DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Status of Claims
Office Action is in response to the Applicant's amendments and remarks filed12/17/2025. Claims 1-20 are presently pending and presented for examination.
Response to Remarks/Arguments
In regards to rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 101: Applicant’s arguments, filed 12/17/2025, with respect to claims 1-20 have been fully considered and are not persuasive.
In regards to Applicant’s arguments that “Applicant submits that claims 1, 13, and 18 are not directed to a method of managing human activity, nor are claims 1, 13, and 18 directed towards a mere mathematical formula. Independent claim 1, for example, recites controlling one or more of the loads of the facility that are predicted to contribute to a selected one of the one or more predicted power usage peaks to curtail power usage during the selected one of the one or more predicted power usage peaks. That is, claim 1 is directed to controlling an electrical load of a facility, at least because the claims recite a specific real-world act of controlling an electrical load of a facility. As a result, the claims recite more than merely the abstract idea of managing human activity or a mathematical formula, as controlling an electrical load of a facility is not managing human activity nor is it a mere mathematical formula. Therefore, Applicant submits that independent claims 1, 13, and 18 are not directed to patent-ineligible subject matter… As described in Example 21 in Appendix 1 of the July 2015 Update on Subject Matter Eligibility, claims can recite an abstract idea but can include "... additional elements that amount to significantly more than an abstract idea because there are meaningful limitations beyond generally linking the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment." As outlined in Example 21, based on the facts of Google Inc. v. Simpleair, Inc, alerting a subscriber with time sensitive information when the subscriber's computer is offline are meaningful limitations that add more than generally linking the use of an abstract idea (e.g., the general concept of organizing and comparing data) to the Internet. See Google Inc. v. Simpleair, Inc., Covered Business Method Case No. CBM 2014-00170 (Jan. 22, 2015). The present claims go farther by controlling an actual outcome in a technical setting, by controlling one or more of the loads of the facility. This tangible result takes the claims out of the abstract idea analysis. In the instant case, Applicant submits that the claims recite meaningful limitations that add more than generally linking the use of an abstract idea to a particular technological environment. For example, the claims recite controlling one or more of the loads of the facility that are predicted to contribute to a selected one of the one or more predicted power usage peaks to curtail power usage during the selected one of the one or more predicted power usage peaks. That is, Applicant submits that the claims do more than generally link the use of an abstract idea to a technological field. For example, the claims recite controlling a load of a facility to curtail power usage in the facility. As stated in Applicant's specification at paragraphs 0031 and 0040: In some cases, the controller 20 may be configured to control one or more of the facility loads 16 that are predicted to contribute to the selected one of the one or more predicted power usage peaks by initiating a control action to a respective e one of the one or more loads”, (see remarks , pg. 8-10).
Examiner respectfully disagrees, the current claims are not statutory because they are directed towards an abstract idea without significantly more. The claims recite method for reducing energy charges of a facility, which is a method of managing interactions between people, which falls into the methods of organizing human activity grouping as well as Mathematical concepts in form of mathematical relationships, mathematical formals or equations and mathematical calculations and Mental processes such as concepts performed in the human mind which include observation, evaluation, judgement and opinion, as the learning model is used to input data, which then produces an identification of loads for facility which produces peak power usages. The computing elements such as “AI/ML in claim 1; controller, AI/ML in claim 13; computer readable medium, processors, AI/ML in claim 18” are recited at a high level of generality and are generically recited computer elements. The generically recited computer elements amount to simply implementing the abstract idea on a computer. The combination of these additional elements are additional elements do no more than generally link the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use. Also, with respect to technological improvement "claiming the improved speed or efficiency inherent with applying the abstract idea on a computer" does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide an inventive concept. Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Capital One Bank (USA), 792 F.3d 1363, 1367, 115 USPQ2d 1636, 1639 (Fed. Cir. 2015). Accordingly, in combination, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. Therefore, elements being analyzed for significantly more are mere generic computer components being implemented to implement the abstract idea on a computer. Examiner suggests showing an autonomous method to show computing elements performing an action based on the training and retraining of the model, after data is input into the learning model.
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 an abstract idea without significantly more. The claim recites method for reducing energy charges of a facility.
Step 2A – Prong 1
Independent Claims 1, 13 and 18 as a whole recite a method of organizing human activity. The limitations from exemplary Claim 1 reciting “method for reducing energy charges of a facility, the method comprising: providing live and historical power usage data of one or more loads of the facility to an [...] model; the [...] model predicting one or more predicted power usage peaks that are predicted to occur during a future time window based at least in part on the live and historical power usage data of the one or more loads of the facility; identifying one or more loads of the facility that are predicted to contribute to each of the one or more predicted power usage peaks; and controlling one or more of the loads of the facility that are predicted to contribute to a selected one of the one or more predicted power usage peaks to curtail power usage during the selected one of the one or more predicted power usage peaks” is a method of managing interactions between people, which falls into the certain methods of organizing human activity grouping, additionally mathematical concepts such as mathematical relationships, mathematical formulas or equations and mathematical calculations as the machine learning model can be computed using pen and paper to provide a method to reduce energy consumption for a facility by determining which appliance/unit uses most power at a given period during peak times. The mere recitation of a generic computer (AI/ML in claim 1; controller, AI/ML in claim 13; computer readable medium, processors, AI/ML in claim 18) does not take the claim out of the methods of organizing human activity grouping. Thus, the claim recites an abstract idea.
Step 2A - Prong 2: Claims 1-20 and their underlining limitations, steps, features and terms, are further inspected by the Examiner under the current examining guidelines, and found, both individually and as a whole, not to include additional elements that are sufficient to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. The limitations are directed to limitations referenced in MPEP 2106.05 that are not enough to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Limitations that are not enough include, as a non-limiting or non-exclusive examples, such as: (i) adding the words "apply it" (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, e.g., a claim to an abstract idea requiring no more than a generic computer to perform generic computer functions, (ii) insignificant extra solution activity, and/or (iii) generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the claim recites the additional elements of (AI/ML in claim 1; controller, AI/ML in claim 13; computer readable medium, processors, AI/ML in claim 18). The AI/ML in claim 1; controller, AI/ML in claim 13; computer readable medium, processors, AI/ML in claim 18, are recited at a high level of generality and are generically recited computer elements. The generically recited computer elements amount to simply implementing the abstract idea on a computer. The combination of these additional elements are additional elements do no more than generally link the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use. Accordingly, in combination, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
The claim do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because, as discussed above, the additional elements do no more than generally link the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use. Thus, even when viewed as an ordered combination, nothing in the claims add significantly more (i.e. an inventive concept) to the abstract idea. The claims are ineligible.
Dependent claims 2-12, 14-17 and 19-20 are also directed to same grouping of methods of organizing human activity. The additional elements of the AI/ML in claim 3-5, 7-9, 12, 15, 17 and 20; controller in claims 14-15; computer readable medium and processors in claims 19-20, are additional elements do no more than generally link the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use. Accordingly, in combination, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
Novel/Non-Obvious Subject Matter
Examiner has determined that all of Applicant’s claims have overcome having prior art rejections. The reason for this is that Examiner does not believe that, at the time of Applicant’s priority date, it would have been obvious for a person of ordinary skill in the art to combine prior art disclosures to result in the particular combination of elements/limitations in that claim, including the particular configuration of the elements/limitations with respect to each other in the particular combination, without the use of impermissible hindsight.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to IBRAHIM EL-BATHY whose telephone number is (571)272-7545. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 9am - 7pm.
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, Nathan Uber can be reached at 571-270-3923. 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.
/IBRAHIM N EL-BATHY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3628