DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application is being examined under the pre-AIA first to invent provisions.
The amendments were filed 3/2/2026. Claims 1-20 are pending where claims 1-20 were previously presented.
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 3/2/2026 has been entered.
Claim Objections
The applicant amended the claims to address the claim objections. Therefore, in view of the amendments, the respective claim objections have been withdrawn.
35 USC § 112
The applicant amended the claims to address the 35 USC 112 rejections. In view of the amendments, the respective 35 USC 112 rejections have been withdrawn.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
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.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claim 11 is 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 applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 11 recites the limitation "the meter-group hierarchy" in the body of the claim. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. There is no previous recitation of any ‘meter-group hierarchy’; therefore, for purposes of compact prosecution, the Examiner is construing the phrase as “a meter-group hierarchy’. Additionally, the sentence/limitation starts to define what clause/limitation is being further defined but abruptly stops, “wherein the interaction graphical interface that depicts the meter-group hierarchy as a tree graph” where the ‘that’ is a qualifier to indicate details for knowing which interactive graphical interface is being mentioned but does not appear to actively provide a step. The Examiner recommends deleting ‘that’ and changing ‘the’ to ‘a’.
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 12-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
With regard to claim 12:
Step 2A, Prong One:
The claim recites the following limitations which are drawn towards an abstract idea:
A method of monitoring and storing data of utility meters comprising: assigning a first virtual number to the first utility meter
and assigning, via the user interface, the first virtual number to a first virtual group and the second virtual number to a second virtual group (recites mental process steps of evaluating and assigning a group name or category/cluster such as how someone can group items together based on some criteria like friends into groups (work group, high-school, college, league group, et cetera) other nicknames/labels can be assigned to respective categorical groups too).
As seen from above, the identified limitations recite concepts associated with an abstract idea and thus the respective claim recites a judicial exception (see 2106.04(a)) and thus requires further analysis as discussed below.
Step 2A, Prong Two:
The following limitations have been identified as being additional elements as discussed below.
connecting to a first utility meter over a network (recites insignificant extrasolution activity of sending/receiving information over a network, see MPEP 2106.05(g)),
the first utility meter including a first sensor for measuring a parameter of a utility grid, a second sensor for measuring a parameter of the utility grid, and a first communication device for communicating over the network, wherein the first sensor is associated with a first channel and the second sensor is associated with a second channel (recites usage of a computerized environment for generic computer/hardware such as a utility meter with sensors to collect data, see MPEP 2106.05(f)),
wherein the each of the first sensor and second sensor provides sampled electrical data to a digital processor that stores timestamped measurement data in non-transitory memory within the first utility meter, the first and second sensors respectively associated with a first channel and a second channel (recites usage of a computerized environment and a computer tool to collect/store and send data in order to implement the judicial exception, see MPEP 2106.05(f));
“plurality of client devices over the network (recites insignificant extrasolution activity of storing information in memory, see MPEP 2106.05(g)),
wherein the first virtual number is associated with the first channel (recites field of use limitations describing the intended device parameters/variables that are being collected and their respective associations, see MPEP 2106.05(h));
“
wherein the second virtual number is associated with the second channel (recites field of use limitations describing the intended device parameters/variables that are being collected and their respective associations, see MPEP 2106.05(h));
wherein assigning the first virtual number to a first virtual group and assigning the second virtual number to a second virtual group includes organizing visual representations via an interactive hierarchical graphical tree interface (recites insignificant extrasolution activity of sorting/organizing information, see MPEP 2106.05(g)).
As seen from the above discussion, the identified limitations did not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application (see MPEP 2106.04(d)). This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the additional elements recite generic computer elements comprising generic computer hardware to collect and send information over a network.
Step 2B:
Below is the analysis of the claims:
connecting to a first utility meter over a network (recites well-understood, routine, and conventional activity of sending/receiving information over a network, see MPEP 2106.05(d)),
the first utility meter including a first sensor for measuring a parameter of a utility grid, a second sensor for measuring a parameter of the utility grid, and a first communication device for communicating over the network, wherein the first sensor is associated with a first channel and the second sensor is associated with a second channel (recites usage of a computerized environment for generic computer/hardware such as a utility meter with sensors to collect data, see MPEP 2106.05(f)).
wherein the each of the first sensor and second sensor provides sampled electrical data to a digital processor that stores timestamped measurement data in non-transitory memory within the first utility meter, the first and second sensors respectively associated with a first channel and a second channel (recites usage of a computerized environment and a computer tool to collect/store and send data in order to implement the judicial exception, see MPEP 2106.05(f));
“implement the abstract idea, see MPEP 2106.05(f)) and storing first assignment data associated with the first virtual number in a centralized database that is accessible to a plurality of client devices over the network (recites well-understood, routine, and conventional activity of storing information in memory, see MPEP 2106.05(d)),
wherein the first virtual number is associated with the first channel (recites field of use limitations describing the intended device parameters/variables that are being collected and their respective associations, see MPEP 2106.05(h));
“
wherein the second virtual number is associated with the second channel (recites field of use limitations describing the intended device parameters/variables that are being collected and their respective associations, see MPEP 2106.05(h));
wherein assigning the first virtual number to a first virtual group and assigning the second virtual number to a second virtual group includes organizing visual representations via an interactive hierarchical graphical tree interface (recites well-understood, routine, and conventional activity of sorting/organizing information, see MPEP 2106.05(d)).
As seen from above, the respective claim elements taken individually do not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. When taken as a whole (in combination), the claim also does not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea because the additional elements recite generic computer elements comprising generic computer hardware to collect and send information over a network.
With regard to claim 13, this claim recites wherein the first channel is associated with a first room in a building and the second channel is associated with a second room in the building (recites field of use limitations describing the intended physical location of the computing/measuring device and the relationship between different device parameters, see MPEP 2106.05(h)).
With regard to claim 14, this claim recites wherein the first parameter is a first current reading and the second parameter is a second current reading (recites field of use limitations describing the intended meaning of the data that is to be collected/monitored, see MPEP 2106.05(h)).
With regard to claim 15, this claim recites wherein the first utility meter includes a serial number (recites field of use limitations describing information associated with a device, see MPEP 2106.05(h)) and further comprising associating the serial number with the first virtual number (recites mental process steps of mentally evaluating and associating a device via their serial number or portions thereof with another identifier such as nickname or label).
With regard to claim 16, this claim recites the interactive hierarchical graphical tree interface is configured to present (i) a pool of unassigned virtual meters and (ii) one or more virtual groups, and to receive user drag-and-drop input that moves a visual representation of a virtual meter between the pool and a selected one of the virtual groups to thereby assign the virtual meter to the selected virtual group or remove the virtual meter from the selected virtual group (recites technological environment and field of use limitation of graphical user interface as well as discussing the particular format of the data representation and ability to interact with the GUI, see MPEP 2106.05(h)).
With regard to claim 17, this claim recites initiating an action to the first virtual group (recites mental process steps of doing some calculation, per the broadest reasonable interpretation from paragraph [0220], includes an action of totaling or summing values together which relate to mental steps involving mathematics), where the action is performed by each utility meter in the first virtual group (recites merely using a computerized tool to perform the judicial exception, see MPEP 2106.05(f)).
With regard to claim 18, this claim recites wherein the action includes aggregating meter data (recites mental process steps of aggregating/totaling values together using math).
With regard to claim 19, this claim recites wherein the action includes initiating a reporting function (recites insignificant extrasolution activity of transmitting information over a network which amounts to well-understood, routine, and conventional activity of transmitting information over a network, see MPEP 2106.05(d)).
With regard to claim 20, this claim recites wherein the second virtual group is a sub-group of the first group (recites mental process steps of determining a hierarchy of groups/relationships between entities/items including sub-groups of a bigger group).
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 pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
(a) A patent may not be obtained though the invention is not identically disclosed or described as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the subject matter sought to be patented and the prior art are such that the subject matter as a whole would have been obvious at the time the invention was made to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which said subject matter pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a), the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned at the time any inventions covered therein were made absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and invention dates of each claim that was not commonly owned at the time a later invention was made in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(c) and potential pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(e), (f) or (g) prior art under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a).
Claims 12, 14, and 15 are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Pitchford et al [US 6,327,541] in view of Barrett et al [US 2014/0167976 A1], Mathur et al [US 7,124,397], Swarztrauber et al [US 2003/0158677 A1], Ransom et al [US 2003/0204756 A1] (and Forth et al [US 2002/0120723 A1], incorporated by reference in Ransom at paragraph [0148]) and Smith et al [US 9,003,292].
With regard to claim 12, Pitchford teaches a method of monitoring and storing data of utility meters comprising: connecting to a first utility meter over a network, the first utility meter including a first sensor for measuring a parameter of a utility grid, and a first communication device for communicating over the network (see Figure 1A and see col 5, lines 1-8; see col 4, lines 20-21; the system utilizes various utility meters that include sensors to sense/monitor some parameter of the electrical power grid);
and assigning, via the user interface, the first virtual number to a first virtual group and the second virtual number to a second virtual group (see col 12, lines 4-11, the system can make logical groupings or virtual groups for meters).
Pitchford teaches assigned unique identifiers for meters (see col 5, lines 26-30) but does not appear to explicitly teach:
a second sensor for measuring a parameter of the utility grid,
wherein the first sensor is associated with a first channel and the second sensor is associated with a second channel;
wherein each of the first sensor and second sensor provides sampled electrical data to a digital processor that stores timestamped measurement data in non-transitory memory within the first utility meter, the first and second sensors respectively associated with a first channel and a second channel;
assigning a first virtual number to the first utility meter via a user interface executed on a server and storing first assignment data associated with the first virtual number in a centralized database that is accessible to a plurality of client devices over the network, wherein the first virtual number is associated with the first channel;
assigning a second virtual number to the first utility meter via the user interface and storing second assignment data associated with the second virtual number in the centralized database, wherein the second virtual number is associated with the second channel;
wherein assigning the first virtual number to a first virtual group and assigning the second virtual number to a second virtual group includes organizing visual representations via an interactive hierarchical graphical tree interface.
Barrett teaches wherein each of the first sensor and second sensor provides sampled electrical data to a digital processor that stores
assigning a first virtual number to the first utility meter; and assigning a second virtual number to the first utility meter (see paragraphs [0019], [0040], [0059], and [0060]; an identifier can be assigned to virtual meters that are associated with the respective utility meter where a single meter can be associated with multiple virtual meters).
It would have been obvious at the time the invention was made to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify the electronic energy management system of Pitchford by including means to provide identifiers to meters and groups of meters as taught by Barrett in order to provide means to identify not only individual meters but also groups of meters that are interrelated thus allowing computerized and networked communication to an individual meter or groups of meters versus having to manually be in the field to interact with the respective meter(s).
Pitchford in view of Barrett teach wherein each of the first sensor and second sensor provides sampled electrical data to a digital processor that stores timestamped measurement data in non-transitory memory within the first utility meter (see Pitchford, col 11, lines 13-27 and Figure 5; see Barrett, paragraphs [0012]-[0015], [0023], and [0032]-[0034]; the system allows the respective meters to store data associated with time periods or timestamps in the meter’s local memory).
Pitchford in view of Barrett teach a centralized registry (see Barrett, paragraph [0036]) but do not appear to explicitly teach:
a second sensor for measuring a parameter of the utility grid,
wherein the first sensor is associated with a first channel and the second sensor is associated with a second channel;
the first and second sensors respectively associated with a first channel and a second channel;
assigning a first virtual number to the first utility meter via a user interface executed on a server and storing first assignment data associated with the first virtual number in a centralized database that is accessible to a plurality of client devices over the network, wherein the first virtual number is associated with the first channel;
assigning a second virtual number to the first utility meter via the user interface and storing second assignment data associated with the second virtual number in the centralized database, wherein the second virtual number is associated with the second channel;
wherein assigning the first virtual number to a first virtual group and assigning the second virtual number to a second virtual group includes organizing visual representations via an interactive hierarchical graphical tree interface.
Swarztrauber teaches a second sensor for measuring a parameter of the utility grid, wherein the first sensor is associated with a first channel and the second sensor is associated with a second channel, the first and second sensors respectively associated with a first channel and a second channel (see paragraphs [0065] and [0069]; the meter can include multiple channels to measure multiple different loads).
It would have been obvious at the time the invention was made to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify the electronic energy management system of Pitchford in view of Barrett by utilizing meters that can handle multiple channels for measuring multiple loads as taught by Swarztrauber in order to be able to utilize a single meter to handle multiple loads thus allowing for greater granularity on the energy usage in the respective location.
Pitchford in view of Barrett and Swarztrauber wherein the first virtual number is associated with the first channel; wherein the second virtual number is associated with the second channel (see Swarztrauber, paragraph [0069]; see Pitchford, col 1, lines 21-26; and col 10, line 58 through col 11, line 12; see Barrett, paragraphs [0019], [0040], [0059], and [0060]; the meter can include multiple channels to measure multiple different loads where identifiers can be assigned to different meters or meter groups).
Pitchford in view of Barrett and Swarztrauber do not appear to explicitly teach:
assigning a first virtual number to the first utility meter via a user interface executed on a server and storing first assignment data associated with the first virtual number in a centralized database that is accessible to a plurality of client devices over the network;
assigning a second virtual number to the first utility meter via the user interface and storing second assignment data associated with the second virtual number in the centralized database;
wherein assigning the first virtual number to a first virtual group and assigning the second virtual number to a second virtual group includes organizing visual representations via an interactive hierarchical graphical tree interface.
Mathur teaches assigning a first virtual number to the first utility meter via a user interface executed on a server and storing first assignment data associated with the first virtual number in a centralized database that is accessible to a plurality of client devices over the network; assigning a second virtual number to the first utility meter via the user interface and storing second assignment data associated with the second virtual number in the centralized database (see col 2, lines 11-12; col 4, lines 17-20 and col 4, line 59 through col 5, line 9; the system provides a user interface that allows users, via a server, to assign their own virtual name to a particular meter).
It would have been obvious at the time the invention was made to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify the electronic energy management system of Pitchford in view of Barrett and Swarztrauber by including means to allow users to customize their names for the various devices/meters as taught by Mathur in order to allow the system to impose more meaningful and easy-to-remember names so that when presented with a large list of metering devices of same or similar device types, the user can discern particular information about the device based on their customized virtual name.
Pitchford in view of Barrett, Swarztrauber, and Mathur do not appear to explicitly teach:
wherein assigning the first virtual number to a first virtual group and assigning the second virtual number to a second virtual group includes organizing visual representations via an interactive hierarchical graphical tree interface.
Ransom teaches assigning the first virtual number to a first virtual group and assigning the second virtual number to a second virtual group (see Forth, paragraph [0058]; the respective meters can be associated with any number of group identifiers).
It would have been obvious at the time the invention was made to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify the electronic energy management system of Pitchford in view of Barrett, Mathur, Swarztrauber by incorporating means to associate a plurality of group identifiers with identifiers the meter or components thereof as taught by Forth in order to allow the system to be able to not only identify individual meters but also be able to logically associate a meter with multiple different groups so that the system can allow clients/users be able to group the meters how they desire even if a single meter is a member of multiple groups thereby allowing for greater flexibility for how data collection and analysis can be performed without having to manually change/customize the group membership of the sensor for every request involving different sets of meters and without having to individually select all desired meters for every reporting action.
Pitchford in view of Barrett, Mathur, Swarztrauber in further view of Ransom do not appear to explicitly teach includes organizing visual representations presented in an interactive hierarchical graphical tree interface.
Smith teaches hierarchical graphical tree interface (see Figure 13 and col 14, lines 54-67; the system allows the user to be able to interact with the system and view the underlying devices through a graphical user interface).
It would have been obvious at the time the invention was made to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify the electronic energy management system of Pitchford in view of Barrett, Mathur, Swarztrauber in further view of Ransom by utilizing a graphical user interface of the hierarchical relationship between devices as taught by Smith in order to allow for an easier visualization of the interrelationship of devices and groups of devices so that the user can accurately and quickly identify and select the desired set of devices they want to perform actions on without having to memorize what the respective individual or group identifiers are meant to represent thus helping to avoid any confusion of accidently interacting with devices the user is not interested in interacting with.
Pitchford in view of Barrett, Mathur, Swarztrauber, Ransom and Smith teach includes organizing visual representations presented in an interactive hierarchical graphical tree interface (see Smith, Figure 13 and col 14, lines 54-67; see Ransom, Figure 17; the system can utilize a graphical user interface to allow users to be able to select particular devices/meters for further actions where the devices/meters can be displayed in a hierarchical/tree format).
With regard to claim 14, Pitchford in view of Barrett, Mathur, Swarztrauber, Ransom and Smith teach wherein the first parameter is a first current reading and the second parameter is a second current reading (see Swarztrauber, paragraph [0065]; Barrett, paragraph [0012]; the system allows for the measuring/monitoring/sensing of current).
With regard to claim 15, Pitchford in view of Barrett, Mathur, Swarztrauber, Ransom and Smith teach wherein the first utility meter includes a serial number (see Swarztrauber, paragraph [0288]; see Pitchford, col 5, lines 26-30; a serial number is associated/assigned to the utility meter) and further comprising associating the serial number with the first virtual number (see Forth, paragraph [0058]; the respective meters can be associated with any number of group identifiers).
Claim 13 is rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Pitchford et al [US 6,327,541] in view of Barrett et al [US 2014/0167976 A1], Mathur et al [US 7,124,397], Swarztrauber et al [US 2003/0158677 A1], Ransom et al [US 2003/0204756 A1] (and Forth et al [US 2002/0120723 A1], incorporated by reference in Ransom at paragraph [0148]) and Smith et al [US 9,003,292] in further view of Selph et al [US 4,804,957].
With regard to claim 13, Pitchford in view of Barrett, Mathur, Swarztrauber, Ransom and Smith teach all the claim limitations of claim 12 as discussed above.
Pitchford in view of Barrett, Mathur, Swarztrauber do not appear to explicitly teach wherein the first channel is associated with a first room in a building and the second channel is associated with a second room in the building.
Selph teaches wherein the first channel is associated with a first room in a building and the second channel is associated with a second room in the building (see Figure 11 and col 13, lines 32-38; the system can measure loads from each room in a building).
It would have been obvious at the time the invention was made to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify the electronic energy management system of Pitchford in view of Barrett, Mathur, Swarztrauber, Ransom and Smith by utilizing measuring information/load from different apartments/rooms in a building as taught by Selph in order to allow the system to be able to measure the energy usage of particular rooms/apartments thus allowing for fair data collection of what a tenant/apartment/room uses when performing other functionality including billing.
Claims 16-20 are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Pitchford et al [US 6,327,541] in view of Barrett et al [US 2014/0167976 A1], Mathur et al [US 7,124,397], Swarztrauber et al [US 2003/0158677 A1], Ransom et al [US 2003/0204756 A1] (and Forth et al [US 2002/0120723 A1], incorporated by reference in Ransom at paragraph [0148]) and Smith et al [US 9,003,292] in further view of Kamel et al [US 2012/0271576 A1].
With regard to claim 16, Pitchford in view of Barrett, Mathur, Swarztrauber, Ransom and Smith teach all the claim limitations of claim 12 as discussed above.
Pitchford in view of Barrett, Mathur, Swarztrauber, Ransom and Smith do not appear to explicitly teach:
the interactive hierarchical graphical tree interface is configured to present (i) a pool of unassigned virtual meters and (ii) one or more virtual groups, and to receive user drag-and-drop input that moves a visual representation of a virtual meter between the pool and a selected one of the virtual groups to thereby assign the virtual meter to the selected virtual group or remove the virtual meter from the selected virtual group assigning the first virtual number to a first virtual group and assigning the second virtual number to a second virtual group includes organizing visual representations presented in an interactive hierarchical graphical tree interface.
Kamel teaches receive user drag-and-drop input (see paragraph [0093]; the user interface can utilize drag and drop techniques to define groupings).
It would have been obvious at the time the invention was made to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify the electronic energy management system of Pitchford in view of Barrett, Mathur, Swarztrauber, Ransom and Smith by utilizing standard graphical interaction techniques such as drag-and-drop as taught by Kamel in order to allow for an intuitive and easy-to-use interface that allows users to interact with the system via visual input such as using some device to manipulate objects on a screen to drag and drop them into respective groups versus manually having to enter their assignment.
Pitchford in view of Barrett, Mathur, Swarztrauber, Ransom and Smith in further view of Kamel teach the interactive hierarchical graphical tree interface is configured to present (i) a pool of unassigned virtual meters and (ii) one or more virtual groups, and to receive user drag-and-drop input that moves a visual representation of a virtual meter between the pool and a selected one of the virtual groups to thereby assign the virtual meter to the selected virtual group or remove the virtual meter from the selected virtual group assigning the first virtual number to a first virtual group and assigning the second virtual number to a second virtual group includes organizing visual representations presented in an interactive hierarchical graphical tree interface (see Kamel, paragraph [0093]; see Smith, Figure 13 and col 14, lines 54-67; see Ransom, Figure 17; see Pitchford, col 12, lines 4-11, the system can make logical groupings or virtual groups for meters where the system can have means to identify which groups the meters are part of or even if they are part of no group).
With regard to claim 17, Pitchford in view of Barrett, Mathur, Swarztrauber, Ransom and Smith in further view of Kamel teach initiating an action to the first virtual group, where the action is performed by each utility meter in the first virtual group (see Ransom, paragraph [0148], [0094], [0109], [0123], [0160], and [0181]; see Forth, paragraphs [0058], [0064], [0076], and [0080]; see Pitchford, col 10, lines 42-49 & 58-61; the system can send commands to receive data associated with a selected group of meters and be able to have those respective meters perform that action including data collection actions for energy usage reports).
With regard to claim 18, Pitchford in view of Barrett, Mathur, Swarztrauber, Ransom and Smith in further view of Kamel teach wherein the action includes aggregating meter data (see Ransom, paragraphs [0084] and [0154]; see Pitchford, col 11, lines 1-12; the system has means to send commands to gather and aggregate/sum meter data).
With regard to claim 19, Pitchford in view of Barrett, Mathur, Swarztrauber, Ransom and Smith in further view of Kamel teach wherein the action includes initiating a reporting function (see Ransom, paragraphs [0084] and [0154]; see Pitchford, col 11, lines 1-27; the system has means to send commands to gather and aggregate/sum meter data).
With regard to claim 20, Pitchford in view of Barrett, Mathur, Swarztrauber, Ransom and Smith in further view of Kamel teach wherein the second group is a sub-group of the first group (see Pitchford, col 5, lines 26-30; col 10, lines 58-59; Barrett, paragraph [0032]; see Forth, paragraph [0058]; the respective meters can be associated with any number of group identifiers where the numerous groups can relate to sub-groups).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-10 are allowed.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: The applicant amended independent claim 1 to incorporate new limitations that did not appear to be taught by the cited prior art of record. Additional search was performed; however, no new references were found that would teach or fairly suggest the claim limitations. Relevant references that were found are discussed further below.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments (see section II on page 7) with respect to the claim objections have been fully considered and are persuasive. The claim objections have been withdrawn. The applicant amended the claims to address the claim objections. Therefore, in view of the amendments, the respective claim objections have been withdrawn.
Applicant’s arguments (see section III on page 7) with respect to the 35 USC 112 rejections have been fully considered and are persuasive. The 35 USC 112 rejections of the claims have been withdrawn. The applicant amended the claims to address the 35 USC 112 rejections. In view of the amendments, the respective 35 USC 112 rejections have been withdrawn.
Applicant's arguments (see the second to last paragraph on page 7 through second paragraph on page 11) have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. The applicant argues that the claims recite technological processes for acquiring utility-meter sensor data and are not directed to a mental process since the various functions are executed by a server as well as interactions with other networked devices thus defining a distributed multi-device, event-driven server workflow and not mere mental categorization. The Examiner respectfully disagrees. As noted in the 35 USC 101 rejections, the various functionality is recited at a high-level of generality that make use of generically named computer components where certain functions as noted such as assigning a number/label to something is a mental process step under step 2A, prong one. Further, the Examiner notes that according to the MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III)(C) indicates that a claim that requires a computer may still recite a mental process step. Although the claim recites various devices, that does not preclude an abstract idea existing. As noted in the previous 35 USC 101 rejections, those various hardware devices/elements will be evaluated in step 2A, prong two. Therefore, applicant’s arguments are not persuasive.
Applicant’s arguments (see second to last paragraph on page 11 through second to last paragraph on page 12 and second to last paragraph on page 13 through top of page 14) with respect to 35 USC 101 have been fully considered and are persuasive. The 35 USC 101 rejections of claim 1 and respective dependent claims have been withdrawn. The applicant amended the claims to incorporate new limitations that further described functionality that, when viewed as a whole, amount to significantly more than the abstract idea.
Applicant's arguments (see the last paragraph on page 12 and second and third paragraphs on page 14) have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. The applicant argues that the amended limitations overcome the 35 USC 101 rejections. The Examiner respectfully disagrees. As noted in the updated 35 USC 101 rejections, the amendment limitations recite usage of a GUI to sort information at a high-level of generality and is therefore not persuasive. The Examiner notes that although a graphical user interface is recited, graphical manipulation of the interface (i.e. providing commands including dragging and dropping) is a technical feature of graphical user interfaces and is not persuasive as a technical solution/improvement.
Applicant’s arguments (see last paragraph on page 14 through second paragraph on page 17) with respect to 35 USC 103 rejections of claims 1-11 have been fully considered and are persuasive. The 35 USC 103 rejections of claim 1 and respective dependent claims have been withdrawn. The applicant amended the claims to incorporate new limitations where no new references were found after conducting a further search that would teach, or fairly suggest, the claim limitations as amended. Therefore, the 35 USC 103 rejections of claims 1-11 have been withdrawn.
Applicant's arguments (see the fourth from last paragraph on page 17 through last paragraph on page 17) have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. The applicant argues that the amended features are not taught and that he Smith reference does not teach or suggest interactions that allow different meters to be assigned to different groups. The Examiner respectfully disagrees.
Applicant's arguments fail to comply with 37 CFR 1.111(b) because they amount to a general allegation that the claims define a patentable invention without specifically pointing out how the language of the claims patentably distinguishes them from the references. As illustrated in the 35 USC 103 rejections, the rejection is based on the combination of references and arguments against the teachings of Smith alone when other references are also relied upon including Ransom/Forth and Mathur are not persuasive. In response to applicant's arguments against the references individually, one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986). Therefore, applicant’s arguments are not persuasive and the respective rejections still stand.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
Van Olst et al [US 2012/0131100 A1] teaches at paragraphs [0027] that a single meter may belong to a group of meters with dynamic meter group definitions and teaches at paragraph [0018] about group memberships and how messages can be for a particular group and if the meter belongs to that group, it can execute the function otherwise it ignores the message.
Kulathu et al [US 2012/0239216 A1] teaches at paragraph [0026] that IEDs/sensors have an identification issued for them based on their network or logical grouping.
Sharma et al [US 2013/0110425 A1] teaches at paragraph [0059] can create logical groups of meters and be grouped as a virtual meter.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MARC S SOMERS whose telephone number is (571)270-3567. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 11-8 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, Ann Lo can be reached at 5712729767. 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.
/MARC S SOMERS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2159 7/8/2026
Prosecution Insights