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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 12/17/2024 was filed. The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Status of the Claims
Claims 1-20 have been examined.
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 8-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter. The claims do not fall within at least one of the four categories of patent eligible subject matter because the claims are directed to a computer-readable medium. As explained in U.S. Patent & Trademark Office, Subject Matter Eligibility of Computer-Readable Media, 1351 Off. Gaz. Pat. Office 212 (Feb. 23, 2010):
The United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) is obliged to give claims their broadest reasonable interpretation consistent with the specification during proceedings before the USPTO. See In re Zietz, 893 F.2d 319 (Fed. Cir. 1989) (during patent examination the pending claims must be interpreted as broadly as their terms reasonably allow). The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim drawn to a one or more computer readable memories, one or more computer readable tangible storage medium (also called machine readable medium and other such variations) typically covers forms of non-transitory tangible media and transitory propagating signals per se in view of the ordinary and customary meaning of computer readable media, particularly when the specification is silent. See MPEP 2111.01. When the broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim covers a signal per se, the claim must be rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 as covering non-statutory subject matter. See In re Nuijten, 500 F.3d 1346, 1356-57 (Fed. Cir. 2007) (transitory embodiments are not directed to statutory subject matter) and Interim Examination Instructions for Evaluating Subject Matter Eligibility Under 35 U.S.C. § 101, Aug. 24, 2009; p. 2.
The USPTO recognizes that applicants may have claims directed to computer readable media that cover signals per se, which the USPTO must reject under 35 U.S.C. § 101 as covering both non-statutory subject matter and statutory subject matter. In an effort to assist the patent community in overcoming a rejection or potential rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 101 in this situation, the USPTO suggests the following approach. A claim drawn to such a computer readable medium that covers both transitory and non-transitory embodiments may be amended to narrow the claim to cover only statutory embodiments to avoid a rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 101 by adding the limitation "non-transitory" to the claim. Cf Animals - Patentability, 1077 Off Gaz. Pat. Office 24 (April 21, 1987) (suggesting that applicants add the limitation "non-human" to a claim covering a multi¬ cellular organism to avoid a rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 101). Such an amendment would typically not raise the issue of new matter, even when the specification is silent because the broadest reasonable interpretation relies on the ordinary and customary meaning that includes signals per se. The limited situations in which such an amendment could raise issues of new matter occur, for example, when the specification does not support a non-transitory embodiment because a signal per se is the only viable embodiment such that the amended claim is impermissibly broadened beyond the supporting disclosure. See, e.g., Gentry Gallery, Inc. v. Berkline Corp., 134 F.3d 1473 (Fed. Cir. 1998).
Accordingly, Claims 8-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 as being directed to non-statutory subject matter.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
101 Analysis - Step 1
Claims 1-7, and 15-20 recite a method/process, therefore claims 1-10 and 20 are within at least one of the four statutory categories.
Claims 8-14 recite an apparatus/machine, therefore claims 11-19 are within at least one of the four statutory categories.
101 Analysis - Step 2A, Prong 1
Regarding Prong 1 of the Step 2A analysis in the 2019 PEG, the claims are to be analyzed to determine whether they recite subject matter that falls within one of the follow groups of abstract ideas: a) mathematical concepts, b) certain methods of organizing human activity, and/or c) mental processes.
Independent claim 8 includes limitations that recites mental processes and/or mathematical concepts (emphasized below) and will be used as a representative claim for the remainder of the 101 rejection. Claim 8 recites:
A computer system for embedding energy source identification signals, the computer system comprising:
one or more processors, one or more computer-readable memories, one or more computer-readable tangible storage medium, and program instructions stored on at least one of the one or more tangible storage medium for execution by at least one of the one or more processors via at least one of the one or more memories, wherein the computer system is capable of performing a method comprising:
inducing an energy source identification signal into each of one or more electricity streams using one or more modulation techniques;
receiving one or more redistributed electricity streams at an electricity consumption site from an electricity station;
extracting one or more energy source identification signals from each of the one or more redistributed electricity streams using one or more demodulation techniques; and
displaying visual information on a graphical user interface, wherein the visual information depicts de-embedded information in the extracted one or more energy source identification signals.
These limitations, as drafted, is a system that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation as a mental process and/or mathematical concept. That is, nothing in the claim elements preclude the steps from practically being performed as mathematical concepts. For example, " inducing an energy source identification signal …" and " receiving one or more redistributed electricity streams...", and “extracting one or more energy source identification signals …” and “displaying visual information on a graphical user interface...” encompass subject matter that within the certain methods of organizing human activity. The claim discloses collects information, analyzes, displays the result which is merely presenting the results of abstract processes of collecting and analyzing information, the claim recites at least one abstract idea.
101 Analysis - Step 2A, Prong 2
Regarding Prong 2 of the Step 2A analysis in the 2019 PEG, the claims are to be analyzed to determine whether the claim, as a whole, integrates the abstract idea into a practical application. As noted in the 2019 PEG, it must be determined whether any additional elements in the claim beyond the abstract idea integrate the exception into a practical application in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on the judicial exception. The courts have indicated that additional elements merely using a computer to implement an abstract idea, adding insignificant extra solution activity, or generally linking use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use do not integrate a judicial exception into a "practical application."
In the present case, the additional limitations beyond the above-noted abstract idea are as follows (where the underlined portions are the "additional limitations" while the bolded portions continue to represent the "abstract idea"):
A computer system for embedding energy source identification signals, the computer system comprising:
one or more processors, one or more computer-readable memories, one or more computer-readable tangible storage medium, and program instructions stored on at least one of the one or more tangible storage medium for execution by at least one of the one or more processors via at least one of the one or more memories, wherein the computer system is capable of performing a method comprising:
inducing an energy source identification signal into each of one or more electricity streams using one or more modulation techniques;
receiving one or more redistributed electricity streams at an electricity consumption site from an electricity station;
extracting one or more energy source identification signals from each of the one or more redistributed electricity streams using one or more demodulation techniques; and
displaying visual information on a graphical user interface, wherein the visual information depicts de-embedded information in the extracted one or more energy source identification signals.
For the following reason(s), the examiner submits that the above identified additional limitations do not integrate the above-noted abstract idea into a practical application.
Regarding the additional limitations of "one or more processors…" and “one or more computer-readable memories…” the components are merely generic components to perform a function using computer code. The generic components are recited at a high level of generality (i.e. a generic processor and memory) such that it amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components. The examiner submits that these limitations are merely applying the above-noted abstract idea by merely using a general controller to perform the process (MPEP §2106.05).
Thus, taken alone, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Further, looking at the additional limitation(s) as an ordered combination or as a whole, the limitation(s) add nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually. For instance, there is no indication that the additional elements, when considered as a whole, reflect an improvement in the functioning or an improvement to another technology or technical field, apply or use the above-noted judicial exception to effect a particular process for safety performance evaluation, implement/use the above-noted judicial exception with a particular machine or manufacture that is integral to the claim, effect a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing, or apply or use the judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment, such that the claim as a whole is not more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception (MPEP § 2106.05). Accordingly, the additional limitation(s) do/does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
101 Analysis - Step 2B
Regarding Step 2B in the 2019 PEG, representative independent claim 12 does not include additional elements (considered both individually and as an ordered combination) that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception for the same reasons to those discussed above with respect to determining that the claim does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements of "one or more processors…" and “one or more computer-readable memories…” amounts to nothing more than applying the exception using a generic computer component. Mere instructions cannot provide an inventive concept. Hence, the claim is not patent eligible.
Claims 1 and 15 recites analogous limitations to that of claim 8, and are therefore rejected by the same premise.
Dependent claims 2-7, 9-14, and 16-20 specify limitations that elaborate on the abstract idea of claims 1, 8 and 15, and thus are directed to an abstract idea nor do the claims recite additional limitations that integrate the claims into a practical application or amount to “significantly more” for similar reasons.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-20 would be allowable if rewritten or amended to overcome the 35 U.S.C. 101 in this office action.
The reason for indicating allowable subject matter is based on the combination limitations of the independent claims. These limitations are interpreted by the examiner, with the assumption of rewritten or amended to corrected the 35 U.S.C. 101 rejection.
The reason for indicating allowable subject matter over the prior art of record Gerber (US20110140880A1).
Gerber discloses generating electrical energy, transmitting the electrical energy from a source e.g. geothermal power plant or source, to a destination via an electrical transmission network, and specifying an energy source indicium for the generated electrical energy. The indicium is transmitted on the electrical transmission network along with the electrical energy. The energy source indicium is securely specified from a remote location via an Internet connection.
Conclusion
Related References
The relevant art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant’s disclosure.
Telefus (US20230253799A1) discloses intelligent energy source monitoring and selection control to enable power delivery in a multi-modal energy system. A multi-modal energy system includes a control system, power supply systems, and an electrical distribution system. The power supply systems are coupled to the control system. The power supply systems include a mains utility power system and at least one renewable power system. The electrical power distribution system is coupled to the control system. The control system is configured to monitor each power supply system to determine a power availability of each power supply system, determine an amount of power usage by the electrical power distribution system, and selectively connect and disconnect one or more of the power supply systems to the electrical power distribution system based on the determined power availability of the power supply systems and the determined power usage of the electrical power distribution system.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SHARDUL D PATEL whose telephone number is (571)270-7758. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8am-5pm (IFP).
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, KITO ROBINSON can be reached at (571)270-3921. 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.
/SHARDUL D PATEL/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3664
Prosecution Insights