Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application is being examined under the pre-AIA first to invent provisions.
DETAILED ACTION
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on August 31, 2025 has been entered.
Priority
Applicant’s claim for the benefit of a prior-filed application under 35 U.S.C. 119(e) or under 35 U.S.C. 120, 121, 365(c), or 386(c) is acknowledged.
The later-filed application must be an application for a patent for an invention which is also disclosed in the prior application (the parent or original nonprovisional application or provisional application). The disclosure of the invention in the parent application and in the later-filed application must be sufficient to comply with the requirements of 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, except for the best mode requirement. See Transco Products, Inc. v. Performance Contracting, Inc., 38 F.3d 551, 32 USPQ2d 1077 (Fed. Cir. 1994)
The disclosure of the prior-filed application, Application No. 61/379687, fails to provide adequate support or enablement in the manner provided by 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, first paragraph for one or more claims of this application. Provisional Application 61/379687 fails to provide support for browsing or searching a lost item database, customizing an electronic recovery notification, and the retrieval and updating process.
Accordingly, the earliest effective filing date of the instant application is its filing date of September 1, 2011.
Status of Claims
Claims 1, 4, 5 have been amended.
Claim 22 has been cancelled.
Claim 23 has been added.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement filed 8/23/2023 fails to comply with 37 CFR 1.98(a)(2), which requires a legible copy of each cited foreign patent document; each non-patent literature publication or that portion which caused it to be listed; and all other information or that portion which caused it to be listed. It has been placed in the application file, but the information referred to therein has not been considered. References B1; C28, C33, C34, C35 have not been provided.
The information disclosure statement filed 8/23/2023 fails to comply with 37 CFR 1.98(a)(1), which requires the following: (1) a list of all patents, publications, applications, or other information submitted for consideration by the Office; (2) U.S. patents and U.S. patent application publications listed in a section separately from citations of other documents; (3) the application number of the application in which the information disclosure statement is being submitted on each page of the list; (4) a column that provides a blank space next to each document to be considered, for the examiner’s initials; and (5) a heading that clearly indicates that the list is an information disclosure statement. The information disclosure statement has been placed in the application file, but the information referred to therein has not been considered. Refence A44 has the incorrect publication number.
The information disclosure statement filed 8/23/2023 fails to comply with 37 CFR 1.98(a)(3)(i) because it does not include a concise explanation of the relevance, as it is presently understood by the individual designated in 37 CFR 1.56(c) most knowledgeable about the content of the information, of each reference listed that is not in the English language. It has been placed in the application file, but the information referred to therein has not been considered. The applicant has provided several non-patent literature references without citing them in an IDS.
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 – 21, 23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. First, the Examiner refers to and incorporates the decision rendered by the Patent Trail and Appeal Board mailed on July 8, 2025. With that said, the claims recite:
Claim 1:
storing lost item information and recovery item information, the lost item information pertaining to at least one lost item recovered at one or more establishments and the recovery item information pertaining to a forgotten item at the one or more establishments;
storing establishment information associated with each of the one or more establishments, the establishment information including at least an establishment data;
receive lost item and recovery item information;
associate a status indicator with a lost item associated with the lost item information and forgotten item with recovery information;
browse or search stored lost item information to compare with lost item and recovery item information;
determine whether there is a match between the lost item information and the recovery item information;
updating the status indicator associated with a lost item dependent on whether it is determined that there is a match;
retrieve establishment information, the establishment information associated with the one or more establishments where the lost item was recovered;
customize a recovery notification using the establishment information including at least the establishment data;
facilitate transmission of the customized recovery information to a user associated with a current or prior patron of the one or more establishments if there is a match;
update the status indicator to indicate the lost item and forgotten item have been recovered.
Claim 10:
receiving a recovery item report concerning a lost item, the recovery item report including recovery item information concerning a lost item;
receiving a lost item report concerning a lost item, the lost item report including lost item information concerning a lost item;
assigning an initial status to a status indicator for the lost item of the recovery item report or the lost item report;
receiving establishment information associated with at least one establishment where the lost item was lost;
storing the establishment information;
comparing the recovery item information and the lost item information to determine if there is a match;
updating, dependent on whether the comparing determined if there is a match, the initial status to a current status of the status indicator for the lost item of the recovery item report or the lost item report;
retrieving the establishment information associated with the at least one establishment;
customizing a recovery notification using the establishment information;
transmitting the customized recovery notification request to a customer for display if there is a match;
transmitting the customized reminder notification to the customer;
transmitting a non-recovery notification to the customer for display if there is not a match;
transmitting the customized recovery notification request to a customer if there is a match;
determining whether a pick-up request is received, the pick-up request having an associated predetermined disposal date;
generating a customized reminder notification if the lost item is not retrieved by the customer by the predetermined disposal date, the customized reminder notification having a plurality of selectable indicators indicating return item options;
transmitting the customized reminder notification to the customer;
determining whether a request to return the lost item to the customer is received, the request to return the recovered item including a shipping selection;
generating a request for shipping documents based upon the shipping selection if it is determined that a request to return the lost item is received;
transmitting the request for shipping documents; and
transmitting a non-recovery notification to the customer if there is not a match.
Claim 21:
receiving a recovery item report concerning a lost item, the recovery item report including recovery item information concerning a lost item;
receiving a lost item report concerning a lost item, the lost item report including lost item information concerning a lost item;
assigning an initial status to a status indicator for the lost item of the recovery item report or the lost item report;
receiving establishment information associated with at least one establishment where the lost item was lost;
storing the establishment information;
comparing the recovery item information and the lost item information to determine if there is a match;
updating, dependent on whether the comparing determines if there is a match, the initial status to a current status of the status indicator for the lost item of the recovery item report or the lost item report;
customizing a recovery notification using the establishment information;
transmitting a recovery notification request to a customer if there is a match;
determining whether a request to return the lost item to the customer is received, the request to return the recovered item including a shipping selection;
generating a request for shipping documents based upon the shipping selection if it is determined that a request to return the lost item is received;
transmitting a non-recovery notification request to the customer if there is not a match and
facilitating presentation of an inventory report, the inventory report including, for each of a plurality of lost items including the lost item, the current status and at least a portion of the lost item information or the recovery item information.
Claim 23:
receiving a recovery item report concerning a lost item, the recovery item report including recovery item information concerning a lost item;
receiving a lost item report concerning a lost item, the lost item report including lost item information concerning a lost item;
assigning an initial status to a status indicator for the lost item of the recovery item report or the lost item report;
receiving establishment information associated with an establishment where the lost item was lost;
comparing the recovery item information and the lost item information to determine if there is a match;
updating, dependent on whether the comparing determined if there is a match, the initial status to a current status of the status indicator for the lost item of the recovery item report or the lost item report;
retrieving establishment information associated with the establishment where the lost item was lost;
customizing a recovery notification using the establishment information;
transmitting the customized recovery notification request to a customer if there is a match;
determining whether a request to return the lost item to the customer is received, the request to return the recovered item including a shipping selection;
generating shipping documents based upon the shipping selection if it is determined that a request to return the lost item is received; and
transmitting the shipping documents the establishment where the lost item was lost.
The invention is directed towards the abstract idea of collecting and comparing information and, based on a rule, identify options for the purpose of determining how to handle a lost item and, if possible, its return to its user, which corresponds to “Mental Processes” and “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activities” as it is directed towards steps that can be performed by a human(s), in the human mind, and/or with the aid of pen and paper, e.g., a user collecting and reviewing information of a lost item, referring to a record of stored information concerning reported lost items, comparing the collected, reviewed, and stored information to identify if there is a match, and, based on the comparison, notifying a user of their lost item, performing recovery actions (e.g., managing pick-up requests, shipping documents, and the like), and updating status information for the lost item.
The limitations of:
Claim 1:
storing lost item information and recovery item information, the lost item information pertaining to at least one lost item recovered at one or more establishments and the recovery item information pertaining to a forgotten item at the one or more establishments;
storing establishment information associated with each of the one or more establishments, the establishment information including at least an establishment data;
receive lost item and recovery item information;
associate a status indicator with a lost item associated with the lost item information and forgotten item with recovery information;
browse or search stored lost item information to compare with lost item and recovery item information;
determine whether there is a match between the lost item information and the recovery item information;
updating the status indicator associated with a lost item dependent on whether it is determined that there is a match;
retrieve establishment information, the establishment information associated with the one or more establishments where the lost item was recovered;
customize a recovery notification using the establishment information including at least the establishment data;
facilitate transmission of the customized recovery information to a user associated with a current or prior patron of the one or more establishments if there is a match;
update the status indicator to indicate the lost item and forgotten item have been recovered.
Claim 10:
receiving a recovery item report concerning a lost item, the recovery item report including recovery item information concerning a lost item;
receiving a lost item report concerning a lost item, the lost item report including lost item information concerning a lost item;
assigning an initial status to a status indicator for the lost item of the recovery item report or the lost item report;
receiving establishment information associated with at least one establishment where the lost item was lost;
storing the establishment information;
comparing the recovery item information and the lost item information to determine if there is a match;
updating, dependent on whether the comparing determined if there is a match, the initial status to a current status of the status indicator for the lost item of the recovery item report or the lost item report;
retrieving the establishment information associated with the at least one establishment;
customizing a recovery notification using the establishment information;
transmitting the customized recovery notification request to a customer for display if there is a match;
transmitting the customized reminder notification to the customer;
transmitting a non-recovery notification to the customer for display if there is not a match;
transmitting the customized recovery notification request to a customer if there is a match;
determining whether a pick-up request is received, the pick-up request having an associated predetermined disposal date;
generating a customized reminder notification if the lost item is not retrieved by the customer by the predetermined disposal date, the customized reminder notification having a plurality of selectable indicators indicating return item options;
transmitting the customized reminder notification to the customer;
determining whether a request to return the lost item to the customer is received, the request to return the recovered item including a shipping selection;
generating a request for shipping documents based upon the shipping selection if it is determined that a request to return the lost item is received;
transmitting the request for shipping documents; and
transmitting a non-recovery notification to the customer if there is not a match.
Claim 21:
receiving a recovery item report concerning a lost item, the recovery item report including recovery item information concerning a lost item;
receiving a lost item report concerning a lost item, the lost item report including lost item information concerning a lost item;
assigning an initial status to a status indicator for the lost item of the recovery item report or the lost item report;
receiving establishment information associated with at least one establishment where the lost item was lost;
storing the establishment information;
comparing the recovery item information and the lost item information to determine if there is a match;
updating, dependent on whether the comparing determines if there is a match, the initial status to a current status of the status indicator for the lost item of the recovery item report or the lost item report;
customizing a recovery notification using the establishment information;
transmitting a recovery notification request to a customer if there is a match;
determining whether a request to return the lost item to the customer is received, the request to return the recovered item including a shipping selection;
generating a request for shipping documents based upon the shipping selection if it is determined that a request to return the lost item is received;
transmitting a non-recovery notification request to the customer if there is not a match and
facilitating presentation of an inventory report, the inventory report including, for each of a plurality of lost items including the lost item, the current status and at least a portion of the lost item information or the recovery item information.
Claim 23:
receiving a recovery item report concerning a lost item, the recovery item report including recovery item information concerning a lost item;
receiving a lost item report concerning a lost item, the lost item report including lost item information concerning a lost item;
assigning an initial status to a status indicator for the lost item of the recovery item report or the lost item report;
receiving establishment information associated with an establishment where the lost item was lost;
comparing the recovery item information and the lost item information to determine if there is a match;
updating, dependent on whether the comparing determined if there is a match, the initial status to a current status of the status indicator for the lost item of the recovery item report or the lost item report;
retrieving establishment information associated with the establishment where the lost item was lost;
customizing a recovery notification using the establishment information;
transmitting the customized recovery notification request to a customer if there is a match;
determining whether a request to return the lost item to the customer is received, the request to return the recovered item including a shipping selection;
generating shipping documents based upon the shipping selection if it is determined that a request to return the lost item is received; and
transmitting the shipping documents the establishment where the lost item was lost,
are processes that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of a generic processor executing computer code stored on a computer medium. That is, other than reciting a generic processor executing computer code stored on a computer medium nothing in the claim element precludes the step from practically being performed in the mind. For example, but for the generic processor executing computer code stored on a computer medium in the context of this claim encompasses a user collecting and reviewing information of a lost item, referring to a record of stored information concerning reported lost items, comparing the collected, reviewed, and stored information to identify if there is a match, and, based on the comparison, notifying a user of their lost item, performing recovery actions (e.g., managing pick-up requests, shipping documents, and the like), and updating status information for the lost item. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of a generic processor executing computer code stored on a computer medium, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” and “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activities” groupings of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claims recite an abstract idea.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim only recites additional elements – a generic processor executing computer code stored on a computer medium to communicate, store, and display information, as well as performing operations that a human can perform in their mind and/or using pen and paper, e.g., collecting, reviewing, and comparing information and, based on a rule, identify options with regards to how to handle a lost item and, if possible, its return to its user. The generic processor executing computer code stored on a computer medium in the steps are recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as a generic processor executing computer code stored on a computer medium can perform the insignificant extra solution steps of communicating, storing, and displaying information (See MPEP 2106.05(g) while also reciting that the a generic processor executing computer code stored on a computer medium are merely being applied to perform the steps that can be performed by a human(s), in the human mind, and/or with the aid of pen and paper; "[use] of a computer or other machinery in its ordinary capacity for economic or other tasks (e.g., to receive, store, or transmit data) or simply adding a general purpose computer or computer components after the fact to an abstract idea (e.g., a fundamental economic practice or mathematical equation) does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more.” Therefore, according to the MPEP, this is not solely limited to computers but includes other technology that, recited in an equivalent to “apply it,” is a mere instruction to perform the abstract idea on that technology (See MPEP 2106.05(f)) such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic processor executing computer code stored on a computer medium.
Accordingly, these additional elements, individually or in combination, do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to an abstract idea.
The claims do 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, the additional element of using a generic processor executing computer code stored on a computer medium to perform the steps of:
Claim 1:
storing lost item information and recovery item information, the lost item information pertaining to at least one lost item recovered at one or more establishments and the recovery item information pertaining to a forgotten item at the one or more establishments;
storing establishment information associated with each of the one or more establishments, the establishment information including at least an establishment data;
receive lost item and recovery item information;
associate a status indicator with a lost item associated with the lost item information and forgotten item with recovery information;
browse or search stored lost item information to compare with lost item and recovery item information;
determine whether there is a match between the lost item information and the recovery item information;
updating the status indicator associated with a lost item dependent on whether it is determined that there is a match;
retrieve establishment information, the establishment information associated with the one or more establishments where the lost item was recovered;
customize a recovery notification using the establishment information including at least the establishment data;
facilitate transmission of the customized recovery information to a user associated with a current or prior patron of the one or more establishments if there is a match;
update the status indicator to indicate the lost item and forgotten item have been recovered.
Claim 10:
receiving a recovery item report concerning a lost item, the recovery item report including recovery item information concerning a lost item;
receiving a lost item report concerning a lost item, the lost item report including lost item information concerning a lost item;
assigning an initial status to a status indicator for the lost item of the recovery item report or the lost item report;
receiving establishment information associated with at least one establishment where the lost item was lost;
storing the establishment information;
comparing the recovery item information and the lost item information to determine if there is a match;
updating, dependent on whether the comparing determined if there is a match, the initial status to a current status of the status indicator for the lost item of the recovery item report or the lost item report;
retrieving the establishment information associated with the at least one establishment;
customizing a recovery notification using the establishment information;
transmitting the customized recovery notification request to a customer for display if there is a match;
transmitting the customized reminder notification to the customer;
transmitting a non-recovery notification to the customer for display if there is not a match;
transmitting the customized recovery notification request to a customer if there is a match;
determining whether a pick-up request is received, the pick-up request having an associated predetermined disposal date;
generating a customized reminder notification if the lost item is not retrieved by the customer by the predetermined disposal date, the customized reminder notification having a plurality of selectable indicators indicating return item options;
transmitting the customized reminder notification to the customer;
determining whether a request to return the lost item to the customer is received, the request to return the recovered item including a shipping selection;
generating a request for shipping documents based upon the shipping selection if it is determined that a request to return the lost item is received;
transmitting the request for shipping documents; and
transmitting a non-recovery notification to the customer if there is not a match.
Claim 21:
receiving a recovery item report concerning a lost item, the recovery item report including recovery item information concerning a lost item;
receiving a lost item report concerning a lost item, the lost item report including lost item information concerning a lost item;
assigning an initial status to a status indicator for the lost item of the recovery item report or the lost item report;
receiving establishment information associated with at least one establishment where the lost item was lost;
storing the establishment information;
comparing the recovery item information and the lost item information to determine if there is a match;
updating, dependent on whether the comparing determines if there is a match, the initial status to a current status of the status indicator for the lost item of the recovery item report or the lost item report;
customizing a recovery notification using the establishment information;
transmitting a recovery notification request to a customer if there is a match;
determining whether a request to return the lost item to the customer is received, the request to return the recovered item including a shipping selection;
generating a request for shipping documents based upon the shipping selection if it is determined that a request to return the lost item is received;
transmitting a non-recovery notification request to the customer if there is not a match and
facilitating presentation of an inventory report, the inventory report including, for each of a plurality of lost items including the lost item, the current status and at least a portion of the lost item information or the recovery item information.
Claim 23:
receiving a recovery item report concerning a lost item, the recovery item report including recovery item information concerning a lost item;
receiving a lost item report concerning a lost item, the lost item report including lost item information concerning a lost item;
assigning an initial status to a status indicator for the lost item of the recovery item report or the lost item report;
receiving establishment information associated with an establishment where the lost item was lost;
comparing the recovery item information and the lost item information to determine if there is a match;
updating, dependent on whether the comparing determined if there is a match, the initial status to a current status of the status indicator for the lost item of the recovery item report or the lost item report;
retrieving establishment information associated with the establishment where the lost item was lost;
customizing a recovery notification using the establishment information;
transmitting the customized recovery notification request to a customer if there is a match;
determining whether a request to return the lost item to the customer is received, the request to return the recovered item including a shipping selection;
generating shipping documents based upon the shipping selection if it is determined that a request to return the lost item is received; and
transmitting the shipping documents the establishment where the lost item was lost,
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.
Further, the decision from the Patent Trials and Appeal Board (PTAB) mailed on July 8, 2025, which is incorporated herein, states:
“Given these limited changes, the Board's findings, conclusions, and analysis in its earlier decision that affirmed the Examiner's ineligibility rejection are still applicable here. Rather than repeat that detailed analysis here, we incorporate it by reference.”
“To the extent Appellant contends that changing (1) the recited system to a computer-based system, and (2) the recited establishment logo to establishment data somehow integrates the abstract idea into a practical application or adds significantly more to the abstract idea to render the claimed invention eligible, we disagree. As before, claim 1 merely uses generic computer components to implement the abstract idea. See 2023 Bd. Dec. at 16 (noting that Appellant's recited system that monitors lost items uses generic computing elements and databases as tools to perform the abstract idea and insignificant activities). In short, the amendments to claim 1 do not materially alter the Board's analysis in the earlier decision that we incorporate here in its entirety by reference.”
“Therefore, we are not persuaded that the Examiner erred in rejecting claim 1 and independent claims 10 and 21 not argued separately with particularity.”
With regards to Claims 2, 9, 12, 13, 17 – 20, the PTAB states:
“Claims 2, 9, 12, 13, and 20
“We also sustain the Examiner's rejection of representative dependent claim 2 that recites that the processor is operable to (1) detect if the electronic recovery notification has been viewed by the patron, and (2) automatically update the status indicator to indicate the patron has been notified of the recovered item.”
“The Examiner determines that the dependent claims "at most narrow the abstract ideas recited in their respective independent claims, but this narrowing does not make the dependent claims patent eligible." Final Act.”
“Nevertheless, the limitations of claim 2 are directed to an abstract idea. First, apart from the terms "computer-based" and "automatically," the recited limitations can be performed entirely mentally or with pen and paper. A human can detect if an electronic recovery notification has been viewed by a patron by merely observing the patron reading the notification. In addition, a human can update a status indicator to indicate the patron has been notified of the recovered item by writing that status down on a piece of paper. Cf CyberSource Corp. v. Retail Decisions, Inc., 654 F.3d 1366, 1372-73 (Fed. Cir. 2011) (noting that (1) a recited step that constructed a map of credit card numbers could be performed by merely writing down a list of credit card transactions made from a particular IP address, and (2) a recited step that utilized the map of credit card numbers to determine the validity of a credit card transaction could be performed entirely mentally by merely using logical reasoning to identify a likely instance of fraud by merely observing that numerous transactions using different credit cards all originated from the same IP address). Therefore, apart from the recited terms "computer-based" and "automatically," the recited limitations fall within the mental processes category of the USPTO's eligibility guidelines.”
“Nor do the terms "computer-based" and "automatically" integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Rather, the limitation merely uses generic computer components to implement the abstract idea. Cf Chamberlain, Inc. v. Techtronic, Inc., 935 F.3d 1341, 1346-48 (Fed. Cir. 2019) (holding ineligible recited movable barrier operator with (1) a controller; (2) movable barrier interface operably coupled to the controller; and (3) a wireless status condition data transmitter that was operably coupled to the controller and transmitted a status condition signal that (a) corresponded to a present status condition defined by two operating states, and (b) comprised an identifier unique to the movable barrier operator); cf also Inventor Holdings, LLC v. Bed Bath & Beyond, Inc., 876 F.3d 1372, 1376-80 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (holding ineligible recited method of processing a payment for a purchase of goods, including determining if a received code relates to a remote order from a remote seller, and if so, (1) receiving a payment for the remote order, and (2) transmitting, to a remote seller, data indicating that payment has been received for the remote order).”
“Nor do the terms "computer-based" and "automatically" add significantly more to the abstract idea to provide an inventive concept to render claim 2 eligible. Here again, the limitation merely uses generic computer components to implement the abstract idea.”
“Therefore, although claim 2 is narrower than claim 1 from which it depends, claim 2 is nevertheless directed to an abstract idea as the Examiner indicates and as indicated in the Board's earlier decisions. See Final Act. 13-14; see also 2020 Bd. Dec. at 16-17; accord 2023 Bd. Dec. 23-24 (noting that claims 2-21 fail to include additional elements that add significantly more to the abstract idea).”
“Therefore, we are not persuaded that the Examiner erred in rejecting claim 2 and claims 9, 12, 13, and 20 not argued separately with particularity. But because our analysis changes the thrust of the Examiner's rejection, we designate our affirmance as a new ground of rejection.”
Claims 17-19
We also sustain the Examiner's rejection of claim 17 reciting, in pertinent part, (1) receiving a request for a summary report of all lost item reports, the request including at least one filter criteria; and (2) generating a summary report based upon the filter criteria.
As shown in Appellant's Figure 7C, the criteria by which the user can filter a lost item list is presented in drop down list 730. Spec. ¶ 86. For example, the list can be filtered by various criteria, such as guest-reported items, staff-reported items, items in which guests were notified by email or phone call, etc. Id. Each filter can also be associated with status indicator 732 that can also be located in inventory report 720 under "Status" 734 as shown in Figures 7B and 7C. Id.
Turning to claim 17, apart from the terms "computer-implemented," "by a computing device," and "memory" recited in independent claim 10 from which claim 17 depends, the recited steps can be implemented entirely mentally or with pen and paper. First, "receiving a request for a summary report of all lost item reports, the request including at least one filter criteria" can be done by merely reading a summary report request written down on a piece of paper that specifies various filter criteria to tailor the report's results consistent with that criteria, or receiving such a request orally or in writing from another. Cf Interval Licensing LLCv. AOL, Inc., 896F.3d 1335, 1344 (Fed. Cir. 2018) (noting that a non-technical human activity of passing a note to a person who is in a meeting or conversation as illustrating a basic, longstanding practice that was the invention's focus, namely providing information to a person without interfering with the person's primary activity). Cf CyberSource, 654 F.3d at 1372-73 (noting that (1) a recited step that constructed a map of credit card numbers could be performed by merely writing down a list of credit card transactions made from a particular IP address, and (2) a recited step that utilized the map of credit card numbers to determine the validity of a credit card transaction could be performed entirely mentally by merely using logical reasoning to identify a likely instance of fraud by merely observing that numerous transactions using different credit cards all originated from the same IP address).
Second, "generating a summary report based upon the filter criteria" can likewise be done entirely mentally or with pen and paper by merely writing down a summary of all lost item reports consistent with the specified filter criteria on a piece of paper. Cf id.; cf also Ocean Semiconductor LLC v. Analog Devices, Inc., 664 F.Supp.3d 195, 199-205 (D. Mass. 2023) (holding ineligible recited method that (1) collected metrology data; (2) filtered the metrology data based on generated collection purpose data; and (3) conducted a process control activity based on the filtered metrology data).
Nor do the terms "computer-implemented," "by a computing device," and "memory" integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Rather, the limitations merely use generic computer components to implement the abstract idea.
Nor do the terms "computer-implemented," "by a computing device," and "memory" add significantly more to the abstract idea to provide an inventive concept to render claim 17 eligible. Here again, the limitations merely use generic computer components to implement the abstract idea.
Therefore, although claim 17 is narrower than independent claim 10 from which it depends, claim 17 is nevertheless directed to an abstract idea as the Examiner indicates and as indicated in the Board's earlier decisions. See Final Act. 13-14; see also 2020 Bd. Dec. at 16-17; accord 2023 Bd. Dec. 23-24 (noting that claims 2-21 fail to include additional elements that add significantly more to the abstract idea).
Therefore, we are not persuaded that the Examiner erred in rejecting claim 17 and claims 18 and 19 not argued separately with particularity. But because our analysis changes the thrust of the Examiner's rejection, we designate our affirmance as a new ground of rejection.”
With regards to claims 3 – 5, 14, the claims are directed towards similar subject matter discussed above, as well as descriptive subject matter, in this case, describing data/information.
With regards to claims 6, 7, 8, the claims are directed towards human activities, in this case, browsing, searching, and customizing information (a coupon and notification), the extra-solution activity of data transmission, and descriptive subject matter, in this case, describing data/information.
With regards to claim 11, the claim is directed to extra solution activities and describing the information that is being communicated.
With regards to claim 15, the claim is directed to towards human activities, in this case, generating a coupon, the extra-solution activity of transmitting information, and descriptive subject matter, in this case, describing data/information.
With regards to claim 16, the claim is directed towards extra solution activities and human activities, in this case, communicating information, verifying financial information, and generating a payment receipt.
In summary, the dependent claims are simply directed towards providing additional descriptive factors that are considered for handing and returning a lost item. Accordingly, the claims are not patent eligible.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 8/31/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Priority
The priority statement has been maintained for the reasons stated above. No argument is being provided by the applicant.
Information Disclosure Statement
The objection to the IDS has been maintained for the reasons stated above. No argument is being provided by the applicant.
Rejection under 35 USC 101
The Examiner asserts that the applicant’s arguments are conclusory statements that fail to specifically point out where the Examiner has erred in the rejection, as well as failing to point out what specific elements of the claimed invention overcome the rejection provided under 35 USC 101 and why. The Examiner asserts that the amendments that have been provided do not change the analysis, reword subject matter that was already present/considered, and amounts to minor differences that do not overcome the numerous issues of why the rejection has been maintained.
Amending claim 1 to recite that the lost item information and recovery information are stored in the lost item database instead of respective memories that are included in the lost item database still amounts to being directed towards reciting generic technology at a high level of generality and applying it to the abstract idea, as well as the extra-solution activity of storing information. The recitation and application of the technology goes not rise to the same level as Enfish as the invention is not improving the technology, resolving an issue that arose in the technology, or deeply rooted in technology.
Claim 4 has been amended to only describe additional descriptive subject matter.
Claim 5 is similar to claim 1, discussed above.
Additionally, the Examiner incorporates the PTAB’s prior analyses.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure can be found in the attached PTO-892 Notice of References Cited.
Anonymous (BART's Lost and Found tracking system goes online); ReportIt (Citizen Property Inventory System); i-TRAK (i-TRAK Active Tracking) – which are directed towards online lost and found systems
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to GERARDO ARAQUE JR whose telephone number is (571)272-3747. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8-4:30.
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, Sarah Monfeldt can be reached at 571-270-1833. 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.
GERARDO ARAQUE JR
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 3629
/GERARDO ARAQUE JR/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3629 9/19/2025