DETAILED ACTION
Introduction
This Final Office Action is in response to amendments and remarks filed on June 24, 2026, for the application with serial number 18/954,277.
Claims 1, 5, 6, 10, 11, and 15 are amended.
Claims 2, 3, 7, 8, 12, and 13 are canceled.
Claims 16-18 are new.
Claims 1, 4-6, 9-11, and 14-18 are pending.
Response to Remarks/Amendments
35 USC §101 Rejections
The Applicant traverses the rejection of the claims as being directed to an ineligible abstract idea, contending that the claims do not recite an abstract idea. See Remarks pp. 10-11. The Examiner respectfully disagrees. The present claims recite steps a human being could follow, mentally or on paper, for generating an optimal energy generation schedule. Therefore, the claims attempt to manage human behavior. The present claims do not recite a method that is analogous to claims involving facial recognition technology. Facial recognition is rooted in computer technology. In contrast, calculating an optimal energy generation schedule is not rooted in computer technology. The rejection, below, does not allege that the claims fall within the mental processes category of abstract idea. Therefore, the Applicant’s arguments with respect to the mental processes category are moot.
The Applicant additionally submits that the present claims provide a technical solution to a technical problem. See Remarks pp. 12-13. The Examiner respectfully disagrees. Optimizing an energy generation schedule is not a technology or technical field. Considering various costs of energy generation is not a technology or technical field. The present claims recite a business solution to a business problem. The Examiner notes that mathematical relationships, such as formulas and equations, are ineligible abstract ideas. See MPEP §2106.04(a). Contrary to the Applicant’s assertions, no apparent improvement to the functioning of a computer is achieved through execution of the claimed process. Calculating a maximum profit and/or minimizing costs does not improve the performance of a computer. Execution of the process does not make a machine more energy efficient. Instead, the process merely suggests a schedule for reducing cost, taking energy prices and costs into consideration. Maximizing revenue is not an improvement to a technology or technical field. Likewise, minimizing risk is not an improvement to a technology or technical field. Any improvement to a machine through the use of heterogeneous systems is not apparent in the claims. The claims do not recite special purpose hardware or a particular machine to implement the method. Instead, only generic computer hardware performs the steps of the process.
For essentially the same reasons, the present claims do not provide significantly more than the recited abstract idea under step 2B. Revenue maximization and minimization of costs does not satisfy any of the considerations listed under MPEP §2106.05(a)-(h). Additional elements outside the scope of the abstract idea merely amount to generic computer hardware.
The rejection for lack of subject matter eligibility is maintained.
35 USC §112 Rejections
In light of the Applicant’s amendments, the rejection of the independent claims for lack of antecedent basis is withdrawn.
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.
The Manual of Patent Examining Procedure (MPEP) provides detailed rules for determining subject matter eligibility for claims in §2106. Those rules provide a basis for the analysis and finding of ineligibility that follows.
Claims 1, 4-6, 9-11, and 14-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101. The claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter because the claimed invention recites a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more. Under Step 1 of the subject matter eligibility analysis, claims(s) 1, 4-6, 9-11, and 14-18 are all directed to one of the four statutory categories of invention. However, under step 2A, prong one, the claims recite a judicial exception: generating an optimal energy generation schedule (as evidenced by exemplary independent claim 1; “generating . . . an optimal energy generation schedule”), an abstract idea. Certain methods of organizing human activity are ineligible abstract ideas, including managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people. See MPEP §2106.04(a). The limitations of exemplary claim 1 include: ”receiving . . . an energy volume . . . generated by a corresponding plurality of energy generation system [sic];” “predicting . . . a current market price value;” “computing . . . an expected revenue . . . based on a corresponding predicted current market price, corresponding multi-energy bilateral agreement price and a corresponding generated energy volume;” “computing . . . an energy generation cost . . . based on the corresponding generated energy volume;” “computing . . . an energy conversion cost for each of a plurality of energy type pairs;” “computing . . . an energy storage cost . . . based on a corresponding charged an discharged energy and, a storage penalty cost;” “computing . . . a market price variation risk;” “obtaining . . . a market price risk forecast;” and “generating . . . an optimal energy generation schedule . . . to achieve one of (i) maximizing profit and (ii) minimize the loss based on the risk aversion factor. The steps are all steps for managing personal behavior related to the abstract idea of generating an optimal energy generation schedule that, when considered alone and in combination, are part of the abstract idea of generating an optimal energy generation schedule. The dependent claims further recite steps for managing personal behavior that are part of the abstract idea of generating an optimal energy generation schedule. These claim elements, when considered alone and in combination, are considered to be abstract ideas because they are directed to a method of organizing human activity which includes maximizing profit and minimizing costs based on risk and market factors.
Under step 2A, prong two, of the subject matter eligibility analysis, a claim that recites a judicial exception must be evaluated to determine whether the claim provides a practical application of the judicial exception. Additional elements of the independent claims amount to generic computer hardware that does not provide a practical application (processors in independent claim 1, a system with a memory, I/O interfaces, and processors in independent claim 6; and a machine-readable storage medium in independent claim 11). See MPEP §2106.04(d)[I]. The claims do not recite an improvement to another technology or technical field, nor do they recite an improvement to the functioning of the computer itself. See MPEP §2106.05(a). Because the claims only recite use of a generic computer, they do not apply the judicial exception with a particular machine. See MPEP §2106.05(b). Under step 2B of the subject matter eligibility analysis, the claims do not integrate the abstract idea into a judicial exception. Referring to the additional elements provided in the analysis in step one, above, the generic computer hardware does not provide significantly more than the recited abstract idea. See MPEP §2106.05(f).
For these reasons, the claims do not provide a practical application of the abstract idea, nor do they amount to significantly more than an abstract idea under step 2B of the subject matter eligibility analysis. Using a generic computer to implement an abstract idea does not provide an inventive concept. Therefore, the claims recite ineligible subject matter under 35 USC §101.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 RICHARD N SCHEUNEMANN whose telephone number is (571)270-7947. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9am-5pm EST.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Patricia Munson can be reached at 571-270-5396. 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.
/RICHARD N SCHEUNEMANN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3624
Prosecution Insights