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 . In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
Specification
The lengthy specification has not been checked to the extent necessary to determine the presence of all possible minor errors. Applicant’s cooperation is requested in correcting any errors of which applicant may become aware in the specification.
Claim Objections
Claim 9 is objected to because of the following informalities: the claim recites “the respective transportation capacity unit of the plurality of transportation capacity units”. This is understood to intend to recite “transmission capacity units.” Appropriate correction is required.
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.
When considering subject matter eligibility under 35 U.S.C. 101, it must be determined whether the claim is directed to one of the four statutory categories of invention (i.e., process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter) (step 1). If the claim does fall within one of the statutory categories, it must then be determined whether the claim is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., law of nature, natural phenomenon, and abstract idea) (step 2A), and if so, it must additionally be determined whether the claim is a patent-eligible application of the exception (step 2B). Alice Corp. Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank Int'l, 134 S. Ct. 2347, 189 L. Ed. 2d 296, 2014 U.S. LEXIS 4303, 110 U.S.P.Q.2D (BNA) 1976, 82 U.S.L.W. 4508, 24 Fla. L. Weekly Fed. S 870, 2014 WL 2765283 (U.S. 2014); MPEP 2106.
Step 1:
In the instant case claims 1-15 are directed to a process, claims 16-18 are directed to a machine, and claims 19-20 are directed to a manufacture. All claims are therefore within statutory categories. See MPEP 2106.03, Eligibility Step 1.
Step 2A, Prong 1:
These claims also recite, inter alia,
“transmitting, from a … first user of a plurality of users, energy data…, wherein the energy data corresponds to renewable energy configured for transmission among the plurality of users, and wherein the energy data comprises data corresponding to an energy type, an energy capacity, and an energy availability for the renewable energy; receiving, at the user … market depth data … based on the transmitted energy data, wherein the market depth data corresponds to an energy forward market platform … wherein the energy forward market platform is configured to facilitate trading of a plurality of renewable energy units, and wherein: a first renewable energy unit of the plurality of renewable energy units corresponds to a fungible forward contract for transmission of the renewable energy at one or more specified dates and one or more specified times, wherein the first renewable energy unit is associated with one or more virtual communities …; and the market depth data comprises data indicating a plurality of bid prices and a plurality of offer prices from the plurality of users for the plurality of renewable energy units; and generating … one or more interfaces based on the received market depth data.” Claim 1.
With recited additional elements reserved for consideration under step 2A prong two, a careful analysis of the remaining limitations above, each on its own and all together combined, results in the conclusion that each on its own recites an abstract idea and in combination they simply recite a more detailed abstract idea. The recited abstract idea falls within the grouping of abstract ideas described as certain methods of organizing human activity, for example commercial or legal interactions (including agreements in the form of contracts; legal obligations; advertising, marketing or sales activities or behaviors; business relations). See MPEP 2106.04(a); Eligibility Step 2A1. The claims must therefore be analyzed under the second prong of Eligibility Step 2 (Step 2A2; MPEP 2106.04(d)).
Step 2A, Prong 2:
In order to address prong 2 (MPEP 2106.04(d), Eligibility Step2A2) we must identify whether there are any additional elements beyond the abstract ideas and determine whether those additional elements (if there are any) integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. MPEP 2106.04(d), Eligibility Step 2A2. The additional elements in all of the present claims are a user device and one or more servers. Claims 16-18 also include one or more processors and at least one memory, and claims 19-20 also include a computer-readable medium. These additional elements have been considered individually, in combination, and altogether as a whole together with the functions they perform, e.g., the user device and one or more servers transmit and receive information between each other and the server also provides “an energy forward market platform… configured to facilitate trading”. Claims 1-15 do not identify an entity performing the method, while claims 16-18 recite instructions on the memory broadly and generally performing all steps in terms of the intended results of functionally nonspecific activities, and claims 19-20 recite the instructions on the medium “when executed by a computer” causing the computer to broadly and generally perform all steps in terms of the intended results of functionally nonspecific activities. The “energy forward market platform… configured to facilitate trading,” as recited in the claims, is part of the abstract idea.
These additional elements do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application because they amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components. The claims are otherwise entirely a recitation of abstract ideas. The substantive process is recited only by descriptions of abstract intended results of the steps without indicating any particular functional acts performed by any device or structural element to perform the steps or otherwise obtain the intended results. The additional elements do not improve the functioning of any computer or other technology or technical field, they do not apply the judicial exception with or by use of a particular machine, they do not transform or reduce a particular article to a different state or thing, and they fail to apply or use the judicial exception beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment. See MPEP 2106.05.
If the disclosure describes any improvements to the functioning of a computer or to any other technology or technical field this improvement would need to be identifiable as the subject matter appearing in the claims. An indication that the claimed invention provides an improvement can include a discussion in the specification that identifies technical improvements realized by the claim over the prior art. The disclosure must provide sufficient details such that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize the claimed invention as providing an improvement. MPEP 2106.05(a).
Claim limitations can integrate a judicial exception into a practical application by implementing the judicial exception with or using it in conjunction with a particular machine or manufacture that is integral to the claim. A general purpose computer that applies a judicial exception by use of generic computer functions does not qualify as a particular machine. Ultramercial, Inc. v. Hulu, LLC, (Fed. Cir. 2014); MPEP 2106.05(b),(f). There are no particular machines or manufactures identified in the present claims. Any claimed elements that are not abstract are identified broadly and generally as applying the method, and the method itself is described only by way of the intended functional results of unidentified activities, without reference to any particular functional acts or specific functions performed by any particularly identified machines, and without reference to its use in conjunction with any particular item of manufacture.
The claims do not affect the transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing. Changing to a different state or thing means more than simply using an article or changing the location of an article. A new or different function or use can be evidence that an article has been transformed. Purely mental processes in which data, thoughts, impressions, or human based actions are "changed" are not considered a transformation. MPEP 2106.05(c).
The claims do not apply or use the judicial exception in any other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment. As a result the claim as a whole appears to be a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception. MPEP 2106.05(e),(h).
The additional elements have not been found to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application.
Step 2B:
Although the additional elements have not been found to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application the claims could still be eligible if they recite additional elements that amount to an inventive concept (“significantly more” than the judicial exception). MPEP 2106.05, Eligibility Step 2B.
The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the sparse additional elements of the claim are mere props supporting instructions to implement an abstract idea or other exception on a computer. MPEP 2106.05(f). The claims invoke computers or other machinery merely as tools to perform an abstract process. Simply adding a general purpose computer or computer components after the fact to an abstract idea does not provide significantly more. MPEP 2106.05(f)(2); see also OIP Techs., Inc. v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 2015 U.S. App. LEXIS 9721, 115 U.S.P.Q.2D (BNA) 1090 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (“relying on a computer to perform routine tasks more quickly or more accurately is insufficient to render a claim patent eligible.”). The elements are recited at a high level of generality, merely implement abstract ideas using generic computers, and fail to present a technical solution to a technical problem created by the use of the surrounding technology. Limitations that amount to merely indicating a field of use or technological environment in which to apply a judicial exception do not amount to significantly more than the exception itself. See Ret. Capital Access Mgmt. Co. v. U.S. Bancorp, 611 Fed. Appx. 1007, 2015 U.S. App. LEXIS 14351 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (“It may be very clever; it may be very useful in a commercial context, but they are still abstract ideas,” said Circuit Judge Alan Lourie.). MPEP 2106.05(h). No technical problem is indicated and the claims are not directed to a technical solution to such a problem. The claimed invention is patent ineligible because the innovative aspect (if there is one) is an entrepreneurial rather than a technological one. Bilski v. Kappos, 130 S. Ct. 3218, 3245; 177 L. Ed. 2d 792, 822; 2010 U.S. LEXIS 5521, 73; 95 U.S.P.Q.20 (BNA) 1001 (2010) (citing Merges, Property Rights for Business Concepts and Patent System Reform, 14 Berkeley Tech. L. J. 577, 585 (1999)); Ultramercial, Inc. v. Hulu, LLC, 772 F.3d 709 (Fed. Cir. Nov. 14, 2014) (“A rule holding that claims are impermissibly abstract if they are directed to an entrepreneurial objective, such as methods for increasing revenue, minimizing economic risk, or structuring commercial transactions, rather than a technological one, would comport with the guidance provided in both Alice and Bilski.” Mayer, J, concurring).
Claim 2 recites that the user device receives “data from the one or more servers using a wired communications network, a wireless communications network, or combinations thereof,” suggesting the additional element of a communication network. This element has no particular role in the method beyond simply existing to passively permit the previously discussed transmission of data between user device and server(s). It does not alter the previously identified analysis or conclusion.
Finally, it is reiterated that remaining dependent claims 3-15, 17-18, and 20, do not contribute any additional elements other than those already discussed and do not add "significantly more" to establish eligibility because they merely recite additional abstract ideas that further identify data, manipulations thereof, and contract terms that contribute to the abstract idea. A more detailed abstract idea is still abstract. PricePlay.com, Inc. v. AOL Adver., Inc., 627 Fed. Appx. 925, 2016 U.S. App. LEXIS 611, 2016 WL 80002 (Fed. Cir. Jan. 7, 2016) (in addressing a bundle of abstract ideas stacked together during oral argument, U.S. Circuit Judge Kimberly Moore said, "All of these ideas are abstract…. It’s like you want a patent because you combined two abstract ideas and say two is better than one.").
All of the above leads to the conclusion that additional claim elements do not provide meaningful limitations to transform the claimed subject matter into significantly more than an abstract idea. MPEP 2106.05; Eligibility Step 2B. As a result the claims are rejected under 35 USC 101 as being directed to non-statutory subject matter because they recite an abstract idea without being directed to a practical application, and they do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. MPEP 2106.05, supra..
The preceding analysis applies to all statutory categories of invention. Accordingly, claims 1-20 are rejected as ineligible for patenting under 35 USC 101 based upon the same analysis.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-4, 6-8, 10-13, and 15-20, are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Samuelson (Pub. No.: US 2003/0055776 A1).
Samuelson teaches all of the limitations of claims 1-4, 6-8, 10-13, and 15-20, for example Samuelson discloses trading bundled energy units between buyers and sellers, and Samuelson further discloses regarding
Claim 1. A method, comprising: ● transmitting, from a user device associated with a first user of a plurality of users, energy data to one or more servers, wherein the energy data corresponds to renewable energy configured for transmission among the plurality of users, and wherein the energy data comprises data corresponding to an energy type, an energy capacity, and an energy availability for the renewable energy (see at least Samuelson abstract “allows participants to enter bids for complete energy and transmission rights bundles that they wish to buy and offers for the complete bundles that they wish to sell through a user interface,” figs. 2C-E, 3B-D, 6A-B, 7A-D, ¶0156 “these entities, the human being 3100, corporate entity 3120, agent 3140 and software agent 3160 may communicate with means 5000 by use of messages,” ¶0159 “client computer communicatively coupled to a server computer included in a server system. The certified client may operate the client computer to interactively use the transaction system,” ¶0291 “Each market interval of a market contains the market product type, market location, plus a calendar scheme with an interval end. The market state of a market interval comprises a market price for the market interval product type at the market interval location during the market interval time interval,” ¶0529 “entry for the time interval contained in the operating schedule for the user resource may include a capacity”); ● receiving, at the user device, market depth data from the one or more servers based on the transmitted energy data, wherein the market depth data corresponds to an energy forward market platform provided by the one or more servers, wherein the energy forward market platform is configured to facilitate trading of a plurality of renewable energy units (see at least Samuelson figs. 10-14), and wherein: ● a first renewable energy unit of the plurality of renewable energy units corresponds to a fungible forward contract for transmission of the renewable energy at one or more specified dates and one or more specified times, wherein the first renewable energy unit is associated with one or more virtual communities generated by the one or more servers (see at least Samuelson abstract “Any time that a set of bundles that participants wish to sell can be reassembled into a set of bundles that other customers wish to buy,” figs. 3B-C, 7, 9-12, 19-21); and ● the market depth data comprises data indicating a plurality of bid prices and a plurality of offer prices from the plurality of users for the plurality of renewable energy units (see at least Samuelson figs. 10-14, ¶0819 “a. "Market Depth" -This is a more complete version of the bids and offers display that appears for each interval in the upper grid”); and ● generating, at the user device, one or more interfaces based on the received market depth data (see at least Samuelson figs. 10-14, ¶¶0098-0102 (describing the figures), ¶¶0403-0404 “certified client user interface 7300 …. [0404] The more specific information on energy and transmission prices are available in the tabs at the bottom of the screen. There is an "Interval Depth" tab (which may be called "All Market Depth") and a "Market Depth" tab (which may be called "Single Market Depth"),” ¶0819 “a. "Market Depth" -This is a more complete version of the bids and offers display that appears for each interval in the upper grid”).Claim 2. The method of claim 1, wherein receiving, at the user device, the market depth data comprises receiving, at the user device, the market depth data from the one or more servers using a wired communications network, a wireless communications network, or combinations thereof (see at least Samuelson “fig. 2E depicts… client computers … respectively coupled through network 3200 to server system” Please note: the options recited in this limitation include every possible network. It should also be noted that claim language consisting of a series of optional or alternative limitations separated by “or” does not result in further limitation beyond a single alternative because beyond the presence of any single alternative it merely represents contingencies that are not required. Applicant is reminded that optional or conditional elements do not narrow the claims because they can always be omitted. See e.g. MPEP §2111.04 "Claim scope is not limited by claim language that suggests or makes optional but does not require steps to be performed, or by claim language that does not limit a claim to a particular structure."; and In re Johnston, 435 F.3d 1381,77 USPQ2d 1788, 1790 (Fed. Cir. 2006) ("As a matter of linguistic precision, optional elements do not narrow the claim because they can always be omitted.")).
Claim 3. The method of claim 1, wherein the energy type for the renewable energy comprises solar power, biomass power, wind power, geothermal power, hydroelectrical power, tidal power, hydrogen power, lunar power, chlorophyll power, or combinations thereof (see at least Samuelson ¶0021 “water …. is gravity-fed through one or more turbines to generate electricity,” ¶0046 “a node for a major hydroelectric dam such as Grand Coulee Dam would tend to generate far more AC power than it consumed.” Please note: although the prior art discloses this feature or its equivalent applicant should note that the description of the original source of the power as claimed is nonfunctional descriptive information because it has no functional role in the method. Descriptive material that has no functional role in the method will not distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art in terms of patentability, see In re Gulack, 703 F.2d 1381, 1385, 217 USPQ 401, 404 (Fed. Cir. 1983). MPEP 2111.05. The rationale behind the printed matter cases has been extended to method claims in which an instructional limitation is added to a method known in the art. Similar to the inquiry for products with printed matter thereon, in such method cases the relevant inquiry is whether a new and unobvious functional relationship with the known method exists. See Praxair Distrib. v. Mallinckrodt Hosp. Prods. IP, 2018 U.S. App. LEXIS 12707, 2018 WL 2224150 (Fed. Cir. May 16, 2018); In re Kao, 639 F.3d 1057, 98 USPQ2d 1799, 1811-12 (Fed. Cir. 2011); King Pharmaceuticals Inc. v. Eon Labs Inc., 616 F.3d 1267, 95 USPQ2d 1833, 1842 (Fed. Cir. 2010); MPEP 2111.05.).Claim 4. The method of claim 1, wherein the energy availability for the renewable energy comprises a date when the renewable energy is available for transmission, a time when the renewable energy is available for transmission, or combinations thereof (see at least Samuelson abstract “Any time that a set of bundles that participants wish to sell can be reassembled into a set of bundles that other customers wish to buy,” figs. 2C-E, 3B-D, 6A-B, 7A-D, ¶0291 “Each market interval of a market contains the market product type, market location, plus a calendar scheme with an interval end. The market state of a market interval comprises a market price for the market interval product type at the market interval location during the market interval time interval,” ¶0529 “entry for the time interval contained in the operating schedule for the user resource may include a capacity”. Please note: it is examiner’s understanding based on the disclosure that reference to “time” includes “date.”).Claim 6. The method of claim 1, wherein the fungible forward contract corresponding to the first renewable energy unit comprises: ● a plurality of contract specifications comprising one or more cost of cover specifications, one or more liquidated damages specifications, one or more force majeure specifications, or combinations thereof (see at least Samuelson abstract “participant that finds the quote attractive places an order at any time and is assured that the order will contract at the quoted price,” ¶0071 “Participants can therefore negotiate energy deals on any terms they wish with each other, using the transmission quotes provided,” ¶0589 describes contract terms. Please note: although the prior art discloses this feature or its equivalent applicant should note that a description of the legal terms in a contract as claimed are nonfunctional descriptive information because they have no functional role in the method. Please see claim 3 for further explanation. They are also ineligible subject matter. Finally see the above comment concerning optional or alternative limitations.); ● one or more conditional attributes to provide for substitutability with at least one other renewable energy unit of the plurality of renewable energy units, or combinations thereof (see at least Samuelson figs. 14-16. Please note: see previous comment.).Claim 7. The method of claim 1, wherein the energy data further comprises term specification data, wherein the term specification data indicates one or more selections by the first user of a time period for the transmission of the renewable energy, wherein the one or more selections comprise: ● a start date, an end date, a usage frequency, or combinations thereof (see at least Samuelson figs. 3, 7, 9-12, 15-16, 20-22. Please note: see the above comments concerning optional or alternative limitations.).Claim 8. The method of claim 1, wherein the energy data further comprises constraint data, wherein the constraint data indicates a selection by the first user of one or more conditions for the transmission of the renewable energy, wherein the one or more conditions comprise: ● cheapest transmission, single mode of transmission, multiple modes of transmission, fastest transmission, highest rated transmission, most available transmission, highest volume of participants for transmission, most frequent transmission, service level for transmission, emissions reduction, highest safety and security level for transmission, or combinations thereof (see at least Samuelson figs. 2E, 4, 13-14, 17, ¶0071 “Participants can therefore negotiate energy deals on any terms they wish with each other, using the transmission quotes provided by the optimization system to guide them to the best deal.” Please note: see the above comments concerning optional or alternative limitations.).Claim 10. The method of claim 1, further comprising: ● receiving, at the user device, updated market depth data from the one or more servers for the plurality of renewable energy units in real time, wherein the updated market depth data comprises data indicating one or more updated bid prices and one or more updated offer prices from the plurality of users for the plurality of renewable energy units (see at least Samuelson abstract “The invention provides a participant with a ex ante quote for any point-to point transmission right at any time. An optimization system calculates this quote based on the standing bids and offers for other point-to-point transmission rights currently posted in the system by other participants or market makers,” figs. 10-12); and ● generating, at the user device, one or more interfaces based on the received updated market depth data (see at least Samuelson figs. 10-12).Claim 11. The method of claim 1, wherein the data indicating the plurality of bid prices and the plurality of offer prices from the plurality of users comprises: ● data corresponding to a ranking of the plurality of bid prices in a bid queue from highest price to lowest price, wherein respective bid prices of the same value are ranked by time in the bid queue (see at least Samuelson figs. 10-11); and ● data corresponding to a ranking the plurality of offer prices in an offer queue from lowest price to highest price, wherein respective offer prices of the same value are ranked by time in the offer queue (see at least Samuelson figs. 10-11).Claim 12. The method of claim 1, wherein the data indicating the plurality of bid prices and the plurality of offer prices from the plurality of users comprises data indicating a bid price or an offer price provided by a second user of the plurality of users for the first renewable energy unit of the plurality of renewable energy units (see at least Samuelson figs. 10-14).Claim 13. The method of claim 12, further comprising: ● transmitting, by the user device, transaction input data from the first user to the one or more servers, wherein the transaction input data indicates an acceptance by the first user of the bid price or the offer price provided by the second user (see at least Samuelson abstract “participant that finds the quote attractive places an order at any time and is assured that the order will contract at the quoted price”); and ● arranging for a transmission of the renewable energy between the first user and the second user based on the first renewable energy unit (see at least Samuelson figs. 13, 19, 48).Claim 15. The method of claim 1, wherein: ● the one or more user interfaces correspond to the market depth data (see at least Samuelson figs. 10-14); and ● the one or more user interfaces comprise one or more graphical layers configured to be displayed by the user device, one or more graphical list views configured to be displayed by the user device, or combinations thereof (see at least Samuelson figs. 10-14).
Pertaining to user device claims 16-18 and computer readable medium claims 19-20 Rejection of claims 16-18 is based on the same rationale noted above with regard to claims 1 and 3-4, and rejection of claims 19-20 is based on the same rationale noted above with regard to claims 1 and 6. In addition Samuelson teaches regarding
Claim 16. A user device associated with a first user of a plurality of users, wherein the user device comprises: ● one or more processors (see at least Samuelson figs. 2); and ● at least one memory comprising program instructions executable by the one or more processors (Samuelson figs. 2).
Claim 19. A non-transitory computer-readable medium having stored thereon a plurality of computer-executable instructions (Samuelson figs. 2).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 5 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Samuelson (Pub. No.: US 2003/0055776 A1) in view of KONG (Pub. No.: US 2014/0351010 A1).
Samuelson teaches all of the above as noted, and discloses a) an energy exchange, b) placing bid and offers in a market platform, c) market depth data provided on an interface, d) a contract for energy transmission, and e) wherein a respective virtual community corresponds to one or more virtual hubs, but does not explicitly disclose geographic locations determined using one or more satellite navigation systems.
Kong also teaches a) an energy exchange, b) placing bid and offers in a market platform, c) market depth data provided on an interface, and d) a contract for energy transmission, and further discloses geographic locations determined using one or more satellite navigation systems (see at least Kong ¶0080 “unit can include a suitable GPS device, such as a GPS based multi sensor positioning system, that provides a reliable positioning system”).
Samuelson in view of Kong further discloses regarding
Claim 5. The method of claim 1, wherein a respective virtual community corresponds to one or more virtual hubs determined by the one or more servers, and wherein the one or more virtual hubs comprise: ● an origin virtual hub corresponding to one or more energy origin locations (see at least Samuelson figs. 7D, 9A, 13); and ● a destination virtual hub corresponding to one or more energy destination locations, wherein the one or more energy origin locations and the one or more energy destination locations comprise geographic locations determined using one or more satellite navigation systems (see at least Samuelson fig. 13, ¶0017 “may transfer energy between nodes of different AC power networks or between nodes of a single AC power network,” in view of Kong ¶0080 “unit can include a suitable GPS device, such as a GPS based multi sensor positioning system, that provides a reliable positioning system…. locations can include a user's home (house, apartment, etc.), a user's office, a gas station, or any other suitable location that provides a connection to the power grid and that allows the GPS satellite to locate and identify the vehicle such that a handshaking process can occur”)).
Claim 14. The method of claim 13, wherein arranging for the transmission of the renewable energy comprises arranging for the transmission of the renewable energy using computerized scanning, an automobile, an aircraft, an autonomous vehicle, a boat, a train, a delivery vehicle, or combinations thereof (see at least Samuelson ¶0292 “a container of wheat may be transported by truck, train, barge or ship” in view of Kong figs. 2-3, ¶0015 “electrically powered vehicles each having a power source connectable to the power grid”. Please note: see previous comment concerning optional or alternative limitations.).
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention (for pre-AIA applications) or filing (for applications filed under the AIA ) to modify the method of Samuelson to include geographic locations determined using one or more satellite navigation systems, as taught by Kong since the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately. One of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable and would result in an improvement. This is because the level of ordinary skill in the art demonstrated by the references applied shows the ability to incorporate such features even from a variety of technical fields into methods and systems implemented using similar technological structures (i.e., generic computer and/or network hardware such as processors, servers, etc.). In this case the areas of technical endeavor are nonetheless similar and overlapping.
Applicant has not disclosed that the added feature solves any stated problem or is for any particular purpose beyond the performance of the functions they performed separately and since each element and its function are shown in the prior art the difference between the claimed subject matter and the prior art rests not on any individual element or function but in the very combination itself. It would therefore have been an obvious matter of design choice to include the feature from Kong in the method of Samuelson. Furthermore the combination solved no long felt need. Incorporating cumulative known features is additionally obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art because doing so increases commercial use of a method by attracting users that previously might have chosen between one of the previously known methods.
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Samuelson (Pub. No.: US 2003/0055776 A1) in view of 小林 輝夫 (JP 7246186 B2).
Samuelson teaches all of the above as noted. It discloses a) an energy exchange, b) placing bid and offers in a market platform, c) market depth data provided on an interface, d) a contract for energy transmission, and e) wherein a respective virtual community corresponds to one or more virtual hubs, but does not explicitly disclose limitations directed to blockchain data.
小林 輝夫 also teaches a) an energy exchange, b) placing bid and offers in a market platform, c) a contract for energy transmission, and d) wherein a respective virtual community corresponds to one or more virtual hubs, and further discloses regarding
Claim 9. The method of claim 1, wherein the market depth data corresponds to blockchain data associated with the plurality of users, and wherein the method further comprises: ● transmitting by the user device first blockchain data corresponding to the first user to the one or more servers, receiving at the user device audited blockchain data corresponding to the respective transportation capacity unit of the plurality of transportation capacity units from the one or more servers, or combinations thereof (see at least 小林 輝夫 p.17¶4 describing fig. 3, “a block chain of a power trading system”. Please note: see previous comments concerning optional or alternative limitations).
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention (for pre-AIA applications) or filing (for applications filed under the AIA ) to modify the method of Samuelson to include limitations directed to blockchain data, as taught by 小林 輝夫 since the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately. One of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable and would result in an improvement. This is because the level of ordinary skill in the art demonstrated by the references applied shows the ability to incorporate such features even from a variety of technical fields into methods and systems implemented using similar technological structures (i.e., generic computer and/or network hardware such as processors, servers, etc.). In this case the areas of technical endeavor are nonetheless similar and overlapping.
Applicant has not disclosed that the added feature solves any stated problem or is for any particular purpose beyond the performance of the functions they performed separately and since each element and its function are shown in the prior art the difference between the claimed subject matter and the prior art rests not on any individual element or function but in the very combination itself. It would therefore have been an obvious matter of design choice to include the feature from 小林 輝夫 in the method of Samuelson. Furthermore the combination solved no long felt need. Incorporating cumulative known features is additionally obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art because doing so increases commercial use of a method by attracting users that previously might have chosen between one of the previously known methods.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
● Johnson et al., Patent No. US 6,598,029 B1: teaches at least a very similar.
● Brobeck, Patent No.: US 6,978,931 B2: teaches an energy credit system providing redeemable energy credits to consumers who contribute power to a shared electric power grid wherein excess power generated by each consumer is measured and energy credits are awarded to those consumers. Consumers receiving energy credits redeem them in exchange for power. The operator of the power grid compensates the providers of energy for the redeemed energy credits, or an energy brokerage house receives compensation from the operator of the power grid for power provided to the grid by the consumers and compensates the energy provider for energy credits redeemed by each consumer. Does not disclose governing the actual transactions by and between users. More like a communal system.
● LEE HYUN JEONG, KR 20160115071 A: teaches power trading between buyer and seller, down to their terminals.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ADAM LEVINE whose telephone number is (571)272-8122. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Thursday 9am-7:30pm.
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, Marissa Thein can be reached at 571.272.6764. 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.
/ADAM L LEVINE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3689 March 21, 2026