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 the Application
2. Claim 1-16 have been examined in this application. This communication is the first action on the merits.
Drawings
3. The drawings filed on 11/27/24 are acceptable for examination proceedings.
Claim Interpretation
4. The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
5. The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations of claim 13 “means for generating process sequence information; means for providing the process sequence information at least in part by generating the process sequence information, and means for obtaining the provided process sequence information” in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an 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.
6. Claim 15-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter. The claimed invention includes “computer program” which is not embodied on any statutory medium, hence it’s a software per se and software is not a statutory category of patentable subject matter.
The Examiner suggests amending the claim to read “A non-transitory computer readable storage medium storing a program having a program code………….” to overcome this rejection.
For claim 16, examiner suggests amending the claim to read “A non-transitory computer readable storage product containing a computer program according to claim 15”
7. Claims 1-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to abstract idea without significantly more as fully discussed below.
8. Regarding Independent claim 1:
Step 1: Yes
Claim 1 is drawn to a method for ascertaining process-related energy consumption information for a plurality of automated processes, which falls under one of four categories of statutory subject matter (process/method, machines/products/apparatus, manufactures, and compositions of matter).
Step 2A, Prong 1: Yes
Independent claim 1 is directed to a judicially recognized exception of an abstract idea without significantly more.
Claim 1 recites claim limitation of “determining a profile of an energy consumption of the plurality of processes by using the obtained energy-consumption-relevant measurement data; matching the energy consumption profile of the plurality of processes and the sequence information of the individual processes; assigning changes in the energy consumption of the plurality of processes to the individual processes based on the sequence information thereof; and determining energy consumption information for the individual processes based on changes in the energy consumption of the plurality of processes assigned to the respective processes” that under their broadest reasonable interpretation, enumerates a mental concept. A human can mentally perform the claimed different functions using pen and paper.
Thus, these claimed functions are the judicial exceptions that are no more than a mental abstract idea (See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III)).
Step 2A, Prong 2: No
Claim 1 recites additional limitation of “obtaining energy-consumption-relevant measurement data for a plurality of processes; obtaining process sequence information for individual processes of the plurality of processes.” The claimed functions of “obtaining” are forms of insignificant input or output solution activities (i.e., extra solution), such that obtaining data are necessary for the use of the judicial exception (See MPEP 2106.05(g)). The combination of these additional elements does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim 1 recites the additional element(s) of: A method for ascertaining process-related energy consumption information for a plurality of automated processes. The additional element of the claim 1 does not provide a patentable distinction since is not positively recited since a method claim covers what it is rather than what it does. Even if this is to be interpreted as having patentable weight, this portion of the preamble is akin to generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use (in this case energy consumption) (MPEP 2106.05(h)).
Step 2B: No
The additional limitation that are a form of insignificant extra-solution activities, do not amount to significantly more than an abstract idea because the court decisions have determined that this additional element as discussed above in step 2A of obtaining measurement data and process sequence information to be well-understood, routine, and conventional when claimed in a merely generic manner for data collecting (i.e., receiving) and data outputting (i.e., displaying) (See MPEP § 2106.05(d)(II) (i: Receiving or transmitting data over a network, e.g., using the Internet to gather data, Symantec, 838 F.3d at 1321, 120 USPQ2d at 1362 (See Versata Dev. Group, Inc. v. SAP Am., Inc., 793 F.3d 1306, 1334, 115 USPQ2d 1681, 1701 (Fed. Cir. 2015) and Electric Power Group, LLC v. Alstom S.A., 830 F.3d 1350, 119 USPQ2d 1739 (Fed. Cir. 2016)).
As such, claim 1 is not patent eligible.
9. Dependent claims 2-16:
Step 1: Yes
Claim 2-9 is drawn to a method, claim 10 is drawn to a device, claim 11-14 is drawn to a system. Therefore claim 2-14 falls under one of four categories of statutory subject matter (process/method, machines/products/apparatus, manufactures, and compositions of matter).
Step 2A, Prong 1: Yes
Dependent claim 2-14 are directed to a judicially recognized exception of an abstract idea without significantly more.
Claim 3 recites limitation of “matching the energy consumption profile….”;
Claim 4 recites limitation of “identifying changes in the energy consumption….”;
Claim 5 recites limitation of “dividing identified changes in the energy consumption into groups, and assigning each of the groups to a single process….”;
Claim 8 recites limitation of “generating process sequence information…..”;
Claim 9 recites limitation of “carrying out the generation of the process sequence …..”;
Claim 13 recites limitation of “generating process sequence information…” that under their broadest reasonable interpretation, enumerates a mental concept. A human can mentally perform the claimed different function of matching, identifying dividing, generating function using pen and paper..
Thus, these claimed functions are the judicial exceptions that are no more than a mental abstract idea (See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III)).
Step 2A, Prong 2: No
Claim 2 recites additional limitation of “obtaining process sequence information”;
Claim 6 recites additional limitation of “measuring energy-consumption-relevant data of a plurality of processes over a period of time; and transmitting the measurement data”;
Claim 7 recites additional limitation of “providing process sequence information at least in part by generating the process sequence information; and obtaining the provided process sequence information”;
Claim 11 recites additional limitation of “measuring energy-consumption-relevant data….., and transmitting the measurement data……..”;
Claim 12 recites additional limitation of “transmit process sequence information….”;
Claim 13 recites additional limitation of “providing the process sequence information………….., and means for obtaining….”.
The claimed functions of “obtaining, measuring, transmitting, providing” of data are forms of insignificant input or output solution activities (i.e., extra solution), such that measuring, obtaining, and providing data are necessary for the use of the judicial exception (See MPEP 2106.05(g)). The combination of these additional elements does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
Claim 12 further recite additional limitation of “programmable logic controller” is considered as a generic computer and do not integrate into practical application and are recited at a high level of generality such that thy amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component (MPEP 2106.95(f)).
The combination of these additional elements does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim 14 recites the additional element(s) of video recording device. The additional element of the 14 does not provide a patentable distinction since is not positively recited since a method claim covers what it is rather than what it does. Even if this is to be interpreted as having patentable weight, this devices are generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use (energy consumption determination) (MPEP 2106.05(h).
Step 2B: No
The additional limitation that are a form of insignificant extra-solution activities, do not amount to significantly more than an abstract idea because the court decisions have determined that this additional element as discussed above in step 2A to be well-understood, routine, and conventional when claimed in a merely generic manner for data collecting (i.e., measuring, obtaining) and data outputting (i.e., providing, transmitting) (See MPEP § 2106.05(d)(II) (i: Receiving or transmitting data over a network, e.g., using the Internet to gather data, Symantec, 838 F.3d at 1321, 120 USPQ2d at 1362 (See Versata Dev. Group, Inc. v. SAP Am., Inc., 793 F.3d 1306, 1334, 115 USPQ2d 1681, 1701 (Fed. Cir. 2015) and Electric Power Group, LLC v. Alstom S.A., 830 F.3d 1350, 119 USPQ2d 1739 (Fed. Cir. 2016)).
As such, dependent claim 2-14 are not patent eligible.
10. Claim 15-16 are dependent on claim 1, and hence are rejected under 35 U.S.C 101 abstract idea rejection.
Allowable Subject Matter
There is no prior art rejection provided as claim 1-16 are allowable over the prior art once the outstanding 35 U.S.C 101 rejection is overcome.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Kinugasa (Pub: 2015/0005973) disclose An energy control device according to a first aspect of the present invention is used for adjusting an amount of energy consumed by mechanical equipment placed at a property, and comprises a first control unit and a second control unit. The first control unit executes during a prescribed adjustment period a first adjustment control for adjusting the amount of energy consumed by said mechanical equipment in order to respond to a prescribed event. The second control unit executes a second adjustment control separate from the first adjustment control during a non-adjustment period after the adjustment period (Para. [0005]).
Mertens (Pub: 2022/0147005) disclose An apparatus is provided for automatically determining process steps of a control device. The apparatus includes a measuring device, which is configured to detect a plurality of sequences of switching states of a plurality of input and output signals of the control device and an evaluation device, which is configured to determine combinatorics in the detected plurality of sequences of switching states of the plurality of input and output signals of the control device and to determine the process steps performed by the control device based on the determined combinatorics (Abstract).
Tajima (Pub: 2009/0210737) disclose a monitoring apparatus connected to a bus line on which an information signal representing information and power exist superimposed on one another, to monitor at least one of the information signal and power information related to power exchanged between a power supply server for supplying power and a client for receiving power connected through the bus line. The monitoring apparatus includes a receiving portion to detect an information signal existing on the bus line, and a display control portion to display at least one of the information signal and the power information exchanged between the power supply server and the client (Para. [0018]).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JIGNESHKUMAR C PATEL whose telephone number is (571)270-0698. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 7:00 AM - 5:00 PM.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Kenneth M. Lo can be reached at (571)272-9774. 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.
/JIGNESHKUMAR C PATEL/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2116
Prosecution Insights