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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on January 8, 2026 has been entered.
Status of Claims
Claims 16-19 and 22-33 were previously pending and subject to a final rejection dated October 9, 2025. In RCE, submitted January 8, 2026, claims 16, 17, 26, and 27 were amended; and claim 34 was added. No new matter was introduced in these amendments. Therefore, claims 16-19 and 22-34 are currently pending and subject to the following non-final rejection.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s remarks on Pages 10-20 of the Response, regarding the previous rejection of the claims under 35 U.S.C. 101, have been fully considered and are not found persuasive.
On Pages 11-12 of the Response, Applicant argues “Claims Are Patent-Eligible Under the Framework of Ex parte Desjardins … The Specification's Disclosure of Technical Problems and Solutions Is Relevant … This principle is directly applicable here, where the specification identifies technical problems in energy recommendation systems and the claims recite specific technical solutions. … Examiners Should Not Evaluate Claims at an Overly High Level of Generality … This guidance is particularly relevant here, where the Examiner has characterized the claims as directed to ‘recommending and specifying future energy consumption’ without accounting for the specific technical mechanisms recited in the claims. … The Panel emphasized that concerns about claim breadth should be addressed under 35 U.S.C. §§ 102, 103, and 112, rather than §101. … Significantly, in the present application, the Examiner has already determined that the claims are novel and non-obvious over the prior art. This finding is directly relevant to the §101 analysis under Desjardins, as it confirms the claims recite specific technical features not found in the prior art exactly the type of technical innovation that should be patent-eligible.”
Examiner notes, Ex parte Desjardins does not create a new framework, but rather uses and undergirds the proper implementation of the existing Alice Framework. As discussed further in the detailed rejection below, the amended claims fail to recite or demonstrate any technical improvement (such as to the registration server or communication terminal) but rather recites improvements to the abstract ideas carried out by the additional elements. These determination are made by detailed analysis of the claims in their entirety, as discussed further in the detailed rejection below, rather than overly high levels of generality. Additionally, while the warning of Desjardins that “concerns about claim breadth should be addressed under 35 U.S.C. §§ 102, 103, and 112, rather than §101” is valid, it is also true that the tests for eligibility under 101 remains separate from and should not be confused with a novelty or non-obviousness determination (See Mayo, 566 U.S. at 91, 101 USPQ2d at 1973) and as further made clear by the courts “‘novelty’ of any element or steps in a process, or even of the process itself, is of no relevance in determining whether the subject matter of a claim falls within the § 101 categories of possibly patentable subject matter.” Intellectual Ventures I v. Symantec Corp., 838 F.3d 1307, 1315, 120 USPQ2d 1353, 1358 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (quoting Diamond v. Diehr, 450 U.S. at 188–89, 209 USPQ at 9). (See MPEP 2106.05(I)). Proper analysis of the claims under 101, as found in the detailed rejection below, will not determine the claims ineligible to in order to address “concerns about claim breadth”, but will properly analyze the claims through the Alice Framework in order to make eligibility determination. As is the case with the detailed rejection below, the analysis properly determines the claims to be ineligible and in so doing satisfies the Alice framework as well as the guidance provided in Desjardins.
On Pages 12-13 of the Response, Applicant argues “The specification identifies specific technical problems with existing energy recommendation systems. The Background discloses that ‘users who are to use an electricity such as electricity may desire to flexibly select energy resources that are used to produce the electricity, because the electricity produced by solar power is difficult to be obtained during a period in which days are short, and the electricity produced by oil is stable in supply but not environmentally friendly’ (see publication, [0004]). This reflects a technical problem in how energy recommendation systems present and allow modification of energy consumption plans. The specification further identifies the difficulty that users face ‘when selecting which types of production methods to use’ for energy consumption (see publication, [0201]). Specifically, the specification addresses the technical problem of enabling users to interactively modify energy consumption recommendations while maintaining system-enforced constraints on total energy allocation. … Amended Claim 16 specifically recites technical improvements through claim language that is far more specific than the Office Action's characterization of the claims as directed to ‘recommending and specifying future energy consumption.’”
Examiner notes, that technical problems recited in publication para. 4 such as the difficulty generating sufficient “electricity produced by solar power … during a period in which days are short” or the production of electricity “by oil [being] stable in supply but not environmentally friendly” are not addressed or solved in the claimed invention. The “desire to flexibly select energy resources that are used to produce the electricity”, conversely is not a technical problem, but rather an abstract problem regarding a person’s preferences. Additionally, “how energy recommendation systems present and allow modification of energy consumption plans” merely contemplates the abstract idea of displaying and modifying data, but posits on technical problem or solution. Similarly, “the difficulty that users face ‘when selecting which types of production methods to use’ for energy consumption… [and] enabling users to interactively modify energy consumption recommendations while maintaining system-enforced constraints on total energy allocation” merely contemplates potential problems associated with the abstract ideas of providing data and maintaining data constraints. No technical problems are set forth, such as for the interfaces or energy production methods.
Examiner additionally notes, as discussed further in the detailed rejection below, the previously cited Office Action’s summarization statement of “recommending and specifying future energy consumption” is meant as a summarization of the recited abstract idea, which is analyzed in detail above this summarization statement in Step 2A, Prong One. As this is intended as a summarization of the abstract idea, it is not meant to characterize the technical elements of the claim which are addressed and analyzed in Steps 2A, Prong Two and Step 2B.
On Page 13 of the Response, Applicant argues “Specific Visual Interface Technology: … This is not an abstract idea of displaying data. Rather, this recites a specific technical implementation where production method periods are represented by dimensional properties of visual indicators, a specific user interface mechanism for energy data visualization.”
Examiner notes, as discussed further in the detailed rejection below, “each of the one or more recommended types of production methods having a period of use indicated by a corresponding dimension size of a corresponding visual indicator” is a recitation of the abstract idea of displaying data. The “specific user interface” (which is claimed as simply “a screen”) used to carry out this abstract idea is generically referred to simply as a screen throughout the Applicant’s specifications (e.g. “[a] registration screen” in PG Publication Para. 132, and “a usage plan setting screen” in PG Publication Para. 145). This high level of disclosure supports the findings that this element amounts to merely “apply it”, this fails to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application, as the element is generically disclosed and is not improved nor does it represent an improvement in technology.
On Page 13 of the Response, Applicant argues “Specific Touch-Based Interaction Mechanism: … This is a specific technical mechanism: a touch-based edge-manipulation interaction that modifies visual indicator dimensions. This is not an abstract concept of ‘receiving user input’ but rather a specific technical implementation of how users interact with energy visualization systems through touch interfaces.”
Examiner notes, “change information indicating a change of a dimension size of a first visual indicator … according to a user operation of moving an edge of a horizontal dimension of the first visual indicator by touching” is a recitation of the abstract idea of displaying and modifying data. Representing production method periods by dimensional properties of visual indicators is another way to describe this abstract idea. Rather than being a technical implementation, this represents an abstract idea being performed by a generic component, as discussed above with regards to “the screen”.
On Pages 13-14 of the Response, Applicant argues “Automatic Server-Side Recalculation: … This recites a specific computational process: the registration server performs automatic recalculation of a second visual indicator's dimension in response to changes to a first visual indicator, specifically to maintain a constraint on total energy allocation. This is a specific technical mechanism for coordinating visual interface elements through server-side computation.”
Examiner notes, “perform[ing] automatic recalculation of a second visual indicator's dimension in response to changes to a first visual indicator, specifically to maintain a constraint on total energy allocation” describes the abstract idea of data processing recited in the claim language. As discussed further in the detailed rejection below, the additional element of the server (generically disclosed as “implemented by a single computer or a plurality of computers”, PG Publication Para. 47) is used merely as a tool to perform this abstract idea, i.e. “apply it”.
On Page 14 of the Response, Applicant argues “Coordinated Hardware-Software Architecture: … These elements work in coordinated operation: the communication terminal receives touch-based interactions, transmits change information to the registration server, and the registration server automatically recalculates and returns updated visual indicator dimensions. This represents a specific distributed computing architecture, not merely generic computer components.”
Examiner notes, “receiv[ing] touch-based interactions, transmit[ting] change information …, and … automatically recalculates and returns updated visual indicator dimensions” are the abstract ideas performed by the additional elements of the registration server, registration server circuitry, communication terminal, communication network, and communication terminal circuitry. As discussed in the detailed rejection below, these additional elements, when analyzed both individually and as a whole/ordered combination, these elements are used merely as tools to perform the abstract, and thus amount to merely “apply it”.
On Pages 14-15 of the Response, Applicant argues “Under the guidance of Desjardins, the Office Action's characterization of the claims as directed to ‘recommending and specifying future energy consumption’ (Office Action, page 20) fails to account for the specific technical features recited in the claims and is improper. The Office Action's analysis abstracts away the specific technical features of amended Claim 16 by characterizing the claim at an improperly high level of generality. The Office Action characterizes the claims as reciting ‘certain methods of organizing human activity’ (commercial or legal interactions), but this characterization ignores the specific technical mechanisms recited in the claims: The Office Action ignores the specific visual interface mechanism where production method periods are represented by dimension sizes of visual indicators that users can modify through edge manipulation. The Office Action ignores the specific touch-based interaction mechanism where users move an edge of a horizontal dimension of a first visual indicator by touching the screen. The Office Action ignores the automatic recalculation mechanism where the registration server automatically recalculates a second visual indicator's dimension in response to changes to a first visual indicator to maintain a total energy allocation constraint. The Office Action ignores the coordinated hardware-software architecture where communication terminal circuitry and registration server circuitry operate in coordination to implement the recited functionality. Following Desjardins, this high-level-of-generality approach ‘ignores substantive portions of the claim and, in doing so, transforms what are patentable claims covering specific technical subject matter into claims that allegedly cover only abstract ideas.’ Desjardins, Appeal No. 2024-000567, page 7-8.The specific technical features of amended Claim 16 cannot be ignored; they define how the claimed system operates and distinguish the claims from abstract concepts.
Examiner notes, as discussed above and also further in the detailed rejection below, “recommending and specifying future energy consumption” is included only in the Step 2A, Prong One analysis because it is a summarization of the explicitly analyzed recited abstract idea as detailed in the preceding paragraphs of the Step 2A, Prong One analysis. The presence of additional elements does not preclude a claim from accurately being determined to recite an abstract idea at this step of the Alice framework. In the instant application, the analysis determines that the claims do recite an abstract idea which is categorized within the abstract idea grouping of “certain methods of organizing human activity”, and therefore the analysis must proceed to Step 2A, Prong Two and Step 2B where the additional elements (i.e. the “specific technical features”) are analyzed to determine whether they integrate the recited abstract idea into a practical application or amount to significantly more. Rather than ignoring the additional elements discussed in this argument, the analysis properly analyzes them within in Alice framework at Steps 2A Prong Two and Step 2B, thereby the analysis does not “ignore[] substantive portions of the claim” or “transform[] patentable claims covering specific technical subject matter into claims that allegedly cover only abstract ideas.” As discussed in the responses above and in the detailed rejection below, these additional elements are recited at such a high level of generality that they can be considered (whether individually or as a whole/ordered combination) as no more than merely “apply it”.
On Page 16 of the Response, Applicant argues “The Office Action's analysis conflates the abstract idea with the specific technical implementation. Under Desjardins, the proper analysis must consider the specific technical features recited in the claims, not merely characterize them as ‘using a tool.’ The amended claims now recite even more specific technical features: Amended Claim 16 recites a ‘user operation of moving an edge of a horizontal dimension of the first visual indicator by touching the screen.’ This is not merely ‘receiving user input’. Rather, it is a specific touch-based edge manipulation mechanism that defines how users interact with the visual interface. Amended Claim 16 recites that the second visual indicator's dimension is ‘automatically recalculated by the registration server ... to maintain a total energy allocation constraint.’ This is not merely ‘determining data’, it is a specific automatic recalculation mechanism with a defined constraint-satisfaction purpose. These specific technical features cannot be dismissed as merely ‘using a tool.’ They define how the system operates, not merely that it operates. Under Desjardins, such specific technical implementations represent patent-eligible improvements to computer functionality.
Examiner notes, the recitation of additional elements does not inherently mean that the claims recite “specific technical implementation[s]” under the Alice Framework or the guidance provided by Desjardins. Additionally, proper analysis, such as that found in the detailed rejection below, does analyze the specific technical features. However, as currently recited and disclosed, the “user operation of moving an edge of a horizontal dimension of the first visual indicator by touching the screen” merely recites a way of inputting/modifying data (i.e., an abstract idea), elements required to bring this idea in to the realm of “technical feature” (such as specific technical detail as to how subsystems of and circuitry of the touch panel, PG Publication [0064-0065] act to capture the users touch locations relative to the displayed data, then interpret these touch locations in a meaningful way relative to the displayed data, then directly interact with other subsystems of the device in order to modify the displayed data specifically in response to captured and interpreted touch location from the subsystems of the touch panel) are noticeably absent from the claims and specification. Instead, this interaction is described generically as “the consumer Ca operates the touch panel of the smartphone 2 c to enter any desired numerical value in each input field”, PG Publication [0141].
Examiner further notes, similarly there is no technical detail provided regarding how specific technical elements of the registration server work to perform the “automatic recalculation” to provide any grounds for recategorizing “the second visual indicator's dimension [being] ‘automatically recalculated... to maintain a total energy allocation constraint’ … with a defined constraint-satisfaction purpose” as anything more than abstract idea that is performed by the registration server. Therefore, rather than providing specific technical detail of how these additional elements perform these abstract ideas, the analysis maintains that they are recited merely as tools to perform them.
On Pages 17-18 of the Response, Applicant argues “The amended claims specify exactly how computer processes are improved. … Similarly, amended Claim 16 recites specific rules governing how the system operates. First, the claim specifies how users interact with the system: through ‘a user operation of moving an edge of a horizontal dimension of the first visual indicator by touching the screen.’ This is a specific interaction mechanism, not merely ‘receiving user input.’ Second, the claim specifies how the system responds: the registration server ‘automatically recalculate[s]’ the second visual indicator's dimension ‘according to the change in the dimension size of the first visual indicator to maintain a total energy allocation constraint.’ This specifies a particular computational process with a defined purpose (maintaining a constraint), not merely ‘determining data.’ Third, the claim specifies how the components work together: the communication terminal receives the touch-based interaction, transmits change information to the registration server, and the server automatically recalculates and returns the update. This is a specific distributed computing architecture, not merely generic components. Under McRO, claims that specify how computer processes achieve a result, rather than merely that they achieve it, are directed to patent-eligible improvements. Amended Claim 16 specifies exactly how the system processes touch-based edge manipulations and automatically recalculates visual indicator dimensions to maintain allocation constraints. This represents a specific improvement to computer-based energy visualization interfaces, not merely an abstract idea.
Examiner notes, there is a difference between improvement to computer processes and an improvement to processes that a computer performs. An improvement to computer process would be embodied in an improvement to the computer itself, such as to its processors, storage components, etc., and would be accompanied with detailed technical descriptions of the existing problems of the computer technology itself and the solution to these problems of the technology found within the scope of the claims. On the contrary the instant cases appears to be an improvement to the processes (i.e., abstract ideas) that a computer performs, as the problems highlighted are not with the computer itself, but rather with informational processes (i.e. inputting, modifying, transmitting, and displaying or data) performed by the computer. It is also important to note that it is not merely “specify[ing] how computer processes achieve a result” that brings McRO to eligibility, but rather “the court relied on the specification’s explanation of how the particular rules recited in the claim enabled the automation of specific animation tasks that previously could only be performed subjectively by humans, when determining that the claims were directed to improvements in computer animation instead of an abstract idea. McRO, 837 F.3d at 1313-14, 120 USPQ2d at 1100-01.” See MPEP 2106.05(a) (emphasis added). That is, McRO provided detailed explanation of how the claimed invention improved the technology of computer animation, rather than just the abstract processes.
Examiner also notes, as discussed above and in the detailed rejection below, insofar as it is claimed “specify[ing] how users interact with the system” and “‘automatically recalculate[ing]’ the second visual indicator's dimension ‘according to the change in the dimension size of the first visual indicator to maintain a total energy allocation constraint’” does not inherently constitute a technical improvement, especially when no technical details are provided as to how the computer/server handles the interaction or the calculations. Similarly, reciting a “specific distributed computing architecture” does not inherently bring the claims to eligibility, especially when it does not represent any technical improvements to the technologies involved or associated with the architecture. This architecture is analyzed in the detailed rejection below as a whole/ordered combination, and is determined to still amount to merely being used as a tool (i.e., “apply it”) to perform the abstract ideas of “receiv[ing] the touch-based interaction, transmit[ting] change information …, and … automatically recalculate[ing] and return[ing] the update.”
Examiner further notes, as discussed above and in the detailed rejection below, insofar as it is currently claimed or disclosed in the specification “how the system processes touch-based edge manipulations and automatically recalculates visual indicator dimensions to maintain allocation constraints” lacks the type of technical detail required to allow it to be properly to be determined as anything more than an abstract idea.
On Pages 18-19 of the Response, Applicant argues “The amended claims similarly address a problem specifically arising in computer-based interactive visualization systems: how to enable users to modify visual representations of energy production allocations through touch-based edge manipulation while automatically maintaining system-enforced allocation constraints across related visual elements. This problem could not exist outside the computer environment, as there is no pre-computer analog of ‘moving an edge of a horizontal dimension of the first visual indicator by touching the screen’ where doing so causes automatic server-side recalculation of a second visual indicator's dimension. Like DDR Holdings, the amended claims provide a technological solution that is ‘necessarily rooted in computer technology.’ The specific combination of touch-based edge manipulation with automatic server-side recalculation of related visual elements to maintain allocation constraints is a computer-specific solution that could not be performed manually or through conventional means.
Examiner notes, that while the absence of a “pre-computer analog” is not specifically a test for determining whether or not the claims are directed to an abstract idea categorized as “certain methods of organizing human activity”, it is noted that the abacus represents an interactive visualization system that specifically “enable users to modify visual representations of … allocations through touch-based edge manipulation while … maintaining … allocation constraints across related visual elements”. However, it also noted that the desire of users to modify and communicate “conditions related to future energy consumption” and to receive “consumption recommendation” are abstract and exist outside the realm of computer-based technology. See PG Publication [0005]. It is these abstract challenges that the Applicant’s specification sets out as the problem to be solved rather than any problems regarding the user interface/screen’s inability to receive or display the data of these abstract ideas, or the server’s ability to perform the abstract idea of constrained calculations. As previously discussed, “[t]he specific combination of touch-based edge manipulation with automatic server-side recalculation of related visual elements to maintain allocation constraints” insofar as it is currently claimed and disclosed in the specification amount to more than abstract ideas which are performed using the technologies of a screen and a server as tools. This stands in contrast to DDR Holdings which provided specific technical detail as to how the claimed invention operated in a way that amounted to more than just merely instructing that the abstract idea should be applied on the Internet (i.e., “apply it”), but modified conventional Internet hyperlink protocol in such a way that it amount to “significantly more” at Step 2B.
On Page 19 of the Response, Applicant argues “Amended Claim 16 is directed to a specific improvement in how interactive energy visualization systems operate. The claim recites a specific touch-based interaction mechanism: ‘a user operation of moving an edge of a horizontal dimension of the first visual indicator by touching the screen.’ This improves how users interact with energy visualization interfaces. Claim16 recites automatic server-side recalculation: the second visual indicator's dimension is ‘automatically recalculated by the registration server ... to maintain a total energy allocation constraint.’ This improves how the system processes user interactions and maintains data consistency. Claim 16 recites coordinated distributed processing: the communication terminal and registration server work together through specific data flows to implement the touch-based interaction and automatic recalculation. This improves how distributed systems coordinate to provide responsive visual interfaces. These are not abstract concepts, they are specific technical implementations that improve how computer-based energy visualization systems operate. Under Enfish, such claims are not directed to abstract ideas.
Examiner notes, as discussed above and in the detailed rejection below, “a user operation of moving an edge of a horizontal dimension of the first visual indicator by touching” is a recitation of the abstract idea. Further still, improving user interactions is in and of itself an abstract idea, which the presence of the “screen”/”energy visualization interfaces” makes no less abstract. That is, the technology of the interfaces/screens are not improved, rather the abstract user interactions are improved. Similarly, the automatic recalculation by the server does not improve the technology but rather improves the abstract ideas of “user interactions and maintain[ing] data consistency”.
Examiner further notes, the alleged technical improvement of “how distributed systems coordinate” is presented only in a conclusory manner (i.e., a bare assertion of an improvement without the detail necessary to be apparent to a person of ordinary skill in the art), thus the Examiner cannot determine the claims improve the technology (See MPEP 2106.04(d)(1)).
Examiner finally notes, that “specific technical implementation”, insofar as it applies to the instant application which recites additional elements alongside the recited abstract idea, does not inherently equate to improvements in the technologies recited. Unlike in Enfish, the technologies themselves are not improved, rather only the abstract ideas which the technologies perform.
On Page 20 of the Response, Applicant argues “The Office Action has found the pending claims novel and non-obvious over the prior art. The Office Action states that ‘Claims 16-19, and 22-33 are novel and non-obvious over the prior art.’ This finding is highly relevant to the § 101 analysis under Desjardirs. As the Panel noted, concerns about claim breadth should be addressed under §§ 1 103, and 112, which ‘better filter out claims with novel and nonobvious subject matter but not enough detail to pass scrutiny.’ Desjardins, Appeal No. 2024-000567, page 10-11. The Office Action's own finding that the claims are novel and non-obvious confirms that the claims recite specific technical features not found in the prior art. Indeed, the Office Action noted that the prior art fails to teach ‘indicators which interact with a server, and affect the period of use for each production method type separately.’. This technical specificity, the very feature that renders the claims novel and non-obvious, also supports a finding that the claims are patent-eligible under §101. Elements that are novel and non-obvious cannot simultaneously be well-understood, routine, and conventional. The Office Action cannot consistently find the claims novel and non-obvious while also finding that the claims recite only generic computer components performing generic functions.”
Examiner notes, as discussed previously above, “Although the courts often evaluate considerations such as the conventionality of an additional element in the eligibility analysis, the search for an inventive concept should not be confused with a novelty or non-obviousness determination. See Mayo, 566 U.S. at 91, 101 USPQ2d at 1973 … the ‘“novelty” of any element or steps in a process, or even of the process itself, is of no relevance in determining whether the subject matter of a claim falls within the § 101 categories of possibly patentable subject matter.” Intellectual Ventures I v. Symantec Corp., 838 F.3d 1307, 1315, 120 USPQ2d 1353, 1358 (Fed. Cir. 2016)”. See MPEP 2106.05(I). The instant claims fail eligibility not due to concerns about claim breadth, but due the fact that full and complete analysis reveals that the claims are directed to an abstract idea, as they fail to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or amount to “significantly more”.
Examiner further notes, is one of several tests available for determining eligibility of the claims over 101. Neither the detailed rejection below nor the previously cited Office Action, rely on “well-understood, routine, and conventional” as grounds for rejection over 101, therefore these aspects of the argument are moot.
Specification
The title of the invention is not descriptive. A new title is required that is clearly indicative of the invention to which the claims are directed. The following title is suggested: “SYSTEM AND METHOD FOR ENERGY RECOMMENDATIONS AND USER SPECIFIED FUTURE ENERGY CONSUMPTION” or the another equally descriptive title.
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 16-19, and 22-34 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1
Claims 16-19, 22-25, and 34 is directed to a system (i.e., a machine); and claims 26-33 is directed to a method (i.e., a process). Therefore, claims 16-19, and 22-34 all fall within the one of the four statutory categories of invention.
Step 2A, Prong One
Independent claim 16 substantially recites determining recommendation details based on information on a condition specified according to a user input, the recommendation details including one or more recommended types of production methods for electricity;
generating to be displayed, based on the recommendation details, including the one or more recommended types of production methods for the electricity, a total amount of electricity transactions performed in a predetermined period for each of all production methods, carbon dioxide emission amount information, and electricity price information, wherein each of the one or more recommended types of production methods having a period of use indicated by a corresponding dimension size of a corresponding visual indicator on the screen;
receiving change information indicating a change of a dimension size of a first visual indicator according to a user operation by touching, the first visual indicator indicating a period of use for a first energy asset produced by a first type of production method included in the one or more recommended types of production methods;
determining additional recommendation details based on the change information; and
reflecting the additional recommendation details to obtain an update to be displayed, and
receiving the user operation of changing the dimension size of the first visual indicator of moving an edge of a horizontal dimension of the first visual indicator;
transmitting the change information indicating the change of the dimension size of the first visual indicator; and
displaying the update indicating the dimension size of the first visual indicator changed by the user operation and another dimension size of a second visual indicator indicating another period of use for a second energy asset produced by a second type of production method, wherein the second type of production method is included in the one or more recommended types of production methods, and the another dimension size of the second visual indicator is automatically recalculated according to the change in the dimension size of the first visual indicator to maintain a total energy allocation constraint.
Independent claim 26 substantially recites determining recommendation details based on information on a condition specified according to a user input, the recommendation details including one or more recommended types of production methods for electricity;
generating to be displayed, based on the recommendation details, including the one or more recommended types of production methods for the electricity, a total amount of electricity transactions performed in a predetermined period for each of all production methods, carbon dioxide emission amount information, and electricity price information, wherein each of the one or more recommended types of production methods having a period of use indicated by a corresponding dimension size of a corresponding visual indicator;
transmitting for display, wherein receiving a user operation of changing a dimension of a first visual indicator by moving an edge of a horizontal dimension of the first visual indicator;
receiving change information indicating a change of the dimension size of the first visual indicator according to the user operation by touching, the first visual indicator indicating a period of use for a first energy asset produced by a first type of production method included in the one or more recommended types of production method;
determining additional recommendation details based on the change information and reflecting the additional recommendation details to obtain an update to be displayed; and
transmitting the update for display, the update indicating the dimension size of the first visual indicator changed by the user operation and another dimension size of a second visual indicator indicating another period of use for a second energy asset produced by a second type of production method, wherein the second type of production method is included in the one or more recommended types of production methods, and the another dimension size of the second visual indicator is automatically recalculated according to the change in the dimension size of the first visual indicator to maintain a total energy allocation constraint.
The limitations stated above are processes/functions that under broadest reasonable interpretation covers “certain methods of organizing human activity” (commercial or legal interactions) of recommending and specifying future energy consumption (See PG Publication, Para. 5). Therefore, the claim recites an abstract idea.
Step 2A, Prong Two
The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. Claims 16 and 26 as a whole amount to: (i) merely invoking generic components as a tool to perform the abstract idea or “apply it” (or an equivalent). The claim recites the additional elements of: (i) a registration server (claims 16, 26), (ii) a communication terminal (claims 16, 26), (iii) a communication network (claims 16), (iv) a display (claims 16), (v) a registration server circuitry (claims 16, 26), (vi) communication terminal circuitry (claims 16), and (vii) a screen (claims 16, 26).
The additional elements of (i) a registration server, (ii) a communication terminal, (iii) a communication network, (iv) a display, (v) a registration server circuitry, (vi) a communication terminal circuitry, (vii) a screen, (ix) an electronic certificate are recited at a high level of generality (see [0047] of the Applicants PG Publication discussing the registration server, [0060] discussing the communication terminal, [0048] discussing the communication network, [0065] discussing the display, [0071] discussing the registration server circuitry, [0062] discussing the communication terminal circuitry, and [0132 & 0145] discussing the screen) such that, when viewed as whole/ordered combination, it amounts to no more than mere instruction to apply the judicial exception using generic computer components or “apply it” (See MPEP 2106.05(f)).
Accordingly, these additional elements, when viewed as a whole/ordered combination [See Figures 1, 2, 4, 12A-B, and 14-16 showing all the additional (i) a registration server, (ii) a communication terminal, (iii) a communication network, (iv) a display, (v) a registration server circuitry, (vi) a communication terminal circuitry, and (vii) a screen in combination], do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. Thus, the claim is directed to an abstract idea.
Step 2B
As discussed above with respect to Step 2A Prong Two, the additional elements amount to no more than: (i) “apply it” (or an equivalent), and are not a practical application of the abstract idea. The same analysis applies here in Step 2B, i.e., (i) merely invoking the generic components as a tool to perform the abstract idea or “apply it” (See MPEP 2106.05(f)), does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application at Step 2A or provide an inventive concept at Step 2B. Thus, even when viewed as a whole/ordered combination, nothing in the claims adds significantly more (i.e., an inventive concept) to the abstract idea. Thus, the claims 16 and 26 are ineligible.
Dependent Claims 17, 18, 27, and 28 merely narrow the previously recited abstract idea limitations. For reasons described above with respect to claim 1 these judicial exceptions are not meaningfully integrated into a practical application or significantly more than the abstract idea. Thus, claims 17, 18, 27, and 28 are also ineligible.
Step 2A, Prong Two
Dependent Claims 19 and 29 further narrow the previously recited abstract idea limitations. Claims 19 and 29 also recites the additional elements of a usage plan management database, which is recited at a high-level of generality (See [0099] of the Applicants PG Publication disclosing the usage plan management database) such that when viewed as whole/ordered combination, the additional elements do no more than generally link the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use (i.e. databasing) (See MPEP 2106.05(h)).
Accordingly, the additional elements, when viewed individually and as a whole/ordered combination, do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. Thus, the claims are directed to an abstract idea.
Step 2B
As discussed above with respect to Step 2A Prong Two, the additional element amounts to no more than: generally linking the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use, and is not a practical application of the abstract idea. The same analysis applies here in Step 2B, i.e., (i) generally linking the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use (See MPEP 2106.05(h)), does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application at Step 2A or provide an inventive concept at Step 2B.
Therefore, the additional element of a usage plan management database does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application at Step 2A or provide an inventive concept at Step 2B. Thus, even when viewed as a whole/ordered combination, nothing in the claim adds significantly more (i.e., an inventive concept) to the abstract idea. Thus, claims 19 and 29 are ineligible.
Step 2A, Prong Two
Dependent Claim 22 and 30 further narrows the previously recited abstract idea limitations. Claim 22 and 30 also recites the additional elements of a node of a blockchain, which is recited at a high-level of generality (See [0048] of the Applicants PG Publication disclosing the node of a blockchain) such that when viewed as whole/ordered combination, the additional elements do no more than generally link the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use (i.e. blockchain technology) (See MPEP 2106.05(h)).
Accordingly, the additional elements, when viewed individually and as a whole/ordered combination, do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. Thus, the claims are directed to an abstract idea.
Step 2B
As discussed above with respect to Step 2A Prong Two, the additional element amounts to no more than: generally linking the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use, and is not a practical application of the abstract idea. The same analysis applies here in Step 2B, i.e., (i) generally linking the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use (See MPEP 2106.05(h)), does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application at Step 2A or provide an inventive concept at Step 2B.
Therefore, the additional element of a node of a blockchain does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application at Step 2A or provide an inventive concept at Step 2B. Thus, even when viewed as a whole/ordered combination, nothing in the claim adds significantly more (i.e., an inventive concept) to the abstract idea. Thus, claim 22 and 30 are ineligible.
Dependent Claims 23, 24, 31, and 32 merely narrow the previously recited abstract idea limitations. For reasons described above with respect to claim 1 these judicial exceptions are not meaningfully integrated into a practical application or significantly more than the abstract idea. Thus, claims 23, 24, 31, and 32 are also ineligible.
Step 2A, Prong Two
Dependent Claims 25 and 33 further narrow the previously recited abstract idea limitations. Claims 25 and 33 also recites the additional elements of a memory, which is recited at a high-level of generality (See [0072] of the Applicants PG Publication disclosing the memory) such that, when viewed as whole/ordered combination, it amounts to no more than mere instruction to apply the judicial exception using generic computer components or “apply it” (See MPEP 2106.05(f)).
Accordingly, the additional elements, when viewed individually and as a whole/ordered combination, do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. Thus, the claims are directed to an abstract idea.
Step 2B
As discussed above with respect to Step 2A Prong Two, the additional element amounts to no more than: “apply it” (or an equivalent), and are not a practical application of the abstract idea. The same analysis applies here in Step 2B, i.e., (i) merely invoking the generic components as a tool to perform the abstract idea or “apply it” (See MPEP 2106.05(f)), does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application at Step 2A or provide an inventive concept at Step 2B.
Therefore, the additional element of a usage plan management database does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application at Step 2A or provide an inventive concept at Step 2B. Thus, even when viewed as a whole/ordered combination, nothing in the claim adds significantly more (i.e., an inventive concept) to the abstract idea. Thus, claims 25 and 33 are ineligible.
Step 2A, Prong Two
Dependent Claim 34 further narrows the previously recited abstract idea limitations. Claim 34 also recites the additional elements of an immutable transactional ledger system and an electronic certificate.
The additional element of an immutable transactional ledger system is recited at a high-level of generality (See [0198] of the Applicants PG Publication disclosing the memory) such that, when viewed as whole/ordered combination, it amounts to no more than mere instruction to apply the judicial exception using generic computer components or “apply it” (See MPEP 2106.05(f)).
The additional element of an electronic certificate is recited at a high-level of generality (See [0198] of the Applicants PG Publication disclosing the memory) such that when viewed as whole/ordered combination, do no more than generally link the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use (i.e., blockchain technology) (See MPEP 2106.05(h)).
Accordingly, the additional elements, when viewed individually and as a whole/ordered combination, do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. Thus, the claims are directed to an abstract idea.
Step 2B
As discussed above with respect to Step 2A Prong Two, the additional element amounts to no more than: (i) “apply it” (or an equivalent), and (ii) generally linking the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use, and is not a practical application of the abstract idea. The same analysis applies here in Step 2B, i.e., (i) merely invoking the generic components as a tool to perform the abstract idea or “apply it” (See MPEP 2106.05(f)); (ii) generally linking the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use (See MPEP 2106.05(h)), does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application at Step 2A or provide an inventive concept at Step 2B.
Therefore, the additional elements of an immutable transactional ledger system and an electronic certificate do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application at Step 2A or provide an inventive concept at Step 2B. Thus, even when viewed as a whole/ordered combination, nothing in the claim adds significantly more (i.e., an inventive concept) to the abstract idea. Thus, claim 34 is ineligible.
Novel and Non-Obvious Over the Prior Art
Claims 16-19, and 22-34 are novel and non-obvious over the prior art; however, these claims are subject to the above rejections.
The closest prior art is U.S. Patent Application No. 2019/0372345 to Bain et al (hereafter Bain). Bain discloses a communication terminal in communication with a registration server that receives information and adjustments from the customer and provides data and recommendations about electricity sources and mixes.
The next closest prior art is U.S. Patent Application No. 2021/0123771 to Vega et al (hereafter Vega). Vega discloses factoring in users’ carbon emissions data of the electricity sources in recommendations for which source to utilize.
The next closest prior art is Non-Patent Literature “Understanding Electricity Generation” from Github (August 12, 2017) (hereafter Github). Github discloses visual indicators changeable via user operation that adjust production methods used during a period of use.
While the closest prior art above teaches various aspects of the claimed invention individually, they fail to teach indicators which interact with a server, and affect the period of use for each production method type separately. Therefore, the claims are rendered novel and non-obvious over the prior art. The indicators do not however interact with a server, nor affect the period of use for each production method type separately.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DAVID G GODBOLD whose telephone number is (571)272-5036. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8-5.
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, Shannon S Campbell can be reached at 571-272-5587. 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 G. GODBOLD/Examiner, Art Unit 3628
Prosecution Insights