DETAILED ACTION
Claims 1-20 are pending in the present application.
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 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (abstract idea) without significantly more.
Claims 1 and 11:
Claim 11 – the representative claim recites a method, which is a statutory category of invention (Step 1: YES).
The abstract idea is trading energy production.
The limitation that make up the abstract idea are the following:
utilizing a virtual power plant (VPP) platform operatively coupled to the local energy field through a local trading interface and operatively coupled to the energy market through a market trading interface;
utilizing the VPP platform to estimate a set of local trading volumes and a set of local trading prices associated with the local energy field; and
utilizing the VPP platform to provide a set of bids and a set of offerings into the energy market.
These limitations, as drafted, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, cover the performance of certain methods of organizing human activity and/or mental processes, which can be performed in the human mind, or by a human using pen and paper - setting aside the recitation of the generic bolded computer components above. Under human activity, the limitations are commercial or legal interaction and managing personal behavior or interactions between people. More specifically, under commercial or legal interactions, the claims involve business relations, and under managing personal behavior, the claims involve following rules or instructions. 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).
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claims recite the additional elements of individual subsets of the VPP platform and the Energy Market. In combination with the abstract idea, it amounts to 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, and the claims fail to recite technological detail as to how the step of the judicial exception is accomplished. 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. Considered individually or combined, the additional elements do not improve the functioning of a computer, another technology, or a technical field.
(Step 2A-Prong 2: NO. The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application).
Next, 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 ideas (whether claim provides inventive concept). As discussed with respect to Step 2A2 above, the additional elements of in claim 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 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. The claims do not specify a technological advance or details of how
the machine learned module identifies an item listing image with the highest item feature prominence score.
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).
Claims 12-20 add additional steps to the abstract idea without adding additional components are individually or in combination, applying a generic computer to an abstract idea and are rejected for the same reasons as set forth above. The learned models are generic learning algorithms or networks, deep learning neural networks, convolutional neural networks, or a random forest model that are trained using training data sets. Using generic machine learning in a new environment is not enough. Recentive, 134 F.4th at 1213, 1216 (applying generic machine learning to new data environments, without improving the machine learning model, is ineligible); Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute v. Amazom.com, Inc., No. 2024 1725, 2026 WL 506661, at *3 (Fed. Cir. Feb. 24, 2026) Notably, claim 11 does not recite a trained machine learned model or steps of training the model.
In the alterative, the computational models: a local energy trading model (LETM), an energy market trading model (EMTM), and an energy market dispatch model (EMDM) are mathematical operations and are rejected under 2A2 and 2B for the reasons above.
Claims 1-10 are the product equivalents of the method 11-20 and are rejected using the same arguments.
Claims 1-10 are the commensurate product of claims 11-20 and are rejected for the same reasons as set forth above.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 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.
Claim(s) 1 and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Forbes US 20170358041 A1 in view of Thomas – Energy Markets Take Off
As to claims 1 and 11
utilizing a virtual power plant (VPP) p 0162 platform operatively coupled to the local energy field (microgrid) through a local trading interface and
through a market trading interface; p 0162
utilizing the VPP platform to estimate a set of local trading volumes and a set of local trading prices associated with the local energy field; p 0143and
utilizing the VPP platform to provide a set of bids and a set of offerings into the energy market. P 0173
The reference fails to teach the VPP operatively coupled to the (an) energy market. Thomas teaches of the competitive market one or more Central Electrical Energy Market Places and that Energy exchanges operate open, transparent order books where participants submit bids and offers for electricity in specific market areas. Prices are calculated from the best available bids/asks, ensuring reliable short-term pricing. It would have been obvious for one skilled the art to have operatively coupled the VPP of Forbes with one or more Markets of Thomas as doing so would increase the network effects / demand and arbitrage opportunities – all industry accepted functions of a trading platform.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to RICHARD C WEISBERGER whose telephone number is (571)272-6753. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Thursday 10AM-8PM PCT.
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 571-272-0580. 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.
/RICHARD C WEISBERGER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3693
Prosecution Insights