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 .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(b)
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
Claims 13-25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor, or for pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
Claim 13 recites a limitation “the plausibility” which lacks sufficient antecedent basis. For continuing examination purpose, the limitation has been construed as “[[the]] a plausibility”.
Claim 13 comprises number 40 for processor recited, which render the claims indefinite. It is unclear if these recited numbers refer to those shown in different drawings. It is unclear if part of or all limitations shown in the drawings should be brought into the claims. For continuing examination purpose, the phrase “a processor (40)” has been construed as “a processor [[(40)]]”.
Claims 14-25 are also rejected for the same reasons since they depend on claim 13 and have inherited the same deficiencies.
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.
Claim 13-22 and 24-25 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to abstract idea without significantly more.
Regarding claim 13,
Step 1: the claim recites a method, which belongs to statutory categories of invention.
Step 2A Prong One: the claim recites limitations “using the processor to calculate a probability of the prediction being able to be met based on the information provided with respect to the influencing variables; using the processor to compare the calculated probability with a predetermined limit value”. As evident from the background, these limitations fall into the “mental process” group of abstract ideas. According to Applicant’s disclosure, the probability calculation can be as simple as calculating a probability using a linear polynomial comprising a constant, an outside temperature with its weight factor, and an angle of installation of solar panel arrays with its weight factor. After the probability is calculated by a person, the person can then compare it with a predetermined value to decide if a notification should be sent. These calculation and comparing are simple enough that they can be practically performed in the human mind though observation, evaluation and/or judgement. Note that even if the human uses physical aids such as pen, paper and a calculator to help complete the evaluation and/or calculation, the use of such physical aids does not negate the mental nature of the limitations. See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)III for more details.
Step 2A Prong Two: besides the recited abstract ideas, the claim also recites additional element “transmitting, to the processor, a first dataset containing information regarding a prediction made by a first energy producer as to what amount of energy a first energy generation installation of the first energy producer will provide in a defined time period; transmitting, to the processor, one or more further datasets containing information relating to influencing variables that could influence the amount of energy able to be provided”. These elements direct to mere data gathering that is necessary for performing the abstract idea. Mere data gathering is an insignificant extra-solution activity, which does not integrate the abstract ideas into a practical application. See MPEP 2106.05(g)(3).
The claim also recites additional element “upon falling below the limit value, using the processor to cause a corresponding notification to be transmitted to the first energy producer”. The element represents a mere data output of a result of performing the abstract idea. Mere data output is an insignificant extra-solution activity and does not integrate the abstract ideas into a practical application. See MPEP 2106.05(g)(3) for more details.
The claim also recites additional element “processor”. The element amounts to mere instruction to apply the abstract ideas using a generic computer. Mere instruction to apply the abstract ideas does not integrate the abstract ideas into a practical application. See MPEP 2106.05(f) for more details.
The claim also recites additional elements “local energy market” and “first energy producer”, which amount to merely link the abstract ideas to a particular field of use. Mere linking the abstract ideas to a particular field of use does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. See MPEP 2106.05(h) for more details.
Step 2B: as recited above, the additional elements “transmitting, to the processor, a first dataset containing information regarding a prediction made by a first energy producer as to what amount of energy a first energy generation installation of the first energy producer will provide in a defined time period; transmitting, to the processor, one or more further datasets containing information relating to influencing variables that could influence the amount of energy able to be provided” and “upon falling below the limit value, using the processor to cause a corresponding notification to be transmitted to the first energy producer” direct to mere data gathering and data output which are insignificant extra-solution activities. When considered separately or in combination, these elements are well-understood, routine and conventional activities in the field, and do not provide inventive concept to the claim.
Courts cases have shown that:
performing clinical tests on individuals to obtain input data for an equation amounts to mere data gathering (In re Grams, 888 F.2d 835, 839-40; 12 USPQ2d 1824, 1827-28 (Fed. Cir. 1989));
measuring data derived from an ultrasound scan to be used in a diagnosis, amounts to mere data gathering (PerkinElmer, Inc. v. Intema Ltd., 496 Fed. App'x 65, 73, 105 USPQ2d 1960, 1966 (Fed. Cir. 2012));
generic presentation of collected and analyzed data, amounts to mere data output (Electric Power Group, LLC v. Alstom S.A., 830 F.3d 1350, 1354 (Fed. Cir. 2016));
As recited above, the additional element “processor” amount to mere instruction to apply the abstract ideas using generic computer, and do not provide inventive concept.
As recited above, the additional elements “local energy market” and “first energy producer” amount to no more than generally linking the abstract ideas to a particular field of use, and do not provide inventive concept.
Therefore, claim 13 is not patent legible.
Regarding claim 14, claim 14 depends on claim 13 and recites additional limitation “calculating the probability by using a linear polynomial ….”. This additional limitation further limits the judicial exception of “calculate a probability of the prediction being able to be met” recited before, and can be viewed as a part of the recited mental process. Therefore, this additional limitation also falls into the “mental process” group of abstract ideas.
Regarding claim 15, claim 15 depends on claim 14 and recites additional limitation “obtaining the weighting factors βn from historical data by using a logistic regression”. This additional limitation further limits the judicial exception of “calculate a probability of the prediction being able to be met” recited before, and can be viewed as a part of the recited mental process. Therefore, this additional limitation also falls into the “mental process” group of abstract ideas.
Regarding claim 16, claim 16 depends on claim 13 and recites additional limitation “comparing the prediction with one or more other predictions relating to other energy generation installations being comparable with the first energy generation installation”. This additional limitation also falls into the “mental process” group of abstract ideas since it can be done by a human being using mental process.
Regarding claim 17, claim 17 depends on claim 13 and recites additional limitation “taking a spatial distribution of the first and the other energy generation installations into consideration to detect weather influences”. This additional limitation also falls into the “mental process” group of abstract ideas since it can be done by a human being using mental process.
Regarding claim 18, claim 18 depends on claim 13 and recites additional limitation “including installation information in the influencing variables”. This additional limitation further limits the judicial exception of “calculate a probability of the prediction being able to be met” recited before, and can be viewed as a part of the recited mental process. Therefore, this additional limitation also falls into the “mental process” group of abstract ideas.
Regarding claim 19, claim 19 depends on claim 13 and recites additional limitation “selecting the installation information as geographical coordinates, orientation, location of installation and inclination angle of the first energy generation installation”. This additional limitation further limits the judicial exception of “calculate a probability of the prediction being able to be met” recited before, and can be viewed as a part of the recited mental process. Therefore, this additional limitation also falls into the “mental process” group of abstract ideas.
Regarding claim 20, claim 20 depends on claim 13 and recites additional limitation “including at least one of weather data or weather forecasts in the influencing variables”. This additional limitation further limits the judicial exception of “calculate a probability of the prediction being able to be met” recited before, and can be viewed as a part of the recited mental process. Therefore, this additional limitation also falls into the “mental process” group of abstract ideas.
Regarding claim 21, claim 21 depends on claim 13 and recites additional limitation “including information in the influencing variables relating to an amount of energy provided in the past by at least one of the first energy generation installation or the other energy generation installations”. This additional limitation further limits the judicial exception of “calculate a probability of the prediction being able to be met” recited before, and can be viewed as a part of the recited mental process. Therefore, this additional limitation also falls into the “mental process” group of abstract ideas.
Regarding claim 22, claim 22 depends on claim 13 and recites additional limitation “including predictions in the influencing variables with respect to other energy generation installations of at least one of the first energy producer or other energy producers”. This additional limitation further limits the judicial exception of “calculate a probability of the prediction being able to be met” recited before, and can be viewed as a part of the recited mental process. Therefore, this additional limitation also falls into the “mental process” group of abstract ideas.
Regarding claim 24, claim 24 depends on claim 13 and recites additional limitation “automatically checking incoming predictions”. This additional limitation directs to more details about the data gathering which is necessary to perform the abstract ideas recited in claim 13. Mere data gathering does not integrated abstract ideas into practical application and does not provide inventive concept.
Regarding claim 25, claim 25 depends on claim 13 and recites “A plausibility checking device, configured to carry out the method according to claim 13”. Claim 25 is not patentable since it directs to mental process without significantly more, for the reasons recited in the rejection of claim 13.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 23 is objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims, and if the 112(b) rejections have been overcome after amendment.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHARLES CAI whose telephone number is (571)272-7192. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F 8-5 EST.
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, Kamini Shah can be reached on 571-272-2279. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/CHARLES CAI/Primary Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2115
Prosecution Insights