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 arguments filed with respect to rejections under 35 USC 101 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant alleges the amendment providing a control instruction to a device that controls consumer equipment integrates the abstract idea into a practical application. Examiner respectfully disagrees. This amounts to the transmission of data over a network. Transmission of data over a network is recognized as well-understood, routine and conventional functions MPEP 2106.05(d) II. Further, the specification describes the advantageous effects of the invention includes the accuracy of the energy demand prediction is improved. This improvement to the prediction is an improved abstract idea. There is no improvement any computer or technology offered by Applicant’s invention.
Applicant arguments, see with respect to claims rejected under 35 US 102 have been fully considered and are persuasive. The rejection of claims 1 and 4-9 under 35 USC 102 has been withdrawn.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 and 4-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is not eligible for patenting. There are two criteria for determining subject matter eligibility:
(a) first, a claimed invention must fall within one of the four statutory categories of invention set forth in 35 U.S.C. 101, i.e., process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter (Step 1); and
(b) second, a claimed invention must be directed to patent-eligible subject matter and not a judicial exception (unless the claim as a whole includes additional limitations amounting to significantly more than the exception) (Step 2).
Step 1:
Claim(s) 1 and 4-9 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.
Step 2:
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. More specifically, independent claims 1 and 9 recite:
acquiring a past data set and a predicted value of a load item that affects the energy demand, the past data set including a past value of the load item and a past value of a demand item indicating the energy demand;
determining a degree of similarity between the predicted value of the load item and the past value of the load item and extracting the past data set based on the degree of similarity;
dividing the past data set into a plurality of sections with reference to time based on an operating status of the consumer;
deriving a regression formula for prediction of the energy demand that is made based on the extracted past data set, for each of the plurality of sections; and
calculating a predicted value of the demand item by applying the predicted value of the load item to the regression formula;
converting the calculated predicted value of the demand item into a control instruction to control a consumer equipment
The claims recite data analysis steps to gather data, perform analysis, generate a predicted demand value and convert the value into an instruction. The steps are considered mental processes as they recite observation and evaluations that can be done in the mind or with pen and paper. The nominal recitation of a computer elements in claim 1 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 a device comprising a memory and a processor. This amounts to using a computer as a tool to perform the abstract idea and does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. The claim also recites transmitting control instruction to a device which is extra-post-solution activity and does not meaningfully limit process of calculating a predicted value. Independent claim 9 recites transmitting control instruction to a device . This amounts to using a computer as a tool to perform the abstract idea and does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. The claim also recites transmitting control instruction to a device which is extra-post-solution activity and does not meaningfully limit process of calculating a predicted value.
The dependent claims further limit the abstract idea and some recite additional elements that do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Dependent claims 4-7 recite details of additional steps of the abstract idea identified in claim 1. These claims can be practically performed by pen and paper or in the mind and is therefore mental process. Any computer implementation amounts to using a computer as a tool and does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Dependent claim 8 recites a storage device and a data acquisition device which amount to using a computer as a tool to perform the storage and gathering of data. There is no integration into a practical application. Dependent claims 10 and 11 recite data which is part of the abstract idea in claim 1 and regression formula which is mathematical concepts. The device and processor amount to using a computer as a tool to perform the abstract idea and do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Dependent claims 12-14 recite additional steps of the abstract calculations in claims 1 and 4 and do not add any additional limitations that integrate the abstract idea 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/software claim 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. In addition, the transmission of a control instruction to a device over a network is recognized as well-understood, routine and conventional functions MPEP 2106.05(d) II and does not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea.
Allowable Subject Matter
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: But for the eligibility rejection under 35 USC 101, the claims recite allowable subject matter. The closest prior art, Sawa et al, fails to explicitly disclose calculating respective multiple regression formulas for each of a plurality of sections into which the past data is divided.
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
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Matsumura, WO 2019082426 A1 - ENERGY MANAGEMENT DEVICE, ENERGY MANAGEMENT SYSTEM, AND ENERGY MANAGEMENT METHOD - an energy management system provided with a server which requests demand response, and an energy management apparatus which is provided to a consumer and can communicate with the server to control the electrical equipment of the consumer.
Endo, US 2022/0393465 - CALCULATION APPARATUS AND CALCULATION METHOD - a calculation apparatus for optimizing energy use efficiency of a grid that is interconnected to a power system and includes an energy storage apparatus, a range of a final charge state in a prediction target section of the energy storage apparatus is determined based on a supply and demand prediction of power in a next section or later, and whether the final charge state of the section is matched with the range is evaluated by the optimization calculation of the prediction target section.
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