abstract idea include a processing device and processor used to perform the conventional operations of determining a power selling user request, determining a power transaction matter, increasing a holding balance and reducing a holding balance of power and a communication unit used to perform insignificant extra solution activity of receiving request and transmitting power matter to buying and selling user.
Similar to limitations referenced in Alice, the claimed functions of the processor and communication unit that are not enough to qualify as “significantly more” as the additional elements are used with an abstract idea amounting to no more than mere instructions to implement the abstract idea on a processor and/or communication unit requiring no more than a generic processors and communication units to perform generic computer functions that are well understood activities known to the industry. As a result, none of the hardware recited by the method claim offers a meaningful limitation beyond generally linking the use of the method to a particular technological environment, that is, implementation via computers. .. . The claim limitations do not recite that any of the “devices” perform more than a high level generic function ... . None of the limitations recite technological implementation details for any of these steps, but instead recite only results desired to be achieved by any and all possible means. .. . Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. The claimed physical structures (processors) are generic computer components and tools to perform the generic computer functions. The computer components are recited at a high level of generality and merely automates the claimed transaction activity, acting as a generic computer to perform the abstract idea.
Taking the claim elements separately, the function performed by the computer at each step of the process is purely conventional. Even though the claim is directed to a manufacture, the claim is not "truly drawn to a specific" non-transitory storage medium, but rather is directed toward the method of receiving, transmitting and displaying data related to a transaction. Simply reciting the use of a computer to execute a program that has been applied to receive, transmit and display transaction data will not change the analysis. Since all computer data structures must be stored in a memory to be of any use in the real world, recitation of a medium alone for storing instructions for implementing the abstract idea, does not limit the type of inventions that could be patentable eligible. The claim(s) therefore does not to meet the Alice/May 2A and 2B test. The "incidental use" of a computer did not allow the claim to meet the Alice 2A or 2B requirements.
As a result, none of the hardware recited by the medium claims offers a meaningful limitation beyond generally linking the use of the method to a particular technological environment, that is, implementation via computers. .. . The claim limitations do not recite that any of the “devices” perform more than a high level generic function ... . None of the limitations recite technological implementation details for any of these steps, but instead recite only results desired to be achieved by any and all possible means. .. . Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept or the required significantly more.
When the claims are taken as a whole, as an ordered combination, the combination of steps does not add “significantly more” by virtue of considering the steps as a whole, as an ordered combination. All of these computer functions are generic, routine, conventional computer activities that are performed only for their conventional uses. See Elec. Power Grp. v. Alstom S.A., 830 F.3d 1350, 1353 (Fed. Cir. 2016). Also see In re Katz Interactive Call Processing Patent Litigation, 639 F.3d 1303, 1316 (Fed. Cir. 2011) Absent a possible narrower construction of the terms “receiving”, “transmitting” and “displaying” ... are functions can be achieved by any general purpose computer without special programming. None of these activities are used in some unconventional manner nor do any produce some unexpected result. In short, each step does no more than require a generic computer to perform generic computer functions.
As to the data operated upon, "even if a process of collecting and analyzing information is 'limited to particular content' or a particular 'source,' that limitation does not make the collection and analysis other than abstract." SAP America, Inc. v. Invest Pic LLC, 898 F.3d 1161, 1168 (Fed. Cir. 2018). Considered as an ordered combination, the computer components of Applicant’s claimed functions add nothing that is not already present when the steps are considered separately. The sequence of data reception-analysis modification-transmission is equally generic and conventional. See Ultramercial, Inc. v. Hulu, LLC, 772 F.3d 709, 715 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (sequence of receiving, selecting, offering for exchange, display, allowing access, and receiving payment recited as an abstraction), Inventor Holdings, LLC v. Bed Bath & Beyond, Inc., 876 F.3d 1372, 1378 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (sequence of data retrieval, analysis, modification, generation, display, and transmission), Two-Way Media Ltd. v. Comcast Cable Communications, LLC, 874 F.3d 1329, 1339 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (sequence of processing, routing, controlling, and monitoring). The ordering of the steps is therefore ordinary and conventional. The analysis concludes that the claims do not provide an inventive concept because the additional elements recited in the claims do not provide significantly more than the recited judicial exception.
According to 2106.05 well-understood and routine processes to perform the abstract idea is not sufficient to transform the claim into patent eligibility. As evidence the examiner provides:
According to MPEP 2106.05(d) II, the courts have recognized the following computer functions as well‐understood, routine, and conventional functions when they are claimed in a merely generic manner (e.g., at a high level of generality) or as insignificant extra-solution activity.
Receiving or transmitting data over a network, e.g., using the Internet to gather data, Symantec, 838 F.3d at 1321, 120 USPQ2d at 1362 (utilizing an intermediary computer to forward information); TLI Communications LLC v. AV Auto. LLC, 823 F.3d 607, 610, 118 USPQ2d 1744, 1745 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (using a telephone for image transmission); OIP Techs., Inc., v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363, 115 USPQ2d 1090, 1093 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (sending messages over a network); buySAFE, Inc. v. Google, Inc., 765 F.3d 1350, 1355, 112 USPQ2d 1093, 1096 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (computer receives and sends information over a network); but see DDR Holdings, LLC v. Hotels.com, L.P., 773 F.3d 1245, 1258, 113 USPQ2d 1097, 1106 (Fed. Cir. 2014) ("Unlike the claims in Ultramercial, the claims at issue here specify how interactions with the Internet are manipulated to yield a desired result‐‐a result that overrides the routine and conventional sequence of events ordinarily triggered by the click of a hyperlink." (emphasis added))
The specification describes:
[0048]… The computer-readable recording medium includes a non-transitory computer-readable medium such as a magnetic recording device, an optical disc, a magneto-optical recording medium, or a semiconductor memory. Distribution of the program is performed, for example, by selling, transferring, or lending a portable recording
5 medium such as a Digital Versatile Disc (DVD) or a Compact Disc Read Only Memory (CD-ROM) in which the program is recorded. Further, the distribution of the program may be performed by storing the program in a storage of a server and transmitting the program from the server to another computer. Further, the program may be provided as a program product. The present disclosure can also be realized as a program that can be executed by a processor.
The instant application, therefore, still appears to only implement the abstract ideas to the particular technological environments using what is generic components and functions in the related arts. The claim is not patent eligible.
The remaining dependent claims—which impose additional limitations—also fail to claim patent-eligible subject matter because the limitations cannot be considered statutory. In reference to claims 11, 13 and 15 these dependent claim have also been reviewed with the same analysis as independent claim 4. Dependent claim 11 is directed toward allowing selling user to pay portion of charge amount using holding balance- transaction activity. Dependent claim 13 is directed toward settle holding balance ever predetermined activity – transaction activity. Dependent claim 15 is directed toward calculate and transfer difference between revenue of selling and expenditure from buying- transaction activity
The dependent claim(s) have been examined individually and in combination with the preceding claims, however they do not cure the deficiencies of claim 10. Where all claims are directed to the same abstract idea, “addressing each claim of the asserted patents [is] unnecessary.” Content Extraction & Transmission LLC v. Wells Fargo Bank, Nat 7 Ass ’n, 776 F.3d 1343, 1348 (Fed. Cir. 2014). If applicant believes the dependent claims 11, 13 and 15 are directed towards patent eligible subject matter, they are invited to point out the specific limitations in the claim that are directed towards patent eligible subject matter.
In reference to claim(s) 5:
STEP 1. Per Step 1 of the two-step analysis, the claims are determined to include a non-transitory storage medium, as in independent Claim 5 and the dependent claims. Such mediums fall under the statutory category of "manufacture." Therefore, the claims are directed to a statutory eligibility category.
STEP 2A Prong 1. The claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. Medium claim 4 recites executable program causing processing device and communicable computer to execute 1) receiving sell request 2) transmitting selling request 3) displaying transaction matter received 4) increasing holding balance of power 5) reducing holding balance of power. The claimed limitations which under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance transaction activity It is clear from the Specification (including the claim language) that claim 5 focuses on an abstract idea, and not on an improvement to technology and/or a technical field. The Specification is titled “Information Processing Method and Storage Medium,” and discloses, in the Background section, that the focus of the invention is the service in which a power supply vehicle rushes to a host vehicle and supplies power to the host vehicle when a power supply request to the host vehicle is made” (Spec. ¶ 0003). The specification discloses the focus of the invention is the process for buying and selling power between participants in response to a request (Spec. ¶ 0004). Accordingly, in light of the specification, the claim limitations, when considered as a whole the claimed subject matter is directed toward a power transaction process which is enumerated in the sub-abstract category of a sales activity.
These concepts are enumerated in Section I of the 2019 revised patent subject matter eligibility guidance published in the federal register (84 FR 50) on January 7, 2019) is directed toward abstract category of mental processes and methods of organizing human activity.
STEP 2A Prong 2: The identified judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the claim limitations fail to provide indications of patent eligible subject matter. The additional elements recited in the claim beyond the abstract idea include a generic communication unit applied to perform the operations at a high level of “receiving buying request”, “receiving selling request” and “transmitting power transaction matter” to buyer/seller terminals lacking any technical disclosure with results oriented outcomes and thus is insignificant extra solution activity related to a transaction process. The additional element “via a processor” and “a communication unit” includes a generic processor to perform at a high level “determining a selling/buying user as parties of a transaction, “determining transaction matter”, “increasing holding balance of selling user and “reducing holding balance of buying user” lacking technical disclosure with results oriented