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 .
Claims 1-4 have been amended. Claims 1-4 are pending in the application.
The Group and/or Art Unit location of your application in the PTO has changed. To aid in correlating any papers for this application, all further correspondence regarding this application should be directed to Group Art Unit 2175.
Specification
The title of the invention is not descriptive. A new title is required that is clearly indicative of the invention to which the claims are directed.
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 1-4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
With respect to claims 1-4:
Step 1 - Claims 1-4 recite a “power-saving evaluation system” comprising “circuitry,” and therefore fall within the machine statutory category. The analysis proceeds to Step 2A.
Step 2A, Prong One - The claims recite an abstract idea. Independent claim 1 recites the following limitations (bold) that fall within the enumerated groupings of abstract ideas:
• “estimate whether or not the user is operating the power consumption device based on the acquired radio wave intensity information” (a mental process - an observation/evaluation/judgment that can be performed in the human mind, and a mathematical relationship between signal intensity and distance/presence);
• “evaluate the power-saving behavior of the user with respect to the power consumption device based on the estimation and the acquired power consumption information” (a mental process - observation, evaluation and judgment).
Dependent claim 2 further recites “estimates a positional relationship between the user and the power consumption device based on the acquired radio wave intensity information” (a mathematical concept / mental process). Dependent claim 4 further recites “estimates a power consumption amount reduced by the power-saving behavior of the user” (a mathematical concept / mental process). But for the recitation of generic “circuitry,” these steps can be practically performed in the human mind or with pen and paper. See MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)(I) (mathematical concepts) and § 2106.04(a)(2)(III) (mental processes).
Step 2A, Prong Two - The claims do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Beyond the judicial exception, claim 1 recites only the additional elements of “circuitry,” “acquire radio wave intensity information … transmitted from the power consumption device and detected in a device carried by the user,” and “acquire power consumption information indicating the power consumption of the power consumption device.” The two “acquire” limitations are mere data gathering - insignificant extra-solution activity (MPEP § 2106.05(g)) - and the “circuitry” / “device carried by the user” are recited at a high level of generality merely as tools to gather data and apply the abstract idea (amounting to no improvement to the functioning of a computer or to any other technology or technical field - MPEP § 2106.05(a); see also MPEP § 2106.05(f), mere instructions to apply the exception on generic components).
The specification confirms that these additional elements are generic and conventional: the power-saving evaluation system “is configured by a computer such as a personal computer (PC) or a server device” ([0017]); the radio-wave-intensity/UUID detection is performed by a “related-art method,” e.g., by “installing software using free source code, which is published on the Web” ([0021]); the power-amount measurement uses a “related-art device” ([0023]); and the hardware is generic (processor 1001, memory 1002, storage 1003, communication device 1004, etc. - [0061]-[0073]). The judicial exception is therefore not integrated into a practical application.
Step 2B - The claims do not recite significantly more than the abstract idea. Considered individually and as an ordered combination, the additional elements are well-understood, routine and conventional (MPEP § 2106.05(d)(II)): acquiring a short-range-wireless signal-strength (RSSI) reading via a carried device and measuring an appliance’s power consumption are conventional data-gathering functions performed by generic components, as the specification itself acknowledges ([0021], [0023]). The ordered combination adds nothing beyond the sum of these generic parts. Accordingly, claims 1-4 are directed to patent-ineligible subject matter and are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101.
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 t which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 1-4 are rejected under AIA 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Hirayama (US 10,621,853) in view of Jablokov et al. (“Jablokov”) (US 9,928,672).
In order to expedite and avoid piecemeal prosecution, the following rejection is made to the extent that the claims are understood, by considering those elements which are understood and interpreting their function in a manner which is consistent with the recited goals of the claims, and then applying the best available art.
The examiner relies on the entire teachings of Hirayama and Jablokov references; the applicant should carefully consider the entire teachings of the above-mentioned references to better understand the examiner’s position.
Regarding claim 1, Hirayama discloses a cooperation system (FIG. 1) comprising a portable terminal / smartphone 20 carried by the user and one or more home appliances 10 (washing machine 11, refrigerator 12, microwave oven 13, robot cleaner 14, television 15, air-conditioner 16) that operate while consuming power and whose operating state is adjustable by the user (see col. 3:17-67; col. 4:4-67), thereby disclosing a power-saving evaluation system that evaluates power-saving behavior of a user with respect to a power consumption device that operates while consuming power and of which power consumption is adjustable by an operation of the user. The smartphone CPU 21 executing the notification application program 41 (2 FIG. 4; col. 5:25-6:63) reads on the recited “circuitry.” (The preamble recites an intended use of the system; the recited structure is met as mapped);
PNG
media_image1.png
925
656
media_image1.png
Greyscale
a beacon transmitter 17 provided in each home appliance 10 regularly transmits a BLE (short-range wireless) beacon, which is received by a beacon receiver 31 in the smartphone 20 carried by the user (FIG. 2 (item 17); FIG. 4 (item 31); col. 5:14-22; col. 6:25-63); whether the beacon is received is a function of the radio-wave intensity, since the receiver receives the beacon only when the smartphone is within the beacon range (distance < 1 m), i.e., only when the received intensity exceeds the receiver threshold (col. 4:17-42), so that the reception/non-reception state constitutes information indicating the intensity of the radio wave (above/below the range threshold) - disclosing circuitry configured to acquire radio wave intensity information indicating an intensity of a radio wave related to short-range wireless communication, the radio wave being transmitted from the power consumption device and detected in a device carried by the user;
Hirayama further teaches that “…if the smartphone 20 receives a beacon, it is presumed that the user is present near the home appliance 10 to the extent that the user can operate the home appliance 10 immediately” (col. 4:29-33), and conversely that non-reception is presumed to indicate the user is at a position where the appliance cannot be operated (col. 4:33-36), disclosing circuitry configured to estimate whether or not the user is operating the power consumption device based on the acquired radio wave intensity information;
Hirayama also contemplates the appliance providing its consumed power to the user’s terminal - for air-conditioners, refrigerators and washing machines the system “allow[s] the user to confirm the consumed power” (col. 9:5-67) - disclosing circuitry configured to acquire power consumption information indicating the power consumption of the power consumption device.
Hirayama does not expressly disclose acquiring a numerical/measured intensity value (e.g., an RSSI value); to the extent Applicant construes “radio wave intensity information indicating an intensity” to require a measured value. Jablokov corroborates radio-signal-strength-based proximity, however - a radio proximity detection device 106 receives radio signals from the user’s radio-enabled device and locates it within a pre-determined radius (col. 8:52-57; col. 10:50-54);
PNG
media_image2.png
541
726
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Hirayama does not expressly disclose measuring/acquiring the magnitude of the appliance’s power consumption as data used for a power-saving evaluation. Jablokov supplies this: Jablokov discloses a power status sensor 103 (FIG. 1 (item 103)) that monitors “the magnitude of power consumption by the appliance 101” (col. 9:10-20), and the monitor-and-control module detects the increased current/gas consumption of the appliance (FIG. 6 (item 605); col. 13:53-57). Finally, although Hirayama does not disclose evaluating the power-saving behavior of the user, Jablokov discloses an energy-saving application in which the monitor-and-control module reduces the appliance’s on-time based on the user’s (radio-enabled device’s) presence/absence and monitors the appliance’s power consumption, and generates “energy saving usage reports” from the resulting usage/power data (col. 10:30-46; col. 11:18-24), the energy-saving evaluation/report thus being based on the estimation of the user’s presence and the acquired power-consumption information - disclosing circuitry configured to evaluate the power-saving behavior of the user with respect to the power consumption device based on the estimation and the acquired power consumption information.
Hirayama and Jablokov are analogous art in the same field of endeavor - monitoring home appliances using short-range wireless radio proximity between the appliance and a user’s carried device, together with the appliance’s power status, for energy-conscious operation. Hirayama teaches phone-side beacon detection to determine that the user is near/can operate a specific appliance, while Jablokov teaches measuring the appliance’s power consumption magnitude and generating energy-saving usage evaluations/reports keyed to the user’s proximity. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to incorporate Jablokov’s power-consumption measurement and energy-saving evaluation/reporting into Hirayama’s beacon-based operation-estimation system in order to give the user feedback on the energy saved in connection with the specific appliance the user is operating, thereby raising the user’s awareness of power-saving and encouraging conservation. The combination is nothing more than the use of known prior-art elements according to their established functions to yield the predictable result of an appliance-specific power-saving evaluation (KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc.; MPEP § 2143(A)). A reasonable expectation of success exists because both systems operate on the same class of BLE-enabled home appliances, both already use short-range radio for proximity, and Jablokov already integrates power-status monitoring with proximity-based control - requiring no more than routine engineering to feed the measured power consumption and the beacon-based operation estimate into the evaluation.
Regarding claim 2, Hirayama estimates a positional relationship - whether the smartphone 20 is within the one-meter beacon radius of the home appliance 10 (and which appliance it is near) - from the beacon (radio-wave) reception (col. 4:17-42; FIG. 2 depicts the positional relationship / range D between the beacon-transmitting appliance 10 and the receiving smartphone 20), and estimates that the user can operate that appliance based on that positional relationship (col. 4:29-40), disclosing wherein the circuitry estimates a positional relationship between the user and the power consumption device based on the acquired radio wave intensity information, and estimates whether or not the user is operating the power consumption device based on the estimated positional relationship. (The “intensity” caveat noted for claim 1 applies). Claim 2 is obvious for the reasons given for claim 1; the additional “positional relationship” limitation is disclosed by Hirayama as mapped above, and no separate combination is needed.
Regarding claim 3, Hirayama discloses a plurality of home appliances 11-16, each transmitting a beacon carrying its own identification data, and the smartphone “can recognize near which home appliance 10 the smartphone 20 is present” (col. 4:36-40); the beacon receiver 31 receives a first beacon from a first appliance and a second beacon from a second appliance (col. 6:27-33), so that the appliance being operated (nearest/within range) is estimated from the beacon information for the plurality - disclosing wherein the circuitry acquires radio wave intensity information related to a plurality of the power consumption devices, [and] estimates the power consumption device that is being operated by the user based on the acquired radio wave intensity information. Although Hirayama does not disclose acquiring the power consumption of the plurality of appliances, nor estimating from that power consumption plus the operation estimation the specific appliance for which the user performed a power-saving operation, Jablokov’s power status sensor 103 monitors the magnitude of appliance power consumption (col. 9:10-20) and the system generates per-appliance energy-saving usage reports (col. 11:18-24), supplying the per-appliance power-consumption acquisition and the power-saving evaluation for the identified appliance - disclosing that the circuitry acquires power consumption information indicating power consumption of the plurality of power consumption devices, and estimates the power consumption device for which the user has performed an operation related to the power-saving behavior based on the estimation and the acquired power consumption information. The same rationale and motivation to combine set forth for claim 1 apply: combining Jablokov’s per-appliance power measurement and energy-saving reporting with Hirayama’s per-appliance beacon identification predictably yields an evaluation of which of several appliances the user performed a power-saving operation for.
Regarding claim 4, although Hirayama does not disclose estimating a reduced power-consumption amount, Jablokov generates “energy saving usage reports” from stored usage/power data (col. 11:18-24; col. 12:26-31), which report the energy saved - i.e., an estimate of the amount by which power consumption was reduced - disclosing wherein the circuitry estimates a power consumption amount reduced by the power-saving behavior of the user with respect to the power consumption device. Claim 4 is obvious over Hirayama in view of Jablokov for the reasons and motivation set forth for claim 1; reporting/quantifying the energy saved is a predictable extension of Jablokov’s energy-saving evaluation and provides the user with the useful metric contemplated by both references.
Examiner's note:
Potential allowable subject matter. The specification’s specific attribution methodology – setting a “standby period” keyed to the time the user is estimated to be operating the appliance, computing a reference/average baseline from the power consumption immediately before that period, and estimating the reduced amount as the summed difference between the reference value and the measured consumption during a “power-saving behavior possibility section” ([0043]-[0049]) - is not taught or suggested by Hirayama or Jablokov (or, on the present record, by the pertinent art). Claims incorporating that methodology (i.e., the specific manner of isolating and quantifying the reduction attributable to the user’s operation) would place the application in condition for allowance over the applied art. Applicant is invited to consider incorporating those limitations.
Examiner has cited particular columns and line numbers in the references applied to the claims above for the convenience of the Applicant. Although the specified citations are representative of the teachings of the art and are applied to specific limitations within the individual claim, other passages and figures may apply as well. It is respectfully requested from the Applicant in preparing responses, to fully consider the references in entirety as potentially teaching all or part of the claimed invention, as well as the context of the passages as taught by the prior art or disclosed by the Examiner.
Conclusion
All claims are rejected.
The prior arts made of record and not relied upon are considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
US 9,684,357 teaches predictive electrical-appliance power-saving management mode based on presence detection of a mobile device.
US 10,401,811, teach remote device control and energy monitoring by analyzing user presence together with the status of energy-consuming devices via rules.
US 8,447,541, teaches energy-usage monitoring with automatic per-appliance detection; presents per-device usage so the user can change energy-usage behavior.
US 10,592,182, teaches terminal device determines the position of an electronic apparatus from an apparatus-transmitted beacon (appliance-side beacon; terminal-side positioning).
EP 2 260 563, teaches electrical-appliance monitoring combining occupancy/presence detection with appliance power state for energy conservation.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to examiner Raymond Phan, whose telephone number is (571) 272-3630. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday from 6:30AM- 3:00PM. The Group Fax No. (571) 273-8300.
Communications via Internet e-mail regarding this application, other than those under 35 U.S.C. 132 or which otherwise require a signature, may be used by the applicant and should be addressed to [raymond.phan@uspto.gov].
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, Andrew Jung can be reached at (571) 270-3779. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
All Internet e-mail communications will be made of record in the application file. PTO employees do not engage in Internet communications where there exists a possibility that sensitive information could be identified or exchanged unless the record includes a properly signed express waiver of the confidentiality requirements of 35 U.S.C. 122. This is more clearly set forth in the Interim Internet Usage Policy published in the Official Gazette of the Patent and Trademark on February 25, 1997 at 1195 OG 89.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see hop://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free).
Any inquiry of a general nature or relating to the status of this application should be directed to the TC 2100 central telephone number is (571) 272-2100.
/RAYMOND N PHAN/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2175
