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 .
Claims 21-40 are pending.
This is in response to communications filed on 8/6/25.
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 21-27, 29-35, 37-40 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. the claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because of the following reasons.
Claims 21-27, 29-35 and 37-40 are directed to a method, non-transitory computer-readable medium and a system.
Claim 21 recite(s) the limitations generating usage metrics based on the identified clusters, the usage metrics indicating, over time, operational states of the powered device; identifying, based on the usage metrics, a usage pattern representing patterns of operational states of the powered device over time; generating a rule for selectively controlling delivery of electricity to the powered device based on the identified usage pattern; and asserting the rule against a network-enabled electric plug coupled to the powered device to limit delivery of electricity according to the usage metrics as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind or in paper/pencil. These operations can simply be performed by a human mind or paper/pencil. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. In this case, the claims simply recite a mental process when they contain limitations that can practically be performed in the human mind; including observations, evaluations, judgments, and opinions. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea (Step 2A prong one analysis).
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. As mentioned, the judicial exceptions generating usage metrics based on the identified clusters, the usage metrics indicating, over time, operational states of the powered device; identifying, based on the usage metrics, a usage pattern representing patterns of operational states of the powered device over time; generating a rule for selectively controlling delivery of electricity to the powered device based on the identified usage pattern; and asserting the rule against a network-enabled electric plug coupled to the powered device to limit delivery of electricity according to the usage metrics are mental processes. The claim recites additional elements – receiving, over a period of time, electrical data collected for a powered device, the electrical data comprising power measurements and corresponding timestamps; processing the electrical data to identify two or more clusters of values, each cluster representing an operational state of the powered device; network-enabled electric plug coupled to the powered device. The network-enabled electric plug coupled to the powered device recited in high level of generality. These limitations can be viewed as nothing more than an attempt to generally link the use of the judicial exception to the technological environment of a computer such that the claim as a whole is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception. The receiving, over a period of time, electrical data collected for a powered device and processing the electrical data to identify two or more clusters of values represent insignificant activity. The ”receiving of data comprising power measurement and timestamps” is a data gathering step and “processing to identify” is to use the processing as a tool to identify. Accordingly, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to an abstract idea. (Step 2A Prong Two analysis)
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. The limitations receiving, over a period of time, electrical data collected for a powered device, the electrical data comprising power measurements and corresponding timestamps; processing the electrical data to identify two or more clusters of values, each cluster representing an operational state of the powered device; network-enabled electric plug coupled to the powered device, either individually or in combination, do not amount to significantly more. These types of components/activities are well understood, routine or conventional (MPEP 2106.05(d)(II): receiving or transmitting data over a network; storing or retrieving information from memory). The processing of the to identify clusters is simply the tool to identify. The network-enabled electric plug coupled to the powered device to limit delivery is an apply it type solution. The Claims are not patent eligible (step 2B analysis).
For claim 22, populating truth table is a mental step with paper/pencil and comparing values is a mathematical algorithm. Thus, claim is not eligible.
For claim 23, computing average and smoothing using filter include a mathematical algorithm. Thus, claim is not eligible.
For claim 24, determining device type is a mental step. Claim is not eligible.
For claim 25, two cluster representing two values are mental steps that can be performed in paper/pencil. Claim is not eligible.
For claim 26, cluster represents values and thus can be performed in paper/pencil. Claim is not eligible.
For claim 27, determining forecast, machine learning and analyze usage metrics are mental steps. Claim is not eligible.
For claim 29, the claim recites limitations that are similar to the limitations of claim 1. Therefore, the above analysis of claim 1 is relevant for claim 29. The recited additional elements, "a non-transitory computer readable medium and one or more processors", beyond the judicial exception but does not integrate into practical application. The computer system, computer program product, processors, computer-readable memories, tangible storage mediums and/or program instructions, are recited at a high level of generality and recited so generically that they represent no more than mere instructions to apply the judicial exception on a computer. These limitations can also be viewed as nothing more than an attempt to generally link the use of the judicial exception to the technological environment of a computer, such that the claim as a whole is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception. Therefore, claim 29 is not patent eligible.
For claim 30, populating truth table is a mental step with paper/pencil and comparing values is a mathematical algorithm. Thus, claim is not eligible.
For claim 31, computing average and smoothing using filter include a mathematical algorithm. Thus, claim is not eligible.
For claim 32, determining device type is a mental step. Claim is not eligible.
For claim 33, two cluster representing two values are mental steps that can be performed in paper/pencil. Claim is not eligible.
For claim 34, cluster represents values and thus can be performed in paper/pencil. Claim is not eligible.
For claim 35, determining forecast, machine learning and analyze usage metrics are mental steps. Claim is not eligible.
For claim 37, the claim recites limitations that are similar to the limitations of claim 1. Therefore, the above analysis of claim 1 is relevant for claim 37. The recited additional elements, "a system", " a processor", "a memory ", "a powered device" beyond the judicial exception but does not integrate the exception into practical application. The additional elements are recited at high level of generality. These limitations can also be viewed as nothing more than an attempt to generally link the use of the judicial exception to the technological environment of a computer such that the claim as a whole is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception. The claim is not patent eligible. Therefore, claim 37 is not patent eligible.
For claim 38, populating truth table is a mental step with paper/pencil and comparing values is a mathematical algorithm. Thus, claim is not eligible.
For claim 39, computing average and smoothing using filter include a mathematical algorithm. Thus, claim is not eligible.
For claim 40, determining device type is a mental step. Claim is not eligible.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969). A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b). The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13. The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 21-40 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-18 of U.S. Patent No. 11681345. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because of the claim correspondence given below:
Claim 1 of the pending application
Claim 1 and claim 7 of the Patent
A method, comprising: receiving, over a period of time, electrical data collected for a powered device,
A method, comprising: receiving, at a web application and over a period of time, electrical data collected for a powered device at a first time, (claim 1)
processing the electrical data to identify two or more clusters of values, each cluster representing an operational state of the powered device;
identifying a first cluster representing a lowest value of the common values of the electrical data, wherein the first cluster corresponds to a first operational state of the powered device, wherein the first cluster is identified using a first subset of the electrical data; identifying a second cluster representing another value of the common values of the electrical data, wherein the second cluster corresponds to a second operational state of the powered device, wherein the second cluster is identified using a second subset of the electrical data (claim 1)
generating usage metrics based on the identified clusters, the usage metrics indicating, over time, operational states of the powered device;
determining usage metrics representing usage activity of the powered device based on the first cluster and the second cluster; processing second electrical data based on the usage metrics to infer an operational state of the powered device at a second time after the first time, (claim 1)
identifying, based on the usage metrics, a usage pattern representing patterns of operational states of the powered device over time; generating a rule for selectively controlling delivery of electricity to the powered device based on the identified usage pattern;
generating a rule for selectively controlling a delivery of electricity to the powered device according to the usage metrics by inferring usage patterns representative of patterns of operational states of the powered device over time (claim 7)
asserting the rule against a network-enabled electric plug coupled to the powered device to limit delivery of electricity according to the usage metrics.
determining, based on the usage metrics, a command for selectively controlling delivery of electricity to the powered device; transmitting the command to the network-enabled electric plug (claim 1)
For the limitations “the electrical data comprising power measurements and corresponding timestamps” of claim 21 of the pending application, claim 3 of the patent teaches the corresponding power measurement data and timestamps. It would have been obvious for one ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to include the power measurement data and the timestamp data, since these data provides the indication of power usage at various point of time, which can be used to better control the power of the system.
For claims 22, 30, 38, claim 1 teaches the corresponding limitations.
For claims 23, 31, 39, claim 3 of the patent teaches the corresponding limitations.
For claims 24, 32, 40, claim 5 of the patent teaches the corresponding limitations.
For claims 25, 33, claim 1 teaches the corresponding limitations.
For claims 26, 34, claim 2 teaches the corresponding limitations.
For claims 27, 35, claim 6 of the patent teaches the corresponding limitations. Patented claims do not mention machine learning to determine the predictive demand. Such is well known in the art to determine demand using machine learning. It would have been obvious for one ordinary skill in the before the effective filing date of the art to use machine learning to determine the predictive demand, since that optimizes the power control of the powered device.
For claims 28, 36, claim 8 and claim 9 of the patent teaches the corresponding limitations.
For claim 29 and claim 37, the patent claims teach the corresponding limitations as explained above for claim 21.
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.
Claim(s) 21-22, 24-26, 28-30, 32-34, 36-38, 40 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yang (US 20170010661; cited in IDS), in view of Miki (US Patent Application Publication 2010083049)
As to claim 21, Yang discloses a method, comprising: A method, comprising: receiving, over a period of time, electrical data collected ([0011] –[0016] [0059]-[0060] 100 receives data from 150 and then 170 receives the data from 100 in real-time; monitoring in real-time includes over time) the electric data (power ON/OFF plus operation mode [0059]) is collected for a powered device (150 in Fig 1), the electrical data comprising power measurements ([0011] [0061] – amount of power is monitored in real time; [0062]) ([0061][0064][0067]-[0068] mention that LED emits mutually different colors according to amount of power; can be 5 W or less with red light or 50 W or larger with blue light; emit light in power off state; there are multiple cluster of values), each cluster representing an operational state of the powered device (power off state, power on operating state mentioned in [0064]); generating usage metrics based on the identified clusters, the usage metrics indicating, over time, operational states of the powered device (the usage pattern is generated by calculating power consumption for real time/daily/monthly based on detected load voltage and load current [0067]; LEDs display the states; thus the usage metrics generated to display the appropriate colors); generating a rule for selectively controlling delivery of electricity to the powered device ([0070] provides the rules – switching to off/sleep is preferrable to interruption when power consumption is high) (100 in Fig 1 – Fig 3 is the network plug) coupled to the powered device to limit delivery of electricity according to the usage metrics ([0069]-[0071] device 170 sends the control signal to 100 and 100 sends the signal to 150 to place the device in off mode).
Yang et al does not explicitly mention about usage pattern generation from the usage metrics. The LEDs displaying the power measurements show the power usage of the system and includes usage metrics. However, pattern generation is not explicitly mentioned. Therefore, Yang et al does not explicitly mention the following limitations:
receiving the electrical data comprising corresponding timestamps
identifying, based on the usage metrics, a usage pattern representing patterns of operational states of the powered device over time
generating a rule based on the identified usage pattern
Miki teaches the following limitations:
receiving the electrical data comprising power measurements and corresponding timestamps (Fig 2 to Fig 5)
identifying, based on the usage metrics, a usage pattern representing patterns of operational states of the powered device over time (characteristic data shown in Fig 13 – Fig 15)
generating a rule for the powered device based on the identified usage pattern ([0085][0102]-[0111]; system failure is detected based on the usage pattern; system failure is a cause to generate rule such as display the failure information Fig 11).
It would have been obvious for one ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the application to combine the teachings of Yang and Miki so that patterns are generated based on the usage metrics and power measurements data based on timestamps. The usage patterns provide the information of how the system use power over time. Yang teaches the power consumption tracking for months [0067]. Thus, the usage pattern can be computed so that the operator can determine how the device is consuming power over time. That also provides the scenario of failure.
For claims 22, 30 and 38, Miki teaches a table with electrical data values (Fig 2 to Fig 5). The values are compared with actual data to determine the error delta ([0109]).
For claims 24, 32 and 40, Yang and Miki teaches determining a device type based on power inferences according to usage metrics (faulty type device or not [0059] of Yang based on out of normal range; Miki [0109]).
For claims 25, 33, Yang teaches the two or more clusters include a first cluster representing a lowest value of common values of the electrical data corresponding to an off operational state, and a second cluster representing another value of the common values corresponding to an on and in-use operational state ([0059][0061][0063][0064] – off state and operational state).
For claims 26, 34, Yang teaches wherein the electrical data includes three or more common values, and wherein the two or more clusters further include a third cluster representing a highest value of the common values corresponding to an on and in-use operational state, wherein the second cluster represents a next lowest value of the common values corresponding to an on but not in-use operational state (operating state; not operating in power on state [0064][0059]; on state has 50w and power on but not in use must have less value).
For claims 28, 36, Yang teaches configuring the network-enabled electric plug (100 in Fig 1) to report the electrical data to a web application running (170 in Fig 1) on a server device (170 is connected to communication network and can be taken as a server; 100 sends data to 170 [0062]).
For claim 29, the limitations are corresponding to claim 1 and performed by the computer readable medium. The analysis explained with respect to claim 1 provide the explanation how the cited references teaches the claim limitations. Regarding computer readable storage media, Fig 3 teaches 100 including 104 that has CPU to control the operations of 100 and 150 ([0069]). Thus, the device 100 has computer readable media to perform the operations.
For claim 37, the limitations are corresponding to claim 1 and performed by theCPU and memory. The analysis explained with respect to claim 1 provide the explanation how the cited references teach the claim limitations. Regarding computer readable storage media, Fig 3 teaches 100 including 104 that has CPU to control the operations of 100 and 150 ([0069]; CPU executes instructions from memory). Thus, the device 100 has processor and memory to perform the operations.
Claim(s) 23, 31 and 39 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yang (US 20170010661), in view of Miki (US Patent Application Publication 2010083049), further in view Schulz (US Patent Application Publication 20150061550).
For claims 23, 31 and 39, Miki teaches calculation of average values based on power measurements and timestamps (the characteristic data showing the usage metrics in Fig 13 – Fig 15 is the average data values) and smooth the data values to eliminate spike (Fig 13 to Fig 15 shown that outliers values are ignored). Yang in view of Miki does not explicitly mention about using filters. Schulz et al teach filters to smooth out the outliers ([0055]). It would have been obvious for one ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to use a filter to eliminate spike/outlier so as to calculate the average appropriately and quickly.
Claim(s) 27 and 35 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yang (US 20170010661), in view of Miki (US Patent Application Publication 2010083049), further in view of Sheehan et al (US Patent Application Publication 2019/0115753).
For claims 27 and 35, Miki uses characteristic data (Fig 13 to Fig 15 Fig 5), which provides the indication of the future prediction over time. However, as Fig 5 shows and [0054] mentions actual power consumption and estimation from stored usage patterns may mismatch. Miki does not teach machine learning model. Sheehan et al teach machine learning model (Fig 2 225 and 230) to predict power demand (power cap represents highest power demand in the system). It would have been obvious for one ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to use machine learning to determine the predictive demand so that system can predict the power optimally. This provides optimal power consumption in the system.
Conclusion
Although the specified citations are representative of the teachings of the art and are
applied to the specific limitations within the individual claim, other passages and figures
may apply as well. Therefore, Applicant, in preparing response, must fully consider the
entire disclosure of cited references as potentially teaching all or part of the claimed
invention, including the context of the cited passage as taught by the prior art disclosed
by the Examiner.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to FAHMIDA RAHMAN whose telephone number is (571)272-8159. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 10 AM - 7 PM. 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, Andrew Jung can be reached at 571-270-3779. 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.
/FAHMIDA RAHMAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2175