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 Amendment
This Office Action is in response to the Amendment filed on the date: March 25, 2026.
Claims 1-20 are currently pending. Claims 1, 3, 11, 14, 16 and 18 have been amended. No claims have been cancelled or are new.
Response to Arguments
Rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 101
The applicant has argued that the claims are not directed to an abstract without significantly more and are patent eligible (see REMARKS pages 8-11). The examiner respectfully disagrees with the applicant’s arguments.
Regarding applicant’s argument for Step 2A Prong One, the claim limitations of claim 1 recite “an electricity monitoring device plugged into an outlet of an electrical circuit of the structure” is not considered to be an abstract idea (thus, not considered in Step 2A Prong One, which Step 2A Prong One asks does the claim recite an abstract idea, law of nature, or natural phenomenon?), but it is considered to be additional elements (which is considered in Step 2A Prong 2 and Step 2B when the claim as a whole is considered, see rejection below). The limitations “a plurality of electricity usage levels of the structure” (mentally determining the electrical appliances are on or off, using max energy or no energy) and “an energy use profile for the structure based upon the plurality of electricity usage levels” (mentally generating an energy use profile showing max energy or no energy usage) are part of the determining and generating steps, which are considered to be an abstract idea of the “Mental Processes” grouping.
Regarding applicant’s argument for Step 2A Prong Two, the limitation “an electricity monitoring device plugged into an outlet of an electrical circuit of the structure” fails to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application (see rejection below), since it is considered to be a form of insignificant extra-solution activity. The electricity monitoring device is claimed in such a way that it is considered to be a general/generic device to monitor real-time electricity characteristics of a plurality of electrical appliances connected to the electrical circuit. The outlet and the electrical circuit are electrical components that are part of the electrical connections used to monitor the real-time electricity characteristics and are thus part of the form of insignificant extra-solution activity. Thus, the argued limitations fail to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application.
Rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 102 and 103
Applicant’s arguments, see REMARKS pages 12-15, with respect to claim(s) 1, 11 and 16 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
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.
PNG
media_image1.png
814
602
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
902
510
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
(Step 1)
Independent claim 1 recite(s) a computer-implemented method for monitoring and analyzing electric energy use of a structure (a process).
Independent claim 11 recite(s) a computer system for monitoring and analyzing electrical energy use of a structure (a machine).
Independent claim 16 recite(s) a tangible, non-transitory computer-readable medium storing executable instructions for monitoring and analyzing electrical energy use of a structure (a machine).
(Step 2A: Prong 1)
The limitation of claims 1, 11 and 16 of performing the steps of determining and generating, as drafted, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers the performance of the limitations in the mind. That is, other than reciting “one or more processors” for claims 1, 11 and 16, “a computer memory” for claim 11 and “a computer system” for claims 11 and 16, nothing in the claim elements precludes the steps from practically being performed in the mind. For example, but for the “one or more processors”, “a computer memory” and “a computer system” language, the “determining” and “generating” steps of claims 1, 11 and 16 encompasses a user to mentally (or with aid of pen and paper) to decide that a plurality of electricity usage levels of the structure at a plurality of times within the time intervale based upon real-time electricity characteristics and generate an energy use profile for the structure based upon the plurality of electricity usage levels, wherein the energy use profile includes one or more energy use scores for the structure. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, claims 1, 11 and 16 recite an abstract idea.
(Step 2A: Prong 2)
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because claims 1, 11 and 16 do not contain any additional elements that integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Claim 1 recites the additional element of a monitoring step with the use of an electricity monitoring device plugged into an outlet of an electrical circuit of the structure to monitor a plurality of electrical appliances and one or more processors to perform the determining and generating steps of claim 1. Claim 11 recites the additional elements of an obtaining step with the use of an electricity monitoring device plugged into an outlet of an electrical circuit of the structure to monitor a plurality of electrical appliances, a computer system having one or more processors, and a computer memory to perform the obtaining, determining and generating steps of claim 11. Claim 16 recites the additional elements of an obtaining step with the use of an electricity monitoring device plugged into an outlet of an electrical circuit of the structure to monitor a plurality of electrical appliances and a computer system having one or more processors to perform the obtaining, determining and generating steps of claim 16. The monitoring step of claim 1 and obtaining step of claims 11 and 16 are recited at a high level of generality (i.e., as a general means of obtaining real-time electricity characteristics of a plurality of electrical devices connected to an electrical circuit during a time interval through the use of an electricity monitoring device plugged into an outlet of the electrical circuit), and amounts to mere data gathering, which is a form of insignificant extra-solution activity. The one or more processors of claim 1 is recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as a generic processor/computer performing generic computer functions of the determining and generating steps) such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. The computer system having one or more processors and/or a computer memory of claims 11 and 16 are recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as a generic processor/computer performing generic computer functions of the determining and generating steps) such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Accordingly, even in combination, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. Thus, claims 1, 11 and 16 are directed to an abstract idea.
(Step 2B)
Claim(s) 1, 11 and 16 does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. The monitoring step with the use of an electricity monitoring device connected to an electrical circuit to monitor a plurality of electrical devices connected to the electrical circuit of claim 1 and the obtaining step with the use of an electricity monitoring device connected to an electrical circuit to monitor a plurality of electrical devices connected to the electrical circuit of claims 11 and 16 provide no indication that the additional elements are anything other than a generic computer component or a process used in a well-understood, routing, and conventional function, recognized by one skilled in the art, when claimed in a generic manner. Claim 1 further recites the additional element of one or more processors to perform the determining and generating steps of claim 1, which amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Claims 11 and 16 further recites the additional elements of a computer system having one or more processors and/or a computer memory to perform the determining and generating steps of claims 11 and 16, which amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. Accordingly, the additional elements are not sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. Claims 1, 11 and 16 are not patent eligible.
Regarding claim 2, this claim further adds to the monitoring step of claim 1. Thus, this claim still falls under the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas (for similar reasons as disclosed for claim 1 above) and does not include additional elements that are sufficient to integrate the judicial exception into a practical application or amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Regarding claim 3, this claim further adds to the determining step of claim 1. Thus, this claim still falls under the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas (for similar reasons as disclosed for claim 1 above) and does not include additional elements that are sufficient to integrate the judicial exception into a practical application or amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Regarding claim 4, this claim further adds an additional generating step. Thus, this claim still falls under the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas (for similar reasons as disclosed for claim 1 above) and does not include additional elements that are sufficient to integrate the judicial exception into a practical application or amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Regarding claim 5, this claim further adds an additional obtaining step. Thus, this claim still falls under the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas (for similar reasons as disclosed for claim 1 above) and does not include additional elements that are sufficient to integrate the judicial exception into a practical application or amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Regarding claim 6, this claim further adds an additional generating step. Thus, this claim still falls under the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas (for similar reasons as disclosed for claim 1 above) and does not include additional elements that are sufficient to integrate the judicial exception into a practical application or amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Regarding claim 7, this claim further adds to the generating step of claim 1. Thus, this claim still falls under the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas (for similar reasons as disclosed for claim 1 above) and does not include additional elements that are sufficient to integrate the judicial exception into a practical application or amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Regarding claim 8, this claim further adds an additional obtaining step. Thus, this claim still falls under the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas (for similar reasons as disclosed for claim 1 above) and does not include additional elements that are sufficient to integrate the judicial exception into a practical application or amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Regarding claim 9, this claim further adds to the determining step of claim 1. Thus, this claim still falls under the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas (for similar reasons as disclosed for claim 1 above). This claim does include an additional element of a trained machine learning model, however, the trained machine learning model is used to generally apply the abstract idea and it is recited at a high level of generality that it amounts to using a generic computer/processor with a generic trained machine learning model that is insufficient to integrate the judicial exception into a practical application or amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Regarding claim 10, this claim further adds to the generating step of claim 1. Thus, this claim still falls under the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas (for similar reasons as disclosed for claim 1 above). This claim does include an additional element of a trained machine learning model, however, the trained machine learning model is used to generally apply the abstract idea and it is recited at a high level of generality that it amounts to using a generic computer/processor with a generic trained machine learning model that is insufficient to integrate the judicial exception into a practical application or amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Regarding claim 12, this claim further adds to the obtaining step of claim 11. Thus, this claim still falls under the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas (for similar reasons as disclosed for claim 1 above) and does not include additional elements that are sufficient to integrate the judicial exception into a practical application or amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Regarding claim 13, this claim further adds to the obtaining step of claims 11 and 12. Thus, this claim still falls under the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas (for similar reasons as disclosed for claim 1 above) and does not include additional elements that are sufficient to integrate the judicial exception into a practical application or amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Regarding claim 14, this claim further adds to the determining step of claim 11 and further adds an additional obtaining step using the computer system. Thus, this claim still falls under the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas (for similar reasons as disclosed for claim 1 above) and does not include additional elements that are sufficient to integrate the judicial exception into a practical application or amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Regarding claim 15, this claim further adds to the obtaining step of claim 11 and further adds an additional generating step using the computer system. Thus, this claim still falls under the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas (for similar reasons as disclosed for claim 1 above) and does not include additional elements that are sufficient to integrate the judicial exception into a practical application or amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Regarding claim 17, this claim further adds to the obtaining step of claim 16. Thus, this claim still falls under the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas (for similar reasons as disclosed for claim 1 above) and does not include additional elements that are sufficient to integrate the judicial exception into a practical application or amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Regarding claim 18, this claim further adds to the determining step of claim 16. Thus, this claim still falls under the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas (for similar reasons as disclosed for claim 1 above) and does not include additional elements that are sufficient to integrate the judicial exception into a practical application or amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Regarding claim 19, this claim further adds an additional obtaining step using the computer system. Thus, this claim still falls under the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas (for similar reasons as disclosed for claim 1 above) and does not include additional elements that are sufficient to integrate the judicial exception into a practical application or amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Regarding claim 20, this claim further adds an additional generating step using the computer system. Thus, this claim still falls under the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas (for similar reasons as disclosed for claim 1 above) and does not include additional elements that are sufficient to integrate the judicial exception into a practical application or amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claim(s) 1-3, 5-7, 9 and 11-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Alvo et al. US2018/0315111 (called Alvo hereinafter and previously cited) in view of Brumfield et al. US2010/0174419 (called Brumfield hereinafter and newly cited).
Regarding independent claim 1, Alvo teaches a computer-implemented method (Abstract) for monitoring and analyzing electrical energy use of a structure (Fig. 1), the method comprising:
monitoring, by an electricity monitoring device (Figs. 1 and 2; sensor device 180/201) plugged into an outlet (Fig. 2; para [0043]; conductors 205) of an electrical circuit (Fig. 1) of the structure (Fig. 1; para [0034]; device or appliance coupled to the sensor device 180/201), real-time electricity characteristics of the electrical circuit during a time interval (para [0044-0045]);
determining, by one or more processors, a plurality of electricity usage levels (Fig. 2; pattern 226; para [0045-0046]) of the structure at a plurality of times (para [0045-0046]) within the time interval based upon the real-time electricity characteristics (para [0045-0046]); and
generating, by the one or more processors, an energy use profile (Fig. 2; para [0044]; pattern 226) for the structure based upon the plurality of electricity usage levels (para [0044]), wherein the energy use profile includes one or more energy use scores for the structure (para [0046 and 0049]; states or modes of operation for a device based on power consumption or characterized data that describes the device power usage).
Alvo fails to teach a plurality of electrical appliances connected to the electrical circuit; and including at least a total energy use score for the structure as a whole.
Brumfield teaches an electricity monitoring device plugged into an outlet of an electric circuit of the structure (Fig. 1; power management system 130 is plugged into the electric circuit of facility 102), monitoring real-time electricity characteristics of a plurality of electrical appliances connected to the electrical circuit (Figs. 1 and 4; plurality of appliances 118-128 connected to the electric circuit to have energy usage determined); and including at least a total energy use score for the structure as a whole (Fig. 4; para [0051]; aggregate energy usage 416).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method as described by Alvo with the power line monitoring of appliances as described by Brumfield for the purpose of managing energy consumption of electrical devices in a home or building through energy usage data collected through electrical outlets (para [0006]).
Regarding claim 2, Alvo and Brumfield teach the computer-implemented method of claim 1, Alvo further teaches wherein the real-time electricity characteristics comprise variations in instantaneous voltage levels (para [0044]; detect instantaneous amounts of voltage usage).
Regarding claim 3, Alvo and Brumfield teach the computer-implemented method of claim 1, Alvo further teaches wherein the plurality of electricity usage levels comprise one or more appliance usage levels associated with respective one or more electrical appliances of the plurality of electrical appliances (para [0052]), including one or more of the following: a furnace, a water heater, a dishwasher, an oven, a washer, a dryer, or an electric vehicle charger (para [0034]).
Regarding claim 5, Alvo and Brumfield teach the computer-implemented method of claim 3, Alvo further teaches further comprising: obtaining, by the electricity monitoring device via wireless communication with the one or more electrical appliances (para [0061]), operating data regarding operation of the one or more electrical appliances (para [0061]), wherein the one or more electrical appliances are smart appliances (para [0061]), and wherein the plurality of electricity usage levels are determined based in part upon the operating data (para [0045-0046]).
Regarding claim 6, Alvo and Brumfield teach the computer-implemented method of claim 3, Alvo further teaches further comprising: generating, by the one or more processors, an inventory (para [0034) of the one or more electrical appliances by identifying respective energy use signatures in the real-time electricity characteristics (para [0034 and 0037]).
Regarding claim 7, Alvo and Brumfield teach the computer-implemented method of claim 6, Alvo further teaches wherein the energy use profile comprises one or more indications of conditions of the one or more electrical appliances relating to operating efficiency of the one or more electrical appliances (Fig. 2; para [0044-0045]; an analyzer 222 to determine characteristics of pattern 226 with the power over time indicated operating efficiency).
Regarding claim 9, Alvo and Brumfield teach the computer-implemented method of claim 1, Alvo further teaches wherein determining the plurality of electricity usage levels comprises applying a trained machine learning model (para [0070]; machine learning for power usage and amount of product consumed) to the real-time electricity characteristics for the time interval to determine energy usage by a plurality of distinct electrical loads at the structure (Fig. 1; para [0070]; power usage monitored for the device/appliances connected).
Regarding independent claim 11, Alvo teaches a computer system (Figs. 1 and 2) for monitoring and analyzing electrical energy use of a structure (Fig. 1), comprising:
one or more processors (Fig. 10; processor 1004]);
a computer memory (Fig. 10; memory 1006) communicatively coupled to the one or more processors (Fig. 10) and storing executable instructions that, when executed by the one or more processors, cause the computer system (Fig. 1) to:
obtain, via an electricity monitoring device (Figs. 1 and 2; sensor device 180/201) plugged into an outlet (Fig. 2; para [0043]; conductors 205) of an electrical circuit (Fig. 1) of the structure (Fig. 1; para [0034]; device or appliance coupled to the sensor device 180/201), real-time electricity characteristics of the electrical circuit during a time interval (para [0045-0046]);
determine a plurality of electricity usage levels (Fig. 2; para [0045-0046]) of the structure at a plurality of times (para [0045-0046]) within the time interval based upon the real-time electricity characteristics (para [0045-0046]); and
generate an energy use profile (Fig. 2; para [0044]; pattern 226) for the structure based upon the plurality of electricity usage levels (para [0044]), wherein the energy use profile includes one or more energy use scores for the structure (para [0046 and 0049]; states or modes of operation for a device based on power consumption or characterized data that describes the device power usage).
Alvo fails to teach a plurality of electrical appliances connected to the electrical circuit; and including at least a total energy use score for the structure as a whole.
Brumfield teaches an electricity monitoring device plugged into an outlet of an electric circuit of the structure (Fig. 1; power management system 130 is plugged into the electric circuit of facility 102), obtainng real-time electricity characteristics of a plurality of electrical appliances connected to the electrical circuit (Figs. 1 and 4; plurality of appliances 118-128 connected to the electric circuit to have energy usage determined); and including at least a total energy use score for the structure as a whole (Fig. 4; para [0051]; aggregate energy usage 416).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method as described by Alvo with the power line monitoring of appliances as described by Brumfield for the purpose of managing energy consumption of electrical devices in a home or building through energy usage data collected through electrical outlets (para [0006]).
Regarding claim 12, Alvo and Brumfield teach the computer system of claim 11, Alvo further teaches wherein obtaining the real-time electricity characteristics comprises: establishing a communication connection with the electricity monitoring device (Figs. 1 and 2; para [0034 and 0049]; sensor 180/201 detects power consumed by appliances and transmits it through wireless datalink 294); and receiving the real-time electricity characteristics for the plurality of times within the time interval via the communication connection in one or more messages from the electricity monitoring device (Figs. 1 and 2; para [0049 and 0052]; wireless datalink 294).
Regarding claim 13, Alvo and Brumfield teach the computer system of claim 12, Alvo further teaches wherein the real-time electricity characteristics comprise variations in instantaneous voltage levels (para [0044]; detect instantaneous amounts of voltage usage).
Regarding claim 14, Alvo and Brumfield teach the computer system of claim 11, Alvo further teaches wherein: the plurality of electricity usage levels comprise one or more appliance usage levels associated with respective one or more electrical appliances of the plurality of electrical appliances (para [0052]), including one or more of the following: a furnace, a water heater, a dishwasher, an oven, a washer, a dryer, or an electric vehicle charger (para [0034]); the one or more electrical appliances are smart appliances configured for wireless communication (para [0061]); the executable instructions further cause the computer system to obtain operating data regarding operation of the one or more electrical appliances from the one or more electrical appliances via the electricity monitoring device (Figs. 1 and 2; (para [0045-0046 and 0049]); and the plurality of electricity usage levels are determined based in part upon the operating data (para [0045-0046]).
Regarding claim 15, Alvo and Brumfield teach the computer system of claim 11, Alvo further teaches wherein: the plurality of electricity usage levels comprise one or more appliance usage levels associated with respective one or more electrical appliances (para [0052]), including one or more of the following: a furnace, a water heater, a dishwasher, an oven, a washer, a dryer, or an electric vehicle charger (para [0034]); the executable instructions further cause the computer system to generate an inventory (para [0034]) of the one or more electrical appliances by identifying respective energy use signatures in the real-time electricity characteristics (para [0034 and 0037]); and the energy use profile comprises one or more indications of conditions of the one or more electrical appliances relating to operating efficiency of the one or more electrical appliances (Fig. 2; para [0044-0045]; an analyzer 222 to determine characteristics of pattern 226 with the power over time indicated operating efficiency).
Regarding independent claim 16, Alvo teaches a tangible, non-transitory computer-readable medium (para [0090]) storing executable instructions for monitoring and analyzing electrical energy use of a structure (Fig. 1) that, when executed by one or more processors (Fig. 10; processor 1004]) of a computer system (Figs. 1 and 2), cause the computer system to:
obtain, via an electricity monitoring device (Figs. 1 and 2; sensor device 180/201) plugged into an outlet (Fig. 2; para [0043]; conductors 205) of an electrical circuit (Fig. 1) of the structure (Fig. 1; para [0034]; device or appliance coupled to the sensor device 180/201), real-time electricity characteristics of the electrical circuit during a time interval (para [0044-0045]);
determine a plurality of electricity usage levels (Fig. 2; pattern 226; para [0045-0046]) of the structure at a plurality of times (para [0045-0046]) within the time interval based upon the real-time electricity characteristics (para [0045-0046]); and
generate an energy use profile (Fig. 2; para [0044]; pattern 226) for the structure based upon the plurality of electricity usage levels (para [0044]), wherein the energy use profile includes one or more energy use scores for the structure (para [0046 and 0049]; states or modes of operation for a device based on power consumption or characterized data that describes the device power usage).
Alvo fails to teach a plurality of electrical appliances connected to the electrical circuit; and including at least a total energy use score for the structure as a whole.
Brumfield teaches an electricity monitoring device plugged into an outlet of an electric circuit of the structure (Fig. 1; power management system 130 is plugged into the electric circuit of facility 102), obtainng real-time electricity characteristics of a plurality of electrical appliances connected to the electrical circuit (Figs. 1 and 4; plurality of appliances 118-128 connected to the electric circuit to have energy usage determined); and including at least a total energy use score for the structure as a whole (Fig. 4; para [0051]; aggregate energy usage 416).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method as described by Alvo with the power line monitoring of appliances as described by Brumfield for the purpose of managing energy consumption of electrical devices in a home or building through energy usage data collected through electrical outlets (para [0006]).
Regarding claim 17, Alvo and Brumfield teach the tangible, non-transitory computer-readable medium of claim 16, Alvo further teaches wherein the real-time electricity characteristics comprise variations in instantaneous voltage levels (para [0044]; detect instantaneous amounts of voltage usage).
Regarding claim 18, Alvo and Brumfield teach the tangible, non-transitory computer-readable medium of claim 16, Alvo further teaches wherein the plurality of electricity usage levels comprise one or more appliance usage levels associated with respective one or more electrical appliances of the plurality of electrical appliances (para [0052]), including one or more of the following: a furnace, a water heater, a dishwasher, an oven, a washer, a dryer, or an electric vehicle charger (para [0034]).
Regarding claim 19, Alvo and Brumfield teach the tangible, non-transitory computer-readable medium of claim 18, Alvo further teaches wherein: the one or more electrical appliances are smart appliances configured for wireless communication (para [0061]); the executable instructions further cause the computer system to obtain operating data regarding operation of the one or more electrical appliances from the one or more electrical appliances via the electricity monitoring device (para [0045-0046 and 0049]); and the plurality of electricity usage levels are determined based in part upon the operating data (para [0045-0046]).
Regarding claim 20, Alvo and Brumfield teach the tangible, non-transitory computer-readable medium of claim 18, Alvo further teaches wherein: the executable instructions further cause the computer system to generate an inventory (para [0034]) of the one or more electrical appliances by identifying respective energy use signatures in the real-time electricity characteristics (para [0034 and 0037]); and the energy use profile comprises one or more indications of conditions of the one or more electrical appliances relating to operating efficiency of the one or more electrical appliances (Fig. 2; para [0044-0045]; an analyzer 222 to determine characteristics of pattern 226 with the power over time indicated operating efficiency).
Claim(s) 4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Alvo, in view of Brumfield and further in view of Thiruvengada et al. US2012/0323385 (called Thiruvengada hereinafter and previously cited).
Regarding claim 4, Alvo and Brumfield teach the computer-implemented method of claim 3, but fails to teach further comprising: generating, by the one or more processors, one or more recommendations regarding adjustments to usage of the one or more electrical appliances based upon the one or more appliance usage levels.
Thiruvengada teaches generating, by the one or more processors, one or more recommendations regarding adjustments to usage of the one or more electrical appliances based upon the one or more appliance usage levels (para [0022-0023]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method as described by Alvo and Brumfield with the energy management recommendations as described by Thiruvengada for the purpose of controlling when an appliance is running and/or adjust the settings of the appliance to better control the amount of energy is used (para [0022-0023]).
Claim(s) 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Alvo, in view of Brumfield and further in view of Patel US2016/0203568 (previously cited).
Regarding claim 8, Alvo and Brumfield teach the computer-implemented method of claim 1, but fails to teach further comprising: obtaining, by the electricity monitoring device via wireless communication with a smart meter disposed at the structure, metered energy usage data regarding total electricity usage levels of one or more circuits at the structure, the one or more circuits including the electrical circuit, and wherein the plurality of electricity usage levels are determined based in part upon the metered energy usage data.
Patel teaches obtaining, by the electricity monitoring device (Fig. 1; para [0030]; sub-meter 150) via wireless communication with a smart meter (Fig. 1; para [0031-0032]; smart meter 115) disposed at the structure, metered energy usage data regarding total electricity usage levels of one or more circuits at the structure (para [0030-0031]; energy consumption of devices), the one or more circuits including the electrical circuit (para [0030-0031]), and wherein the plurality of electricity usage levels are determined based in part upon the metered energy usage data (para [0030-0032]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method as described by Alvo and Brumfield with the smart meter energy monitoring method as described by Patel for the purpose of determining apportionment of energy consumed and environment footprint of consumed energy to separate equipment that is operated for personal usage and for business (para [0010]).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 10 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 101, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Regarding claim 10, this claim was indicated as allowable subject matter (once the rejection under 35 U.S.C. 101 is overcome) in the previous Office Action mailed on January 16, 2026.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Hakimi-Boushehri et al. discloses “Systems and methods for utilizing data from electricity monitoring devices for analytics modeling” (see US2021/0192630)
Alpert discloses “Facility monitoring apparatus and method” (see US2019/0130718)
Patel discloses “System and method for determining energy and GHG apportionment” (see US2016/0203568)
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DAVID B FREDERIKSEN whose telephone number is (571)272-8152. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8am - 5pm.
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, Huy Phan can be reached at (571)272-7924. 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.
/DAVID B FREDERIKSEN/Examiner, Art Unit 2858
/HUY Q PHAN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2858
Prosecution Insights