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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 12/31/2025 has been entered.
Status of Claims
This action is in reply to the communications filed on 12/31/2025.
Claims 1, 17, and 20 were amended.
Claims 1-20 are currently pending and have been examined.
Response to Applicant’s Remarks
Applicant’s arguments and remarks filed on 12/31/2025 have been fully considered and each argument will be respectfully addressed in the following non-final office action.
Response to 35 U.S.C. § 101 Remarks
Applicant’s remarks filed on pages 7-15 of the Response concerning the 35 U.S.C. § 101 rejection of claims 1-20 have been fully considered but are found not persuasive and are moot in view of the amended rejection that may be found starting on page 8 of this non-final office action.
On pages 7-9 of the Response, the Applicant argues that the independent claims do not recite a mental process. The Applicant argues the “recited elements, for example of claim 1, involve aspects that are not traditionally seen as being an extension of human cognitive ability […] the technological improvement captured by the recited elements is inherently technological. The problem and solution is set squarely in a technological environment where privacy and identifying information is of concern”.
The Examiner respectfully disagrees that the independent claims do not recite concepts of mental processes. The Examiner notes “Claims can recite a mental process even if they are claimed as being performed on a computer […] examiners should review the specification to determine if the claimed invention is described as a concept that is performed in the human mind and applicant is merely claiming that concept performed 1) on a generic computer, or 2) in a computer environment, or 3) is merely using a computer as a tool to perform the concept” (see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III)(C). As currently drafted, the independent claims recite a mental process applied to various generic computing tools. In particular, the claims recite concepts of collecting information (i.e., receiving utility data items comprising utility usage information for a respective utility account and respective subscription identifier ID, receiving requests for utility data from a user including a subscription ID and excluding identifying information corresponding to a user account), organizing information (i.e., not receiving or storing identifying information corresponding to a respective user account in association with a respective subscription ID), analyzing information (i.e., selecting a subset of utility data items based on the subscription ID and not based on the identifying information corresponding to the user account), and displaying a particular result of the collection and analysis of information (i.e., providing the utility data to the user in response to the request) – which is the abstract idea of mental processes. See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III). Although these claim elements are recited as being performed by various generic computer tools (e.g., a subscription server, utility provider server, user device), these computer tools are merely being utilized in their ordinary capacity (e.g., to receive, store, or transmit data) to perform the recited mental processes.
On page 9 of the Response, the Applicant argues “the claims are directed to a specific technological solution for securely delivering personal data (utility usage) from a first entity (utility provider) to an end-user device via an intermediary server while technologically preventing the intermediary from ever learning the real-world identity of the end user […] at least because these concerns arise out of the usage of technology, they are firmly rooted in a technological domain and are therefor not directed to patent ineligible subject matter”.
The Examiner respectfully disagrees that the additional elements of the independent claims, as currently drafted, provide a technological solution to a problem that is necessarily rooted in technology. The claimed features directed towards securely delivering personal data from a first entity to a second entity via an intermediary entity may be considered an improvement to the abstract idea itself – that is the mental process of collecting information, organizing information, and displaying information. As currently drafted, the independent claims describe steps for collecting utility data from a utility provider and merely omitting particular pieces of information from the collected utility data (i.e., not receiving or storing identifying information corresponding to a respective user account in association with a subscription ID). These are procedures that a human using mental steps could reasonably perform. As noted further above, the recited computer tools are merely being utilized in their ordinary capacity (e.g., to receive, store, or transmit data) to perform the recited mental processes. The Examiner notes “Use of a computer or other machinery in its ordinary capacity for economic or other tasks (e.g., to receive, store, or transmit data) or simply adding a general purpose computer or computer components after the fact to an abstract idea (e.g., a fundamental economic practice or mathematical equation) does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more […] (i.e., […] the server simply receives data, extracts classification information from the received data, and stores the digital images based on the extracted information)” (MPEP 2106.05 (f)).
On pages 9-11 of the Response, the Applicant argues that the independent claims do not recite concepts of commercial interactions. The Applicant argues “the claims do not recite “providing a subscription service” in the abstract. Instead, they recite a specific distributed architecture and data-handling protocol that provides, at the system level, that the intermediary subscription server technologically cannot correlate detailed utility usage data with the real-world identity of the consumer while still enabling third-party analytics – a problem that is rooted in computer-network technology and privacy engineering, not commerce”.
The Examiner respectfully disagrees and maintains that the independent claims recite concepts of commercial interactions. Although the independent claims recite a distributed computer architecture for handling utility data, the claims nonetheless recite concepts of facilitating business relationships between commercial entities. As a whole, the independent claims are directed towards a subscription server that provides a service of aggregating utility data from a utility provider and providing a subscriber/customer with the utility data upon request. This is further evidenced by the Applicant’s specification which discloses “Aspects of the subject technology are concerned with the management of such subscription data, for example, how the subscription data is received at a subscription server, e.g., under control of the other service provider, noted above, how the subscription data is provided to the customer or subscriber, how the subscription service is terminated, paused, or resumed, how the subscription data can be augmented or presented in a manner which is more useful to the customer or subscriber” (¶ [0012]) and “customers may utilize another service provider to facilitate establishing a subscription for utility usage data so that a utility provider can send utility usage data (which may also be referred to as “subscription data”) to the other service provider and the other service provider can provide the utility usage data as subscription data to the customer” (¶ [0011]). Accordingly, under broadest reasonable interpretation in view of the specification, the features of the independent claims discussed above involve and define a commercial interaction (i.e., business relationship) between a customer/subscriber and a subscription service provider (i.e., subscription server).
On pages 11-13 of the Response, the Applicant argues that the claim additional elements integrate the abstract concepts into a practical application. The Applicant argues the recited elements result in an improvement to the functioning of a computer by providing specific improvements in computer/network security and privacy, and that the claims provide a particular way of configuring a three-part distributed system to solve the technological problems inherent in exchange of personal data without comprising user privacy.
The Examiner respectfully disagrees that the independent claims provide a technical improvement to a technical field or functioning of a computer. As currently drafted, the independent claims merely recite the use of generic computer tools in their ordinary capacity to perform the abstract idea. In particular, the claims describe the performance of transmitting/receiving data between servers and user devices at a high level of generality. With regard to claim 1, merely “receiving, at a subscription server and from a utility provider server, a plurality of utility data items”, “not receiv[ing] or stor[ing] identifying information corresponding to a respective user account associated with the respective user device in association with the respective subscription ID”, “receiving, from a user device, a request for utility data”, and “providing, to the user device and responsive to the request, the utility data” do not demonstrate a specific technical improvement to the functioning of a computer/network or a specific technical improvement to security protocols of the computers themselves because these limitations merely describe the ordinary functions of a computer – that is, transmitting information, receiving (or not receiving) information, and storing (or not storing) information. As noted further above, “Use of a computer or other machinery in its ordinary capacity for economic or other tasks (e.g., to receive, store, or transmit data) or simply adding a general purpose computer or computer components after the fact to an abstract idea (e.g., a fundamental economic practice or mathematical equation) does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more” (MPEP 2106.05 (f)).
On pages 13-15 of the Response, the Applicant argues that the independent claims recite an inventive concept that is significantly more than the abstract idea. The Applicant argues that the claims recite a non-conventional arrangement of components – a subscription server that is architecturally separate from the utility provider server and configured to enforce privacy constraints by never storing identifying information in association with subscription IDs.
The Examiner respectfully disagrees that the independent claims recite additional elements that provide significantly more than the abstract idea. As discussed further above, the independent claims, as currently drafted, merely recite the use of generic computer tools in their ordinary capacity to perform the abstract idea and, accordingly, cannot provide significantly more than the abstract idea. See MPEP 2106.05(f). Furthermore, the claim elements that suggest the “subscription server does not receive or store identifying information corresponding to a respective user account…” merely encompass electronic recordkeeping instructions that are recited at a high level of generality. The Examiner notes, “The courts have recognized the following computer functions as well‐understood, routine, and conventional functions when they are claimed in a merely generic manner (e.g., at a high level of generality) or as insignificant extra-solution activity […] iii. Electronic recordkeeping”. See MPEP 2106.05(d)(II).
On page 14 of the Response, the Applicant argues that the independent claims recite eligible subject matter that is analogous to patent eligible claim 3 in Example 47. However, the Examiner respectfully disagrees. The limitations of the patent eligible claim 3 of Example 47 reflect a technical solution to a technical problem. In particular, the patent-eligible claim 3 addresses the technical, computer-centric problem of preventing computer network intrusions by detecting anomalies in network traffic, determining the detected anomaly is associated with a malicious network packet, detecting a source address associated with the malicious network packet, and blocking traffic from the source address. As currently drafted, the independent claims merely describe high level instructions for transmitting data between a plurality of computer tools (i.e., servers and user devices) and determining which data not to store or receive at a server. As discussed further above, these claim elements are considered to recite the use of generic computer tools in their ordinary capacity to perform the abstract idea and electronic recordkeeping instructions that are recited at a high level of generality. Because merely “applying” the exception using generic computer components cannot provide an inventive concept, and because electronic recordkeeping is a well-understood, routine, and conventional activity, the additional elements of the claims, when viewed as a whole/ordered combination, do not recite significantly more than the judicial exception. See MPEP 2106.05(I)(A).
Response to 35 U.S.C. § 102 and §103 Remarks
Applicant’s remarks filed on pages 15-16 of the Response concerning the 35 U.S.C. § 102 and §103 rejections of claims have been fully considered but are moot in view of the amended prior art rejection. In view of the amendments to the independent claims, the Examiner has set forth an amended §103 rejection of the claims with newly cited prior art that may be found starting on page 28 of this non-final office action.
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 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception, in this case being an abstract idea, without significantly more.
First of all, claims must be directed to one or more following statutory categories: a process, a machine, a manufacture, or a composition of matter. Claims 1-16 are directed to a process (“a method”), claims 17-19 are directed to a machine (“a device”), and claim 20 is directed to a manufacture (“a non-transitory computer readable medium”).
Thus, claims 1-20 satisfy Step One because they are all within one of the four statutory categories of eligible subject matter. Claims 1-20, however, are directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Regarding independent claim 1, the specific limitations that recite an abstract idea are:
Receiving […] a plurality of utility data items, each respective utility data item comprising utility usage information for a respective utility account of a plurality of utility accounts, and a respective subscription identifier (ID) corresponding to a respective pre-established association between the respective utility account and a respective user […].
Wherein, for each respective subscription ID, […] does not receive or store identifying information corresponding to a respective user account associated with […] the respective subscription ID.
Receiving, from a user […] request for utility data, the request comprising a subscription ID and excluding identifying information corresponding to a user account […];
Selecting, as the utility data, a subset of the plurality of utility data items based at least in part on the subscription ID and not based on the identifying information corresponding to the user account associated with the user […]; and
Providing, to the user […] and responsive to the request, the utility data.
Therefore, claims 1 and 2-16, by virtue of dependence, recite steps for collecting information (i.e., receiving utility data items comprising utility usage information for a respective utility account and respective subscription identifier ID, receiving requests for utility data from a user including a subscription ID and excluding identifying information corresponding to a user account), organizing information (i.e., not receiving or storing identifying information corresponding to a respective user account in association with a respective subscription ID), analyzing information (i.e., selecting a subset of utility data items based on the subscription ID and not based on the identifying information corresponding to the user account), and displaying a particular result of the collection and analysis of information (i.e., providing the utility data to the user in response to the request) – which is the abstract idea of mental processes. See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III).
Furthermore, the limitations identified above, as a whole, recite methods for organizing human activity. In particular, the claim steps directed towards receiving utility usage data corresponding to respective utility accounts and subscription IDs, receiving requests from users for utility data, and providing selected utility data to the user based on a provided subscription ID recite concepts of commercial interactions in the form of business relations. See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(II). This is further evidenced in the Applicant’s specification ¶ [0011], “customers may utilize another service provider to facilitate establishing a subscription for utility usage data so that a utility provider can send utility usage data (which may also be referred to as “subscription data”) to the other service provider and the other service provider can provide the utility usage data as subscription data to the customer”, and “Aspects of the subject technology are concerned with the management of such subscription data, for example, how the subscription data is received at a subscription server, e.g., under control of the other service provider, noted above, how the subscription data is provided to the customer or subscriber, how the subscription service is terminated, paused, or resumed, how the subscription data can be augmented or presented in a manner which is more useful to the customer or subscriber” (¶ [0012]). Accordingly, under broadest reasonable interpretation in view of the specification, the limitations of claim 1 identified above involve and define a commercial interaction (i.e., business relationship) between a customer/subscriber and a subscription service provider (i.e., subscription server).
The judicial exception recited above is not integrated into a practical application because the additional elements of claim 1, when viewed as a whole/ordered combination, are various generic technologies, computer components, and computer instructions to implement the abstract idea (“a subscription server”, “a utility provider server”, “wherein the subscription server is separate from the utility provider server”, “a user device”). Because the invention is using a computer simply as a tool to perform the abstract idea on, the judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application.
Furthermore, the claim recites additional elements involving steps for electronic recordkeeping (“receiving, at a subscription server and from a utility provider server, a plurality of utility data items, each respective utility data item comprising utility usage information for a respective utility account of a plurality of utility accounts, and a respective subscription identifier (ID) corresponding to a respective pre-established association between the respective utility account and a respective user device”, “wherein, for each respective subscription ID, the subscription server does not receive or store identifying information corresponding to a respective user account associated with the respective user device in associated with the respective subscription ID”) and transmitting information over a network (“receiving, at a subscription server and from a utility provider server, a plurality of utility data items”, “receiving, from a user device, a request for utility data”, “providing, to the user device and responsive to the request, the utility data”). These additional elements fail to integrate the claim into a practical application because the steps for electronic recordkeeping and transmitting information over a network amount to no more than mere data gathering/outputting, which is insignificant extra-solution activity. See MPEP 2106.05(g).
Finally, the claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because, as discussed above, the additional elements in combination are recited at a high level of generality such that they amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the abstract idea using generic computer components. Because merely “applying” the exception using generic computer components cannot provide an inventive concept, the additional elements, when viewed as a whole/ordered combination, do not recite significantly more than the judicial exception. See MPEP 2106.05(I)(A). Furthermore, the additional elements involving steps for electronic recordkeeping and transmitting information over a network amount fail to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the courts have found electronic recordkeeping and transmitting information over a network to be well-understood, routine, and conventional activities. See MPEP 2106.05(d)(II). Because the invention is merely reciting well-understood, routine, and conventional activity, the additional elements of this claim which involve electronic recordkeeping and transmitting information over a network, when viewed as a whole/ordered combination, do not recite significantly more than the judicial exception. Thus, claim 1 is not patent eligible.
Regarding independent claim 17, the specific limitations that recite an abstract idea are:
Receive […] a plurality of utility data items, each respective utility data item comprising utility usage information for a respective utility account of a plurality of utility accounts, and a respective subscription identifier (ID) corresponding to a respective pre-established association between the respective utility account and a respective user […].
Wherein, for each respective subscription ID, identifying information corresponding to a respective user account […] is not received or stored in association with the respective subscription ID;
Receive, from a user […] request for utility data, the request comprising a subscription ID and excluding any identifying information corresponding to a user account […];
Select, as the utility data, a subset of the plurality of utility data items based at least in part on the subscription ID and not based on the identifying information corresponding to the user account […]; and
Provide, to the user […] and responsive to the request, the utility data.
Therefore, claims 17 and 18-19, by virtue of dependence, recite steps for collecting information (i.e., receiving utility data items comprising utility usage information for a respective utility account and respective subscription identifier ID, receiving requests for utility data from a user including a subscription ID and excluding identifying information corresponding to a user account), organizing information (i.e., wherein, for each respective subscription ID, identifying information corresponding to a respective user account is not received or stored in association with the respective subscription ID), analyzing information (i.e., selecting a subset of utility data items based on the subscription ID and not based on the identifying information corresponding to the user account), and displaying a particular result of the collection and analysis of information (i.e., providing the utility data to the user in response to the request) – which is the abstract idea of mental processes. See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III).
Furthermore, the limitations identified above, as a whole, recite methods for organizing human activity. In particular, the claim steps directed towards receiving utility usage data corresponding to respective utility accounts and subscription IDs, receiving requests from users for utility data, and providing selected utility data to the user based on a provided subscription ID recite concepts of commercial interactions in the form of business relations. See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(II). This is further evidenced in the Applicant’s specification ¶ [0011], “customers may utilize another service provider to facilitate establishing a subscription for utility usage data so that a utility provider can send utility usage data (which may also be referred to as “subscription data”) to the other service provider and the other service provider can provide the utility usage data as subscription data to the customer”, and “Aspects of the subject technology are concerned with the management of such subscription data, for example, how the subscription data is received at a subscription server, e.g., under control of the other service provider, noted above, how the subscription data is provided to the customer or subscriber, how the subscription service is terminated, paused, or resumed, how the subscription data can be augmented or presented in a manner which is more useful to the customer or subscriber” (¶ [0012]). Accordingly, under broadest reasonable interpretation in view of the specification, the limitations of claim 17 identified above involve and define a commercial interaction (i.e., business relationship) between a customer/subscriber and a subscription service provider (i.e., subscription server).
The judicial exception recited above is not integrated into a practical application because the additional elements of claim 17, when viewed as a whole/ordered combination, are various generic technologies, computer components, and computer instructions to implement the abstract idea (“a processor”, “a non-transitory computer-readable medium storing instructions, which when executed, cause the processor to […]”, “a device”, “a utility provider server”, “wherein the device is separate from the utility provider server”, “a user device”). Because the invention is using a computer simply as a tool to perform the abstract idea on, the judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application.
Furthermore, the claim recites additional elements involving steps for electronic recordkeeping (“receive, at the device and from a utility provider server, a plurality of utility data items, each respective utility data item comprising utility usage information for a respective utility account of a plurality of utility accounts, and a respective subscription identifier (ID) corresponding to a respective pre-established association between the respective utility account and a respective user device”, “wherein, for each respective subscription ID, identifying information corresponding to a respective user account associated with the respective user device is not received or stored in association with the respective subscription ID”) and transmitting information over a network (“receive, at a device and from a utility provider server, a plurality of utility data items”, “receive, from a user device, a request for utility data”, “provide, to the user device and responsive to the request, the utility data”). These additional elements fail to integrate the claim into a practical application because the steps for electronic recordkeeping and transmitting information over a network amount to no more than mere data gathering/outputting, which is insignificant extra-solution activity. See MPEP 2106.05(g).
Finally, the claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because, as discussed above, the additional elements in combination are recited at a high level of generality such that they amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the abstract idea using generic computer components. Because merely “applying” the exception using generic computer components cannot provide an inventive concept, the additional elements, when viewed as a whole/ordered combination, do not recite significantly more than the judicial exception. See MPEP 2106.05(I)(A). Furthermore, the additional elements involving steps for electronic recordkeeping and transmitting information over a network amount fail to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the courts have found electronic recordkeeping and transmitting information over a network to be well-understood, routine, and conventional activities. See MPEP 2106.05(d)(II). Because the invention is merely reciting well-understood, routine, and conventional activity, the additional elements of this claim which involve electronic recordkeeping and transmitting information over a network, when viewed as a whole/ordered combination, do not recite significantly more than the judicial exception. Thus, claim 17 is not patent eligible.
Regarding independent claim 20, the specific limitations that recite an abstract idea are:
Receive […] a plurality of utility data items, each respective utility data item comprising utility usage information for a respective utility account of a plurality of utility accounts, and a respective subscription identifier (ID) corresponding to a respective pre-established association between the respective utility account and a respective user […].
Wherein, for each respective subscription ID, […] does not receive or store identifying information corresponding to a respective user account […] in association with the respective subscription ID.
Receive, from a user […] request for utility data, the request comprising a subscription ID and excluding any identifying information corresponding to a user account […];
Select, as the utility data, a subset of the plurality of utility data items based at least in part on the subscription ID and not based on the identifying information corresponding to the user account […]; and
Provide, to the user […] and responsive to the request, the utility data.
Therefore, claim 20 recite steps for collecting information (i.e., receiving utility data items comprising utility usage information for a respective utility account and respective subscription identifier ID, receiving requests for utility data from a user including a subscription ID and excluding identifying information corresponding to a user account), organizing information (i.e., not receiving or storing identifying information corresponding to a respective user account in association with a respective subscription ID), analyzing information (i.e., selecting a subset of utility data items based on the subscription ID and not based on the identifying information corresponding to the user account), and displaying a particular result of the collection and analysis of information (i.e., providing the utility data to the user in response to the request) – which is the abstract idea of mental processes. See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III).
Furthermore, the limitations identified above, as a whole, recite methods for organizing human activity. In particular, the claim steps directed towards receiving utility usage data corresponding to respective utility accounts and subscription IDs, receiving requests from users for utility data, and providing selected utility data to the user based on a provided subscription ID recite concepts of commercial interactions in the form of business relations. See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(II). This is further evidenced in the Applicant’s specification ¶ [0011], “customers may utilize another service provider to facilitate establishing a subscription for utility usage data so that a utility provider can send utility usage data (which may also be referred to as “subscription data”) to the other service provider and the other service provider can provide the utility usage data as subscription data to the customer”, and “Aspects of the subject technology are concerned with the management of such subscription data, for example, how the subscription data is received at a subscription server, e.g., under control of the other service provider, noted above, how the subscription data is provided to the customer or subscriber, how the subscription service is terminated, paused, or resumed, how the subscription data can be augmented or presented in a manner which is more useful to the customer or subscriber” (¶ [0012]). Accordingly, under broadest reasonable interpretation in view of the specification, the limitations of claim 20 identified above involve and define a commercial interaction (i.e., business relationship) between a customer/subscriber and a subscription service provider (i.e., subscription server).
The judicial exception recited above is not integrated into a practical application because the additional elements, when viewed as whole/ordered combination, of claim 20 are various generic technologies, computer components, and computer instructions to implement the abstract idea (“a non-transitory computer readable medium storing instructions which, when executed by one or more processors, cause the one or more processors to […]”, “a subscription server”, “a utility provider server”, “wherein the subscription server is separate from the utility provider server”, “a user device”). Because the invention is using a computer simply as a tool to perform the abstract idea on, the judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application.
Furthermore, the claim recites additional elements involving steps for electronic recordkeeping (“receive, at a subscription server and from a utility provider server, a plurality of utility data items, each respective utility data item comprising utility usage information for a respective utility account of a plurality of utility accounts, and a respective subscription identifier (ID) corresponding to a respective pre-established association between the respective utility account and a respective user device”, “wherein, for each respective subscription ID, the subscription server does not receive or store identifying information corresponding to a respective user account associated with the respective user device in associated with the respective subscription ID”) and transmitting information over a network (“receive, at a subscription server and from a utility provider server, a plurality of utility data items”, “receive, from a user device, a request for utility data”, “provide, to the user device and responsive to the request, the utility data”). These additional elements fail to integrate the claim into a practical application because the steps for electronic recordkeeping and transmitting information over a network amount to no more than mere data gathering/outputting, which is insignificant extra-solution activity. See MPEP 2106.05(g).
Finally, the claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because, as discussed above, the additional elements in combination are recited at a high level of generality such that they amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the abstract idea using generic computer components. Because merely “applying” the exception using generic computer components cannot provide an inventive concept, the additional elements, when viewed as a whole/ordered combination, do not recite significantly more than the judicial exception. See MPEP 2106.05(I)(A). Furthermore, the additional elements involving steps for electronic recordkeeping and transmitting information over a network amount fail to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the courts have found electronic recordkeeping and transmitting information over a network to be well-understood, routine, and conventional activities. See MPEP 2106.05(d)(II). Because the invention is merely reciting well-understood, routine, and conventional activity, the additional elements of this claim which involve electronic recordkeeping and transmitting information over a network, when viewed as a whole/ordered combination, do not recite significantly more than the judicial exception. Thus, claim 20 is not patent eligible.
Dependent claims 2-16 and 18-19 have been given the full two part analysis, analyzing the additional elements both individually and in combination. The dependent claims, when analyzed individually and in combination, are also held to be patent ineligible under 35 U.S.C. § 101.
Regarding claim 2, the claim recites steps for collecting information in a manner that is analogous to human mental work (“wherein the request further comprises authentication information”)- which is the abstract idea of mental processes. The limitations of this claim fail to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because this claim does not introduce or recite additional elements other than the generic computer components of claim 1 discussed above, by virtue of dependence. This dependent claim, therefore, also amounts to merely using a computer, in its ordinary capacity, as a tool to perform the abstract idea. Finally, the additional elements of this dependent claim, when viewed as a whole/ordered combination, fail to establish that the claims provide an inventive concept because claims that merely use a computer, in its ordinary capacity, as a tool to perform the abstract idea cannot provide an inventive concept. See MPEP 2106.05(I)(A).
Regarding claim 3, the claim recites the same abstract idea as claim 1, by virtue of dependence. The limitations of this claim fail to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because the additional elements of the claim, when viewed as a whole/ordered combination, are generic computer components and instructions to implement that abstract idea (“the subscription server comprises a database server”, “the request is received directly at the database server”). Because the invention is using the computer simply as a tool to perform the abstract idea on, the judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. Finally, the additional elements of this dependent claim, when viewed as a whole/ordered combination, fail to establish that the claims provide an inventive concept because claims that merely use a computer, in its ordinary capacity, as a tool to perform the abstract idea cannot provide an inventive concept. See MPEP 2106.05(I)(A).
Regarding claim 4, the claim recites steps for collecting information in a manner that is analogous to human mental work (“wherein the identifying information is absent from the utility data”) - which is the abstract idea of mental processes. The limitations of this claim fail to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because the additional elements of the claim, when viewed as a whole/ordered combination, involve steps for electronic recordkeeping (“wherein the user account ID is […] absent from the database server”). These additional elements fail to integrate the claims into a practical application because the steps for electronic recordkeeping, as recited in the claim, amount to no more than mere data gathering/outputting, which is insignificant extra-solution activity. See MPEP 2106.05(g). Because the invention is merely reciting insignificant extra-solution activity, the judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. Finally, the additional elements involving steps for electronic recordkeeping fail to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the courts have found electronic recordkeeping to be well-understood, routine, and conventional activities. See MPEP 2106.05(d)(II). Because the invention is merely reciting well-understood, routine, and convention activity, the additional elements of this claim, when viewed as a whole/ordered combination, do not recite significantly more than the judicial exception.
Regarding claim 5, the claim recites steps for analyzing information and organizing information in a manner that is analogous to human mental work (“validating the utility data prior to storing the utility data”) – which is the abstract idea of mental processes. The limitations of this claim fail to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because the additional elements of the claim, when viewed as a whole/ordered combination, involve steps for electronic recordkeeping (“storing the utility data in the database server”). These additional elements fail to integrate the claims into a practical application because the steps for electronic recordkeeping, as recited in the claim, amount to no more than mere data gathering, which is insignificant extra-solution activity. See MPEP 2106.05(g). Because the invention is merely reciting insignificant extra-solution activity, the judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. Finally, the additional elements involving steps for electronic recordkeeping fail to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the courts have found electronic recordkeeping to be well-understood, routine, and conventional activities. See MPEP 2106.05(d)(II). Because the invention is merely reciting well-understood, routine, and convention activity, the additional elements of this claim, when viewed as a whole/ordered combination, do not recite significantly more than the judicial exception.
Regarding claim 6, the claim recites the same abstract idea as claim 1, by virtue of dependence. The limitations of this claim fail to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because the additional elements of the claim, when viewed as a whole/ordered combination, involve steps for electronic recordkeeping (“after providing the utility data to the user device, removing the utility data from the database server”). These additional elements fail to integrate the claims into a practical application because the steps for electronic recordkeeping, as recited in the claim, amount to no more than mere data gathering, which is insignificant extra-solution activity. See MPEP 2106.05(g). Because the invention is merely reciting insignificant extra-solution activity, the judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. Finally, the additional elements involving steps for electronic recordkeeping fail to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the courts have found electronic recordkeeping to be well-understood, routine, and conventional activities. See MPEP 2106.05(d)(II). Because the invention is merely reciting well-understood, routine, and convention activity, the additional elements of this claim, when viewed as a whole/ordered combination, do not recite significantly more than the judicial exception.
Regarding claim 7, the claim recites the same abstract idea as claim 1, by virtue of dependence. The limitations of this claim fail to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because the additional elements of the claim, when viewed as a whole/ordered combination, involve steps for electronic recordkeeping (“storing second utility data in the database server according to the subscription ID”, “after a predetermined time period, replacing the second utility data in the database server with a placeholder record indicating the second utility data was removed”). These additional elements fail to integrate the claims into a practical application because the steps for electronic recordkeeping, as recited in the claim, amount to no more than mere data gathering, which is insignificant extra-solution activity. See MPEP 2106.05(g). Because the invention is merely reciting insignificant extra-solution activity, the judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. Finally, the additional elements involving steps for electronic recordkeeping fail to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the courts have found electronic recordkeeping to be well-understood, routine, and conventional activities. See MPEP 2106.05(d)(II). Because the invention is merely reciting well-understood, routine, and convention activity, the additional elements of this claim, when viewed as a whole/ordered combination, do not recite significantly more than the judicial exception.
Regarding claim 8, the claim recites steps for collecting information (“after the second utility data has been replace with the placeholder record, receiving a request for the second utility data”, “requesting […] the second utility data”), analyzing information, and displaying a particular result of the collection and analysis of information (“providing the second utility data to the user […] based on the request for the second utility data”) – which is the abstract idea of mental processes. Furthermore, these limitations involving providing a user/subscriber with utility data in response to a request from the user/subscriber for the utility data recites concepts of commercial interactions in the form of business relations. The limitations of this claim fail to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because the additional elements of the claim, when viewed as a whole/ordered combination, are generic computer components and instructions to implement that abstract idea (“utility provider server”, “user device”). Because the invention is using the computer simply as a tool to perform the abstract idea on, the judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. Finally, the additional elements of this dependent claim, when viewed as a whole/ordered combination, fail to establish that the claims provide an inventive concept because claims that merely use a computer, in its ordinary capacity, as a tool to perform the abstract idea cannot provide an inventive concept. See MPEP 2106.05(I)(A).
Regarding claim 9, the claim recites steps for collecting information (“when the utility data is for a newly established subscription, the utility data includes historical data”) – which is the abstract idea of mental processes. The limitations of this claim fail to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because this claim does not introduce or recite additional elements other than the generic computer components of claim 1 discussed above, by virtue of dependence. This dependent claim, therefore, also amounts to merely using a computer, in its ordinary capacity, as a tool to perform the abstract idea. Finally, the additional elements of this dependent claims, when viewed as a whole/ordered combination, fail to establish that the claims provide an inventive concept because claims that merely use a computer, in its ordinary capacity, as a tool to perform the abstract idea cannot provide an inventive concept. See MPEP 2106.05(I)(A).
Regarding claim 10, the claim recites steps for collecting information (“wherein the historical data has a start date which corresponds to a predefined time period”) – which is the abstract idea of mental processes. The limitations of this claim fail to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because this claim does not introduce or recite additional elements other than the generic computer components of claim 1 discussed above, by virtue of dependence. This dependent claim, therefore, also amounts to merely using a computer, in its ordinary capacity, as a tool to perform the abstract idea. Finally, the additional elements of this dependent claim, when viewed as a whole/ordered combination, fail to establish that the claims provide an inventive concept because claims that merely use a computer, in its ordinary capacity, as a tool to perform the abstract idea cannot provide an inventive concept. See MPEP 2106.05(I)(A).
Regarding claim 11, the claim recites steps for collecting information (“receiving rate information for a plurality of rate plans related to the utility data”), analyzing information (“correlating the rate information with the utility data”), and displaying a particular result of the collection and analysis of information (“providing the correlated rate information to the user”)- which is the abstract idea of mental processes. Furthermore, the limitations of claim 11, as a whole, recite concepts of commercial interactions in the form of marketing activities/behaviors and business relations. The limitations of this claim fail to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because this claim does not introduce or recite additional elements other than the generic computer components of claim 1 discussed above, by virtue of dependence. This dependent claim, therefore, also amounts to merely using a computer, in its ordinary capacity, as a tool to perform the abstract idea. Finally, the additional elements of this dependent claim, when viewed as a whole/ordered combination, fail to establish that the claims provide an inventive concept because claims that merely use a computer, in its ordinary capacity, as a tool to perform the abstract idea cannot provide an inventive concept. See MPEP 2106.05(I)(A).
Regarding claim 12, the claim recites steps for collecting information (“receiving an indication of permission from the user […] to access the utility data for analysis”), analyzing information (“calculating usage trends for utility usage data for a plurality of subscription IDs”), and displaying a particular result of the collection and analysis of the information (“providing usage trend data to the user”)- which is the abstract idea of mental processes. The limitations of this claim fail to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because this claim does not introduce or recite additional elements other than the generic computer components of claim 1 discussed above, by virtue of dependence. This dependent claim, therefore, also amounts to merely using a computer, in its ordinary capacity, as a tool to perform the abstract idea. Finally, the additional elements of this dependent claim, when viewed as a whole/ordered combination, fail to establish that the claims provide an inventive concept because claims that merely use a computer, in its ordinary capacity, as a tool to perform the abstract idea cannot provide an inventive concept. See MPEP 2106.05(I)(A).
Regarding claim 13, the claim recites steps for collecting information (“wherein the utility data corresponds to electricity measured at an electric meter, and wherein the utility data includes electricity information for electricity provided by the electricity provider and for electricity provided to the electricity provider”)- which is the abstract idea of mental processes. The limitations of this claim fail to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because the additional elements of the claim, when viewed as a whole/ordered combination, are merely generally linking the use of the abstract idea to a particular field of use (“wherein a utility provider associated with the utility provider server is an electricity provider”). Because the invention is merely generally linking the use of the abstract idea to a particular field of use, the judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. Finally, the additional elements of this dependent claim, when viewed as a whole/ordered combination, fail to establish that the claims provide an inventive concept because claims that merely generally linking the use of the abstract idea to a particular field of use cannot provide an inventive concept. See MPEP 2106.05(I)(A).
Regarding claim 14, the claim recites the same abstract idea as claim 1, by virtue of dependence. The limitations of this claim fail to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because the additional elements of the claim, when viewed as a whole/ordered combination, are generic computer components and instructions to implement that abstract idea (“issuing an access token to the utility provider server, the access token providing the ability for the utility provider server to directly access a data storage facility of the subscription server”). Because the invention is using the computer simply as a tool to perform the abstract idea on, the judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. Finally, the additional elements of this dependent claim, when viewed as a whole/ordered combination, fail to establish that the claims provide an inventive concept because claims that merely use a computer, in its ordinary capacity, as a tool to perform the abstract idea cannot provide an inventive concept. See MPEP 2106.05(I)(A).
Regarding claim 15, the claim recites steps for collecting information and organizing information (“receiving […] replacement utility data to replace an already received portion of the utility data, wherein both the replacement data and the already received portion of the utility data correspond to a same time-period”) in a manner that is analogous to human mental work- which is the abstract idea of mental processes. The limitations of this claim fail to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because the additional elements of the claim, when viewed as a whole/ordered combination, involve steps for electronic recordkeeping (“receiving, at a subscription server, replacement utility data to replace an already received portion of the utility data”). These additional elements fail to integrate the claims into a practical application because the steps for electronic recordkeeping, as recited in the claim, amount to no more than mere data gathering, which is insignificant extra-solution activity. See MPEP 2106.05(g). Because the invention is merely reciting insignificant extra-solution activity, the judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. Finally, the additional elements involving steps for electronic recordkeeping fail to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the courts have found electronic recordkeeping to be well-understood, routine, and conventional activities. See MPEP 2106.05(d)(II). Because the invention is merely reciting well-understood, routine, and convention activity, the additional elements of this claim, when viewed as a whole/ordered combination, do not recite significantly more than the judicial exception.
Regarding claim 16, the claim recites steps for collecting information (“receiving second utility data from the user”), analyzing information (“aggregating the second utility data from the user […] with the first utility data […]), and displaying a particular result of the collection and analysis of the information (“providing the aggregated data to the user”)- which is the abstract idea of mental processes. The limitations of this claim fail to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because the additional elements of the claim, when viewed as a whole/ordered combination, are generic computer components and instructions to implement that abstract idea (“user device”, “utility provider server”). Because the invention is using the computer simply as a tool to perform the abstract idea on, the judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. Finally, the additional elements of this dependent claim, when viewed as a whole/ordered combination, fail to establish that the claims provide an inventive concept because claims that merely use a computer, in its ordinary capacity, as a tool to perform the abstract idea cannot provide an inventive concept. See MPEP 2106.05(I)(A).
Regarding claim 18, the claim recites the same abstract idea as claim 17, by virtue of dependence. The limitations of this claim fail to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because the additional elements of the claim, when viewed as a whole/ordered combination, are generic computer components and instructions to implement that abstract idea (“the device comprises a database server”, “the request is received directly at the database server”). Because the invention is using the computer simply as a tool to perform the abstract idea on, the judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. Finally, the additional elements of this dependent claim, when viewed as a whole/ordered combination, fail to establish that the claims provide an inventive concept because claims that merely use a computer, in its ordinary capacity, as a tool to perform the abstract idea cannot provide an inventive concept. See MPEP 2106.05(I)(A).
Regarding claim 19, the claim recites steps for collecting information (“wherein the identifying information is absent from the utility data”), analyzing information, and organizing information (“validate the utility data prior to storing the utility data”)- which is the abstract idea of mental processes. The limitations of this claim fail to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because the additional elements of the claim, when viewed as a whole/ordered combination, involve steps for electronic recordkeeping (“wherein the user account ID is […] absent from the database server”, “storing the utility data in the database server”, “after providing the utility data to the user device, removing the utility data from the database server”). These additional elements fail to integrate the claims into a practical application because the steps for electronic recordkeeping, as recited in the claim, amount to no more than mere data gathering/outputting, which is insignificant extra-solution activity. See MPEP 2106.05(g). Because the invention is merely reciting insignificant extra-solution activity, the judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. Finally, the additional elements involving steps for electronic recordkeeping fail to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the courts have found electronic recordkeeping to be well-understood, routine, and conventional activities. See MPEP 2106.05(d)(II). Because the invention is merely reciting well-understood, routine, and convention activity, the additional elements of this claim, when viewed as a whole/ordered combination, do not recite significantly more than the judicial exception.
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 1-5, 9-10, 12, 14-18, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Singh et al. Patent No. 8,818,758, hereafter known as Singh, in view of Kim KR20230150544, hereafter known as Kim.
Claim 1: Singh teaches the following:
Receiving, at a subscription server and from a utility provider server, a plurality of utility data items, each respective utility data item comprising utility usage information for a respective utility account of a plurality of utility accounts, and a respective subscription identifier (ID) corresponding to a respective pre-established association between the respective utility account and a respective user device, wherein the subscription server is separate from the utility provider server; (col. 2, lines 7-15: a utilities manager system for tracking utilities usage and receives utilities usage data that corresponds to at least one building. Utilities usage data includes costs, dates, and amount of utilities. The data is retrieved from utilities suppliers); (col. 6, lines 59-62: users may provide the utilities manager system with their username and password for the external utility company website, and the utilities manager system can extract relevant data from the utility company website); (col. 21, lines 55-65: the utilities manager may import data from a utility company server, and store the data into its own internal database); (col. 7: 8-14: Once a user submits login credentials, such as username/password, the utilities manager system may automatically detect which utility accounts are associated with the login and pull data for all the utility accounts at once); (col. 25, lines 24-30: buildings may have individual utilities meters for apartments, and the utilities manager can sum those accounts for an overall utilities measurement).
Thus, a utilities manager system (equivalent to the subscription server) is configured to extract data from an external utility company website/server based on a user’s login credentials, such as username/password (i.e., a subscription ID). Accordingly, a user’s username/password is associated with a utility account from which the utilities manager system may extract utilities data via the utility company website/server, where the utility account/data may correspond to a utilities meter in a building.
Wherein, for each respective subscription ID […] a respective user account associated with the respective user device in association with the respective subscription ID;
Receiving, from a user device, a request for utility data, the request comprising a subscription ID and excluding any identifying information corresponding to a user account associated with the user device; (col. 2, lines 7-15: see above); (col. 6, lines 59-62: users may provide the utilities manager system with their username and password for the external utility company website, and the utilities manager system can extract relevant data from the utility company website); (col. 11, lines 18-35: the utilities manager system may present menus to allow users to switch between which utility’s data is being displayed, change which units the data is presented in, and change what the data is normalized by. Upon selecting a report type, the system presents corresponding data); (col. 5., lines 45-46: each apartment/building can have one or more utility accounts connected to it); (col. 7, lines 3-20: the utilities manager automatically retrieves data for multiple utility account at once from third-party websites. Once a user submits login credentials for a given third-party utility company website, the utilities manager can automatically detect which utility accounts are associated with the login and pull data for all of those utility accounts at once. This means that when the user defines a utility account, the utilities manager may not need to request third-party login credentials because the utilities manager can be configured to know that the utility account is linked to a specific username/password that is already saved in the system. The system can use an email address or another user identifier to automatically update logins for all associated accounts).
Thus, a user may submit login credentials such as username/password (i.e., a subscription ID) associated with their utility account with a utility company to a utilities manager system. Furthermore, once the user submits login credentials, the utilities manager can automatically detect which utility accounts are associated with the login and pull data for all the utility accounts at once. As such, when the user defines a utility account, the utilities manager does not need to request third-party login credentials because the utilities manager is configured to know that the utilities accounts are linked to a specific username/password that is already saved in the system. Moreover, the utilities manager system can use an email address or another user identifier to update logins for associated utilities accounts. Accordingly, these teachings indicate that the user-provided username/password/email-address/other user identifier (i.e., subscription ID) to the utilities manager system is different from the third-party login credentials associated with the utility company because the utilities manager system does not need the third-party login credentials once the utility accounts are defined/linked.
Selecting, as the utility data, a subset of the plurality of utility data items based at least in part on the subscription ID and not based on the identifying information corresponding to the user account associated with the user device; (col. 7: 8-14: Once a user submits login credentials, such as username/password, the utilities manager system may automatically detect which utility accounts are associated with the login and pull data for all the utility accounts at once); (col. 11, lines 18-35: the utilities manager system may present menus to allow users to switch between which utility’s data is being displayed, change which units the data is presented in, and change what the data is normalized by. Upon selecting a report type, the system presents corresponding data); (col. 7, lines 3-20: see above).
Thus, a user may submit login credentials (i.e., a username/password/email address/other user identifier) associated with their utility account via a utilities manager system, and the system may automatically detect which utility accounts are associated with the login, pull utility data associated with the particular account, and display the information to the user. Furthermore, as discussed above, Singh indicates that the user-provided username/password/email address/other user identifier (i.e., subscription ID) to the utilities manager system is different from the third-party login credentials associated with the utility company.
Although Singh discloses a utilities manager system that is configured to pull/retrieve utility data corresponding to utility accounts from third-party utility company servers, Singh does not explicitly teach that utilities manager system does not receive or store identifying information corresponding to a respective user account.
However, Kim teaches the following:
[…] the subscription server does not receive or store identifying information corresponding to a respective user account […]. (¶ [0034]: the system comprises an energy data service device 110 and an energy analysis service device 120); (¶ [0042]: An energy data service device collects energy personal information including energy usage data. The energy usage data is collected through remote meter reading and is managed by a remote meter reading service provider. The energy data service device and remote meter reading service provider may be different or the same entity); (¶ [0044]: the energy data service device manages energy personal information and can generate non-identifying energy information (i.e., pseudonymized or anonymous energy information) that can be provided to a third party); (¶ [0068]: the energy data service device excludes personal information including user name, address, and energy meter number that can identify the individual user to generate the non-identifying information); (¶ [0046]: the energy data service device 110 transmits the non-identifying energy information, including the anonymous energy information, to the energy analysis service device 120); (¶ [0047]: A random ID that does not specify the user is generated and used as the anonymous energy information. As such, the energy analysis service device 120 only receives non-identifying energy information including the randomized ID and energy usage data required for analysis, so it is not possible to know who the person is. Only non-identifying information is stored).
Thus, Kim teaches a system that is configured to transmit a user’s energy usage data between devices. A first device (i.e., energy data service device/remote meter reading service provider) may collect/manage the energy usage data of a user and generate anonymized non-identifying energy information to provide to a second device (i.e., a third party/energy data analysis device). As such, the first device provides the non-identifying energy information to the second device, where the non-identifying energy information includes energy usage information but excludes personal information such as the user’s name, address, energy meter number, etc., so it is not possible to know who the person is.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the system of Singh with the teachings of Kim by incorporating the features for transmitting a user’s energy usage information from a device that manages energy usage information to a third party device without including the user’s identifying information in the transmitted energy usage information, as taught by Kim, into the utilities manager system of Singh that is configured to collect utility data corresponding to a user account from a utility company server and link a subscription ID (i.e., username/password/email/identifier) with the collected utility data. As noted, above Singh does not explicitly teach that the collected utility data excludes identifying information corresponding to the user account. As such, one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that the system of Singh, in combination with the teachings of Kim, would be enabled to retrieve utility data corresponding to a user account from a utility company server that excludes the user’s personal identifying information and enable a user to request/view the utility data using a subscription ID linked to the retrieved utility data. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification when one considers that “information security is maintained” (¶ [0072]) by sharing energy usage data in this manner and “so it is not possible to know who the person is” (¶ [0047]), as suggested by Kim.
Claim 2: Singh/Kim teaches the limitations of claim 1. Furthermore, Singh teaches the following:
Wherein the request further comprises authentication information. (col. 7: 8-14: Once a user submits login credentials, such as username/password, the utilities manager system may automatically detect which utility accounts are associated with the login and pull data for all the utility accounts at once).
Claim 3: Singh/Kim teaches the limitations of claim 1. Furthermore, Singh teaches the following:
Wherein the subscription server comprises a database server, wherein the request is received directly at the database server. (col. 7: 8-14: Once a user submits login credentials, such as username/password, the utilities manager system may automatically detect which utility accounts are associated with the login and pull data for all the utility accounts at once); (col. 6, lines 56-64: the utilities manager can automatically retrieve data for a utility account and save it to its internal database); (col. 21, lines 55-65: the utilities manager may import data from a utility company server, and store the data into its own internal database).
Claim 4: Singh/Kim teaches the limitations of claim 3. Furthermore, Singh teaches the following:
Wherein the identifying information is absent from the utility data and absent from the database server. (col. 6, lines 59-62: users may provide the utilities manager system with their username and password for the external utility company website, and the utilities manager system can extract relevant data from the utility company website); (col. 7, lines 3-20: the utilities manager automatically retrieves data for multiple utility account at once from third-party websites. Once a user submits login credentials for a given third-party utility company website, the utilities manager can automatically detect which utility accounts are associated with the login and pull data for all of those utility accounts at once. This means that when the user defines a utility account, the utilities manager may not need to request third-party login credentials because the utilities manager can be configured to know that the utility account is linked to a specific username/password that is already saved in the system. The system can use an email address or another user identifier to automatically update logins for all associated accounts); (col. 2, lines 7-15: a utilities manager system for tracking utilities usage and receives utilities usage data that corresponds to at least one building. Utilities usage data includes costs, dates, and amount of utilities. The data is retrieved from utilities suppliers).
Thus, Singh teaches a utilities manager system that is configured to extract utilities data from a utility company website using the user’s input username/password/email address/other user identifier (i.e., a subscription ID). Singh does not disclose anywhere that the utility data retrieved by the system includes the “identifying information” corresponding to a user account or that the “identifying information” is stored in any databases. Instead, the utilities manager system may store a username/password that is linked to the utilities accounts of a user, but is separate from the third-party login credentials. As disclosed by Singh, the third-party login credentials are not needed by the utilities manager.
Claim 5: Singh/Kim teaches the limitations of claim 3. Furthermore, Singh teaches the following:
Validating the utility data prior to storing the utility data in the database server. (col. 7, lines 21-26: the utilities manager can validate accuracy and reasonableness of utility data when collected from the third-parties to make sure the utilities manager pulls correct data); (col. 21, lines 55-65: the utilities manager may import data from a utility company server, and store the data into its own internal database).
Claim 9: Singh/Kim teaches the limitations of claim 1. Furthermore, Singh teaches the following:
Wherein when the utility data is for a newly established subscription, the utility data includes historical data. (col. 7: 8-14: Once a user submits login credentials, such as username/password, the utilities manager system may automatically detect which utility accounts are associated with the login and pull data for all the utility accounts at once); (col 22., lines 7-13: For accounts that have not retrieved any data in the past, the utility company provides the utilities manager as much historical data as possible).
Claim 10: Singh/Kim teaches the limitations of claim 9. Furthermore, Singh teaches the following:
Wherein the historical data has a start date which corresponds to a predefined time period. (col 22., lines 7-13: For accounts that have not retrieved any data in the past, the utility company provides the utilities manager as much historical data as possible).
Claim 12: Singh/Kim teaches the limitations of claim 1. Furthermore, Singh teaches the following:
Receiving an indication of permission from the user device to access the utility data for analysis; (col. 16, lines 15-26: Users may share data with multiple other users through social networking capabilities, such as the creation of groups. A group may be created by a user who invites other users. The utilities manager can provide an interface for group members to compare their performance against one another and obtain a resulting ranking based on their performance within the group).
Calculating usage trends for utility usage data for a plurality of subscription IDs; and providing usage trend data to the user device. (col. 16, lines 15-26: see above); (col. 8, line 64- col. 9, line 17: utilities manager system can provide a summary view of all utility information for a building in one screen, including water/electricity/gas/oil usage for a given day/month/year along with a comparison of each usage value with the usage value for similar buildings. The utilities manager can also show a small bar graph that depicts usage in the given month/year compared to nearby months/years).
Claim 14: Singh/Kim teaches the limitations of claim 1. Furthermore, Singh teaches the following:
Issuing an access token to the utility provider server, the access token providing the ability for the utility provider server to directly access a data storage facility of the subscription server. (col. 21, lines 57-65: the utility company collects data from its own internal database(s) and exports them to a server. The utilities manager system may access this same server to save files and import the data to their own internal database). Accordingly, both the utility company and utilities manager system share access to a particular server from which they can import or export data.
Claim 15: Singh/Kim teaches the limitations of claim 1. Furthermore, Singh teaches the following:
Receiving, at the subscription server, replacement utility data to replace an already received portion of the utility data, wherein both the replacement utility data and the already received portion of the utility data correspond to a same time-period. (col. 21, lines 4-15: the utilities manager system supports importing, manipulating, and viewing usage and cost data for electricity, natural gas, fuel oil, and water. A given data point can refer to a particular time frame. Users may edit data in a variety of formats).
Claim 16: Singh/Kim teaches the limitations of claim 1. Furthermore, Singh teaches the following:
Receiving second utility data from the user device; (col. 22, lines 20- 26: users may import spreadsheets of utility usage and cost data directly into the utilities manager system. This is useful when users wish to import historical data that goes further into the past than the data available from the utility companies).
Aggregating the second utility data from the user device with the first utility data from the utility provider server; and providing the aggregated data to the user device. (col. 8, line 64- col. 9, line 17: utilities manager system can provide a summary view of all utility information for a building in one screen, including water/electricity/gas/oil usage for a given day/month/year along with a comparison of each usage value with the usage value for similar buildings. The utilities manager can also show a small bar graph that depicts usage in the given month/year compared to nearby months/years).
Claim 17: Singh teaches the following:
A device comprising: a processor; a non-transitory computer-readable medium storing instructions, which when executed, cause the processor to: (col. 2, lines 53-61: embodiments comprise a computer program product that has a computer-storage medium, e.g., a non-transitory computer-readable medium, including computer program logic encoded thereon that, when performed in a computerized device having a processor and memory, programs the processor to perform the disclosed operations).
The remaining limitations of claim 17 are substantially similar and analogous to the limitations of claim 1. Accordingly, the remaining limitations of claim 17 are rejected for the same reasons and rationale as discussed above with regard to claim 1.
Claim 18: Singh/Kim teaches the limitations of claim 17. Furthermore, the limitations of claim 18 are substantially similar and analogous to the limitations of claim 3. Accordingly, claim 18 is rejected for the same reasons and rationale as discussed above with regard to claim 3.
Claim 20: Singh teaches the following:
A non-transitory computer-readable medium storing instructions, which when executed by one or more processors, cause the one or more processors to: (col. 2, lines 53-61: embodiments comprise a computer program product that has a computer-storage medium, e.g., a non-transitory computer-readable medium, including computer program logic encoded thereon that, when performed in a computerized device having a processor and memory, programs the processor to perform the disclosed operations).
The remaining limitations of claim 20 are substantially similar and analogous to the limitations of claim 1. Accordingly, the remaining limitations of claim 20 are rejected for the same reasons and rationale as discussed above with regard to claim 1.
Claims 6 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Singh, in view of Kim, in further view of Mashima et al. U.S. Publication No. 2015/0128283, hereafter known as Mashima.
Claim 6: Singh/Kim teaches the limitations of claim 3. Furthermore, Singh does not explicitly teach, however Mashima does teach, the following:
After providing the utility data to the user device, removing the utility data from the database server. (¶ [0086]: a customer may view energy usage data using a customer device. The customer may communicate a redaction request to the repository that includes one or more portions of the energy usage data that the customer wishes to redact. Based on the redaction request, the repository may generate the redacted data); (¶ [0065]: redaction of data may include removing the data from the energy usage data. A repository privacy module may further replace the redacted data with another value such as a hash value).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include in the system of Singh the ability to remove the utility data from a database server after providing the utility data to the user device, as taught by Mashima, since the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements. In combination, each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination are predictable. Furthermore, one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the teachings of Mashima are compatible with the system of Singh as they share capabilities and characteristics; namely, they are both systems configured to obtain and display energy usage data to a customer.
Claim 19: Singh/Kim teaches the limitations of claim 18. Furthermore, Singh teaches the following:
Wherein the identifying information is absent from the utility data and absent from the database server. (col. 6, lines 59-62: users may provide the utilities manager system with their username and password for the external utility company website, and the utilities manager system can extract relevant data from the utility company website); (col. 7, lines 3-20: the utilities manager automatically retrieves data for multiple utility account at once from third-party websites. Once a user submits login credentials for a given third-party utility company website, the utilities manager can automatically detect which utility accounts are associated with the login and pull data for all of those utility accounts at once. This means that when the user defines a utility account, the utilities manager may not need to request third-party login credentials because the utilities manager can be configured to know that the utility account is linked to a specific username/password that is already saved in the system. The system can use an email address or another user identifier to automatically update logins for all associated accounts); (col. 2, lines 7-15: a utilities manager system for tracking utilities usage and receives utilities usage data that corresponds to at least one building. Utilities usage data includes costs, dates, and amount of utilities. The data is retrieved from utilities suppliers).
Thus, Singh teaches a utilities manager system that is configured to extract utilities data from a utility company website using the user’s input username/password/email address/other user identifier (i.e., a subscription ID). Singh does not disclose anywhere that the utility data retrieved by the system includes the “identifying information” corresponding to a user account or that the “identifying information” is stored in any databases. Instead, the utilities manager system may store a username/password that is linked to the utilities accounts of a user, but is separate from the third-party login credentials. As disclosed by Singh, the third-party login credentials are not needed by the utilities manager.
Validate the utility data prior to storing the utility data in the database server; (col. 7, lines 21-26: the utilities manager can validate accuracy and reasonableness of utility data when collected from the third-parties to make sure the utilities manager pulls correct data); (col. 21, lines 55-65: the utilities manager may import data from a utility company server, and store the data into its own internal database).
Singh does not explicitly teach removing the utility data from the database server after providing the utility data to the user device. However, Mashima teaches the following:
After providing the utility data to the user device, removing the utility date from the database server. (¶ [0086]: a customer may view energy usage data using a customer device. The customer may communicate a redaction request to the repository that includes one or more portions of the energy usage data that the customer wishes to redact. Based on the redaction request, the repository may generate the redacted data); (¶ [0065]: redaction of data may include removing the data from the energy usage data. A repository privacy module may further replace the redacted data with another value such as a hash value).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include in the system of Singh the ability to remove the utility data from a database server after providing the utility data to the user device, as taught by Mashima, since the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements. In combination, each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination are predictable. Furthermore, one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the teachings of Mashima are compatible with the system of Singh as they share capabilities and characteristics; namely, they are both systems configured to obtain and display energy usage data to a customer.
Claims 7-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Singh, in view of Kim, in further view of Mashima, and further in view of Gonos U.S. Publication No. 2003/0212687, hereafter known as Gonos.
Claim 7: Singh/Kim/Mashima teaches the limitations of claim 6. Furthermore, Singh teaches the following:
Storing second utility data in the database server according to the subscription ID; (col. 7: 8-14: Once a user submits login credentials, such as username/password, the utilities manager system may automatically detect which utility accounts are associated with the login and pull data for all the utility accounts at once); (col. 6, lines 56-64: the utilities manager can automatically retrieve data for a utility account and save it to its internal database); (col. 21, lines 55-65: the utilities manager may import data from a utility company server, and store the data into its own internal database).
Singh in view of Kim/Mashima does not explicitly teach, however Gonos does teach, the following:
After a predetermined time period, replacing the second utility data in the database server with a placeholder record indicating the second utility data was removed. (Abstract: The data structure of data removed from a database may be stored with the removed data. Identifying information about the removed data may be stored, and an attribute tag that identifies the collection of the data within the database may be associated with each removed data element); (¶ [0009]: the described system is used to restore archived data in systems that store data in very large database environments); (¶ [0025]: an archive file stores a series of attribute tags and associated data values for archived data); (¶ 0042]: a determination is made that a particular dataset is going to be archived, where the determination is based on the passage of predetermined period of time or a predetermined schedule); (¶ [0030]: by storing the attribute tag within the archive file, the archived data may be restored to the same or different online data structure). Thus, the system may determine to archive/remove particular datasets from a database after a predetermined period of time, wherein an attribute tag is created for the archived/removed dataset and stored in a particular archive file. The attribute tag (i.e., placeholder record indicating the data was removed) is used to reference and restore the archived/removed datasets.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system of Singh in view of Mashima with the teachings of Gonos by incorporating the features for replacing data in a database server, after a predetermined time period, with a placeholder record indicating that the data was removed, as taught by Gonos, into the system of Singh in view of Mashima that is configured to import and store utility usage data associated with users in a database. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification when one considers “as data may become less useful with age, data may be archived” (¶ [0009]), and to further help “reduce the amount of online data stored” (¶ [0056]), as suggested by Gonos.
Claim 8: Singh/Kim/Mashima/Gonos teaches the limitations of claim 7. Furthermore, Singh teaches the following:
Requesting, from the utility provider server, the second utility data; (col. 2, lines 7-14: the utilities manager system may request utilities data from the websites of utilities suppliers).
Providing the second utility data to the user device based on the request for the second utility data. (col. 7: 8-14: Once a user submits login credentials, such as username/password, the utilities manager system may automatically detect which utility accounts are associated with the login and pull data for all the utility accounts at once); (col. 8, line 64- col. 9, line 17: utilities manager system can provide a summary view of all utility information for a building in one screen, including water/electricity/gas/oil usage for a given day/month/year).
Although Singh teaches a system that is configured to request utility data from a utility company website, Singh in view of Mashima does not explicitly teach that the request is made after stored utility data has been replaced with a placeholder record.
However, Gonos teaches the following:
After the second utility data has been replaced with the placeholder record, receiving a request for the second utility data; (¶ [0009]: the described system is used to restore archived data in systems that store data in very large database environments); (¶ [0025]: an archive file stores a series of attribute tags and associated data values for archived data); (¶ [0060]: a request to restore data from an archive file to an online database may be received).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the system of Singh in view of Mashima with the teachings of Gonos by incorporating the features for receiving a request to restore archived/removed data to a database after the archived/removed data has been replaced with a placeholder record, as taught by Gonos, into the system of Singh in view of Mashima that is configured to request utilities data from utility company websites corresponding to particular users. One of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that such a modification would enable the system of Singh in view of Mashima to remove stored utilities data after a predetermined period of time, replace the utilities data with a placeholder record, receive a request to restore the removed utilities data, request a utility company to provide the removed utilities data, and provide the utilities data to a user. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification with the purpose to further help “reduce the amount of online data stored” (¶ [0056]), as suggested by Gonos, and for the purpose to further enable a user to “conveniently access the report at any time” (col. 16, lines 41-42), as suggested by Singh.
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Singh, in view of Kim, in further view of Venkataraman U.S. Publication No. 2024/0242254, hereafter known as Venkataraman.
Claim 11: Singh/Kim teaches the limitations of claim 1. Furthermore, Singh does not explicitly teach, however Venkataraman does teach, the following:
Receiving rate information for plurality of rate plans related to the utility data; correlating the rate information with the utility data; and providing the correlated rate information to the user device. (Abstract: a system providing converged utilities billing including a customer relationship management (CRM) module configured to receive information from utilities providers); (¶ [0028]: CRM receives and maintains customer information from the plurality of utilities providers (e.g., gas, water, electricity, etc.), where the utilities providers may or may not be the same company) (¶ [0034]: the system may determine which service plans to offer a customer based on both the user profile and service profile. The system may determine existing service plans provided to the customer from the user profile/service profile, and may then determine available service plans as those with the same billing cycle. The system may further determine which plans are most economical or cost-efficient for the customer); (¶ [0035]: the system outputs the determined service plan(s) for a customer to select therefrom via a GUI/portal).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include in the system of Singh the ability to receive rate information for plurality of rate plans related to the utility data; correlate the rate information with the utility data, and provide the correlated rate information to the user device, as taught by Venkataraman, since the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements. In combination, each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination are predictable. Furthermore, one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the teachings of Venkataraman are compatible with the system of Singh as they share capabilities and characteristics; namely, they are both systems configured to obtain customer utility usage data from utility providers.
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Singh, in view of Kim, in further view of Yamada et al. U.S. Publication No. 2006/0122738, hereafter known as Yamada.
Claim 13: Singh/Kim teaches the limitations of claim 1. Furthermore, Singh teaches the following:
Wherein a utility provider associated with the utility provider server is an electricity provider; (col. 5, lines 6-12: utilities can include electricity, and utility data may include electricity service charges, amount of electricity used, and location of electricity usage); (col. 2, lines 7-14: the utilities manager system retrieves the utilities data from websites of utilities suppliers through an automated process).
Wherein the utility data corresponds to electricity measured at an electric meter; (col. 5, lines 6-12: see above); (col. 15, lines 13-14: a user may view data for an individual meter); (col. 25, lines 24-30: buildings may have individual utilities meters for apartments, and the utilities manager can sum those accounts for an overall utilities measurement).
Wherein the utility data includes electricity information for electricity provided by the electricity provider; (col. 5, lines 6-12: see above); (col. 15, lines 13-14: see above); (col. 25, lines 24-30: see above).
Singh does not explicitly teach that the utility data includes information for electricity provided to the electricity provider. However, Yamada teaches the following:
[…] and for electricity provided to the electricity provider. (¶ [0059]: power storage system corresponds to a power storage system installed for storing power in a private house of a user, or a building such as an apartment. The power storage system includes a power conditioner and watthour meter); (¶ [0062]: a watthour meter includes two meters including a purchased power watthour meter that measures power purchased via an electric power company, and a sold power watthour meter which measures power sold via the electric power company); (¶ [0064]: a management server manages information about the power storage system); (¶ [0075]-[0076]: charging and discharging information is obtained and transmitted to a management server).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include in the system of Singh the ability to obtain/collect utility data including information for electricity provided to an electricity provider by a user, as taught by Yamada, since the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements. In combination, each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination are predictable. Furthermore, one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the teachings of Yamada are compatible with the system of Singh as they share capabilities and characteristics; namely, they are both systems configured to collect utility/electricity usage data corresponding to users’ meters.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JORGE G DEL TORO-ORTEGA whose telephone number is (571)272-5319. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9:00AM-6:00PM.
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, Shannon Campbell can be reached at (571) 272-5587. 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.
/JORGE G DEL TORO-ORTEGA/Examiner, Art Unit 3628
/SHANNON S CAMPBELL/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3628