Ex Parte Shelton et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Jun 20, 2017

13283006 (P.T.A.B. Jun. 20, 2017)

United States Patent and Trademark Office
UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
United States Patent and Trademark Office
Address: COMMISSIONER FOR PATENTS
P.O.Box 1450
Alexandria, Virginia 22313-1450
www.uspto.gov
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR ATTORNEY DOCKET NO. CONFIRMATION NO.
13/283,006 10/27/2011 John Christopher Shelton 0080451-000010 1084
21839 7590 06/22/2017
BUCHANAN, INGERSOLL & ROONEY PC
POST OFFICE BOX 1404
ALEXANDRIA, VA 22313-1404
EXAMINER
HAIDER, FAWAAD
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3627
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
06/22/2017 ELECTRONIC
Please find below and/or attached an Office communication concerning this application or proceeding.
The time period for reply, if any, is set in the attached communication.
Notice of the Office communication was sent electronically on above-indicated "Notification Date" to the
following e-mail address(es):
ADIPDOCl@BIPC.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte JOHN CHRISTOPHER SHELTON and
JOHN MICHAEL ZAHURANCIK
Appeal 2015-003929
Application 13/2 83,0061
Technology Center 3600
Before SHEILA F. McSHANE, MATTHEW S. MEYERS, and
ROBERT J. SILVERMAN, Administrative Patent Judges.
SILVERMAN, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
The Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’
decision rejecting claims 1 and 19—30. We have jurisdiction under 35
U.S.C. § 6(b).
We AFFIRM.
1 “The AES Corporation is the real party in interest.” Appeal Br. 2.
Appeal 2015-003929
Application 13/283,006
ILLUSTRATIVE CLAIM
1. A method of managing an energy service for a mobile
device connected to a grid connection point during a connection
event, comprising:
receiving, by the mobile device, said mobile device
including a processor and memory, a signal indicating a
plurality of energy services are being offered, and selecting, by
the mobile device, one of the offered energy services, as the
energy service to be managed;
determining, by the mobile device, a quantity of the
energy service realized during the connection event;
identifying an account associated with the grid
connection point; and adjusting the identified account based on
the quantity determined by the mobile asset.
REJECTIONS
I. Claims 1 and 19-30 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 as
patent-ineligible subject matter.2
II. Claims 1 and 19-30 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Bridge et al. (US 2008/0040479 Al, pub. Feb. 14, 2008)
(“Bridge”) and Mizumachi (US 2010/0185357 Al, pub. July 22, 2010).
FINDINGS OF FACT
We rely upon and adopt the Examiner’s findings stated in the Final
Office Action at pages 2—5 and the Answer at pages 3—5, except as stated
otherwise in the Analysis below. Additional findings of fact may appear in
the Analysis below.
2 The rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 101 was presented in the Answer (pages
3—4) as a New Ground of Rejection.
2
Appeal 2015-003929
Application 13/283,006
ANALYSIS
Patent-Eligible Subject Matter
Applying the first analytical step of Alice Corp. Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank
International, 134 S. Ct. 2347, 2355 (2014), the Examiner maintains that
claims 1 and 19-30 are directed to the abstract idea of “selecting a service
and managing it,” which the Examiner regards as a fundamental economic
practice. Answer 3. Under the second step of the Alice analysis, the
Examiner further determines that claimed elements, even when considered
in combination, amount to no more than instructions to implement the
abstract idea on a computer. Id. at 3^4.
In response, the Appellants contend that the rejection mischaracterizes
the claims and relies upon an inadequate analysis. Reply Br. 6.
Regarding the first Alice step, the Appellants allege that the
Examiner’s identification of a purported abstract idea lacks a supporting
rationale and, in any event, the claims “provide various limiting details and
are written in concrete terms” — claim 1, for example, “provides specific
instruction on how to execute the step, offering express limitations to the
execution thereof.” Id. at 8. According to the Appellants, the particularity
of the claims precludes the possibility that the claims might preempt the
building blocks of human ingenuity. Id. at 8—9. See also id. at 11. The
Appellants also contend that the claims do not contain an “abstract idea” that
is “easily separable from the remainder of the recitations within the claims”
and do not cover a “commonplace business practice,” but instead are aimed
at improving the control of mobile devices and their energy consumption.
Id. at 10.
3
Appeal 2015-003929
Application 13/283,006
Regarding the second Alice step, the Appellants argue that the claimed
subject matter could not be implemented on a generic computer, but instead
requires a network of devices configured to communicate with each other in
a particular way, thereby resulting in a “computer system with improved
functionality over a ‘generic’ computer.” Id. at 12. The Appellants state
that, on account of the particular configuration, the claims amount to
“something more” than the mere implementation of an abstract idea on a
generic computer. Id. at 13. The Appellants contend that “[t]he systems and
methods of Applicant’s claims offer the technical solution of accurate
adjustments of accounts associated with connection events based on quantity
of energy service used by the mobile device.” Id. at 14.
In addition, the Appellants contend that the claims could not
encompass the entirety of the purported abstract idea and the claims do not
amount to an instruction to apply the abstract idea on a computer; rather, the
claims are “by nature tied to the technological environment of electronic
financial transaction processing and cannot be separated therefrom.” Id. at
15.
The Appellants’ arguments are not persuasive of error in the rejection.
As to the first Alice step, the Appellants state generally that the
claimed subject matter is not directed to an abstract idea because it is aimed
at improving the control of mobile devices (Reply Br. 10), but the
Appellants do not explain this position or identity how the claims
accomplish such end.
Similarly, in addressing the second Alice step, the Appellants contend
that the claimed subject matter accomplishes certain technical improvements
{id. at 12—14), but the Appellants do not explain which claimed elements, or
4
Appeal 2015-003929
Application 13/283,006
combination thereof, provide the alleged improvement. Although the
Appellants argue that the claimed subject matter is “by nature tied to the
technological environment of electronic financial transaction processing”
{id. at 15), limiting the use of an abstract idea to a particular technical
environment does not render claims patent-eligible. Alice, 134 S. Ct. at
2358 (citing Bilski v. Kappos, 591 U.S. 593, 610—11 (2010)).
The Appellants also argue that details set forth in the claims forestall
any preemption. Reply Br. 8—9, 11. Yet, “the absence of complete
preemption does not demonstrate patent eligibility.” Ariosa Diagnostics,
Inc. v. Sequenom, Inc., 788 F.3d 1371, 1379 (Fed. Cir. 2015).
Accordingly, we sustain the rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 101.
Obviousness
1. Independent Claims 1 and 19;
Dependent Claims 20—22 and 25—28
The Appellants argue that the Examiner rejected independent claim 1
erroneously, based upon two separate reasons.
First, the Appellants argue that Bridge does not teach claim 1 ’s
recitation of “receiving, by the mobile device, said mobile device including a
processor and memory, a signal indicating a plurality of energy services are
being offered.” Appeal Br. 5. According to the Appellants, the electric
vehicle in Bridge awaits and receives command signals from the flow
control server — not service offerings that are selectable by the electric
vehicle. Id.', see also Reply Br. 3.
The Examiner’s position is that Bridge teaches this limitation. See
Final Action 3 (citing Bridge H 66, 92, 95, 135, Fig. 8), Answer 4 (citing
Bridge Tflf 56—57, 78, 83, 85, 109-112, 135). The Final Office Action states
5
Appeal 2015-003929
Application 13/283,006
that Bridge, however, does not explicitly disclose a “mobile device” and
relies upon Mizumachi for this feature. Final Acton 3 (citing Mizumachi,
Abstract, 128).
The Appellants’ argument regarding the identified limitation is
unpersuasive of error in the rejection, because the combined disclosures of
Bridge and Mizumachi teach the claimed features. Bridge paragraph 135
discloses a vehicle receiving signals “to adjust the flow of power into or out
of the electric vehicle.” Bridge paragraph 85 refers to “initiat[ing] contact
with participating electric resource owners 408 to advertise offers for
exchanging electrical power.” Bridge paragraphs 109—111 describe “rapid
response,” “fast regulation,” “grid imbalance[ ]” services, as well as
“response to routine and unstable demands.” Bridge paragraph 135
identifies the conveyance of signals to a vehicle relating to charging and
discharging battery stores.
The Appellants’ second argument that claim 1 was rejected in error
alleges that Bridge does not teach “selecting, by the mobile device, one of
the offered energy services, as the energy service to be managed.” Appeal
Br. 5-6.
According to the Appellants, rather than a “mobile device” “selecting”
“one of the offered energy services,” as claim 1 recites, Bridge discloses an
electrical grid system, in which a grid operator controls the aggregated
electric resources with a flow control server that directs the flow of power to
or from an electric vehicle. Id. at 6 (citing Bridge 1135); see also Reply Br.
3^4.
The Final Office Action identifies several portions of Bridge as
teaching the identified limitation. See Final Action 3 (citing Bridge H 35,
6
Appeal 2015-003929
Application 13/283,006
37, 73-75, 88-89, 109-111, 113-114, 142, 174, 202). As stated above, the
Final Office Action relies upon Mizumachi for the “mobile device” feature.
Id. (citing Mizumachi, Abstract, 128). The Answer indicates that Bridge
paragraph 98 teaches the claimed features referenced above, that Bridge
(1178, 80, 83, 86, and 167) discloses managing the energy services, and that
Bridge (H 108, 113, and 185) discloses the energy services explicitly.
Answer 5.
The Appellants’ argument is not persuasive of error in the rejection
because identified portions of Bridge (regarded in combination with
Mizumachi) teach the features at issue. For example, Bridge paragraph 98
discloses a priority order for selecting one of a plurality of energy services.
With regard to independent claim 19, the Appellants rely upon the two
arguments presented in relation to claim 1. Appeal Br. 5, 6. No separate
argument is presented for claims 20-22 and 25—28, which depend ultimately
from either claim 1 or claim 19.
Therefore, we sustain the rejection of claims 1, 19-22, and 25—28
under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a).
2. Dependent Claims 23, 24, 29, and 30
The Appellants argue that the Examiner erred in rejecting claim 23,
which depends from independent claim 1, because Bridge does not teach the
following additional recitations:
receiving, at the mobile device, operating constraints for
managing the energy service; and
managing the energy service based on the received
operating constraints.
7
Appeal 2015-003929
Application 13/283,006
Appeal Br. 6—7. According to the Appellants, Bridge describes a flow
control server that receives input constraints and manages the energy flow to
the electric vehicle, but Bridge does not provide an option of allowing the
electric vehicle itself to select an energy service from a plurality of service
offerings and manage the energy service based on received operating
constraints. Id.', see also Reply Br. 4.
The Final Office Action identifies several portions of Bridge as
teaching the identified limitation. See Final Action 4 (citing Bridge H 35,
37, 73-75, 88-89, 109-111, 113-114, 142, 174, 202, Fig. 8). In addition,
the Answer states:
With regards to operating constraints, Bridge discloses
operating constraints for the device (connect and disconnect
behavior, state of charge, [0088-0099, 0119, 0121, 0135-0137,
0142-0145, 0202]) being communicated. Bridge also discloses
constraints explicitly (see [0061, 0078, 0083, 0093-0095, 0104,
0220, 0228]).
Answer 5.
The Appellants’ argument is not persuasive of error in the rejection of
claim 23 because the portions of Bridge identified by the Examiner
(regarded in combination with Mizumachi) teach the features at issue. For
example, Bridge paragraph 93 discloses an electric vehicle receiving
information about constraints on power management (from a “constraint
optimizer”) and the implementation of such constraints:
The constraint optimizer 710 combines information from
the prediction engine 704, the data warehouse 716, and the
contract manager 720 to generate resource control signals that
will satisfy the system constraints. For example, the constraint
optimizer 710 can signal an electric vehicle 200 to charge its
battery bank 202 at a certain charging rate and later to discharge
the battery bank 202 for uploading power to the power grid 114
8
Appeal 2015-003929
Application 13/283,006
at a certain upload rate: the power transfer rates and the timing
schedules of the power transfers optimized to fit the tracked
individual connect and disconnect behavior of the particular
electric vehicle 200 and also optimized to fit a daily power
supply and demand “breathing cycle” of the power grid 114.
With regard to claim 29, the Appellants rely upon the arguments
presented in relation to claim 23. Appeal Br. 7. Accordingly, we sustain the
rejection of claims 23 and 29, as well as claims 24 and 30 depending
respectively therefrom, under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a).
DECISION
We AFFIRM the Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 1 and 19—30
under 35 U.S.C. § 101.
We AFFIRM the Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 1 and 19—30
under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a).
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a).
AFFIRMED
9