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 .
Notice to Applicant
The following is a Final Office action. In response to Examiner’s Non-Final Rejection of 10/16/2025, Applicant, on 01/14/2026, amended claims 1, 15, 20, and 21. Claims 1-15 and 17-22 are pending in this application and have been rejected below.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 01/14/2025 have been fully considered, but they are not fully persuasive. The 35 USC § 103 rejection has been overcome. However, the updated 35 USC § 101 rejection of claims 1-15 and 17-22 are applied in light of Applicant's amendments.
The Applicant argues “Applicant respectfully traverses the rejections. Claim 16 is canceled in this Response, thereby rendering its rejection moot. Independent claims 1, 20, and 21 are amended in this Response to recite specific improvements in the functioning of a computer and a power system itself. By managing separate state-of-charge (SOC) variables for different power sources within a single physical storage battery, the claims enable precise control (e.g., discharging only green power) that was not possible with conventional generic computer functions. This is a specific technical solution to the problem of managing power attributes in a mixed-power environment.” (Remarks 01/14/2026)
In response, the Examiner respectfully disagrees. The claimed subject matter, is directed to an abstract idea by reciting fundamental economic principles or practices (including hedging, insurance, mitigating risk); commercial or legal interactions (including agreements in the form of contracts; legal obligations; advertising, marketing or sales activities or behaviors; business relations); managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people (including social activities, teaching, and following rules or instructions) which falls into the “Certain methods of organizing human activity” within the enumerated groupings of abstract ideas; and by reciting mathematical relationships, mathematical formulas or equations, mathematical calculations which falls into the “Mathematical concepts” group within the enumerated groupings of abstract ideas. The mere nominal recitation of a generic computer does not take the claim limitation out of certain methods of organizing human activity or mathematical concepts. Thus, the claim recites a mental process for performing mathematical concepts. The amended claim language only strengthens the abstract idea, as the notion of separate state of charge variables adds language that is explicit data manipulation (bookkeeping). Additionally, the battery does not physically separate the energy, rather the calculations of it are done virtually (which could be done by a person tracking renewable vs grid power).
A claim that recites a mathematical calculation, when the claim is given its broadest reasonable interpretation in light of the specification, will be considered as falling within the "mathematical concepts" grouping. A mathematical calculation is a mathematical operation (such as multiplication) or an act of calculating using mathematical methods to determine a variable or number, e.g., performing an arithmetic operation such as exponentiation. There is no particular word or set of words that indicates a claim recites a mathematical calculation. That is, a claim does not have to recite the word "calculating" in order to be considered a mathematical calculation. For example, a step of "determining" a variable or number using mathematical methods or "performing" a mathematical operation may also be considered mathematical calculations when the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claim in light of the specification encompasses a mathematical calculation.
The claimed subject matter is merely claims a method for calculating and analyzing information regarding battery power systems. Although it may be intended to be performed in a digital environment, the claimed subject matter (as currently claimed in the independent claim) speaks to the calculating and analyzing data. Such steps are not tied to the technological realm, but rather utilizing technology to perform the abstract ideas (mathematical concepts). Additionally, the claimed subject matter can also be categorized as a certain methods of organizing human activity as it recites fundamental economic optimization (resource allocation and scheduling). The steps of calculating data, training/updating models, and generating a model/trend line can be performed by a human (mental process/pen and paper). The practice of calculating information and constructing models with set parameters and timelines can be performed without computers, and thus are not tied to technology nor improving technology (does not improve the battery operations, just tracks numbers in a different way).
The solution mentioned in the amended limitation is not implemented/integrated into technology and thus not an improvement to the technical field. Further, there is no integration into a practical application as the claims can be interpreted as humans per se, as the claims fail to tie the steps to technology; insignificant extra solution activities (which are merely calculating and/or analyzing data).
The steps relied upon by the Applicant as recited does not improve upon another technology, the functioning of the computer itself, or allow the computer to perform a function not previously performable by a computer. The Applicant is using generic computing components (processors) to perform in a generic/expected way (obtaining and analyzing data).The abstract idea is not particular to a technological environment, but is merely being applied to a computer realm. The process of calculating and analyzing data specifically for battery optimization, and performing additional analysis can be done without a computer, and thus the claims are not “necessarily rooted", but rather they are utilizing computer technology to perform the abstract idea. The Examiner does not recognize any elements of the Applicant's claims and/or specification that would improve or allow the computer to perform a function(s) not previously performable by the computer, or improve the functioning of the computer itself. It is insufficient to indicate that the claims are novel and non-obvious, and thus contain “something more.” Just because the components may perform a specialized function does not mean that that the computer components are specialized. As such the application of the abstract idea of collecting and analyzing data regarding purchase information, and performing correlation analysis is insufficient to demonstrate an improvement to the technology.
The additional elements have been evaluated, but fail to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they amount to using generic computing elements or instructions (software) to perform the abstract idea, similar to adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent), which merely serves to link the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment (generic computing environment). See MPEP 2106.05(f) and 2106.05(h).
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 1-15 and 17-22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-patentable subject matter. The claims are directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Claims 1-15 and 17-22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
With respect to Step 1 of the eligibility inquiry (as explained in MPEP 2106), it is first noted that the method (claims 20), computer program product (claims 1-15, 17-19, and 21), and system (claims 20 and 22) are directed to potentially eligible categories of subject matter (i.e., process, machine, and article of manufacture respectively). Thus, Step 1 is satisfied.
With respect to Step 2, and in particular Step 2A Prong One, it is next noted that the claims recite an abstract idea by reciting fundamental economic principles or practices (including hedging, insurance, mitigating risk); commercial or legal interactions (including agreements in the form of contracts; legal obligations; advertising, marketing or sales activities or behaviors; business relations); managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people (including social activities, teaching, and following rules or instructions) which falls into the “Certain methods of organizing human activity” within the enumerated groupings of abstract ideas; and by reciting mathematical relationships, mathematical formulas or equations, mathematical calculations which falls into the “Mathematical concepts” group within the enumerated groupings of abstract ideas. The mere nominal recitation of a generic computer does not take the claim limitation out of certain methods of organizing human activity or mathematical concepts. Thus, the claim recites a mental process for performing mathematical concepts.
The limitations reciting the abstract idea(s) as set forth in exemplary claim 1, are: a predicted value designation unit designating a predicted value of power to be supplied as the first power from the first energy source to the power system; a constraint condition designation unit designating a constraint condition that includes a term indicating the first power and a term indicating the second power and separately treats the first power and the second power for an operation of the power system; an objective function designation unit designating an objective function formulating an objective required for the power system; and an optimization calculation unit solving a problem defined by the predicted value of the power to be supplied, the constraint condition, and the objective function to obtain an operation plan for the power system, …wherein the constraint condition includes separate state of charge variables for an amount of the first power stored in the storage battery and an amount of the second power stored in the storage battery, and wherein the optimization calculation unit obtains the operation plan by solving the problem based on transitions of the separate state of charge variables Independent claims 20 and 21 recite the method and system for performing the CRM of independent claim 1 without adding significantly more. Thus, the same rationale/analysis is applied.
With respect to Step 2A Prong Two, the judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. The additional elements are directed to: An operation plan creation device applied to a power system consuming first power obtained from a first energy source and second power obtained from a second energy source different from the first energy source, the power system including a storage battery as a power receiving device, the operation plan creation device comprising… wherein the storage battery is configured to be charged with the first power and the second power…; An operation plan creation program applied to a power system consuming first power obtained from a first energy source and second power obtained from a second energy source different from the first energy source, the power system including a power receiving device, the operation plan creation program causing a computer to execute…; (as recited in the independent claims). However, these elements fail to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they fail to provide an improvement to the functioning of a computer or to any other technology or technical field, fail to apply the exception with a particular machine, fail to apply the judicial exception to effect a particular treatment or prophylaxis for a disease or medical condition, fail to effect a transformation of a particular article to a different state or thing, and fail to apply/use the abstract idea in a meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment.
Accordingly, because the Step 2A Prong One and Prong Two analysis resulted in the conclusion that the claims are directed to an abstract idea, additional analysis under Step 2B of the eligibility inquiry must be conducted in order to determine whether any claim element or combination of elements amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
With respect to Step 2B of the eligibility inquiry, it has been determined that the claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. The additional limitation(s) is/are directed to: An operation plan creation device applied to a power system consuming first power obtained from a first energy source and second power obtained from a second energy source different from the first energy source, the power system including a storage battery as a power receiving device, the operation plan creation device comprising… wherein the storage battery is configured to be charged with the first power and the second power…; An operation plan creation program applied to a power system consuming first power obtained from a first energy source and second power obtained from a second energy source different from the first energy source, the power system including a power receiving device, the operation plan creation program causing a computer to execute…; (as recited in the independent claims) for implementing the claim steps/functions. These elements have been considered, but merely serve to tie the invention to a particular operating environment (i.e., computer-based implementation), though at a very high level of generality and without imposing meaningful limitation on the scope of the claim.
The additional elements have been evaluated, but fail to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they amount to using generic computing elements or instructions (software) to perform the abstract idea, similar to adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent), which merely serves to link the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment (generic computing environment). See MPEP 2106.05(f) and 2106.05(h).
In addition, Applicant’s Specification (paragraph [0030]) describes generic off-the-shelf computer-based elements for implementing the claimed invention, and which does not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea, which is not enough to transform an abstract idea into eligible subject matter. Such generic, high-level, and nominal involvement of a computer or computer-based elements for carrying out the invention merely serves to tie the abstract idea to a particular technological environment, which is not enough to render the claims patent-eligible, as noted at pg. 74624 of Federal Register/Vol. 79, No. 241, citing Alice, which in turn cites Mayo. See, e.g., Symantec, 838 F.3d at 1321, 120 USPQ2d at 1362 (utilizing an intermediary computer to forward information); TLI Communications LLC v. AV Auto. LLC, 823 F.3d 607, 610, 118 USPQ2d 1744, 1745 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (using a telephone for image transmission); OIP Techs., Inc., v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363, 115 USPQ2d 1090, 1093 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (sending messages over a network); buySAFE, Inc. v. Google, Inc., 765 F.3d 1350, 1355, 112 USPQ2d 1093, 1096 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (computer receives and sends information over a network).
In addition, when taken as an ordered combination, the ordered combination adds nothing that is not already present as when the elements are taken individually. There is no indication that the combination of elements integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Their collective functions merely provide conventional computer implementation. Therefore, when viewed as a whole, these additional claim elements do not provide meaningful limitations to transform the abstract idea into a practical application of the abstract idea or that the ordered combination amounts to significantly more than the abstract idea itself. Further, the courts have found the presentation of data to be a well-understood, routine, conventional activity, OIP Techs., 788 F.3d at 1362-63, 115 USPQ2d at 1092-93 (see MPEP 2106.05(d)). Even if the acquiring steps are considered as additional elements, these steps at most amount to insignificant extra-solution activity accomplished via receiving/transmitting data, which is not enough to amount to a practical application. See MPEP 2106.05(g).
The dependent claims (2-15, 17-19 and 22) are directed to the same abstract idea as recited in the independent claims, and merely incorporate additional details that narrow the abstract idea via additional details of the abstract idea. For example, claims 2-15 and 17-19 “wherein the constraint condition designation unit designates a first constraint condition which is the constraint condition, and the first constraint condition is that only the first power is set as the power to be supplied to the power receiving device; wherein the constraint condition designation unit designates a second constraint condition which is the constraint condition, and the second constraint condition is that a proportion of the first power to a total amount of power supplied to the power receiving device is designated; wherein the power receiving device consumes the first power, and the constraint condition designation unit designates a proportion of an amount of consumption of the first power to a total amount of power consumed by the power receiving device or the amount of the first power consumed by the power receiving device; wherein the power receiving device consumes the first power, and the objective function designation unit sets, as the objective function, a function including at least one of a proportion of an amount of consumption of the first power to a total amount of power consumed by the power receiving device or the amount of the first power consumed by the power receiving device; wherein the power receiving device consumes the first power, and for a function including at least one of a proportion of an amount of consumption of the first power to a total amount of power consumed by the power receiving device or the amount of the first power consumed by the power receiving device, the optimization calculation unit solves a problem of maximizing the proportion of the amount of consumption of the first power or the amount of consumption of the first power as an optimization problem; wherein the power receiving device stores the first power, and the constraint condition designation unit designates a proportion of an amount of storage of the first power to a total amount of power stored in the power receiving device or the amount of the first power stored in the power receiving device; wherein the power receiving device stores the first power, and the objective function designation unit sets, as the objective function, a function including at least one of a proportion of an amount of storage of the first power to a total amount of power stored in the power receiving device or the amount of the first power stored in the power receiving device; wherein the power receiving device stores the first power, and for a function including at least one of a proportion of an amount of storage of the first power to a total amount of power stored in the power receiving device or the amount of the first power stored in the power receiving device, the optimization calculation unit solves a problem of maximizing the proportion of the amount of storage of the first power or the amount of storage of the first power as an optimization problem; wherein the objective function designation unit designates a first objective function which is the objective function, and the first objective function sets minimization of the second power obtained from the second energy source as the objective required for the power system in order to meet a power demand of the power system; wherein the objective function designation unit designates a second objective function which is the objective function, and the second objective function sets maximization of a product output by the power receiving device as a result of receiving at least the first power as the objective required for the power system; wherein the objective function designation unit designates a third objective function which is the objective function, and the third objective function sets, as the objective, at least one of minimization of a cost of operating the power system, maximization of profits from the operation of the power system, and minimization of an amount of carbon dioxide emitted by the operation of the power system; wherein the objective function designation unit sets an amount of emission of carbon dioxide associated with generation of the first power using a first numerical expression and sets an amount of emission of carbon dioxide associated with generation of the second power using a second numerical expression different from the first numerical expression; wherein the first energy source outputs the first power based on renewable energy ”, without additional elements that integrate the abstract idea into a practical application and without additional elements that amount to significantly more to the claims. The remaining dependent claims recite the method and system for performing the method of claims 2-15, 17-19. Thus, the same rationale/analysis is applied. Thus, all dependent claims have been fully considered, however, these claims are similarly directed to the abstract idea itself, without integrating it into a practical application and with, at most, a general purpose computer that serves to tie the idea to a particular technological environment, which does not add significantly more to the claims.
The ordered combination of elements in the dependent claims (including the limitations inherited from the parent claim(s)) add nothing that is not already present as when the elements are taken individually. There is no indication that the combination of elements improves the functioning of a computer or improves any other technology. Their collective functions merely provide conventional computer implementation. Accordingly, the subject matter encompassed by the dependent claims fails to amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
LAZARIS; SPYROS JAMES. TRANSMISSION SYSTEM FOR DELIVERY OF DYNAMIC DEMAND RESPONSE IN A RENEWABLE ENERGY-BASED ELECTRICITY GRID INFRASTRUCTURE, .U.S. PGPub 20130213038 The present invention relates to renewable energy resources. Specifically, the present invention relates to systems, methods, and apparatuses for supplying the power needs of an intelligent electricity grid from an entirely-renewable energy resource platform.
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any extension fee 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 date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Arif Ullah, whose telephone number is (571) 270-0161. The examiner can normally be reached from Monday to Friday between 9 AM and 5:30 PM.
If any attempt to reach the examiner by telephone is unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Beth Boswell, can be reached at (571) 272-6737. The fax telephone numbers for this group are either (571) 273-8300 or (703) 872-9326 (for official communications including After Final communications labeled “Box AF”).
/Arif Ullah/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3625