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 .
Response to Arguments
2. The Amendment filed on March 30, 2026 has been entered. The examiner acknowledges the amendments to claims 1, 5-6, 9-11, and the cancellation of claims 2-4.
Rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 101: Applicants arguments provide three descriptions of the invention to illustrate a practical application.
The first argument purports the invention is a specific concrete machine that comprises a processor and a memory storing a program. The claims provide no insight as to how or why the machine is specifically designed or the features in the machine that make it so. The claim reads ‘a memory storing…a program, and a processor to execute the program.’ Under a broad interpretation, it is software loaded onto a PC delivering an output. The broad interpretation must be considered and as a result this first description falls short of a practical application.
The second argument purports the invention delivers a technical improvement (to the field of methanation, [0002]). Claim language leaves it to the reader to conclude an improvement occurs. The specification provides clues relating to the invention calculating a potentially optimal time and circumstances to initiate the production cycle, but the clues are not collected into a line of reasoning that describes a technical improvement, and again, this is not promoted into the claims. As a result, the argument of a technical improvement in the claims is not solid and does not support a claim of a technical improvement for the invention.
The third argument purports control of the process via controlling another device. The claims do reveal the ability to switch from a non-producible state to a producible state. At first glance, this reads like a switch, notionally on/off, with a rationale for under what favorable conditions the switch would be actuated, but a deeper look indicates the invention is less of a switch and more of a fuse used as an initiation step for a reaction. It is not apparent from the description in the claims that control occurs, but simply initiation. Control at its primal level would include not only “on,” but also an action executing “off,” or terminating the process or reaction previously initiated. Still, at the primal level of control, would be reasoning as to why, or under what conditions, the initiation of the process takes place, (and this is provided in somewhat convoluted terms in the claims), and under what conditions the control would terminate the process, if indeed the invention is able to terminate the process. In the absence of this information concerning operation of the invention, it is not possible to conclude that control is provided, and the description provided in the specification, "outputting the operation plan to control the device" [0107], in effect describes providing a signal to begin a process, and a plan for operation under the control of another entity (person, manager, team of workers, etc.). Again, the claims purport “control” of the process; the claims do not provide compelling evidence of the existence of control.
Given consideration of the arguments, and under further examination of the claims, the rejections to the claims under 35 U.S.C. § 101 will not be withdrawn.
Claim Rejections – 35 U.S.C. § 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, 5-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter. The claims, 1, 5-11 are directed to a judicial exception (i.e., law of nature, natural phenomenon, abstract idea) without providing significantly more.
Step 1
Step 1 of the subject matter eligibility analysis per MPEP § 2106.03, required the claims to be a process, machine, manufacture or a composition of matter. Claims 1, 5-11 are directed to a process (method), and a machine (system), which are statutory categories of invention.
Step 2A
Claims 1, 5-11 are directed to abstract ideas, as explained below.
Prong one of the Step 2A analysis requires identifying the specific limitation(s) in the claim under examination that the examiner believes recites an abstract idea, and determining whether the identified limitation(s) falls within at least one of the groupings of abstract ideas of mathematical concepts, mental processes, and certain methods of organizing human activity.
Step 2A-Prong 1
The claims recite the following limitations that are directed to abstract ideas, which can be summarized as being directed to a method, the abstract idea, of determining a renewable power consumption plan that can support production of a product.
Claim 11 discloses An operation plan creation method of creating an operation plan that is able to switch from a non-producible state in which a product is not acquired even with inputting of electric power to a producible state in which a product is acquired with inputting of electric power by making an operational preparation, the operation plan creation method comprising:
acquiring a predicted value of an amount of electric power which is able to be supplied and which includes electric power originating from renewable energy; (following rules or instructions, observation, evaluation, judgement, opinion), and
creating the operation plan based on the predicted value and an operational preparation required time period indicating a required time period for the operational preparation, (following rules or instructions, observation, evaluation, judgement, opinion),
wherein the operation plan includes a plurality of startable time candidates which are able to be selected as a time at which the operational preparation is started, wherein creating the operation plan comprises:
calculating a total evaluation value based on an amount of electric power consumed to produce the product based on the predicted value and the operational preparation required time period based on the premise that the operational preparation is started at a startable time candidate selected out of the plurality of startable times for each of the plurality of startable time candidates, (following rules or instructions, observation, evaluation, judgement, opinion);
extracting at least one total evaluation value indicating a maximum
value as a maximum total evaluation value out of a plurality of total evaluation values acquired for each of the plurality of startable time candidates, (following rules or instructions, observation, evaluation, judgement, opinion);
selecting the startable time candidate corresponding to the at least one maximum total evaluation value as a first candidate which is a candidate for a time at which the operational preparation is started, (following rules or instructions, observation, evaluation, judgement, opinion);
selecting at least one startable time candidate in which the maximum total evaluation value is equal to or greater than a threshold value as a second candidate out of the at least one first candidate by comparing the at least one maximum total evaluation value with the threshold value, (following rules or instructions, observation, evaluation, judgement, opinion), and
outputting the operation plan to start the operational preparation at the second candidate or, when a plurality of the second candidates is selected, at a latest time out of the second candidates, (following rules or instructions, observation, evaluation, judgement, opinion).
Additional limitations employ the method to predict power including from renewable energy and create the plan based on power and operational preparation time, (following rules or instructions, observation, evaluation, judgement, opinion - claim 1), acquiring predicted power by predicting renewable electric power, (following rules or instructions, observation, evaluation, judgement, opinion – claim 5), acquiring predicted value by predicting renewable and storage power based on storage inputs and outputs, (following rules or instructions, observation, evaluation, judgement, opinion – claim 6), and total quantity is a total amount of production of the product, calculated based on consumed electrical power, (following rules or instructions, observation, evaluation, judgement, opinion- claim 7), and total evaluation quantity is the amount of consumed electric power, (following rules or instructions, observation, evaluation, judgement, opinion – claim 8), and preparing evaluation of an amount of power consumed to acquire the product at a time and whether the product can be produced with the reception of power, and acquiring a candidate for the operation plan based on the evaluation of the amount of power consumed, (following rules or instructions, observation, evaluation, judgement, opinion – claim 9), and employing the candidate plan as the operational plan when the total evaluation value is equal to or greater than the threshold value, (following rules or instructions, observation, evaluation, judgement, opinion- claim 10).
Each of these claimed limitations employ processes involving managing personal behavior by following rules or instructions or mental processes including judgement, observation, evaluation and opinion.
Thus, the concepts set forth in claims 1, 5-11 recite abstract processes.
Step 2A-Prong 2
As per MPEP § 2106.04, while the claims 1, 5-11 recite additional limitations which are hardware or software elements such as a device, a memory, a processor, a renewable energy
power generation device, an energy storage device, these limitations are not sufficient to qualify as a practical application being recited in the claims along with the abstract ideas since these elements are invoked as tools to apply the instructions of the abstract ideas in a specific technological environment. The mere application of an abstract idea in a particular technological environment and merely limiting the use of an abstract idea to a particular technological field do not integrate an abstract idea into a practical application (MPEP § 2106.05 (f) & (h)).
Evaluated individually, the additional elements do not integrate the identified abstract ideas into a practical application. Evaluating the limitations as an ordered combination adds nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually.
The claims do not amount to a “practical application” of the abstract idea because they neither (1) recite any improvements to another technology or technical field; (2) recite any improvements to the functioning of the computer itself; (3) apply the judicial exception with, or by use of, a particular machine; (4) effect a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing; (5) provide other meaningful limitations beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment.
Accordingly, claims 1, 5-11 are directed to abstract ideas.
Step 2B
Claims 1, 5-11 do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the additional elements when considered both individually and as an ordered combination, do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea.
The analysis above describes how the claims recite the additional elements beyond those identified above as being directed to an abstract idea, as well as why identified judicial exception(s) are not integrated into a practical application. These findings are hereby incorporated into the analysis of the additional elements when considered both individually and in combination.
For the reasons provided in the analysis in Step 2A, Prong 1, evaluated individually, the additional elements do not amount to significantly more than a judicial exception. Thus, taken alone, the additional elements do not amount to significantly more than a judicial exception.
Evaluating the claim limitations as an ordered combination adds nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually. In addition to the factors discussed regarding Step 2A, prong two, there is no indication that the combination of elements improves the functioning of a computer or improves any other technology. Their collective functions merely amount to instructions to implement the identified abstract ideas on a computer.
Therefore, since there are no limitations in the claims 1, 5-11 that transform the exception into a patent eligible application such that the claims amount to significantly more than the exception itself, the claims are directed to non-statutory subject matter and are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101.
Conclusion
Claims 1, 5-11 were previously not rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103.
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure or directed to the state of the art is listed on the enclosed PTO-892.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the
examiner should be directed to MICHAEL BOROWSKI whose telephone number is (703) 756-1822, (michael.borowski@uspto.gov). The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8-4:30.
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, Jerry O’Connor can be reached on (571) 272-6787. 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.
/MB/
Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3624
/MEHMET YESILDAG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3624
Prosecution Insights