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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The Information Disclosure Statements (IDS) submitted in this application on 26 August 2024 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the IDS is being considered by the examiner. The initialed copies of the1449 are enclosed herewith.
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 1-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter. In particular, claims are directed to a judicial exception (abstract idea) without significantly more.
The instant claims are rejected under 35 USC 101 in view of The Decision in Alice Corporation Ply. Ltd. v. CLS Bank International, et al. in a unanimous decision, the Supreme Court held that the patent claims in Alice Corporation Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank International, et al. ("Alice Corp. ") are not patent-eligible under 35 U.S.C. § 101.
Claim 1 (exemplary) recites a series of steps for security access to power Internet of Things.
The claim is directed to a process, which is a statutory category of invention.
The claim is then analyzed to determine whether it is directed to a judicial exception.
Independent method claim 1, recites the limitations of acquiring a first information gain value and a second information gain value by using a fuzzy set method, wherein the first information gain value is an information gain value, in a market trading, of the power Internet of Things affected by intermittency and variability of sunlight, and the second information gain value is an information gain value, in the market trading, of the power Internet of Things affected by intermittency and variability of wind energy; acquiring a first total information loss value, a second total information loss value and a third total information loss value, wherein the first total information loss value is a total information loss value in the market trading caused by collection errors of an electricity quantity trading response quantity and an electricity quantity trading quotation of photovoltaic units and wind turbine generator sets which participate in market competition and are formed in the power Internet of Things, the second total information loss value is a total information loss value of the market trading caused by a collection error of the electricity quantity trading response quantity of the photovoltaic units and the wind turbine generator sets which participate in the market competition, and the third total information loss value is a total information loss value of the market trading caused by a collection error of the electricity quantity trading quotation of the photovoltaic units and the wind turbine generator sets which participate in the market competition; and determining a trust degree according to the first information gain value, the second information gain value, the first total information loss value, the second total information loss value, and the third total information loss value, and executing one of the following according to a range where the trust degree is located: a first processing mode, a second processing mode and a third processing mode, wherein the first processing mode is to allow the photovoltaic units and the wind turbine generator sets to access the power Internet of Things, the second processing mode is to allow the photovoltaic units or the wind turbine generator sets to access the power Internet of Things, and the third processing mode is to prohibit the photovoltaic units and the wind turbine generator sets from accessing the power Internet of Things.
These limitations, as drafted, are processes that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers steps directed to mathematical concept and/or mental processes, but for the recitation of generic computer components. That is, other than reciting at least one processor and a memory (claim 14) nothing in the claim precludes the limitations from practically being performed manually. In fact, the method claim (1) is missing the recitation of a processor/server or any generic computer components. These limitations (fuzzy set calculations of information gain values and total information loss values …; determining a trust degree according to information gain values …) are directed to an abstract idea because they are activities that falls within the enumerated group of “mathematical concepts/ mathematical calculations”.
Claim 1, includes steps that reasonably can be performed by a human (pen and paper). For example, a human can perform the steps recited above in claim 1, by (evaluating data and deciding whether to allow access), (acquiring, evaluating and making decisions). “Mental processes—concepts performed in the human mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion)” also constitute an abstract idea. Accordingly, the above recitations, and the claim as a whole, recite an abstract idea involving mental processes. See MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2).
Accordingly, independent claim 1 recites an abstract idea.
Next, the claim is analyzed to determine if it is integrated into a practical application. The claim recites additional limitation of at least one processor and a memory to perform the steps. The processor in the steps is recited at a high level of generality, i.e., as a generic computer performing a generic computer function of processing data (see Applicant’s specification). This generic computer limitations are no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer component. Also, these limitations are an attempt to limit the abstract idea to a particular technological environment. Accordingly, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. See MPEP 2106.04(d). The claim is directed to the abstract idea.
Next, the claim is 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 above, the recitation of the claimed limitations amounts to mere instructions to implement the abstract idea on a processor (using the computer as a tool to implement the abstract idea). Taking the additional elements individually and in combination, the server at each step of the process performs purely generic computer functions. As such, there is no inventive concept sufficient to transform the claimed subject matter into a patent-eligible application. The same analysis applies here, i.e., mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot integrate a judicial exception into a practical application at or provide an inventive concept. See MPEP 2106.05(f).
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 claim does not amount to significantly more than the recited abstract idea. Therefore, the claim is not patent eligible.
The analysis above applies to the statutory category of invention of claims 1, 13 and 14. Furthermore, dependent claims 2-12 do not add limitations that meaningfully limit the abstract idea.
Dependent claims 2-12, recites the additional limitations of specific calculations of information gain values using the fuzzy set method. These limitations further define the abstract idea and are rejected under the same rational of claim 1.
The dependent claims do not impart patent eligibility to the abstract idea of the independent claims. Therefore, none of the dependent claims alone or as an ordered combination add limitations that qualify as integrating the abstract idea into a practical application.
Lastly, the dependent claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the additional elements are simply steps performed by a generic computer.
Accordingly, claims 1-14 are rejected as ineligible for patenting under 35 U.S.C. 101 based upon the same analysis.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Fortkort US 20250300904 A1 discloses facilitating “A system is provided for managing Internet of Things (IoT) networks. The system includes a learning module configured to employ machine learning models with hyperparameters optimized through a hyperparameter optimization process; wherein the process includes evaluating a set of hyperparameters against a performance metric to select optimal hyperparameters that enhance the adaptability and efficiency of dynamic membership functions within an adaptive fuzzy logic engine (AFLE)”.
Messous US 20240267737 A1 discloses an " A computer-implemented method of implementing a security policy for a device, comprising: receiving a value for each of a plurality of measurements, performing an inference process to determine the security policy for the device; and applying the determined security policy, wherein the inference process comprises: determining a plurality of output variable-value pairs corresponding respectively to a plurality of variable-value pair combinations, aggregating the plurality of output variable-value pairs to determine a numerical value representing the risk of attack on the device; and determining the security policy to apply according to the determined numerical value representing the risk of attack on the device".
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Hani Kazimi whose telephone number is (571) 272-6745. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday from 8:30 AM to 5:00 PM.
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, Abhishek Vyas can be reached on (571) 270-1836. 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.
Respectfully Submitted
/HANI M KAZIMI/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3691
Prosecution Insights