DETAILED ACTION
This office action is in response to communications filed 25 September 2025.
Claims 1-4, 7-11, 14-17, and 19 are pending.
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 25 September 2025 regarding the rejections made under 35 U.S.C. 101 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
On pages 8-9 of the remarks, applicant argues:
“First, the OA alleges that ‘binding…the to-be configured device added to the target account with the corresponding virtual device’ covers a mental process…However, amended claim 1 explicitly recites that ‘binding the to-be-configured device to the target account with the corresponding virtual device comprises: acquiring the MAC address…establishing the relationship between the MAC address…and the virtual ID…and storing the established mapping relationship between the MAC address and the virtual ID…” That is, “binding the -to-be-configured device added to the target account with the corresponding virtual device does NOT simply requires evaluating and determining that the to-be-configured device and account should be linked. Instead, amended claim 1 recites an automated binding process performed by an intelligent device where the MAC address, a technical, hardware-layer identifier, is acquired and mapped to the virtual ID in the preset database.”
“Such automated binding process cannot be practically performed in human mind and is integrated to real-wor[l]d computer networking technology…”declining to identify the claimed collection and analysis of network data as abstract because “the human mind is not equipped to detect suspicious activity by using network monitors and analyzing network packets as recited by the claims.’ Therefore, “binding, by the intelligent device, the to-be-configured device added to the target account with the corresponding virtual device” of amended claim 1 is not directed to an abstract idea (mental process).”
i. The examiner respectfully disagrees. The claimed “binding the to-be-configured device added to the target account with the corresponding virtual device” comprises three distinct steps. First, the MAC address of the to-be-configured device is acquired. Second a mapping relationship between the MAC address and the virtual ID of the virtual device is established. Third, the mapping relationship is stored.
The office action rejects the mental process steps of “binding the configured device added to the target account with the corresponding virtual device”, by “establishing the relationship between the MAC address…and the virtual ID” separately from the insignificant extra-solution steps of “acquiring the MAC address…” and “storing the established mapping relationship between the MAC address and the virtual ID.” In other words, the mental process of binding the device to the target account comprises a mental process of establishing the relationship, and two additional elements of gathering data and storing the relationship, which do not provide eligibility because they are insignificant extra-solution activities which fail to integrate the judicial exception into a practical application, as well as well-understood, routine, and conventional activities which do not amount to significantly more.
The examiner agrees that collecting MAC addresses is NOT a mental process; this is why the rejection did not characterize collecting MAC addresses as such, and thus it is irrelevant as to whether the human mind is capable of collecting MAC addresses.
Applicant cites to MPEP 2106.04(a)(2), which states “[c]laims do not recite a mental process when they do not contain limitations that can practically be performed in the human mind, for instance when the human mind is not equipped to perform the claim limitations.” However, the claim DOES recite limitations that can practically be performed in the human mind, specifically “binding the configured device added to the target account with the corresponding virtual device”, by “establishing the relationship between the MAC address…and the virtual ID”, and therefore the claim does at least “recite” a mental process.
Applicant’s discussion of the decision in SRI Int’l, Inc. v. Cisco Systems, Inc., 930 F.3d 1295, 1304 (Fed Cir. 2019) (hereafter SRI v CISCO) is not relevant to the instant applications, as the facts of the case differ substantially. SRI v CISCO discusses whether collection and analysis of network data, namely monitoring and analyzing of “network packets” is within the capabilities of being performed in the human mind. However, the instant application does not discuss collection or analysis of network data, nor does it discuss monitoring and analysis of network packets. Instead, the instant application simply acquires a MAC address, establishes a relationship between the MAC address and a virtual ID of a virtual device, and stores the relationship. As discussed above, acquiring a MAC address and storing the relationship are not mental processes and are rejected as additional elements. Establishing a relationship between a single MAC address and a single virtual ID is not the same as analyzing incoming network packets in real time in an attempt to detect suspicious activity. The decision in SRI v CISCO is therefore not relevant to the instant application.
Due to this, the applicant’s argument is not persuasive.
On page 9, the applicant argues:
“Second, the OA alleges that “implementing…parameter configuration to the to-be-configured device by utilizing the parameter” covers a mental process because “a person can set or ‘implement’ a to-be-configured device parameter by simply evaluating the parameter and to-be-configured device, and making a judgement that the to-be-configured device should have this parameter.” (the OA, pages 3-4). However…claim 1 recites that the intelligent device reads the parameter based on the mapping relationship of the MAC address and the virtual ID, and sends the read parameter to the to-be-configured device for direct implementation. Since both the parameter and mapping relationship are previously stored in the preset database and read by the intelligent device, NO evaluation or judgement of the parameter is involved during the implementation.”
Such direct implementation cannot be practically performed in human mind and is integrated to real-wor[l]d computer networking technology. Therefore, ‘sending, by the intelligent device, the read parameter to the to-be-configured device-to implement parameter configuration to the to-be-configured device by directly utilizing the parameter’ of amended claim 1 is not directed to an abstract idea (mental process).
ii. The examiner respectfully disagrees. The instant application recites two distinct steps: first, “sending, by the intelligent device, the read parameter to the to-be-configured device”, and second, “to implement parameter configuration to the to-be-configured device by directly utilizing the parameter.” Sending the read parameter is not a mental process, and was determined to be an additional element that did not provide eligibility because it is an insignificant extra-solution activity of mere data gathering/output that fails to integrate the judicial exceptions into a practical application, and a well-understood, routine, and conventional activity of receiving/transmitting data over a network that fails to amount to significantly more. “To implement parameter configuration to the to-be-configured device by directly utilizing the parameter” is intended use and is not given patentable weight. However, for the purposes of examination, this limitation would recite a mental process that evaluates the data and determines how to configure parameters based on the data. In other words, deciding how to configure a device based on received parameters is a mental process, regardless of whether the parameters are “directly” used in the configuration of the device. For example, when in a car, the passenger can send a climate parameter (set the thermostat to 72 degrees) to the driver. The driver must still evaluate the climate parameter and make a judgement of how to actually implement the parameter configuration by determining which buttons to push. The parameter configuration is still not integrated into a practical application until the AC begins to blow.
Applicant alleges that the direct implementation represents integration into real-world computer networking technology, but fails to provide evidence to support this statement. Therefore, the applicant’s arguments are not persuasive.
On pages 9-10 of the remarks, the applicant argues:
“Third, the OA alleges, on page 8, that the recitation of a MAC address ‘generally links the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use, which is not sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.”…Applicant respectfully submits that claim 1, as a whole, is directed to enabling direct parameter configuration of a to-be-configured device one it comes online. This direct configuration is made possible by a previously established mapping between the MAC address and the virtual ID, which the intelligent device stores and uses to retrieve the appropriate parameter…Claim 1 at least imposes a meaningful limit in reciting mapping and configuration using the MAC address of a to-be-configured device my an intelligent device, and is thus NOT directed to monopolize a mental process.”
iii. The examiner respectfully disagrees. It has already been established above that “enabling direct parameter configuration of a to-be-configured device once it comes online” as a whole, is directed to a judicial exception, and fails to integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. Simply substituting the term “unique identification” with the term “Media Access Control (MAC) address simply limits the use of the mental process to a particular technological environment or field of use; namely one in which MAC addresses are used to uniquely identify to-be-configured devices. However, neither the specification nor the claims make it clear that there are any special characteristics of a MAC address, as opposed to any other type of unique identifier, that enables “direct parameter configuration of a to-be-configured device once it comes online.” In other words, a MAC address is just one of many types of unique identifiers that may be used to achieve the same result.
Regarding whether the recited MAC addresses impose a meaningful limit on the judicial exception, neither the specification or the claim describe the use of MAC addresses in a way that meaningfully distinguishes them from the use of any other type of unique identifier. In other words, the use of a MAC address instead of some other identifier makes no meaningful difference to the mental processes discussed in the rejection. For example, whether a unique identifier is a MAC address or any other type of identifier, does not preclude establishing a mapping relationship from being performed in the human mind (i.e., the human mind is reasonably capable of mapping a virtual ID to a MAC address, IP address, tag, or any other identifier of a to-be-configured device regardless of format). As such, the addition of the limitation “MAC address” does not impose a meaningful limit to the judicial exception, and therefore the applicant’s argument is not persuasive.
On pages 10-11 of the remarks, applicant argues:
“Finally, even assuming that claim 1’s method does not recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application, which is not conceded here, Applicant submits that claim 1 recites additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.”
“Claim 1 recites a technical solution to solve the technological problem set forth above. The OA alleges that additional elements recite insignificant extra solution activity of mere data storage, gathering, or output…the configured parameter stored previously can be read by the intelligent device…the efficiency of installing the to-be-configured device on-site is thus greatly improved.”
“Further, when installing the to-be-configured device on site, various problems may occur, such as network problem or device default, which would significantly delay parameter configuration…By completing the parameter configuration work in advance using a virtual device, the configuration and debugging of dozens of configuration parameters on-site are no longer needed, which provides better environment and sufficient time for parameter configuration and error correction. Therefore, Applicant respectfully submits that claim 1 recites additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
iv. The examiner respectfully disagrees. The applicant argues that the claim improves efficiency and reduces problems when a to-be-configured device is brought online and installed. However, the claim does not include a step that “installs” the to-be-configured device. The claim only goes so far as “implement[ing] parameter configuration to the to-be-configured device by directly utilizing the parameter” without actually reciting installation of the now configured device. Since the device is not actually installed, the improved efficiency of installing the device is not realized, in the same way that the improved fuel efficiency of a hybrid car is not realized unless you drive somewhere. Since the claim does not actually recite installing the configured device, claim 1 does not realize the technological solution proposed by the applicant’s argument, and the argument is not persuasive.
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 1-4, 7-11, 15-17, and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea (mental process) without significantly more.
Regarding claim 1, in step 1 of the 101 analysis set forth in MPEP 2106, the claim recites a method that configures a virtual device online and the uses that configuration to configure a device that comes online. A method is one of the four statutory categories of invention.
In step 2A, prong 1 of the 101 analysis set forth in the MPEP 2106, the examiner has determined that the following limitations recite a process that, under the broadest reasonable interpretation, covers a mental process but for recitation of generic computer components:
i. “adding…a virtual identity (ID) of a virtual device corresponding to a to-be-configured device to a target account” (a person can mentally note that a particular virtual device should be associated with a particular account by simply evaluating the virtual device and account, and making a judgement that they should be associated, or added to a list, either mentally or using pen and paper (MPEP 2106))
ii. “configuring a parameter of the virtual device” (a person can set, or “configure” a virtual device parameter by simply evaluating the parameter and virtual device, and making a judgement that the virtual device should have this parameter (MPEP 2106)).
iii. “adding…the to-be-configured device to the target account after the to-be-configured device is online” (a person can mentally note that a particular to-be-configured device should be associated with a particular account by simply evaluating the to-be-configured device and account, and making a judgement that they should be associated, or added (MPEP 2106)).
iv. “binding…the to-be-configured device added to the target account with the corresponding virtual device” (a person can mentally note that a particular to-be-configured device should be bound with a particular account by simply evaluating the to-be-configured device and account, and making a judgement that they should be linked, or bound (MPEP 2106))
v. “implement parameter configuration to the to-be-configured device by directly utilizing the parameter” (a person can set, or “implement” a to-be-configured device parameter by simply evaluating the parameter and to-be-configured device, and making a judgement that the to-be-configured device should have this parameter (MPEP 2106))).
vi. “establishing the mapping relationship between the MAC address of the to-be- configured device and the virtual ID of the corresponding virtual device in the target account” (a person can mentally establish a on-to-one relationship by simply evaluating MAC addresses and virtual IDs, and making a judgement of which ones should be associated).
If claim limitations, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitations as a mental process but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the mental process grouping of abstract ideas. According, the claim “recites” an abstract idea.
In step 2A, prong 2 of the 101 analysis set forth in MPEP 2106, the examiner has determined that the following additional elements do not integrate this judicial exception into a practical application:
vii. “adding, by the intelligent device…adding, by the intelligent device…binding, by the intelligent device…reading, by the intelligent device…sending, by the intelligent device…” (mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea (see MPEP 2106.05(f)).
viii. “storing the virtual ID and the parameter in a preset database” (insignificant extra-solution activity of mere data storage (MPEP 2106.05(g))).
ix. “reading…the parameter of the virtual device bound with the to-be-configured device based on an established mapping relationship between a Media Access Control (MAC) address of the to-be-configured device and the virtual ID of the corresponding virtual device in the preset database” (insignificant extra-solution activity of mere data gathering (MPEP 2106.05(g))).
x. “sending…the read parameter to the to-be-configured device” (insignificant extra-solution activity of mere data output (MPEP 2106.05(g))).
xi. “acquiring the MAC address of the to-be-configured device” (insignificant extra solution activity of mere data gathering (MPEP 2106.05(g)). Further, this limitation is interpreted as a step of receiving data over a network, which is not sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception (MPEP 2106.05(d)(II)))
xii. “storing the established mapping relationship between the MAC address and the virtual ID in the preset database” (mere data storage, which is insignificant extra solution activity (MPEP 2106.05(g))
Since the claim does not contain any other additional elements that are indicative of integration into a practical application, the claim is “directed” to an abstract idea.
In step 2B of the 101 analysis set forth in the 2019 PEG, the examiner has determined that the claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
As discussed above, additional element (vii) recites mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea, which does not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception (see MPEP 2106.05(f)). Further, additional element (viii) recites an insignificant extra solution activity of mere data storage. In step 2B, this limitation recites an activity of storing information in memory, which has been found by the courts to be a well-understood, routine, and conventional activity (MPEP 2106.05(d)(II)). Further, additional element (ix) recites an insignificant extra-solution activity of mere data gathering. In step 2B, this limitation recites an activity of retrieving information from memory, which has been found by the courts to be a well-understood, routine, and conventional activity (MPEP 2106.05(d)(II)). Further, additional element (x) recites an insignificant extra-solution activity of mere data output. In step 2B, this limitation recites an activity of transmitting data over a network, or presenting offers, which has been found by the courts to be a well-understood, routine, and conventional activity (MPEP 2106.05(d)(II)). Further, additional element (xi) recites an insignificant extra-solution activity of mere data gathering. In step 2B, this limitation recites an activity of receiving data over a network, which has been found by the courts to be a well-understood, routine, and conventional activity (MPEP 2106.05(d)(II)). Further, additional element (xii) recites an insignificant extra solution activity of mere data storage. In step 2B, this limitation recites an activity of storing information in memory, which has been found by the courts to be a well-understood, routine, and conventional activity (MPEP 2106.05(d)(II)). Considering the additional elements individually and in combination, and the claim as a whole, the additional elements do not provide significantly more than the abstract idea. Therefore, the claim is not patent eligible.
Regarding claim 2, in step 2A, prong 1 of the 101 analysis set forth in the MPEP 2106, the examiner has determined that the following limitations recite a process that, under the broadest reasonable interpretation, covers a mental process but for recitation of generic computer components: “executing a login operation of the target account” (evaluating login credentials and making a judgement that a target account is logged in); “allocating the unique virtual ID to the virtual device corresponding to the to-be-configured device,” (evaluating virtual ID and virtual device, and making a judgement to allocate one to the other) and “adding the virtual ID of the virtual device to the target account which is logged in;” (judging that the virtual ID should be associated with an account) and “configuring the parameter of the virtual device” (evaluating a parameter and judging that this device should have this parameter). Further, in steps 2A prong 2, and 2B of the 101 analysis set forth in MPEP 2106, the following limitations recite processes that do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application, and which are not sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception: “receiving a login request for the target account” (mere data gathering, which is insignificant extra solution activity (MPEP 2106.05(g)). Further, this limitation is interpreted as a step of receiving data over a network, which is not sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception (MPEP 2106.05(d)(II))); “correspondingly storing a configured parameter and the virtual ID of the virtual device in the preset database” (mere data storage, which is insignificant extra solution activity (MPEP 2106.05(g)). Further, this limitation is interpreted as a step of receiving data over a network, or storing information in memory, which is not sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception (MPEP 2106.05(d)(II))). Therefore, the claim is not patent eligible.
Regarding claim 3, in steps 2A, prong 2, and 2B of the 101 analysis set forth in MPEP 2106, the following limitations recite processes that do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application, and which are not sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception: “the parameter configured to the virtual device at least comprises one of: an IP address, a device subordinate group, a working rule, a working scene and device operation data” (generally links the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use (MPEP 2106.05(h)). Further, this limitation generally links the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use, which is not sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception (MPEP 2106.05(h))). Therefore, the claim is not patent eligible.
Regarding claim 4, in step 2A, prong 1 of the 101 analysis set forth in the MPEP 2106, the examiner has determined that the following limitations recite a process that, under the broadest reasonable interpretation, covers a mental process but for recitation of generic computer components: “allocating the MAC address to the to-be-configured device after the to-be-configured device is online; and adding the MAC address allocated to the to-be-configured device to the target account” (judgement of certain unique identifiers to associated with certain devices, and judgement that certain unique identifiers should be associated with an account). Therefore, the claim is not patent eligible.
Regarding claim 7, in step 2A, prong 1 of the 101 analysis set forth in the MPEP 2106, the examiner has determined that the following limitations recite a process that, under the broadest reasonable interpretation, covers a mental process but for recitation of generic computer components: “detecting whether the parameter of the virtual device bound with the to-be-configured device exists in the preset database” (evaluation of a database, and judgment of whether a parameter exists), and “implementing parameter configuration to the to-be-configured device by utilizing the parameter” (judgement that a device should have particular parameters). In steps 2A, prong 2, and 2B of the 101 analysis set forth in MPEP 2106, the following limitations recite processes that do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application, and which are not sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception: “reading the parameter of the virtual device bound with the to-be-configured device” (mere data gathering, which is insignificant extra solution activity (MPEP 2106.05(g)). Further, this limitation is interpreted as a step of receiving data over a network, which is not sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception (MPEP 2106.05(d)(II))), and “sending the read parameter to the to-be-configured device” (mere data output, which is insignificant extra solution activity (MPEP 2106.05(g)). Further, this limitation is interpreted as a step of transmitting data over a network, which is not sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception (MPEP 2106.05(d)(II))). Therefore, the claim is not patent eligible.
Regarding claims 8-11, 14-17, and 19, they comprise limitations similar to those of claims 1-4, and 6-7, and are therefore rejected for similar rationale.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MICHAEL W AYERS whose telephone number is (571)272-6420. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:30-5 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, Aimee Li can be reached on (571) 272-4169. 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.
/MICHAEL W AYERS/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2195