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
This action is in reply to the Applicant Response filed on 10/15/2025.
Claims 1, 11, and 20 have been amended and are hereby entered.
Claims 2 and 12 have been canceled.
Claims 1, 3-11, and 13-20 are currently pending and have been examined.
This action is made FINAL.
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, 3-11, and 13-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (abstract idea) without significantly more.
Under the broadest reasonable interpretation, the following claim terms are presumed to have their plain meaning consistent with the specification as it would be interpreted by one of ordinary skill in the art. MPEP § 2111.
Step 1: Does the Claim Fall within a Statutory Category? (see MPEP 2106.03)
Claim 1 recites a process, which is a statutory category of invention (Step 1: YES). Claim 11 recites a system, which is a statutory category of invention (Step 1: YES). Claim 20 recites a product (apparatus), which is a statutory category of invention (Step 1: YES).
Step 2A, Prong One: Is a Judicial Exception Recited? (see MPEP 2106.04(a)). Yes.
The claims are analyzed to determine whether it is directed to a judicial exception. The following claims identify the limitations that recite additional elements in bold and the abstract idea without bold. Underlined claim limitations denote newly added claim limitations:
Claim 1, 11 and 20 recite a processor-implemented method of generating an optimal portfolio for seller bidding strategy, the comprising: providing by a seller to multi-energy markets via one or more hardware processor prior to bidding day at least one energy type available with the seller, a bidding price of corresponding energy type, and at least one energy type required by a market participant, wherein the bidding day includes a plurality of timeslots at regular intervals for bidding in at least one energy type among the multi-energy markets; forecasting using a neural hierarchical interpolation for time series forecasting (NHITS) via the one or more hardware processors an energy market price uncertainties of at least one energy type at the plurality of timeslots on the bidding day in the multi-energy markets based on historical market prices, wherein the historical market prices are obtained prior to the bidding day as input, and the NHITS predicts consecutive day market clearing price (MCP) for each energy type market at every timeslot among the plurality of timeslots; providing by the seller to the multi-energy markets via the one or more hardware processors a volume of at least one energy type generated based on a plurality of parameters, wherein the seller being an energy participant provides at least one energy type using a multi-carrier energy (MES) system at locations of a power supplier to the multi- energy markets; determining by the seller for each energy type in the multi-energy markets via the one or more hardware processors a risk factor based on a market price risk and a forecasting risk based on inputting the historical market price and an actual energy market price of corresponding energy type and computing a total risk for the energy types generated by the seller; and generating via the one or more hardware processors an optimal portfolio for each energy type for the seller to bid in at least one energy market among the multi-energy markets based on the energy market price forecasted for each energy type, the volume of energy type generated by the seller, the plurality of total risks, a conversion cost, a conversion efficiency of energy converter and computing a cumulative return for the multi- energy markets, wherein the conversion efficiency of the energy converter is used to convert one unit of a particular energy type (i) to an another energy type j where I (does not equal) j, wherein the optimal portfolio splits the generated volume of each energy type to bid at every timeslot of the multi-energy markets, wherein optimal split of generated energy among different energy types is determined using the optimal portfolio which considers the seller such as revenue or returns, risk taking ability, and asset constraints to maximize revenue risk and tradeoff for a combined cycle gas turbine (CCGT), wherein every risk associated with portfolio options is quantified by a covariance function between the MCP from muti-energy markets and further a risk aversion coefficient k = 0 indicating that the seller has no intend of the risk aversion, with increase in the risk aversion coefficient value k, the risk taken by the seller decreases; simulating, via the one or more hardware processors, the returns with the risk aversion coefficient using data with samples of risk aversion coefficient values to handle volatility with slight or no reduction to the returns until a predefined risk coefficient value, wherein in the MES setup consisting of different energy type sellers, an asset adheres to operational threshold limits to ensure asset safety and operational performance by modelling the asset constraints that ensure asset level ramp and capacity limits, wherein seller capacity adheres to the asset level ramp and capacity conditions for each day ahead market bidding timeslot, wherein the asset includes at least one of a heat pump, the CCGT, and a combined heat and power generator (CHP),wherein each energy generator is provided with access to different energy type markets, wherein transmission line capacity is infinite with no loss in transmission, no cost associated with transmission of energy and linear conversion costs and conversion efficiencies. These limitations, as drafted, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance via certain methods of organizing human activity, but for the recitation of generic computer components. Under human activity, the limitations are commercial interactions, such as sales activities and business relations. Also, under methods of organizing human activity, the claims are managing interactions between people, such as following rules. Lastly, the currently recited claim limitations are mathematical concepts. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea. The mere recitation of generic computer components in the claims do not necessarily preclude that claim from reciting an abstract idea. (Step 2A-Prong 1: Yes. The claims recite an abstract idea).
Step 2A, Prong Two: Is the Abstract Idea Integrated into a Practical Application? (see MPEP 2106.04(d)). No.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim recites the additional elements of a hardware processor, multi-carrier energy system (MES), system, memory, communication interfaces, and non-transitory machine-readable information storage mediums. The additional elements of a hardware processor, multi-carrier energy system (MES), system, memory, communication interfaces, and non-transitory machine-readable information storage mediums, are just applying generic computer components to the recited abstract limitations (MPEP 2106.05(f)). The computer components are recited at such a high-level of generality (i.e. as a generic computer components) such that it amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components. Accordingly, these additional elements, when considered separately and as an 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 and are at a high level of generality. (Step 2A-Prong 2: NO. The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application).
Step 2B: Does the Claim Provide an Inventive Concept? (see MPEP 2106.05). No.
The claims are next 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 ideas (whether claim provides inventive concept). As discussed with respect to Step 2A2 above, the additional elements of (a hardware processor, multi-carrier energy system (MES), system, memory, communication interfaces, and non-transitory machine-readable information storage mediums) in the claims amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. The same analysis applies here in Step 2B, i.e., mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot integrate a judicial exception into a practical application at Step 2A or provide an inventive concept in Step 2B. Viewing the limitations as an ordered combination does not add anything further than looking at the limitations individually. When viewed either individually, or as an ordered combination, the additional limitations do not amount to a claim as a whole that is significantly more than the abstract idea itself. Therefore, the claims do not amount to significantly more than the recited abstract idea (Step 2B: NO; The claims do not provide significantly more, and are not patent eligible).
Claim 3 recites wherein the seller generates at least one energy type using energy producing resources comprising renewable energy, electricity, heat, natural gas, and hydrogen. These limitations are also part of the abstract idea identified in claim 1, and are similarly rejected under the same rationale as claim 1, supra.
Claim 4 recites wherein the plurality of parameters includes a previous timeslot, a maximum energy limit, a minimum energy limit, a ramp up limit, a ramp down limit and a natural gas input limit. These limitations are also part of the abstract idea identified in claim 1, and are similarly rejected under the same rationale as claim 1, supra.
Claim 5 recites wherein the cumulative return is a product of an expected return of each energy type in corresponding energy market and an amount of energy type trade in corresponding energy market and the conversion efficiency. These limitations are also part of the abstract idea identified in claim 1, and are similarly rejected under the same rationale as claim 1, supra.
Claim 6 recites wherein the market price risk determines the risk due to energy type market price uncertainties. These limitations are also part of the abstract idea identified in claim 1, and are similarly rejected under the same rationale as claim 1, supra.
Claim 7 recites wherein the forecasting risk determines the risk due to a forecasting error of the market price. These limitations are also part of the abstract idea identified in claim 1, and are similarly rejected under the same rationale as claim 1, supra.
Claim 8 recites wherein the forecasting error is determined using the historical market prices and the actual market prices. These limitations are also part of the abstract idea identified in claim 1, and are similarly rejected under the same rationale as claim 1, supra.
Claim 9 recites wherein the total risk is computed based on summing the forecasting risk and the market price risk. These limitations are also part of the abstract idea identified in claim 1, and are similarly rejected under the same rationale as claim 1, supra.
Claim 10 recites wherein the risk factor determines each energy type market price based on variability of the energy type market price and the market price forecasting error. These limitations are also part of the abstract idea identified in claim 1, and are similarly rejected under the same rationale as claim 1, supra.
Claim 13 recites wherein the seller generates at least one energy type using energy producing resources comprising renewable energy, electricity, heat, natural gas, and hydrogen. These limitations are also part of the abstract idea identified in claim 11, and are similarly rejected under the same rationale as claim 11, supra.
Claim 14 recites wherein the plurality of parameters includes a previous timeslot, a maximum energy limit, a minimum energy limit, a ramp up limit, a ramp down limit and a natural gas input limit. These limitations are also part of the abstract idea identified in claim 11, and are similarly rejected under the same rationale as claim 11, supra.
Claim 15 recites wherein the cumulative return is a product of an expected return of each energy type in corresponding energy market and an amount of energy type trade in corresponding energy market and the conversion efficiency. These limitations are also part of the abstract idea identified in claim 11, and are similarly rejected under the same rationale as claim 11, supra.
Claim 16 recites wherein the market price risk determines the risk due to energy type market price uncertainties, wherein the forecasting risk determines the risk due to a forecasting error of the market price. These limitations are also part of the abstract idea identified in claim 11, and are similarly rejected under the same rationale as claim 11, supra.
Claim 17 recites wherein the forecasting error is determined using the historical market prices and the actual market prices. These limitations are also part of the abstract idea identified in claim 11, and are similarly rejected under the same rationale as claim 11, supra.
Claim 18 recites wherein the total risk is computed based on summing the forecasting risk and the market price risk. These limitations are also part of the abstract idea identified in claim 11, and are similarly rejected under the same rationale as claim 11, supra.
Claim 19 recites wherein the risk factor determines each energy type market price based on variability of the energy type market price and the market price forecasting error. These limitations are also part of the abstract idea identified in claim 11, and are similarly rejected under the same rationale as claim 11, supra.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 10/15/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that the currently recited claim limitations are integrated into a practical application (Applicant arguments, pg. 11). Examiner disagrees. Ex Parte Smith was eligible because they added a timer to transactions in order to handicap electronic transactions and be fair with physical transactions. Simply changing trading decisions is not an improvement to computer functionality, such as specific UI improvements and improved data management, or a solution to a technical problem. Technical details must be in the claim and the specification. For a trading method to be patent-eligible under USPTO Section 101, merely "improving computational resources" is not enough to overcome the abstract idea exception established in Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank International. The claim must specify a concrete, technological improvement to the computer's functionality, rather than simply implementing a conventional trading practice on a generic computer.
In Enfish, the court evaluated the patent eligibility of claims related to a self-referential database. Id. The court concluded the claims were not directed to an abstract idea, but rather an improvement to computer functionality. In contrast, the current claims are not directed to an improvement to computer functionality and instead merely recite the computer elements at a high level of generality such that it amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component.
In DDR Holdings LLC v. Hotels.com, LP, the claims were found eligible as they reflected improvements to the functioning of a computer, i.e. a modification of conventional Internet hyperlink protocol to dynamically produce a dual-source hybrid webpage. In contrast, the current claims do not contain limitations reflective of an improvement to computer functionality and instead merely recite the computer elements at a high level of generality such that it amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component.
In Finjan, the claims to a “behavior-based virus scan” were found to provide greater computer security and were thus directed to a patent-eligible improvement in computer functionality. In contrast, the current claims do not contain limitations reflective of an improvement to computer functionality and instead merely recite the computer elements at a high level of generality such that it amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component.
Applicant argues that the integration of the judicial exception is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception (Applicant arguments, pg. 13 & 16-18). Examiner disagrees. With respect to the pre-emption concern, “[w]hat matters is whether a claim threatens to subsume the full scope of a fundamental concept, and when those concerns arise, we must look for meaningful limitations that prevent the claim as a whole from covering the concept’s every practical application.” CLSBanklnt’l. v. Alice Corp. Pty. Ltd., 717 F.3d 1269, 1281 (Fed. Cir. 2013) (Lourie, J., concurring). Here, the more limited way of implementing the abstract idea narrows the abstract idea so that it is described at a lower level of abstraction. It does not render the abstract idea to which the claim is directed any less an abstract idea. Preemption is not a separate test. To be clear, the proper focus is not preemption per se, for some measure of preemption is intrinsic in the statutory right granted with every patent to exclude competitors, for a limited time, from practicing the claimed invention. See 35 U.S.C. § 154. Rather, the animating concern is that claims should not be coextensive with a natural law, natural phenomenon, or abstract idea; a patent-eligible claim must include one or more substantive limitations that, in the words of the Supreme Court, add “significantly more” to the basic principle, with the result that the claim covers significantly less. See Mayo 132 S. Ct. at 1294. Thus, broad claims do not necessarily raise § 101 preemption concerns, and seemingly narrower claims are not necessarily exempt. Id. See also Ariosa Diagnostics, Inc. v. Sequenom, Inc., 788 F.3d 1371, 1379 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (“[w]hile preemption may signal patent ineligible subject matter, the absence of complete preemption does not demonstrate patent eligibility.”).
Applicant also argues that the currently recited claims amount to significantly more than the judicial exception (Pg. 19). Examiner disagrees. The claims do not provide an inventive concept. As discussed above, the additional elements in the claim amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer. Even when viewed as whole, nothing in the claim adds significantly more (i.e. inventive concept) to the abstract idea. The currently recited claims solve conversion for energy types in energy markets, which is not a significant improvement to the functioning of a computer or to any other technology or technical field (MPEP 2106.05(a)).
Conclusion
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 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 BRANDON M DUCK whose telephone number is (469)295-9049. The examiner can normally be reached 8am - 5pm.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Michael Anderson can be reached at 571-270-0508. 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.
/BRANDON M DUCK/Examiner, Art Unit 3693 /Mike Anderson/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3693