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 October 8, 2025 has been entered. The examiner acknowledges the amendments to claims 1, 3, and 11, and the cancellation of claim 2.
Rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 101: Applicant argues integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, in the form of improved computer functionality. Applicant states an improvement to the functioning of the computer itself, “by executing this algorithm…” [Applicant arguments]. The Examiner views that as an application of improved software as opposed to the improvement to the functioning of a computer. Arguments state “By executing this algorithm, the computer can generate a reliable and optimal operation plan, a function that conventional computers were unable to perform.” Details on an improvement to the computer functioning, differentiating it from the “conventional computer” or technical details on the application of innovative software design that prevents inoperable plans from being created or exercised are not apparent. In the absence of important technical details on the improvements, the arguments are not compelling, the Examiner concludes that enhanced software is applied to a conventional computer, hence presenting as a case of “Apply it,” (see MPEP 2106.05(f)), and the request to withdraw the rejections of claims 1, 3-11 is denied.
Rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 103: Applicant’s arguments in favor of claims 1 and 11 are compelling and those rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 103 are withdrawn.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, 3-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter. The claims, 1, 3-11 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, 3-11 are directed to a process (method), and a machine (system), which are statutory categories of invention.
Step 2A
Claims 1, 3-11 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: An operation plan creation method of creating an
operation plan for a device 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 to the device and which includes electric power originating from renewable energy; 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,
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 by the device to produce the product, wherein the amount of consumed electric power is determined based on the predicted value and the operational preparation required time period, under the assumption that the operational preparation is started at the candidate start time;
extracting, from a plurality of the total evaluation values acquired for each of the candidate start times, at least one total evaluation value that is a maximum value, as a maximum total evaluation value; and
selecting the candidate start time corresponding to the at least one maximum total evaluation value as a first candidate for a time at which the operational preparation is to be started.
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), include start time candidates and calculating total evaluation quantity to produce the product, extracting a maximum value and selecting a start time based on the maximum quantity as the first candidate, (following rules or instructions, observation, evaluation, judgement, opinion – claim 2), selecting at least one start time in which the maximum total evaluation quantity is equal to or greater than a threshold value as a second choice by comparing the at least one maximum quantity with the threshold value, (following rules or instructions, observation, evaluation, judgement, opinion – claim 3), employing a latest time out as a start time for second candidates, when the second candidate is selected, (following rules or instructions, observation, evaluation, judgement, opinion – claim 4), 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- following rules or instructions or mental processes including judgement, observation, evaluation and opinion.
Thus, the concepts set forth in claims 1, 3-11 recite abstract processes.
Step 2A-Prong 2
As per MPEP § 2106.04, while the claims 1, 3-11 recite additional limitations which are hardware or software elements such as a device, the operation plan creation device, a prediction unit, a processing unit, a total evaluation quantity calculating unit, a total evaluation quantity determining unit, a start time determining unit, a renewable-energy power generation device, an energy storage device, a generation unit, an arithmetic unit, and an employment determining unit, 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, 3-11 are directed to abstract ideas.
Step 2B
Claims 1, 3-11 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, 3-11 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
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.
Claims 1, and 11 are not rejected by prior art under 35 U.S.C. § 103. Dependent claims
3-10 are not rejected because of their inherent dependency on claim 1.
The closest prior art to the invention includes ISE, (WO2020153443A1) “Energy Management System and Its Control Method,” and Tatsui, (US 20150147672 A1), “Power Generation System and Method of Operating the Same.” None of the prior art alone or in combination teach the claimed invention as recited in this claim wherein the novelty is in the combination of all the limitations and not in a single limitation.
Regarding claim 1, An operation plan creation device for creating an
operation plan for a device 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, (supporting methanation) the operation plan creation device comprising: a prediction unit, [ ], and a processing unit, then evaluating alternative startable time candidates which are able
to be selected as a time at which the operational preparation is started, [ ] and 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, the closest prior art for this portion of the claim is the combination of Ise and Tatsui, where Ise creates an operational plan for a battery and Tatsui includes start up time in an operation plan for operation of a fuel cell. These individually or in combination did not teach the method of the claim which included evaluation of multiple start times and their dependency on preparation time to maximize production of the final product or total evaluation value.
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. 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