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
This action is in reply to the application filed on September 4, 2025.
Claim(s) 1-8 are currently pending and have been examined.
This action is made Non-Final.
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 Objections
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities: Claim 1 recited “the cloud” and “the latest energy trends”, but does not recite a first occurrence. In addition, these are noted as claim objections:
Claim 5
“the company’s energy consumption patterns”
Claim 6
“the company”
Claim 6
“the proposed investment plan”
Claim 7
“the user’s emotions” / “the user”
Appropriate correction is required.
Claims 3-6 are objected to because of the following informalities: The claims are replete with the use of acronyms. For example, claims 3-6 recite acronym of “AI”, which is unclear. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: “a collection unit that collects…”, “a storage unit that stores…”, “an analysis unit that analyzes…”, “an acquisition unit that acquires…”, “a provision unit that provides…””, and “an execution support unit that provides…”, in claim 1.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 5-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for pre-AIA the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. For instance, in In re Hayes Microcomputer Products, the written description requirement was satisfied because the specification disclosed the specific type of microcomputer used in the claimed invention as well as the necessary steps for implementing the claimed function. The disclosure was in sufficient detail such that one skilled in the art would know how to program the microprocessor to perform the necessary steps described in the specification. In re Hayes Microcomputer Prods., Inc. Patent Litigation, 982 F.2d 1527, 1533-34, 25 USPQ2d 1241, ___ (Fed. Cir. 1992). In the present applicant, claims 5-7 disclose “provides renewable energy investment proposals by taking into account the company's energy consumption patterns or market trends using generative AI.…” where it is not disclosed how the generative AI takes into account the company’s consumption patterns and provides the specific steps to execute the plan is not supported in the specification as to how the applicant is accomplishing this in order to show possession of the invention at the time of filing. While one skilled in the art could have devised a way to accomplish this aspect of the invention, Applicant’s original disclosure lacks sufficient detail to explain how Applicant envisioned achieving the goal of providing this plan. Simply stating or re-stating the claim limitation does not provide enough support to show possession. Since these important details about how the invention operates are not disclosed, it is not readily evident that Applicant has full possession of the invention at the time of filing (i.e., the original disclosure fails to provide adequate written description to support the claimed invention as a whole). Neither the specification nor the drawings disclose in detail the specific steps or algorithm needed to perform the operation. If the specification does not provide a disclosure of the computer and algorithm in sufficient detail to demonstrate to one of ordinary skill in the art that the inventor possessed the invention including how to program the disclosed computer to perform the claimed function, a rejection under 35 U.S.C. 112a, for lack of written description must be made. For more information regarding the written description requirement, see MPEP §2161.01- §2163.07(b).
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1–8 are rejected under § 112(b) as indefinite because the claim limitations “analysis unit,” “acquisition unit,” “provision unit,” and “execution support unit” invoke § 112(f) but the specification fails to disclose the corresponding algorithm with sufficient particularity. Merely stating that “generative AI” performs the function, without disclosing the specific steps or algorithm, is equivalent to disclosing a general-purpose computer without the algorithm.
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) 1-8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Claim(s) 1-8 are directed to a system, method, or product, which are/is one of the statutory categories of invention. (Step 1: YES).
The Examiner has identified independent system claim 1 as the claim that represents the claimed invention for analysis. Claim 1 recites the following limitations:
[A system comprising: a collection unit that] collects energy consumption data;
[a storage unit that] stores the data collected by the collection unit in the Cloud;
[an analysis unit that] analyzes the data stored by the storage unit;
[an acquisition unit that] acquires the latest energy trends or investment destination information based on the data analyzed by the analysis unit;
[a provision unit that] provides a renewable energy investment proposal based on the information obtained by the acquisition unit; and
[an execution support unit that] provides specific steps for executing the investment proposal provided by the provision unit.
These limitations, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, cover performance of the limitation as certain method of organizing human activity because the limitations recite a commercial interaction. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers commercial interactions, then it falls within the “Certain Methods of Organizing Human activity” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea. The collection unit, storage unit, analysis unit, acquisition unit, provision unit, and execution support unit in Claim 1 are just applying generic computer components to the recited abstract limitations. The recitation of generic computer components in a claim does not necessarily preclude that claim from reciting an abstract idea. (Step 2A-Prong 1: YES. The claims recite an abstract idea)
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claims recite the additional elements of a collection unit, a storage unit, an analysis unit, an acquisition unit, a provision unit, and an execution support unit. The computer hardware/software is/are recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as a generic processor performing a generic computer function) such that it amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Accordingly, these additional elements, when considered separately and as an 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 and are at a high level of generality. Therefore, claim 1 is directed to an abstract idea without a practical application. (Step 2A-Prong 2: NO. The additional claimed elements are not integrated into a practical application)
The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because, when considered separately and as an ordered combination, they do not add significantly more (also known as an “inventive concept”) to the exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional element of using computer hardware amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. Accordingly, these additional elements do not change the outcome of the analysis when considered separately and as an ordered combination. Thus, claim 1 is not patent eligible. (Step 2B: NO. The claims do not provide significantly more)
Dependent claims 2-8 further define the abstract idea that is present in their respective independent claim(s) 1 and thus correspond to certain methods of organizing human activity and hence are abstract for the reasons presented above. Dependent claims 2-8 do not include any additional elements that integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception when considered both individually and as an ordered combination. Therefore, dependent claims 2-8 are directed to an abstract idea. Thus, claim(s) 1-8 are not patent-eligible.
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.
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 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.
The factual inquiries set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 1-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Xu (CN 104917768A) in view of Scavo (US 2024/0370932).
Regarding claim(s) 1:
Xu teaches:
A system comprising: a collection unit that collects energy consumption data; (Xu: Summary, “The present invention is directed to prior art above shortcomings, provide a kind of energy consumption data acquisition device based on multi-protocols parallel acquisition technique…”)
Xu does not teach, however, Scavo teaches:
a storage unit that stores the data collected by the collection unit in the Cloud; (Scavo: pgh 77, “…the example implementations described herein may be performed by copying data from an external third party…and storing the data in a cloud storage container.”)
an analysis unit that analyzes the data stored by the storage unit; (Scavo: pgh 81, “…the integrated investment strategy generation and management system also provides an investment tracking and performance analysis feature that enables users to monitor the performance of their chosen strategies over time and adjust as needed.”)
an acquisition unit that acquires the latest energy trends or investment destination information based on the data analyzed by the analysis unit; (Scavo: pgh 23, “The method leverages advanced artificial intelligence (AI), real-time market data, and exclusive datasets to deliver optimal investment strategies for users…”)
a provision unit that provides a renewable energy investment proposal based on the information obtained by the acquisition unit; and (Scavo: pgh 72, “…a plurality of alternate data inputs of different types are processed and normalized, and applied to a series of operations in order to generate a forecast or an expected value, or a recommendation.”)
an execution support unit that provides specific steps for executing the investment proposal provided by the provision unit. (Scavo: pgh 58, “…the user may provide, in the default settings, one or more default service providers, such as one or more brokers/robo-advisory platforms to automatically execute the order.”)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have modified Xu to include the teachings of Scavo because “there is still a need for an integrated system that can offer personalized investment strategies” (Scavo: pgh 3).
Regarding claim(s) 2:
The combination of Xu/Scavo, as shown in the rejection above, discloses the limitations of claim 1. Xu further teaches:
wherein the collection unit collects energy consumption data in real time using IoT devices installed in factories or office buildings. (Xu: Summary, “Data upload unit connection data instantaneous value buffer cell and data storage cell, IP address and the port at managing power consumption center are set…set up the connection with managing power consumption center, resume historical data or upload real time data.”)
Regarding claim(s) 3:
The combination of Xu/Scavo, as shown in the rejection above, discloses the limitations of claim 1. Scavo further teaches:
wherein the analysis unit analyzes the energy consumption data stored in the Cloud using generative AI. (Scavo: pgh 77, “External data fetching according to the example implementations described herein may be performed by copying data from an external third party…and storing the data in a cloud storage container.”; pgh 137, “…example implementations offer an integrated investment strategy generation and management system that leverages advanced AI, real-time market data, and exclusive datasets to delivery personalized investment strategies…”)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have modified Xu to include the teachings of Scavo because “there is still a need for an integrated system that can offer personalized investment strategies” (Scavo: pgh 3).
Regarding claim(s) 4:
The combination of Xu/Scavo, as shown in the rejection above, discloses the limitations of claim 1. Scavo further teaches:
wherein the acquisition unit acquires the latest energy trends or investment destination information using generative AI. (Scavo: pgh 25, “The method leverages advanced Generative Artificial Intelligence (AI), to read, interpret, and weigh news signals from various real-time news providers and generate to adjust portfolio positions…”)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have modified Xu to include the teachings of Scavo because “there is still a need for an integrated system that can offer personalized investment strategies” (Scavo: pgh 3).
Regarding claim(s) 5:
The combination of Xu/Scavo, as shown in the rejection above, discloses the limitations of claim 1. Scavo further teaches:
wherein the provision unit provides renewable energy investment proposals by taking into account the company's energy consumption patterns or market trends using generative AI. (Scavo: pgh 29, “The generative AI module performs strategy/response generation using the information extracted by the AI module.”; pgh 128, “…Generative AI is used to read, interpret, and weigh the news signals from various real-time news providers.”)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have modified Xu to include the teachings of Scavo because “there is still a need for an integrated system that can offer personalized investment strategies” (Scavo: pgh 3).
Regarding claim(s) 6:
The combination of Xu/Scavo, as shown in the rejection above, discloses the limitations of claim 1. Scavo further teaches:
wherein the execution support unit provides specific steps for the company to execute the proposed investment plan using generative AI. (Scavo: pgh 130, “…a portfolio adjustment order is then placed with oneor more default service providers, such as one or more brokers/robo-advisory platforms to automatically execute the adjustment, according to default setting as entered by the user.”)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have modified Xu to include the teachings of Scavo because “there is still a need for an integrated system that can offer personalized investment strategies” (Scavo: pgh 3).
Claims 7-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Xu/Scavo in view of Cella (US 2026/0118837).
Regarding claim(s) 7:
The combination of Xu/Scavo, as shown in the rejection above, discloses the limitations of claim 1. Cella further teaches:
wherein the collection unit estimates the user's emotions and adjusts the timing of energy consumption data collection based on the estimated user emotions. (Cella: pgh 32, “…autonomous data handling systems is configured to collect data relating to energy generation, storage, or delivery from a set of edge devices that re in operational control of a set of distributed energy resources and is configured to autonomously adjust, based on the collected data, a set of operational parameters for such operational control.”; pgh 79, “…wherein the at leastone parameter is one or more of a routing instruction…or a timing parameter.”)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have modified Xu/Scavo to include the teachings of Cella because “a need exists for a platform that facilitates management and improvement of legacy infrastructure in coordination with distributed systems.” (Cella: pgh 3).
Regarding claim(s) 8:
The combination of Xu/Scavo, as shown in the rejection above, discloses the limitations of claim 1. Cella further teaches:
wherein the collection unit changes the frequency of data collection based on specific time periods or seasons when collecting energy consumption data. (Cella: pgh 655, “The set of consumption timing optimization systems may orchestrate timing consumption, such as to shift consumption for non-critical activities to lower-cost energy resources (e.g., by shifting to off-peak times…”; pgh 846, “…an AI-based platform for enabling intelligent orchestration and management of power and energy includes a digital twin that is updated by a data collection system that dynamically maintains a setoff historical, current, and/or forecast energy demand parameters…”)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have modified Xu/Scavo to include the teachings of Cella because “a need exists for a platform that facilitates management and improvement of legacy infrastructure in coordination with distributed systems.” (Cella: pgh 3).
Conclusion
Pertinent Art
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to Applicant’s disclosure. Lobell (WO2022169874-A1) discloses a computer system that supports decisions related to investments in infrastructure intended to promote economic development.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JOHN O PRESTON whose telephone number is (571)270-3918. The examiner can normally be reached 9:00 am - 5:00 pm.
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, MICHAEL ANDERSON can be reached on 571-270-0508. 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.
/JOHN O PRESTON/Examiner, Art Unit 3698
June 27, 2026
/Mike Anderson/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3693
Prosecution Insights