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 response to remarks received 12/08/2025.
This application claims earliest priority from foreign application JP 2023-030393, filed 02/28/2023.
Claim 4 has been cancelled.
Claims 1, 7 & 8 being independent and claims 2-3 & 5-6 being dependent.
Applicant’s arguments, see pages 14-17, filed 12/08/2025, with respect to claim rejections under 35 USC 102 have been fully considered and are persuasive. The 35 USC 102 rejection of the claims has been withdrawn.
Claims 1-3 & 5-8 are currently pending and have been examined.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 12/08/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
With respect to arguments under 35 USC 101 of claims 1-3 and 5-8, the arguments have been fully considered, however, the examiner respectfully disagrees.
Step 2A, Prong One – Abstract idea.
On Page 10, applicant argues that representative claim 1 is not directed to an abstract idea because it allegedly recites automated technical control of geographically distributed electricity storage apparatuses using real-time battery capacity data, and that such operations cannot be practically performed by humans, however, the examiner respectfully disagrees.
Claim 1, as a whole, recites a series of steps for managing an asset value associated with buying, selling, storing, and providing electricity, including:
acquiring battery capacity information,
determining whether capacity thresholds are exceeded,
adding to or subtracting from a cumulative asset value, and
instructing storage apparatuses to buy or sell electricity accordingly.
These steps constitute economic and commercial activity, specifically managing transactions and asset values associated with electricity, which falls squarely within the judicial exception of “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity”, including fundamental economic practices and commercial interactions (MPEP § 2106.04 (a)(2)(II)).
While applicant emphasizes that the claim involves electricity storage apparatuses and real-time data, the focus of the claim is not on an improvement to the functioning of a computer or storage apparatus itself, but rather on deciding when to buy, sell, store, or provide electricity based on capacity conditions. Such decision-making logic is a form of resource allocation and transaction management, which courts have consistently held to be abstract. See Electric Power Group v. Alstom, 830 F.3d 1350 (Fed. Cir. 2016).
Accordingly, the examiner maintains that claim 1 recites an abstract idea under Step 2A, Prong one.
Step 2A, Prong two – Integration into a practical application.
On page 12, applicant argues that, even if claim 1 recites an abstract idea, it integrates the abstract idea into a practical application by automatically controlling geographically distributed electricity storage apparatuses and causing physical electricity flow, however, the examiner respectfully disagrees.
Although claim 1 includes recitations of storing, providing, buying, and selling electricity, these actions are performed as a direct consequence of the abstract decision-making process (i.e., determining whether capacity exceeds a threshold and updating an asset value). The claim does not recite how the electricity storage apparatuses are technically improved, nor does it recite any specific control mechanism, hardware modifications, or technological improvement to the electricity network or storage devices themselves.
Rather, the electricity storage apparatuses are merely recipients of instructions generated by the abstract logic. Using a generic communication interface to transmit instructions to external devices does not constitute integration into a practical application. See Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank, 573 U.S. 208 (2014); MPEP § 2106.05(f).
Further, applicant’s reliance on USPTO Subject matter Eligibility Example 21 is unpersuasive. In Example 21, the claims were found eligible because they solved a specific internet-centric technical problem using unconventional steps that improved computer functionality. In contrast, claim 1 here does not improve the operation of the electricity storage apparatuses or the communication network, but instead uses them in their ordinary capacity to carry out an abstract asset-management scheme.
Therefore, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application, and claim 1 fails Step 2A, Prong Two.
While the applicant does not separately present arguments under Step 2B, the examiner addresses whether the claim elements, individually or in combination, amount to significantly more than the abstract idea.
Claim 1 recites generic computer components performing their conventional functions. The recited actions of acquiring data, comparing values, updating a cumulative value, and issuing instructions to buy, sell, store, or provide electricity represent well-understood routine, and conventional activities implemented using generic computing technology.
The claim does not recite any unconventional hardware, technical improvement to the functioning of the computer, or improvement to the electricity storage apparatuses or communication network themselves.
Accordingly, the additional elements do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea, and claim 1 fails Step 2B.
Claims 7 & 8 are similarly recited and interpreted under the same premise.
With respect to arguments under 35 USC 103 of claims 1-3 and 5-8, the arguments have been fully considered, however, the examiner respectfully disagrees.
Applicant argues that Obata does not disclose selling electricity as a result of the supplied amount exceeding a chargeable capacity, and that Fukui fails to cure this alleged deficiency. The argument is not persuasive. Obata discloses determining an upper bound on electricity that may be handled (e.g., maximum planned amount or providable amount), and executing electricity sales via a network. Fukui discloses detecting when an electricity amount exceeds a predefined threshold and automatically executing control actions in response to the exceedance.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to incorporate Fukui’s threshold-based exceedance detection and automatic control mechanism into Obata’s system, such that Obata’s electricity selling operation is automatically executed when an amount of electricity exceeds a capacity limit of the storage apparatus, in order to manage capacity constraints in a distributed energy system.
Therefore, the combination of Obata and Fukui teach or at least render obvious the claimed limitation.
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 & 5-8 are rejected under 35 USC 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claims do fall within at least one of the four categories of patent eligible subject matter because claims 1 & 7 are directed to a system and claim 8 is directed to a process; Step 1-yes.
Under Step 2A, prong 1, representative claim 1 recites a series of steps for buying and selling electricity, i.e. sales activities or behaviors, and thus grouped as “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity” The claim as a whole and the limitations in combination recite this abstract idea. Specifically, the limitations of representative claim 1, stripped of all additional elements, recite the abstract idea as follows:
storing a cumulative value of an asset that is owned by a user and is in a predetermined form associated with electricity;
communicate to be capable of buying and selling electricity, store electricity supplied and provide electricity; and
continuously acquire remaining battery capacity and determine a chargeable capacity;
execute processing to store first electricity supplied and add, to the cumulative value, the asset corresponding to an amount of the first electricity when acquiring the amount of the first electricity when acquiring the amount of the first electricity,
in a case in which the amount of the first electricity exceeds the chargeable capacity, execute processing to sell electricity exceeding the chargeable capacity and add, to the cumulative value of the asset owned by the user, the virtual valuable corresponding to the compensation obtained by selling the electricity, wherein
execute processing to provide second electricity and subtract, from the cumulative value, the asset corresponding to an amount of the second electricity when acquiring the amount of the second electricity, and
in a case in which the amount of the second electricity exceeds the remaining battery capacity , execute processing to instruct to buy electricity exceeding the remaining battery capacity to provide the second electricity to the second user facility, wherein
the cumulative value is a cumulative value of an amount of stored electricity that the user stores in the plurality of electricity storage apparatuses and a virtual valuable corresponding to compensation for electricity sold by the user.
The claimed limitations, identified above, recite a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of a commercial or legal interaction and mental processes, but for the recitation of generic computer components. There is nothing in the claim element which takes the steps out of the methods of organizing human activity abstract idea grouping. Claims 7 & 8 recite analogous limitations interpreted under the same premise. Since the independent claims recite certain methods of organizing human activity, thus, claims 1, 7 and 8 recite an abstract idea.
Under step 2A, Prong 2, this judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim only recites using generic, commercially available, off-the-shelf computing devices, i.e. processors suitably programmed communicating over a generic network, to perform the steps of buying, selling, storing, subtracting and adding data. The additional elements (i.e. a memory, a communication interface, a controller, electricity network, first electricity storage apparatus and second electricity storage apparatus) are recited at a high-level of generality (i.e.as generic processors with memory suitably programmed communication information over a generic network, see at least Fig. 2 and paragraphs [0031]-[0036] & [0046], of the specifications) such that it amounts no more than adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses computer as a tool to perform the abstract idea, see MPEP 2106.05(f) and generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use, see PEPE 2106.05(h). Accordingly, the additional elements claimed do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. Claims 1, 7 and 8 are directed to an abstract idea.
Under step 2B, the claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements of using generic computer processors with memory suitably programmed communicating over a generic network to perform the limitation steps amounts no more than adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform the abstract idea, see MPEP 2106.05(f) and generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use, see MPEP 2106.05 (h). Mere instructions to apply an exception using generic computer components interacting in a conventional manner cannot provide an inventive concept. Claims 1, 7 and 8 are not patent eligible.
Applicant has leveraged generic computing elements to perform the abstract idea of without significantly more. The dependent claims when analyzed as a whole an in an ordered combination are held to be patent ineligible under 35 USC 101 because the additional recited limitations fail to establish that the claims are not directed to an abstract idea. The additional recited limitations in the dependent claims only refine the abstract idea. Further refinement of an abstract idea does not convert an abstract idea into something concrete.
The claims merely amount to the application or instructions to apply the abstract idea (i.e. a series of steps for buying and selling electricity) on one or more computers, and are considered to amount to nothing more than requiring a generic computer system (e.g. processors suitably programmed and communicating over a network) to merely carry out the abstract idea itself. As such, the claims, when considered as a whole, are nothing more than the instruction to implement the abstract idea (i.e. a series of steps for buying and selling electricity) in a particular, albeit well-understood, routine and conventional technological environment.
Accordingly, the Examiner concludes that there are no meaningful limitations in the claims that transform the judicial exception into a patent eligible application such that the claims amount to significantly more than the judicial exception itself or integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) 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.
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.
Claims 1-3 & 5-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kazuki Obata et al. (US 2022/0122163 A1, herein Obata) in view of Akito Fukui et al. (US 2015/0039495 A1, herein Fukui).
As per Claim 1, Obata teaches an information processing apparatus comprising:
a memory storing a cumulative value of an asset that is owned by a user and is in a predetermined form associated with electricity (see Obata ¶¶ [58, 61 & 78]);
a communication interface configured to communicate with a plurality of electricity storage apparatuses that are geographically distributed and are configured to be capable of buying and selling electricity via an electricity network, wherein the plurality of electricity storage apparatuses includes a fist electricity storage apparatus configured to store electricity supplied from a first user facility and a second electricity storage apparatus configured to provide electricity to a second user facility (Obata ¶ [49]); and
a controller configured to
continuously acquire, via the communication interface, remaining battery capacity from each of the plurality of electricity storage apparatuses and determine a chargeable capacity of each of the plurality of electricity storage apparatuses (Obata ¶¶ [55-56 & 62-63]);
execute processing to instruct the first electricity storage apparatus to store first electricity supplied from the first user facility and add, to the cumulative value stored in the memory, the asset corresponding to an amount of the first electricity when acquiring the amount of the first electricity via the communication interface from the first electricity storage apparatus (Obata ¶¶ [48-49, 58 & 61]);
in a case in which the amount of the first electricity exceeds [providable amount], execute processing to instruct the first electricity storage apparatus to sell electricity exceeding the [providable amount] via an electricity network and add, to the cumulative value of the asset owned by the user, the virtual valuable corresponding to the compensation obtained by selling the electricity] (Obata ¶¶ [62-64, 76 & 78]), wherein
execute processing to instruct the second electricity storage apparatus to provide second electricity to the second user facility and subtract, from the cumulative value, the asset corresponding to an amount of the second electricity when acquiring the amount of the second electricity via the communication interface from the second electricity storage apparatus (Obata ¶¶ [48-49, 58 & 61]), and
in a case in which the amount of the second electricity exceeds the remaining battery capacity of the second electricity storage apparatus, execute processing to instruct the second electricity storage apparatus to buy electricity exceeding the remaining battery capacity via the electricity network to provide the second electricity to the second user facility (Obata ¶¶ [55, 62-63 & 76]), wherein
the cumulative value is a cumulative value of an amount of stored electricity that the user stores in the plurality of electricity storage apparatuses and a virtual valuable corresponding to compensation for electricity sold by the user via the plurality of electricity storage apparatuses (Obata ¶¶ [58, 61 & 78]).
It can be argued Obata does not explicitly teach:
in a case in which the amount of the first electricity exceeds [the chargeable capacity of the first electricity storage apparatus], execute processing to instruct the first electricity storage apparatus to sell electricity exceeding [the chargeable capacity via an electricity network and add, to the cumulative value of the asset owned by the user, the virtual valuable corresponding to the compensation obtained by selling the electricity],
The claimed “chargeable capacity” reasonably encompasses a maximum amount of electricity that may be provided, transferred, or otherwise handled by the electricity storage apparatus during a given operational period. Obata’s “maximum planned amount” or “providable amount” therefore corresponds to the claimed capacity limitation, as both define an upper bound on electricity that may be accommodated before alternative actions are executed.
Although Obata does not explicitly disclose executing an electricity selling operation specifically in response to an amount of electricity exceeding a chargeable capacity of a storage apparatus, Obata does disclose determining an upper-bound on electricity that may be handled limits (e.g., maximum planned amount or providable amount) and executing electricity sales via a network when such limits are implicated. Fukui, on the other hand, discloses detecting when an electricity amount exceeds a predefined threshold and automatically executing control actions in response to that exceedance (Fukui ¶¶ [48, 92-94, 136 & 182-183]). Fukui’s threshold-based exceedance detection provides an explicit mechanism for initiating control actions in response to exceeding a defined limit, which would have been readily applicable to Obata’s disclosed upper-bound electricity limits.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify Obata to incorporate Fukui’s threshold-based exceedance detection and automatic control mechanism, such that Obata’s disclosed electricity selling operation is automatically initiated when a detected electricity amount exceeds the defined capacity limit of the storage apparatus. Such a modification represents a predictable use of prior art elements according to their established functions, namely using Fukui’s automated threshold detection to trigger Obata’s known electricity transaction operations, in order to improve capacity management and operational efficiency in a distributed electricity storage system.
The combination merely applies known automation techniques disclosed by Fukui to Obata’s electricity storage and transaction framework to achieve an expected and predictable result, and therefore would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art.
As per Claim 2, the combination of Obata and Fukui teach the information processing apparatus according to claim 1, Obata further teaches:
wherein the controller is configured to guarantee exchange of the asset for electricity of any of the plurality of electricity storage apparatuses (Obata ¶¶ [49, 52 & 71]).
As per Claim 3, the combination of Obata and Fukui teach the information processing apparatus according to claim 1, Fukui further teaches:
wherein the virtual valuable includes at least one of cryptocurrency, electronic money, and points (Fukui ¶ [181]).
The motivation to combine the references is the same as seen above in claim 1.
As per Claim 5, the combination of Obata and Fukui teach the information processing apparatus according to claim 1, Obata further teaches:
wherein when receiving a request, from a user terminal used by the user, to view information on the asset of the user, the controller is configured to transmit information, stored in the memory, including the amount of stored electricity owned by the user and the cumulative value of the virtual valuable as the information on the asset (Obata ¶¶ [49, 71 & 94]).
As per Claim 6, the combination of Obata and Fukui teach the information processing apparatus according to claim 5, Fukui further teaches:
wherein the controller is configured to receive, from the user terminal, an instruction to receive electricity, the instruction specifying the second electricity storage apparatus and one of the amount of stored electricity and the virtual valuable, and when the user receives the electricity from the second electricity storage apparatus, the controller is configured to subtract the asset corresponding to the amount of received electricity from the cumulative value of the specified one of the amount of stored electricity and the virtual valuable included in the asset of the user (Fukui ¶¶ [122, 126, 181-182 & 191]).
The motivation to combine the references is the same as seen above in claim 1.
As per Claims 7 & 8, the claims recite analogous limitations as claim 1 above and rejected under the same premise.
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 TONY P KANAAN whose telephone number is (571)272-2481. The examiner can normally be reached Monday- Friday 7:30am - 3:30 pm 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, Matthew Gart can be reached at 5712723955. 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.
/T.P.K./Examiner, Art Unit 3696
/MATTHEW S GART/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3696