DETAILED ACTION
Status of Claims
• The following is an office action in response to the communication filed 05/23/2024
• Claims 1-3 are currently pending and have been examined.
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant’s claim for foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. 119 (a)-(d). The certified copy of Application No. JP 2023-085475, filed on 05/24/023 has been received.
Information Disclosure Statement
Information Disclosure Statement received on 05/23/2024 has been reviewed and considered.
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 .
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 1-3 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception without significantly more. The claims recite an abstract idea. 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.
First, it is determined whether the claims are directed to a statutory category of invention. See MPEP 2106.03(II). In the instant case, claims 1-3 are directed to a machine. Therefore, claims 1-3 are directed to statutory subject matter under Step 1 of the Alice/Mayo test (Step 1: YES).
The claims are then analyzed to determine if the claims are directed to a judicial exception. See MPEP 2106.04. In determining whether the claims are directed to a judicial exception, the claims are analyzed to evaluate whether the claims recite a judicial exception (Prong 1 of Step 2A), as well as analyzed to evaluate whether the claims recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application of the judicial exception (Prong 2 of Step 2A). See MPEP 2106.04.
Taking claim 1 as representative, claim 1 recites at least the following limitations that are believed to recite an abstract idea:
controls so as to go through a period of time of maintaining a reference value of supply and demand in a case where the reference value is crossed when a command value of supply and demand transitions from a first command value before change to a second command value after change.
The above limitations recite the concept of sending content related to controlling a supply and demand value. These limitations, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, fall within the “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity” grouping of abstract ideas, enumerated in the MPEP, in that they recite commercial or legal interactions such as advertising, marketing, or sales activities or behaviors. Specifically, controlling supply and demand of a product is a commercial interaction. This is further illustrated in paragraph [0017] of the Specification, describing the invention relating to bidding. Further, these limitations, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, fall within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas, enumerated in the MPEP, in that they recite concepts performed in the human mind, including observations and judgements. Specifically, the controlling is a judgment and it happening in a circumstance is an observation. Accordingly, under Prong One of Step 2A of the Alice/Mayo test, claim 1 recites an abstract idea (Step 2A, Prong One: YES).
Under Prong Two of Step 2A of the MPEP, claim 1 recites additional elements, such as an electricity management apparatus; an adjustment system; a memory that stores a predetermined program in the memory; and a processor that executes the predetermined program; and electricity. These additional elements are described at a high level in Applicant’s specification without any meaningful detail about their structure or configuration. As such, these computer-related limitations are not found to be sufficient to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Although these additional computer-related elements are recited, claim 1 merely invokes such additional elements as a tool to perform the abstract idea. Implementing an abstract idea on a generic computer is not indicative of integration into a practical application. Similar to the limitations of Alice, claim 1 merely recites a commonplace business method (i.e., controlling a supply and demand value) being applied on a general purpose computer. See MPEP 2106.05(f). Furthermore, claim 1 generally links the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use. The courts have identified various examples of limitations as merely indicating a field of use/technological environment in which to apply the abstract idea, such as specifying that the abstract idea of monitoring audit log data relates to transactions or activities that are executed in a computer environment, because this requirement merely limits the claims to the computer field, i.e., to execution on a generic computer (see FairWarning v. Iatric Sys.). Likewise, claim 1 specifying that the abstract idea of controlling a supply and demand value is executed in a computer environment merely indicates a field of use in which to apply the abstract idea because this requirement merely limits the claims to the computer field, i.e., to execution on a generic computer. As such, under Prong Two of Step 2A of the MPEP, when considered both individually and as a whole, the limitations of claim 1 are not indicative of integration into a practical application (Step 2A, Prong Two: NO).
Since claim 1 recites an abstract idea and fail to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application, claim 1 is “directed to” an abstract idea (Step 2A: YES).
Next, under Step 2B, the claims are analyzed to determine if there are additional claim limitations that individually, or as an ordered combination, ensure that the claim amounts to significantly more than the abstract idea. See MPEP 2106.05. The instant claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception for at least the following reasons.
Returning to independent claim 1, these claims recite additional elements, such as an electricity management apparatus; an adjustment system; a memory that stores a predetermined program in the memory; and a processor that executes the predetermined program; and electricity. As discussed above with respect to Prong Two of Step 2A, although additional computer-related elements are recited, the claims merely invoke such additional elements as a tool to perform the abstract idea. See MPEP 2106.05(f). Moreover, the limitations of claim 1 are manual processes, e.g., receiving information, analyzing information, etc. The courts have indicated that mere automation of manual processes is not sufficient to show an improvement in computer-functionality (see MPEP 2106.05(a)(I)). Furthermore, as discussed above with respect to Prong Two of Step 2A, claim 1 merely recites the additional elements in order to further define the field of use of the abstract idea, therein attempting to generally link the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment, such as the Internet or computing networks (see Ultramercial, Inc. v. Hulu, LLC. (Fed. Cir. 2014); Bilski v. Kappos (2010); MPEP 2106.05(h)). Similar to FairWarning v. Iatric Sys., claim 1 specifying that the abstract idea of controlling a supply and demand value is executed in a computer environment merely indicates a field of use in which to apply the abstract idea because this requirement merely limits the claim to the computer field, i.e., to execution on a generic computer.
Even when considered as an ordered combination, the additional elements do not add anything that is not already present when they are considered individually. In Alice Corp., the Court considered the additional elements “as an ordered combination,” and determined that “the computer components…‘[a]dd nothing…that is not already present when the steps are considered separately’ and simply recite intermediated settlement as performed by a generic computer.” Id. (citing Mayo, 566 U.S. at 79, 101 USPQ2d at 1972). Similarly, viewed as a whole, claim 1 simply conveys the abstract idea itself facilitated by generic computing components. Therefore, under Step 2B of the Alice/Mayo test, there are no meaningful limitations in claim 1 that transform the judicial exception into a patent eligible application such that the claims amount to significantly more than the judicial exception itself (Step 2B: NO).
Dependent claims 2-3, when analyzed as a whole, are held to be patent ineligible under 35 U.S.C. 101 because they recite an abstract idea, are not integrated into a practical application, and do not add “significantly more” to the abstract idea. More specifically, dependent claims 2-12 and 16-21 further fall within the “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity” grouping of abstract ideas, enumerated in the MPEP, in that they further recite commercial or legal interactions such as advertising, marketing, or sales activities or behaviors. These claims, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, further fall within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas, enumerated in the MPEP, in that they recite concepts performed in the human mind, including observations, evaluations, judgments, and opinions. Dependent claims 2-3 fail to identify additional elements and as such, are not indicative of integration into a practical application. As such, under Step 2A, dependent claims 2-3 are “directed to” an abstract idea. Similar to the discussion above with respect to claim 1, dependent claims 2-3, analyzed individually and as an ordered combination, merely further define the commonplace business method being applied on a general purpose computer and, therefore, do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself. See MPEP 2106.05(f)(2). Further, these limitations generally link the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use. Accordingly, under the Alice/Mayo test, claims 1-3 are ineligible.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 1-3 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Saito et al. (US 20200153254 A1), hereafter Saito, in view of Yano et al. (US 20160226261 A1), hereinafter Yano.
In regards to claim 1, Saito discloses an electricity management apparatus that manages adjustment power of electricity delivered to an electricity transmission and distribution business operator by a trading business operator, the electricity management apparatus being capable of controlling an adjustment system of supply and demand of electricity, the electricity management apparatus comprising (Saito: [0022]; [0114]):
a memory that stores a predetermined program in the memory (Saito: [0034] – “program may be stored in a computer-readable medium such as a CD-ROM, a DVD-ROM, a memory, a hard disk and the like, or may be stored in a storage device connected to a network. The program may be installed into a computer configuring at least a part of the energy management system 100 from a computer-readable medium or a storage device connected to a network”); and
a processor that executes the predetermined program, wherein the processor controls, by executing the predetermined program, the adjustment system so as to go through a period of time in a case where the reference value is crossed when a command value of supply and demand electricity to the adjustment system transitions from a first command value before change to a second command value after change (Saito: [0109] – “The system control unit 630 may be configured to permit power transmission from the power supply system to each user, within a range of an amount of power corresponding to a holding point of each user, which is managed by the point management unit 650”; [0111] – “When the user wants to receive power equal to or greater than the user's holding point, the system control unit 630 may restrict a supply aspect of power to be supplied to the user beyond the amount of power corresponding to the holding point by controlling the power distribution apparatus 230 of the supplier/demander facility that the user uses. As the restriction of the supply aspect…(ii) a restriction of setting an upper limit of an amount of power to be supplied beyond the amount of power corresponding to the holding point”; [0140] – “The point holding period may be an example of an elapsed time period. The point holding period may be…(ii) a time period from a point of time at which a difference between a point given to a specific supplier/demander facility and a point consumed by the supplier/demander facility meets a preset first condition to a specific point of time”; [0142] – “As the preset first condition…(iii) a condition that a parameter to be determined based on the accumulated point difference becomes zero (0), (iv) a condition that the parameter is within or outside a predetermined range, and the like may be exemplified…The parameter may be a holding point”; see also [0144-0145]).
Saito further discloses managing energy supply and demand (Saito: [0024]), yet Saito does not explicitly disclose a period of maintaining a reference value of supply and demand of electricity by the adjustment system.
However, Yano teaches a similar electricity management system (Yano: [abstract]), including
a period of maintaining a reference value of supply and demand of electricity by the adjustment system (Yano: [0064] and Fig. 2B – “In second time period TP2, supply and demand planning server 17 determines adjustment power so that demand power exceeds the sum of the base supply power and the power generated by solar power generation to charge electricity to storage batteries 13, whereby the thermal power generators are activated, thus making it possible to maintain the balance between supply and demand…enhance the capability of adjusting the balance between supply and demand and improve stability of power system 10”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to have included the maintaining a value of Yano in the apparatus of Saito because Saito already discloses managing values and Yano is merely demonstrating what the management entails. Additionally, it would have been obvious to have included a period of maintaining a reference value of supply and demand of electricity by the adjustment system as taught by Yano because maintaining of a value is well-known and the use of it in an electricity management system would have improved the stability of the power system (Yano: [0064]).
In regards to claim 2, Saito/Yano teaches the apparatus of claim 1. Saito further discloses wherein the processor controls, by executing the predetermined program, the adjustment system with a goal of linearly changing the first command value to the second command value in a case where the reference value of supply and demand of electricity by the adjustment system is not crossed when the command value of supply and demand of electricity to the adjustment system transitions from the first command value before change to the second command value after change (Saito: [0111] – “When the user wants to receive power equal to or greater than the user's holding point, the system control unit 630 may restrict a supply aspect of power to be supplied to the user beyond the amount of power corresponding to the holding point by controlling the power distribution apparatus 230 of the supplier/demander facility that the user uses. As the restriction of the supply aspect, (i) a restriction of reducing an amount of current, as compared to a case in which power is supplied within a range of the amount of power corresponding to the holding point”; the examiner notes that “with a goal of linearly changing the first command value to the second command value in a case where the reference value of supply and demand of electricity by the adjustment system is not crossed when the command value of supply and demand of electricity to the adjustment system transitions from the first command value before change to the second command value after change” is merely an intended use/result and is accordingly granted little to no patentable weight. Nevertheless, the limitation has been fully examined).
In regards to claim 3, Saito/Yano discloses the apparatus of claim 1. Saito further discloses
wherein the processor controls changing the supply and demand of electricity by the adjustment system in a period of time of transitioning from the first command value to the reference value and a period of time of transitioning from the reference value to the second command value when the adjustment system is controlled to go through the period of time (Glass: [0069-0071] and Figs. 3 & 12-14 – “the application 104 presents a reveal video customization screen (FIG. 14) to manage the entry of reveal video information by the user. For example, the interactive screen includes a ‘Record User-Supplied Content’ button that when selected, allows the user to enter user-supplied content, such as textual, audio, photographic, and/or video content to be included in the reveal video. As another example, the interactive screen includes a ‘Select Prerecorded Content’ button that when selected, allows the user to select from among multiple instances of prerecorded content… The e-gift ordering application 104 also displays a reveal video preview screen (FIG. 15) that displays a preview of the customized reveal video so that the user may view the reveal video. The e-gift ordering application 104 generates a reveal video in accordance with information provided by the user of the computing device at 302 through 310”).
Saito further discloses managing energy supply and demand (Saito: [0024]), yet Saito does not explicitly disclose controlling a speed of changing to be a controllable maximum speed and a period of maintaining the reference value.
However, Yano teaches a similar electricity management system (Yano: [abstract]), including
controlling a speed of changing to be a controllable maximum speed (Yano: [0016] – “a control unit that causes the adjustment target storage batteries to charge or discharge electricity at the predetermined electricity rate in the adjustment period”; the examiner interprets the predetermined rate to be a maximum rate because that is the rate at which it is held); and
a period of maintaining the reference value (Yano: [0064] and Fig. 2B – “In second time period TP2, supply and demand planning server 17 determines adjustment power so that demand power exceeds the sum of the base supply power and the power generated by solar power generation to charge electricity to storage batteries 13, whereby the thermal power generators are activated, thus making it possible to maintain the balance between supply and demand…enhance the capability of adjusting the balance between supply and demand and improve stability of power system 10”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed inventions to combine Yano with Saito for the reasons identified above with respect to claim 1.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
NPL Reference U teaches a method of managing electricity. Supply may be cycled on and off. Variations in supply and demand may occur. Tradeoffs are made between price and supply maintained.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ANNA MAE MITROS whose telephone number is (571)272-3969. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday from 9:30-6.
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, Marissa Thein can be reached at 571-272-6764. 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.
/ANNA MAE MITROS/Examiner, Art Unit 3689
Prosecution Insights