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
Due to communications filed 1/29/26, the following is a final office action. Claims 1, 3-9 are amended. Claims 2 and 10 are cancelled. Claims 1 and 3-9 are pending in this application and are rejected as follows.
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, 3-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C, 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a
judicial exception (I.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly
more.
With regard to the present claims 1, 3-9, the claim recites a judicial exception. The claims as a whole recite a "Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity", and "Mathematical Concepts". The claimed invention is a method that allows for access, analysis, update and communication of electronic load records, which are concepts performed in the human mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion) through business interactions such as profit maximization, and mathematical relationships and calculations. The mere nominal recitation of a generic computer/computer network does not take the claim out of the methods of organizing human interactions/"Mental Processes" grouping. Thus, the claim recites an abstract idea.
Furthermore, the claims are not integrated into a practical application. The claim as a whole
merely describes how to generally "apply" the concept of accessing, analyzing, updating and
communicating load information in a computer environment. The claimed computer components are
recited at a high level of generality and are merely invoked as tools to perform an existing load records
update process. Simply implementing the abstract idea on a generic computer is not a practical
application of the abstract idea.
Finally, the claims do not recite an inventive concept. As noted previously, the claim as a whole
merely describes how to generally "apply" the concept of accessing, analyzing, updating and
communicating information related to load records in a computer environment. Thus, even when
viewed as a whole, nothing in the claim adds significantly more (i.e., an inventive concept) to the
abstract idea. The claim is ineligible.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 1/29/26 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
With regard to the 101 rejection, Applicant amends claims to overcome the rejection, and argues that the newly amended claims are now patent eligible. Applicant specifically argues that the claims now recite that the interconnection system physically changes an operating state o f the load to operate the load during the operation period decided and controls the interconnection device to physically switch the output destination of the electric power received from the power generation system to the load during the operation period decided. However, Examiner respectfully disagrees. The claim recites deciding an operation period such that profits are maximized. This is an abstract idea (economic optimization/mathematical concept). The additional elements of the interconnection device, sensor, load control, and physical switching are described in the specification as operating conventionally since there is no mention of an improvement to grid stability, sensor operation switching circuits, or energy conversion. The claims instead merely disclose physical components used as tolls to implement the profit-based scheduling decision. Therefore the present claims do not disclose a practical application, but instead merely disclose an application using generic components.
Step 2A, Prong 1, Applicant argues that the claims are not directed to a mental process since they disclose a physical sensor and an interconnection device. However, Examiner respectfully disagrees. Even though the claim recites a physical sensor and interconnection device, the claim further discloses deciding an operation period such that profits are maximized, which constitutes a mathematical concept. The claim also discloses a certain method of organizing human activity since the claims of the invention are directed to a commercial interaction. With regard to the physical sensor and interconnection device, Examiner contends that physical hardware does not automatically make a claim eligible. The physical devices of the claim are not doing something that is technologically improved , they are merely executing an abstract idea.
Step 2A, Prong 2, Applicant argues that even if the claims involve an abstract idea, the claimed subject matter is integrated into a practical application that provides a technical improvement. However, Examiner respectfully disagrees. Although the claims recite a sensor, an interconnection device, and physically operating a load, the specification describes these components a conventional elements performing their ordinary functions of detecting electric power, switching electrical routing, and turning a load on or off. The claims do not improve the functioning of the inverter, interconnection device, sensor, load control unit, or the power distribution system itself. The claim merely applies the abstract idea of profit maximization using conventional electrical hardware as a tool, which is an improvement to financial outcome, but is not a technical improvement. Accordingly, the abstract idea is not integrated into a practical application and the claims remain rejected under 35 USC 101.
Step 2B, Applicant argues that the claims include an inventive concept because they combine specific hardware with a unique control logic to manage two different profit sources, which provides significantly more than a general idea by creating a specialized system for energy management that was not previously used in the industry. However, Examiner respectfully disagrees. The additional elements including a sensor, and interconnection device, and load control unit are described in the specification as performing their conventional functions of detecting electric power, switching output destination and operating a load. The specific combination mentioned by Applicant are merely conventional components implementing the abstract idea of profit optimization, which does not amount to significantly more. The claims do not improve the functioning of the power generation or interconnection system, and instead uses conventional electrical hardware as tools to execute an abstract economic idea. Accordingly, the claims do not recite an inventive concept.
Applicant’s arguments, see arguments/remarks, filed 1/29/26, with respect to the 35 USC 103 rejection have been fully considered and are persuasive. The 35 USC 103 rejection of claims 1-10 has been withdrawn.
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 Akiba Robinson whose telephone number is 571-272-6734 and email is Akiba.Robinsonboyce@USPTO.gov. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Thursday 6:30am-4:30pm.
If attempts to reach the Examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the Examiner's supervisor, Nathan Uber can be reached on 571-270-3923. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Any inquiry of a general nature or relating to the status of this application or proceeding should be directed to the receptionist whose telephone number is (703) 305-3900.
February 24, 2026
/AKIBA K ROBINSON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3628