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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s amendments address the previous claim interpretation under 35 USC 112(f) or 112, sixth paragraph. The Claim Interpretation has been withdrawn.
Applicant’s amendments address the objections to the Specification. Those objections are withdrawn.
Applicant's arguments filed with respect to rejections under 35 USC 101 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant asserts the claims integrate the mathematical concepts into a practical application that improves the field of energy management and argues the inability to know future statistics at the exact moment of energy prediction is a technical problem. Examiner disagrees. The solution involves using statistics from a previous day to restore standardized machine learning outputs into actual energy values which is an abstract idea that includes mathematical concepts and mental processes. Calculating energy values is not a technological improvement. It is an abstract idea. The rejection under 35 USC 101 is upheld.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to rejections under 35 USC 102 and 35 USC 103 have been fully considered and are persuasive. The rejections have been withdrawn.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.
Claim(s) 1-3, 6-12, 15-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention recites a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more. Claim(s) 1-3, 6-12, 15-17 is/are directed to a method and apparatus. Thus, all the claims are within the four potentially eligible categories of invention (a process, a machine and an article of manufacture, respectively), satisfying Step 1 of the Subject Matter Eligibility (SME) test.
As per Prong One of Step 2A of the §101 eligibility analysis set forth in MPEP 2106, the Examiner notes that the claims recite mental processes and certain methods of organizing human activity. More specifically, independent claim recite:
clustering, by a processor, energy consumers with similar measured weekly period energy consumption patterns by extracting weekly period energy consumption patterns of energy consumers and measuring a similarity between the extracted weekly period energy consumption patterns; [mental process – with pen/paper] and
standardizing, by the processor, daily energy consumption patterns by use of a standardization technique that utilizes a standard deviation and an average to simultaneously consider energy consumers with different energy consumption scales in a same cluster; [mental process – with pen/paper]
classifying, by the processor, daily energy consumption patterns of the energy consumers in each cluster; [mental process – with pen/paper]
generating and training an energy prediction model for predicting energy consumption amounts of the energy consumers
restoring, by the processor, a standardized predicted energy amount generated from the energy prediction model by use of statistics of an energy consumption amount of a previous day to calculate a final predicted energy amount. [mental process – with pen/paper]
The claims recite data analysis steps to cluster and classify energy consumption to generate and train an energy prediction model. As this relates to commercial interactions, it is considered Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity. In addition, the claims recite mental processes as indicated in the reproduced claim above. The nominal recitation of an apparatus, processor and machine learning in the independent claims does not necessarily preclude the claim from reciting an abstract idea as evidenced by the analysis at Prong 2 of Step 2A.
Regarding Prong Two of Step 2A, a claim reciting an abstract idea must be analyzed to determine whether any additional elements in the claim integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. Limitations that are indicative of integration into a practical application include: Improvements to the functioning of a computer, or to any other technology or technical field, as discussed in MPEP 2106.05(a); Applying or using a judicial exception to effect a particular treatment or prophylaxis for disease or medical condition – see Vanda Memo; Applying the judicial exception with, or by use of, a particular machine, as discussed in MPEP 2106.05(b); Effecting a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing, as discussed in MPEP 2106.05(c); and Applying or using 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 more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception, as discussed in MPEP 2106.05(e) and the Vanda Memo issued in June 2018.
In this case, the independent claims do not include limitations that meet the criteria listed above, thus the abstract idea is not integrated into a practical application. Independent claim 1 recites an apparatus, units (interpreted as hardware) and machine learning. This amounts to using a computer as a tool to perform the method and the machine learning amounts to using a computer to implement a mathematical algorithm. There is no integration into a practical application. The apparatus in independent claim 9 amounts to using a computer as a tool to perform the method. There is no integration into a practical application. Independent claim 10 includes a processor and use of machine learning to predict energy consumption. This amounts to using a computer as a tool to implement a mathematical algorithm. There I no integration into a practical application.
The dependent claims further limit the abstract idea and some recite additional elements that do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Claims 2 and 11 recite predicting consumption based on consumption data and consumption patterns. This amounts to observation and evaluation which are mental processes. The unit in claim 2 and the processor in claim 11 amount to using a computer as a tool to perform the method. There is no integration into a practical application. Claims 3 and 12 recite operations involved in training the prediction model which are mental processes (observation and evaluations). The unit in claims 3 and the processor in claims 12 amount to using a computer as a tool to perform the method. There is no integration into a practical application. Claims 6 and 15 recite various models used to train the energy prediction model which are mathematical algorithms implemented by a computer. There is no integration into a practical application. Claims 7 and 16 recite using an Akaike information criterion to set the number of clusters. This is a mathematical algorithm implemented by a computer which does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Claims 8 and 17 recite a process of extracting abnormal data. This amounts to observation and evaluation which are mental processes. Any computer implementation amounts to using a computer as a tool to perform the abstract idea. There is no integration into a practical application. The claims do not include limitations beyond generally linking the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment. When considered individually and in combination, the system elements only contribute generic recitations of technical elements to the claims. It is readily apparent, for example, that the claim is not directed to any specific improvements of these elements. The invention is not directed to a technical improvement. When the claims are considered individually and as a whole, the additional elements noted above appear to merely apply the abstract concept to a technical environment in a very general sense.
Lastly and in accordance with Step 2B, the claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, and when considered individually and in combination, the additional elements amount to no more than mere instruction to apply the exception using generic computer component. Mere instruction to apply an exception using generic computer components cannot provide an inventive concept.
Allowable Subject Matter
The claims would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejections as indicated above. Specifically, the cited prior art, taken alone or in combination fails to explicitly team the claimed invention. Applicant' s reply makes evident the reason for allowance, satisfying the record as a whole as required by rule 37 CFR 1.104(e). In this case, the substance of applicant' s remarks filed on 05/11/2026, pages 8-10 point out the reason claims are patentable over the prior art of record (see MPEP 1302.14).
As allowable subject matter has been indicated, applicant's reply must either comply with all formal requirements or specifically traverse each requirement not complied with. See 37 CFR 1.111(b) and MPEP § 707.07(a).
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 JOHNNA LOFTIS whose telephone number is (571)272-6736. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7:00am-3:30pm.
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, Brian Epstein can be reached at 571-270-5389. 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.
JOHNNA LOFTIS
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 3625
/JOHNNA R LOFTIS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3625
Prosecution Insights