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 .
This application claims benefit of foreign application: KOREA, REPUBLIC OF 10-2024-0066722 filed on 05/22/2024
Claim Rejection – 35 U.S.C. 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 1-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter. The rationale for this finding is explained below. In the instant case, the claims are directed towards formulating a bidding strategy. The concept is clearly related to managing human bidding activities, thus the present claims fall within the Certain Method of Organizing Human Activity grouping. The claims do not include limitations that are “significantly more” than the abstract idea because the claims do not include an improvement to another technology or technical field, an improvement to the functioning of the computer itself, or meaningful limitations beyond generally linking the use of an abstract idea to a particular technological environment. Note that the limitations, in the instant claims, are done by the generically recited computer device. The limitations are merely instructions to implement the abstract idea on a computer and require no more than a generic computer to perform generic computer functions that are well-understood, routine and conventional activities previously known to the industry. Therefore, claims 1-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 as being directed to non-statutory subject matter.
Step 1: The claims 1-11 are directed to a process, machine, manufacture, or composition matter.
In Alice Corp. Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank Intern., 134 S. Ct. 2347 (2014), the Supreme Court applied a two-step test for determining whether a claim recites patentable subject matter. First, we determine whether the claims at issue are directed to one or more patent-ineligible concepts, i.e., laws of nature, natural phenomenon, and abstract ideas. Id. at 2355 (citing Mayo Collaborative Servs. v. Prometheus Labs., Inc., 132 S. Ct. 1289, 1296–96 (2012)). If so, we then consider whether the elements of each claim, both individually and as an ordered combination, transform the nature of the claim into a patent-eligible application to ensure that the patent in practice amounts to significantly more than a patent upon the ineligible concept itself.
Claims 1-5 are directed to a process (i.e., method claims).
Claims 6 is directed to a manufacture (i.e., machine-readable medium claims).
Claims 7-11 are directed to a machine (i.e., device/system claims).
Step 2A: The claims are directed to an abstract idea.
Prong One
The present claims are directed towards formulating bidding strategy. The concept comprises collecting electricity market operation data, constructing a simulation algorithm based on the electricity market operation data, generating at least one bid candidate, deriving value at risk based on the simulation algorithm and the bid candidate, and determining forecasted power generation. Formulating a bidding strategy is a fundamental economic activity and managing human bidding activities, thus the present claims clearly fall within the Certain Method of Organizing Human Activity grouping. Examiner also points out that the present claims, similar to the ineligible claims in Electric Power Group v. Alstom, recite obtaining data, analyzing data, and presenting result of the analysis. The performance of the claim limitations using generic computer components (i.e., a processor) does not preclude the claim limitation from being in the certain methods of organizing human activity grouping. Accordingly, the present claims recite an abstract idea.
Prong Two
Independent claim 1 recites a processor as additional elements. Independent claim 6 recites a computer readable recording medium as additional element. Independent claim 7 recites a processor and a memory as additional elements. Dependent claims 2-5 and 8-11 do not recite any other additional element. The additional elements are claimed to perform basic computer functions, such as collecting data (i.e., receiving data over network), construction simulation algorithm (i.e., receiving and processing data), generating candidate (i.e., performing calculation), deriving value (i.e., performing calculation), and determining forecasted power generation (i.e., performing calculation). The recitation of the computer elements amounts to mere instruction to implement an abstract concept on computers. The present claims do not solve a problem specifically arising in the realm of computer networks. The present claims do not recite limitation that improve the functioning of computer, effect a physical transformation, or apply the abstract concept in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the abstract concept to a particular technological environment. As such, the present claims fail to integrate into a practical application.
Step 2B: The claims do not recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the abstract idea.
As discussed earlier, independent claim 1 recites a processor as additional elements. Independent claim 6 recites a computer readable recording medium as additional element. Independent claim 7 recites a processor and a memory as additional elements. Dependent claims 2-5 and 8-11 do not recite any other additional element. The additional elements are claimed to perform basic computer functions, such as collecting data (i.e., receiving data over network), construction simulation algorithm (i.e., receiving and processing data), generating candidate (i.e., performing calculation), deriving value (i.e., performing calculation), and determining forecasted power generation (i.e., performing calculation). According to MPEP 2106.05(d), “performing repetitive calculations”, “receiving, processing, and storing data”, “electronically scanning or extracting data from a physical document”, “electronic recordkeeping”, “storing and retrieving information in memory”, and “receiving or transmitting data over a network, e.g., using the Internet to gather data” are considered well-understood, routine, and conventional functions of computer. The present claims do not improve the functioning of computer. Simply implementing the abstract idea on a generic computer or using a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea cannot integrate a judicial exception into a practical application at Step 2A or provide an inventive concept in Step 2B. Therefore, the present claims are ineligible for patent.
Prior Arts Cited Not Applied
Sun et al. (KR 20240056210 A) is cited because the prior art teaches generating at least one bid candidate from at least one power generation forecast scenario derived based on the day-ahead forecasted power generation made on a previous day for a next day (see abstract, “predicting the power generation of power sources based on individual distributed power sources participating in the power market and a virtual power plant that collects distributed power sources, establishing a day-ahead market bidding plan”).
Gang et al. (CN 110675065 A) is cited because the prior art teaches collecting electricity market operation data including at least one of a day-ahead system marginal price, a real-time system marginal price, a day-ahead forecasted power generation made on a previous day for a next day, and a real-time forecasted power generation (see page 3, “wind power based on wind power prediction model to obtain the output information, bid limit information market of electric automobile can call capacity and real-time, respectively constructing the virtual plant in day-ahead market and the real market bidding model to obtain the virtual plant respectively when the day ahead market and real bidding profit of the market”); constructing a simulation algorithm based on the electricity market operation data (see page 3, “The wind power forecasting model 24 obtained by the future period of wind power output can call capacity information and the electric vehicle, the virtual plant in intra-day market for different periods of time bidding, benefit by the day-ahead market bidding models simulating the virtual plant total bid of the day-ahead market the t period output and corresponding to the length of the period is set to 1 hours”); generating at least one bid candidate from at least one power generation forecast scenario derived based on the day-ahead forecasted power generation made on a previous day for a next day (see page 3, “after the virtual power plant to finish time-sharing the bidding, according to real-time market price information and the wind power of the actual output information, and adjusting the electric automobile charging/discharging plan, forming new real-time bidding strategy, and perform offset settlement processing after the real-time market, through real-time market bidding model to obtain the virtual plant the auction profit of the real-time market”).
Examiner notes, the cited prior arts, whether individually or combined, do not teach deriving value at risk (VaR) based on the simulation algorithm and the bid candidate; and determining forecasted power generation that satisfies a preset condition as day-ahead bid quantity based on a result of deriving the VaR, which is recited in independent claim 1 and claim 7. Examiner cannot find relevant prior art to address these limitations. Therefore, no prior art-based rejection is cited in this Office Action.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to HAO FU whose telephone number is (571)270-3441. The examiner can normally be reached 9:00 AM - 6:00 PM PST.
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, Christine M Behncke can be reached at (571) 272-8103. 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.
/HAO FU/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3695
JULY-2026
Prosecution Insights