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 .
Status of Claims
Claims 1 – 11 were previously pending and subject to a non-final office action mailed 01/26/2026. Claims 1 – 5 & 9 were amended and claims 12 – 20 were added in a reply filed 05/08/2026.
Claims 1 – 20 are currently pending and subject to the final office action below.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments regarding the previous rejection of the claims under 35 USC 101 have been considered but are not persuasive.
Applicant argues, on pp. 15 – 16, that “the amendments presented herein integrate the abstract idea into a practical application in the same manner as the elements of claim 1 identified and discussed relative to Example 42 of the 2019 PEG” because the amended independent claims recite “a combination of elements including converting initially generated or updated information to a standardized format (e.g.,
converting results of data point comparisons to a visual indication of timing for optimized usage of energy), causing an energy forecast to be presented on a user device over a network, generating an updated energy forecast in accordance with a new threshold rate being generated, and causing the updated energy forecast to be presented on the user device over the network in real time” and are thus “not directed to a recited judicial exception.”
Examiner respectfully disagrees, as the combination of elements of claim 1 of Example 42 integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because the additional elements recite a specific improvement over prior art systems by allowing remote users to share information in real time in a standardized format regardless of the format in which the information was input by the user, and therefore provide an integration of the judicial exception into a practical application. The improvement provided by Example 42 was standardizing data based on hardware and software incompatibilities; in contrast, the functionality of “converting” is for the business purpose of presenting “results of the comparisons to a visual indication of timing for optimized usage of energy.” In the instant claim language, detail of a technological formatting is absent; therefore, the “converting” in the instant claims is part of the recited judicial exception.
Examiner additionally notes that the functionality of proving data point comparison as a visual indication of timing for optimized usage of energy, causing an energy forecast to be presented, generating an updated energy forecast in accordance with a new threshold rate being generated, and causing the updated energy forecast to be presented in real time are all a part of the recited judicial exception of providing a customer energy optimization suggestions.
Furthermore, the additional element “on a user device over a network” is recited at a high-level of generality, such that, when viewed as whole/ordered combination, it amounts to no more than mere instruction to apply the judicial exception using generic computer components or “apply it” (See MPEP 2106.05(f)), and furthermore, amounts to no more than merely generally linking the recited judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use (See MPEP 2106.05(I)(A) & MPEP 2106.05(h)). Accordingly, these additional elements, when viewed as a whole/ordered combination, do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. Thus, the claim is directed to an abstract idea.
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.
Step 1
Claims 1 – 11 are directed to a method (i.e., a process). Claims 12 – 16 are directed to a system (i.e., a machine). Claims 17 – 20 are directed to a product (i.e., a manufacture). Therefore, claims 1 – 20 all fall within the one of the four statutory categories of invention.
Step 2A, Prong One
Independent claims 1, 12, & 17 substantially recite: “accessing generation source data, grid information data, and price data associated with an energy provider,” “generating… a first… input based at least in part on the generation source data, a second… input based at least in part on the grid information data, and a third… input based at least in part on the price data,” “generating… forecasted generation source values based at least in part on the first… input, wherein the forecasted generation source values are generated for a first time interval,” “generating… forecasted grid condition values based at least in part on the second… input, wherein the forecasted grid condition values are generated for the first time interval,” “generating… forecasted price values based at least in part on the third… input, wherein the forecasted price values are generated for the first time interval,” “determining an energy forecast for the first time interval, the energy forecast based at least in part on comparisons of data points associated with the forecasted generation source values, the forecasted grid condition values, and the forecasted price values with corresponding generated thresholds,” “converting, within the energy forecast, results of the comparisons to a visual indication of timing for optimized usage of energy provided by the energy provider within the first time interval,” “causing the energy forecast to be presented,” “generating an updated energy forecast reflecting a revised visual indication of timing for optimized usage of energy provided by the energy provider in accordance with a new threshold rate of the threshold rates being generated within the first time interval,” and “causing the updated energy forecast to be presented… in real time.”
The limitations stated above are processes that, under the broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in a commercial interaction or while managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people. That is, the functions in the context of the claims encompass providing a customer energy optimization suggestions. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in a commercial interaction, or while managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people, then it falls within the "Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity" grouping of abstract ideas e.g., “commercial or legal interactions (including marketing or sales activities or behaviors; business relations)” as well as “managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people (including social activities, teaching, and following rules or instructions).” Accordingly, the claims recite an abstract idea.
Step 2A, Prong Two
The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. Claims 1, 12, & 17, as a whole, amounts to merely invoking generic components as a tool to perform the abstract idea or “apply it” (or an equivalent), as well as generally linking the recited judicial exception to a particular field or technological environment.
Claim 1 recites the additional elements of “by a computing system,” “by the computing system and using machine learning techniques,” “machine learning,” “by the computing system and via a first machine learning model,” “by the computing system and via a second machine learning model,” “by the computing system and via a third machine learning model,” and “on a user device over a network.”
Claim 12 recites the additional elements of “computing system, comprising: one or more processors; and one or more computer-readable media having stored thereon a sequence of instructions that, when executed by the one or more processors, causes the one or more processors to perform operations,” “using machine learning techniques,” “machine learning,” “via a first machine learning model,” “via a second machine learning model,” “via a third machine learning model,” and “on a user device over a network.”
Claim 17 recites the additional elements of “one or more non-transitory computer-readable media having stored thereon a sequence of instructions that, when executed by one or more processors of a computing system, cause the computing system to perform operations,” “using machine learning techniques,” “machine learning,” “via a first machine learning model,” “via a second machine learning model,” “via a third machine learning model,” and “on a user device over a network.”
The additional elements of “by a computing system,” “by the computing system and using machine learning techniques,” “machine learning,” “by the computing system and via a first machine learning model,” “by the computing system and via a second machine learning model,” “by the computing system and via a third machine learning model,” “on a user device over a network,” “computing system, comprising: one or more processors; and one or more computer-readable media having stored thereon a sequence of instructions that, when executed by the one or more processors, causes the one or more processors to perform operations,” and “one or more non-transitory computer-readable media having stored thereon a sequence of instructions that, when executed by one or more processors of a computing system, cause the computing system to perform operations” are recited at a high-level of generality, such that, when viewed as whole/ordered combination, it amounts to no more than mere instruction to apply the judicial exception using generic computer components or “apply it” (See MPEP 2106.05(f)).
Furthermore, the additional elements of “using machine learning techniques,” “machine learning,” “via a first machine learning model,” “via a second machine learning model,” “via a third machine learning model,” and “over a network” are recited at a high-level of, and when viewed as whole/ordered combination, amounts to no more than merely generally linking the recited judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use of machine learning and networking (See MPEP 2106.05(I)(A) & MPEP 2106.05(h)).
Accordingly, these additional elements, when viewed as a whole/ordered combination, do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. Thus, the claim is directed to an abstract idea.
Step 2B
As discussed above with respect to Step 2A Prong Two, the additional elements amount to no more than merely invoking generic components as a tool to perform the abstract idea or “apply it” (or an equivalent), as well as generally linking the recited judicial exception to a particular field or technological environment, and do not provide integration of the recited abstract ideas into a practical application. The same analysis applies here in Step 2B, i.e., merely invoking the generic components as a tool to perform the abstract idea or “apply it” (See MPEP 2106.05(f)), as well as generally linking the recited judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use (See MPEP 2106.05(I)(A) & MPEP 2106.05(h)), does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application at Step 2A or provide an inventive concept at Step 2B.
Therefore, the additional generic computer elements of “by a computing system,” “by the computing system and using machine learning techniques,” “machine learning,” “by the computing system and via a first machine learning model,” “by the computing system and via a second machine learning model,” “by the computing system and via a third machine learning model,” “on a user device over a network,” “computing system, comprising: one or more processors; and one or more computer-readable media having stored thereon a sequence of instructions that, when executed by the one or more processors, causes the one or more processors to perform operations,” and “one or more non-transitory computer-readable media having stored thereon a sequence of instructions that, when executed by one or more processors of a computing system, cause the computing system to perform operations” fail to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application at Step 2A or provide an inventive concept at Step 2B. Thus, even when viewed as a whole/ordered combination, nothing in the claims adds significantly more (i.e., an inventive concept) to the abstract idea. There is no indication that the combination of elements, taken both individually and as an ordered combination, improves the functioning of a computer or improves any other technology. Thus, the claims are not patent eligible.
Furthermore, dependent claims 2 – 11, 13 – 16, & 18 – 20 are merely directed to the particulars of the abstract idea and likewise do not add significantly more to the above-identified judicial exception. The additional elements of “generating, by a forecast generator of the computing system, control instructions” in claims 2, 13, & 18 amount no more than mere instruction to apply the judicial exception using generic computer components or “apply it” (See MPEP 2106.05(f)). The additional elements of “mobile device,” “and the control instructions cause,” “on the mobile device,” and “by an energy widget” in claim 3, 14, & 19 amount no more than mere instruction to apply the judicial exception using generic computer components or “apply it” (See MPEP 2106.05(f)). The additional elements of “in/to a home automation application that includes controls” in claim 5, 16, & 20 amounts no more than mere instruction to apply the judicial exception using generic computer components or “apply it” (See MPEP 2106.05(f)) as well as merely generally linking the recited judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use of machine learning and networking (See MPEP 2106.05(I)(A) & MPEP 2106.05(h)). The additional elements of “generating new control instructions” and “transmitting the new control instructions to the user device of the user to cause” in claim 15 amounts no more than mere instruction to apply the judicial exception using generic computer components or “apply it” (See MPEP 2106.05(f)) as well as insignificant extra-solution activity (See MPEP 2106.05(g)), which is furthermore similar to functionality found by the courts to be well-understood, routine, and conventional activities (See MPEP § 2106.05(d)(II), noting “Receiving or transmitting data over a network, e.g., using the Internet to gather data”), and thus does not amount to significantly more.
The limitations of the claims, when considered both individually and as an ordered combination, do not transform the abstract idea that they recite into patent-eligible subject matter because the claims simply instruct the practitioner to implement the abstract idea with generic computer components that conduct generic computer functions within a certain field of use, and thus are ineligible.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 BRYAN J KIRK whose telephone number is (571)272-6447. The examiner can normally be reached Monday -Friday 9:00-5:00.
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, Shannon Campbell can be reached at (571)272-5587. 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.
/BRYAN J KIRK/Examiner, Art Unit 3628
Prosecution Insights