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 .
Status of Claims
Claims 16-19 and 22-23 were previously pending and subject to a non-final rejection dated June 18, 2025. In Response, submitted September 15, 2025, claims 16 and 26 were amended. Therefore, claims 16-19 and 22-23 are currently pending and subject to the following final rejection.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s remarks on Page 10 of the Response regarding the previous rejection of the claims under 35 U.S.C. 112(b), have been fully considered and are found to be persuasive in view of the amended claims.
Applicant’s remarks on Pages 10-18 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 “Regarding Step 2A Prong 1, the Office Action asserts that the claims are directed to ‘certain methods of organizing human activity’ related to ‘recommending and specifying future energy consumption’ (see Office Action, page 19). Applicant respectfully disagrees. … Amended Claim 16 recites ‘a registration server including registration server circuitry’ and ‘a communication terminal communicably connected to the registration server via a communication network, the communication terminal including communication terminal circuitry’ working in coordination with ‘an immutable transactional ledger system’. These limitations are specific physical hardware components and distributed systems performing technological functions, not abstract organizing of human activity. The Federal Circuit has clarified that the Step 2A, Prong 1 analysis should consider ‘the focus of the claimed advance over the prior art’. Affinity Labs of Texas, LLC, v. DIRECTV, LLC, 838 F.3d 1253 (Fed. Cir. 2016). Here, the focus of the claimed advance is a specific technological system combining hardware components with immutable ledger technology to provide verified energy production method tracking and certification.”
Examiner notes, “provid[ing] verified energy production method tracking and certification” is a recitation of the abstract idea, and serves to further support the analysis that an abstract idea is recited in the claims. Additionally, the presence of additional elements does not preclude the claims from reciting or being directed to an abstract idea. As discussed further in the detailed rejection below, the analysis demonstrates that an abstract idea is positively recited at Step 2A Prong One, therefore analysis must continue to at least Step 2A, Prong Two to analyze the recited additional elements such as the registration server including registration server circuitry, communication terminal communicably, communication network, communication terminal circuitry and immutable transactional ledger system.
On Pages 12-13 of the Response, Applicant argues “Even if the claims contain elements that could be characterized as involving commercial interactions, the focus of the claims is on technological improvements to energy transaction verification systems. In Enfish, LLC v. Microsoft Corp., 822 F.3d 1327 (Fed. Cir. 2016), the Federal Circuit held that claims ‘directed to a specific improvement to the way computers operate’ are not directed to abstract ideas. Amended Claim 16 recites specific technological processes including ‘generate a screen to be displayed on the communication terminal, based on the recommendation details, the screen including the one or more recommended types of production methods for the electricity’ with ‘each of the one or more recommended types of production methods having a period of use indicated by a corresponding dimension of a corresponding visual indicator on the screen’ and dynamic coordination where ‘another dimension of a second visual indicator being determined by the registration server according to the change in the dimension of the first visual indicator’. These recitations recite a specific technological process that improves computer-based energy transaction management through coordinated visual interface technology and automatic recalculation mechanisms. Such features are not merely certain methods of organizing human activity. Thus, because the claims are not directed to a judicial exception, the amended claims are eligible under 35 U.S.C. § 101.”
Examiner notes, as discussed further in the detailed rejection below, “generat[ing] … display[ ] …, based on the recommendation details, … including the one or more recommended types of production methods for the electricity" with "each of the one or more recommended types of production methods having a period of use indicated by a corresponding dimension of a corresponding visual indicator …" and dynamic coordination where "another dimension of a second visual indicator being determined … according to the change in the dimension of the first visual indicator" is a recitation of the abstract idea that describe aspects of the commercial interaction of the certain method of organizing human activity. The fact that additional elements are recited along with the abstract idea does not inherently make these limitations technical nor prevent the claims reciting an abstract idea at Step 2A, Prong One. Step 2A, Prong Two, and Step 2B examine the additional elements (i.e., the screen, the communication terminal, and the registration server from the argument) both individually and as a whole/ordered combination. In the instant case, the screen (described and depicted generally as a user interface, see at least Para. 132 and 145, and Figs. 12A/B and 14-16, PG Publication), the communication terminal (described with broad examples of “smartphone … smart watches, PCs, and smart glasses”, see Para. 60, PG Publication), and the registration server (described generally as “a single computer or a plurality of computers”, see Para. 47, PG Publication) are used merely as tools to perform these abstract ideas. This supports the analysis that when considered both individually and as a whole/ordered combination these additional elements amount to merely “apply it”. Further, these additional elements are not themselves improved, rather the alleged improvement is found in the abstract ideas of generating display of data as detailed in this argument. As noted in MPEP 2106.05(a)(II), an improvement to the abstract is not an improvement to the technology.
On Pages 13-14 of the Response, Applicant argues “Regarding Step 2A Prong 2, Applicant respectfully asserts that the amended claims are eligible under 35 U.S.C. § 101. Under Prong 2, the amended claims integrate any identified abstract idea into a practical application that improves the functioning of computer technology and energy management systems. The specific claim language demonstrates this integration through several technological improvements: Immutable Ledger Integration: The amended claim recites ‘update energy asset information in an immutable transactional ledger system, based on the change information, to specify a production method for electricity to be supplied to a consumer’ and ‘access the immutable transactional ledger system to retrieve transaction data corresponding to an exchange of electricity supplied to the consumer’. This integration of blockchain technology with energy transaction management creates a specific technological solution for verified energy supply chain tracking that goes beyond abstract idea implementation.”
Examiner notes, as discussed further in the detailed rejection below, “updat[ing] energy asset information in a… transactional ledger …, based on the change information, to specify a production method for electricity to be supplied to a consumer" and "access[ing] the … transactional ledger … to retrieve transaction data corresponding to an exchange of electricity supplied to the consumer" is a recitation of the abstract idea, and therefore unhelpful in bringing the claims to eligibility over 101. Rather than a technical solution, the argument asserts that the claims present a solution to business processes (i.e. an abstract idea) regarding potential issues of “verified energy supply chain tracking”. While the claim limitations utilize the additional element of “the immutable transactional ledger system”, it is used merely as a tool to perform the abstract ideas of updating energy asset information and retrieving the transactional data, and does this in such a way that it only generally links these abstract ideas to the field of blockchain technology, but fails to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application.
On Page 14 of the Response, Applicant argues “Dynamic Visual Interface Technology: The amended claim recites specific mechanisms where ‘each of the one or more recommended types of production methods having a period of use indicated by a corresponding dimension of a corresponding visual indicator on the screen’ and ‘another dimension of a second visual indicator being determined by the registration server according to the change in the dimension of the first visual indicator’. This represents a specific improvement to computer interface technology by providing dynamic visual representations that automatically recalculate based on user interactions. In DDR Holdings, LLC v. Hotels.com, L.P., 773 F.3d 1245 (Fed. Cir. 2014), the Federal Circuit found claims patent eligible where they solved ‘a problem specifically arising in the realm of computer networks’ through a technological solution. Similarly, the claimed system in this application solves problems specifically arising in energy supply chain verification through the technological solution of coordinated interface systems and blockchain verification.”
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 of a corresponding visual indicator” and “another dimension of a second visual indicator being determined … according to the change in the dimension of the first visual indicator” are recitations of the abstract idea and unhelpful in bringing the claims to eligibility over 101. In the instant case, the additional element of “the screen” is used merely as a tool to perform the abstract idea of displaying “each of the one or more recommended types of production methods having a period of use indicated by a corresponding dimension of a corresponding visual indicator” and “another dimension of a second visual indicator”, similarly the additional element of “the registration server” is used merely as a tool to perform the abstract idea of determining “another dimension of a second visual indicator … according to the change in the dimension of the first visual indicator”. That is, both additional elements, when fully analyzed amount to merely “apply it”. The alleged improvement is found in the abstract idea of displaying the visual indicators, which are simply representations of data, and neither the screen nor the registration server themselves are improved. As noted above, an improvement to the abstract idea is not an improvement in the technology, therefore it is noted that no technical improvements are demonstrated in these claims. This stands in contrast to the cited DDR Holdings, where the invention operates in the technical field of Internet hyperlink protocol, and provides direct improvement to the computer through improvements to this technical field.
On Page 14 of the Response, Applicant argues “Production Method Verification Technology: The amended claim recites ‘process the transaction data to verify that a production method of the exchanged electricity is consistent with the production method specified in the request’ and ‘based on the verification, generate an electronic certificate confirming the production method of the exchanged electricity’. This is a specific technological requirement for energy supply verification that improves upon conventional energy management systems by providing verified certification of production methods.”
Examiner notes, as discussed further in the detailed rejection below, “process[ing] the transaction data to verify that a production method of the exchanged electricity is consistent with the production method specified in the request” and “based on the verification, generat[ing] a… certificate confirming the production method of the exchanged electricity” are recitations of the abstract idea. The additional element of electronic certificate is described at high levels of generality that it amounts to merely using generic computer technology as a tool to perform the abstract idea of generating a certificate confirming the production method. This is further supported by Para. 198 of the PG Publication discussing Fig. 1 illustrating the “tracking system according to an exemplary embodiment” where a certification authority “sends the production method certificate by mail or the like” (emphasis added). Rather than “a specific technological requirement”, this appears to be utilizing a general computer as a means for improving the abstract idea of generating a certificate confirming the production method, thus this too fails to demonstrate an improvement to the technology or integrate the abstract idea into a practical application.
On Pages 14-15 of the Response, Applicant argues “Coordinated Multi-System Architecture: The amended claim establishes coordination between registration server circuitry, communication term al circuitry, visual interface systems, and immutable ledger systems. This establishes a specific distributed computing architecture that enables verified energy transaction management not available in conventional systems. These specific technological elements establish that the claims are ‘necessarily rooted in computer technology’ as required under MPEP 2106.05. The combination addresses technological problems in energy supply verification through technological solutions rather than merely automating conventional business practices.
Examiner notes, as discussed above, “energy supply verification” is not inherently a technical problem, nor does the inclusion of additional elements along side the abstract idea inherently mean that the claims are “rooted in computer technology” or “provide a technological solution”. As previously discussed, these additional elements amount to merely “apply it” or generally link the abstract idea to the field of blockchain technology which, as detailed in MPEP 2106.05, are examples of limitations the courts have found do not qualify as “significantly more” nor do they integrate the abstract idea into a practical application as detailed in MPEP 2106.04(d)(I).
On Page 15 of the Response, Applicant argues “Moreover, in McRO. Inc. v. Bandai Namco Games Am. Inc., 837 F.3d 1299 (Fed Cir. 2016), the Federal Circuit emphasized that claims specifying how the computer's processes are improved may integrate abstract ideas into practical applications. Here, the claim specifies how computer-based energy transaction processing is improved through coordinated visual interfaces that automatically recalculate energy asset allocations and integrate with blockchain verification systems for production method certification. The claimed system addresses technology-specific problems in energy supply chain management by providing verified tracking of energy production methods through coordinated hardware and software systems. This represents a concrete technological improvement over conventional energy management systems. Thus, the claim is not directed to an abstract idea under Step 2A, and thus is eligible under 35 U.S.C. §101.
Examiner notes, the alleged improvements of this argument are confined to the abstract ideas of “energy transaction processing” and “automatically recalculate[ing] energy asset allocations and integrat[ing] with … verification … for production method certification”. As discussed at length above, and further in the detailed rejection below, the additional elements recited along side these abstract ideas amount to “apply it” or generally linking the abstract idea to a technical field, and further neither these additional elements nor any other technology is improved, as the improvements are confined to the abstract idea, and an improvement to the abstract idea is not an improvement to the technology. Therefore, upon full analysis of the claims at step 2A, they remain ineligible.
On Pages 15-16 of the Response, Applicant argues “However, even if the claims are improperly considered to be directed to an abstract idea under Step 2A, Applicant respectfully submits that the amended claims recite significantly more than an abstract idea itself (i.e., ‘more than a mere instruction to apply the abstract idea’) under Step 2B. The rejection provides no factual evidence that the specific combination of elements
recited in the claims was well-understood, routine, or conventional in the field. In Berkheimer v. HP Inc., 881 F 3d 1360 (Fed. Cir 2018), the Federal Circuit held that whether claim elements are well-understood, routine, and conventional is a factual determination that requires supporting evidence. In this case, the claimed features are not well-understood, routine or conventional.
Examiner notes, “well understood, routine, and conventional” is only one of the test provided for determining if a claim amounts to significantly more at Step 2B in MPEP 2106.05. “Well understood, routine, and conventional” is not used as a grounds for rejection at Step 2B in the detailed rejection below or in previous Office Actions concerning this application, therefore this argument is moot.
On Pages 16-17 of the Response, Applicant argues “Specific Combination Elements: The amended claim recites the specific combination of ‘registration server circuitry’ that ‘determine[s] recommendation details based on information on a condition specified according to a user input’, ‘generate[s] a screen to be displayed on the communication terminal’ with ‘each of the one or more recommended types of production methods having a period of use indicated by a corresponding dimension of a corresponding visual indicator’, processes ‘change information indicating a change of a dimension of a first visual indicator’ to automatically determine ‘another dimension of a second visual indicator being determined by the registration server according to the change in the dimension of the first visual indicator’, and coordinates with ‘an immutable transactional ledger system’ to ‘update energy asset information’, ‘retrieve transaction data’, ‘verify that a production method of the exchanged electricity is consistent with the production method specified’, and ‘generate an electronic certificate confirming the production method of the exchanged electricity’. This specific technological combination is not and was not conventional in the field, as evidenced by the specification's identification of problems with existing energy management systems and development of new technological solutions. Under MPEP 2106.05(e), additional elements that apply the judicial exception in some meaningful way beyond ‘generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment’ may constitute significantly more. The claimed system meaningfully transforms energy transaction management through specific technological processes”
Examiner notes, as previously discussed and further discussed in the detailed rejection below, the “registration server circuitry” is merely used as a tool to perform the abstract ideas of “determin[ing] recommendation details based on information on a condition specified according to a user input”, “generate[ing] a [display]” with “each of the one or more recommended types of production methods having a period of use indicated by a corresponding dimension of a corresponding visual indicator”, processing “change information indicating a change of a dimension of a first visual indicator” automatically determining “another dimension of a second visual indicator being determined according to the change in the dimension of the first visual indicator’, and coordinating with “a transactional ledger” to “update energy asset information”, “retrieve transaction data”, “verify that a production method of the exchanged electricity is consistent with the production method specified”, and “generate a certificate confirming the production method of the exchanged electricity”. The immutable transactional ledger system serves only to generally link the abstract idea to the field of blockchain technology. Lastly, the electronic certificate uses generic computer components to perform the abstract idea of generating a certificate confirming the production method. The test of “well understood, routine, and conventional” is not relied upon for this rejection. Further the categorization of the additional elements as merely “apply it” and generally linking the abstract idea to a field of use demonstrates that the additional elements do not “apply the judicial exception in some meaningful way beyond ‘generally linking’” and do not constitute significantly more.
On Page 17 of the Response, Applicant argues “Dynamic Interface Coordination: ‘each of the one or more recommended types of production methods having a period of use indicated by a corresponding dimension of a corresponding visual indicator’ with automatic recalculation where ‘another dimension of a second visual indicator being determined by the registration server according to the change in the dimension of the first visual indicator’ creates technological coordination between user interface changes and energy asset allocation calculations.”
Examiner directs Applicant to the Response above regarding “Dynamic Visual Interface Technology”. As noted in the detailed rejection below, there is significant overlap between the analysis at Step 2A, Prong Two and Step 2B, as such the response above covers the corresponding arguments made in this section as to why the additional elements fail to amount to significantly more at Step 2B.
On Page 17 of the Response, Applicant argues “Blockchain Integration for Verification: ‘update energy asset information in an immutable transactional ledger system’ and ‘access the immutable transactional ledger system to retrieve transaction data’ transforms energy transaction management through distributed ledger technology integration.”
Examiner notes, as previously discussed the “immutable transactional ledger system” serves only to generally link the abstract idea of “update[ing] energy asset information in a transactional ledger” and “access[ing] the transactional ledger to retrieve transaction data” to the field of blockchain technology, but fails to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or amount to significantly more.
On Page 17 of the Response, Applicant argues “Production Method Verification: "process the transaction data to verify that a production method of the exchanged electricity is consistent with the production method specified" and "generate an electronic certificate confirming the production method of the exchanged electricity" transforms energy supply chain management through technological verification and certification processes.
Examiner directs Applicant to the Response above regarding “Production Method Verification Technology”. As noted in the detailed rejection below, there is significant overlap between the analysis at Step 2A, Prong Two and Step 2B, as such the response above covers the corresponding arguments made in this section as to why the additional elements fail to amount to significantly more at Step 2B.
On Page 17 of the Response, Applicant argues “Multi-System Coordination: The coordination between registration server circuitry, communication terminal circuitry, visual interface systems, and immutable ledger systems creates technological integration for verified energy transaction management.”
Examiner directs Applicant to the Response above regarding “Coordinated Multi-System Architecture”. As noted in the detailed rejection below, there is significant overlap between the analysis at Step 2A, Prong Two and Step 2B, as such the response above covers the corresponding arguments made in this section as to why the additional elements fail to amount to significantly more at Step 2B.
On Pages 17-18 of the Response, Applicant argues “These transformations create new technological capabilities through specific hardware- software integration rather than generic computer implementation. Thus, there must be finding that the claim features amount to significantly more. Therefore, the claims (even if determined to be an abstract idea as suggested by the Office Action) provide improvements over existing technological processes and thus recite ‘significantly more’ than an abstract idea itself. Accordingly, Applicant respectfully submits that neither of the two parts of the two-part test as prescribed in the Examination Instructions has been satisfied. Thus, the claims are drawn to statutory subject matter. Withdrawal of the rejection is respectfully requested.
Examiner notes, as discussed above and further discussed in the detailed rejection below, the additional elements, when viewed both individually and as a whole/ordered combination, amount to merely “apply it” or generally linking the abstract idea to a field of use and fail to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or amount to “significantly more”. Therefore, after full and proper analysis, the claims remain ineligible over 101.
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 22-33 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, and 20-25 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 22-33 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 display, 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 of a corresponding visual indicator;
receiving change information indicating a change of a dimension of a first visual indicator according to a user operation, 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,
receiving the user operation of changing the dimension of the first visual indicator;
transmitting the change information indicating the change of the dimension of the first visual indicator; and
displaying the update indicating the dimension of the first visual indicator changed by the user operation and another dimension of a second visual indicator indicating another period of use for a second energy asset produced by a second type of production method, the second type of production method being included in the one or more recommended types of production methods, the another dimension of the second visual indicator being determined according to the change in the dimension of the first visual indicator, and
updating energy asset information in a transactional ledger based on the change information, to specify a production method for electricity to be supplied to a consumer;
accessing the transactional ledger to retrieve transaction data corresponding to an exchange of electricity supplied to the consumer;
processing the transaction data to verify that a production method of the exchanged electricity is consistent with the production method specified; and
based on the verification, generating a certificate confirming the production method of the exchanged electricity.
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 display, 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 of a corresponding visual indicator;
transmitting for display, wherein receiving a user operation of changing a dimension of the first visual indicator;
receiving change information indicating a change of a dimension of a first visual indicator according to a user operation, 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;
transmitting the update for display, the update indicating the dimension of the first visual indicator changed by the user operation and another dimension of a second visual indicator indicating another period of use for a second energy asset produced by a second type of production method, the second type of production method being included in the one or more recommended types of production methods, the another dimension of the second visual indicator being determined according to the change in the dimension of the first visual indicator; and
updating energy asset information in a transactional ledger, based on the change information, to specify a production method for electricity to be supplied to a consumer;
accessing the transactional ledger to retrieve transaction data corresponding to an exchange of electricity supplied to the consumer;
processing the transaction data to verify that a production method of the exchanged electricity is consistent with the production method specified: and
generating, based on the verification. a certificate confirming the production method of the exchanged electricity.
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), and (ii) generally links the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use. 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) a communication terminal circuitry (claims 16), (vii) a screen (claims 16, 26), (viii) an immutable transactional ledger system (claims 16, 26), and (ix) an electronic certificate (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, [0132 & 0145] discussing the screen, [0198] discussing the electronic certificate) 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 (viii) an immutable transactional ledger system are recited at a high level of generality (See [0204] of the Applicant' s PG Publication discussing the immutable transactional ledger system) 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, 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, (vii) a screen, (viii) an immutable transactional ledger system, and (ix) an electronic certificate 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: 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 25 and 33 are ineligible.
Novel and Non-Obvious Over the Prior Art
Claims 16-19, and 22-33 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.
The next closest prior art is Japanese Patent Application No. 2020/119143 (hereafter Kinoshita). Kinoshita discloses generation of electronic certificates verifying power production in conjunction with a blockchain ledger.
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
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 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
/SHANNON S CAMPBELL/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3628