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 .
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 9/4/25 has been entered.
DETAILED ACTION
claims 1-20 were pending. On 8/11/25, applicant filed an amendment with an RCE that amends independent claims 1, 9 and 16. Canceling claims 6, 14. After careful consideration of the applicant arguments and amendments, the examiner finds them to be moot/and or non persuasive. This action is a non-final office action.
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 1-5, 7-13 and 15- 20 are directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Here claims 1, 10 and 16 are independent. They are directed to a method, device and non-transitory computer readable medium, which are all statutory classes of invention.
The claims are is directed to subscription management over a network.
Under the broadest reasonable interpretation they cover the performance of the limitations as certain methods of organizing human activities. The management of subscriptions is a fundamental economic practice.
The abstract elements are as follows;
… from a user, a request for a software solution option configured to support operations of a set of assets operating at a jobsite within an industrial system from a user, the request including operational data related to operation of the set of assets, the set of assets includes at least one equipment or device operating within the industrial system; identifying, by …, a set of software solutions options configured to support operations of the set of assets by analyzing the operation data received in the request from the user to determine the set software solutions options, from a plurality of solutions, capable of executing operations that result in usage data and performing metrics reflected in the usage data that improve the operations of the set of assets, the software solutions comprising … provided… ; determining, by …, a type of subscription for the user based on the identified set of software solutions, the type of subscription comprising information controlling a manner that the user can access and execute each software solution; assigning, by …, a subscription to an account of the user based on the type of subscription, the assigned subscription comprising information selected from a group consisting of: a term, credits, credit portfolio, user data, the usage data, usage data determinations, type of subscription, and software application information; identifying, by …, the usage data related to operations performed via at least a portion of the set of software solutions in accordance with the subscription by monitoring, over the network by …, execution and operation of each software solution in the set of software solutions; analyzing, by …, the identified usage data; and controlling, by .. over the network, the operations performed by the user based on the analysis of the identified usage data.
The technical elements include “a device” and “equipment or device” for example. However, generally speaking and at a high level claim 1 (and other independent claims) are just reciting a process that is to be implemented by a generic device and /or a piece of equipment over the network.
Thus the recitation of generic computing components to the recited abstract limitations in an “apply it” type of claim is not statutory. The use of generic computing components in a claim does not preclude the claim from reciting an abstract idea. Step 2a prong 1 (yes)
The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. The claims recite additional elements such as a computer but, the hardware/software is recited at a high level of generality such that it amounts not 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 a high level of generality. Therefore claims X, Y and Z are directed to an abstract idea without a practical application . Step 2a prong 2 no.
The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to sufficiently more than the judicial exception because when considered separately and as an ordered combination they do not add significantly more known as inventive concept.
Mere instructions to apply an exception cannot provide an inventive concept. Thus the claims are not eligible. Step 2B no
The dependent claims 2-5, 7-9, 11-15, 17-20 are rejected because they do not correct the concerns of claims 1, 10 and 16.
It is noted that the general concept as enumerated is directed to software improvements applicant specification may have some operation control elements that might be incorporated. For example syncing, file sharing techniques, and cloud(10 –14) of applicant specification.
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.
Claim(s) 1-2, 4-5,7-10,12-13, 15-17 and 19- 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bouw (PGPub 2013/0110675) in view of Joshi et al (PGPub 2016/0071183 and US Patent Publication to Barritz 6938027
As per claim 1, Bouw discloses; receiving, over a network by a device from a user, a request for a software solutionoperations that result in usage data and performing metrics reflected in the usage data that improve the operations of the set of assets, Bouw(0032, type of fee structure of the subscription) the software solutions comprising executable software applications provided by the device; determining, by the device, a type of subscription for the user based on the identified set of software solutions, Bouw(0032, type of fee structure of the subscription) the type of subscription comprising information controlling a manner that the user can access and execute each software solution; Bouw(0039-41 various manners to control access) and controlling, by the device over the network, the operations performed by the user based on the analysis of the identified usage data. Bouw(0025 0030,0064) subscription, the assigned subscription comprising information selected from a group consisting of: a term, credits, credit portfolio, user data, the usage data, usage data determinations, type of subscription, and software application information; (0032, group consisting… a choice of one of the list, here usage data determination and type of subscription) Bouw does not explicitly disclose what Joshi teaches;
the type of subscription comprising information controlling a manner that the user can access
and execute each software solution; assigning, by the device, a subscription to an account of the user based on the type of subscription; Joshi(0156) identifying, by the device, the usage data related to operations performed via at least a portion of the set of software solutions in accordance with the subscription by monitoring, over the network by the device, Joshi(0014, 0063 Monitoring device) execution and operation of each software solution in the set of software solutions; analyzing, by the device, the identified usage data; Joshi teaches a monitoring device(0014, 0063) It would therefore have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to combine the analysis data of Bouw with the environmental monitoring of Joshi for the motivation of exploiting “trends in connectivity….. internet now allows individuals access to vast amounts of information…. To perform a variety of tasks” Here Bouw and Joshi do not explicitly disclose what Barritz teaches; operating at a jobsite within an industrial system, the request including operational data related to operation of the set of assets, the set of assets includes at least one equipment or device operating within the industrial system; Barritz(col. 16 lines 30-40 factory based) motivation – combining asset management with inventory data will benefit a data center. (col. 1 lines 15-20)
As regards claims 2,10 and 17, Bouw discloses determining, based on the analysis of the identified usage data, that modifications to the subscription are required; and modifying the assigned subscription based on the identified usage data and the modification determination, wherein the control of the operations is based on the modified subscription.[0046]
As regards claims 4,12 and 19, Bouw discloses presenting a page comprising information related to the type of subscription to the user; [0053-0054] receiving input from the user related to the presented information;[0029] and determining the subscription based on the received input, wherein the assigned subscription is the determined subscription.[0025,0029]
As regards claims 5,13 and 20, Bouw discloses identifying that the request indicated an automatic indication of a subscription assignment; and
automatically performing the assigning without user input.[0012,0046]
As regards claims 7 and 15, Bouw discloses wherein the monitoring and analysis of the usage of the software solutions comprises collecting and storing information related to the usage in an associated database.[0025-0026]
As regards claim 8, Bouw discloses wherein the user is a third party entity.[0045,0052]
Claims 3,11 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bouw (PGPub 2013/0110675) in view of Joshi et al (PGPub 2016/0071183) and US Patent Publication to Barritz 6938027 further in view of Fredrich et al (PGPub 2018/0365753).
As regards claims 3,11 and 18, Bouw, Joshi and Barritz do not expressly disclose wherein the determination that the modifications to the subscription are required comprises determining that the operations performed via at least a portion of the set of software solutions in accordance with the subscription are not satisfying a performance level threshold of at least one of the set of assets. Fredrich discloses wherein the determination that the modifications to the subscription are required comprises determining that the operations performed via at least a portion of the set of software solutions in accordance with the subscription are not satisfying a performance level threshold of at least one of the set of ssets. [0161] FIG. 18A is another exemplary algorithmic flow diagram to dynamically process electronic messaging data to automatically generate location predictive retrieval using a networked, multi-stack computing environment. Here, evaluated data from input data 1302/1502 (FIGS. 13, 15) is compared to a threshold to determine whether alternative retrieval options to a default or first option are available for generation (1802). For example, if location data extracted from input data indicates a device associated with an account is outside a threshold distance from any nearby stores that have in inventory a given item, then a default or first option for fulfillment (e.g., shipment) is executed. lf a threshold is not exceeded (1804), then user-specified rules are invoked to perform a first option for fulfillment (1806). In other examples, a different type or structure of threshold may be used and is not limited to a comparison in which a determination is made as to whether the threshold is exceeded, but instead whether a comparison results in a determination that input data is below the threshold. Likewise, a comparison of input data to a threshold may be performed using data other than location data. For example, a comparison of input data to determine temporal proximity to an impending shipment date may be performed to determine when, within a given threshold from a shipment data (e.g., 72 hours from shipment of a next order of a subscribed item) to generate an alternative retrieval option for, in some examples, picking up or retrieving an item in-store.
It would have been obvious for a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of effective filing to use in the determination that the modifications to the subscription are required comprises determining that the operations performed via at least a portion of the set of software solutions in accordance with the subscription are not satisfying a performance level threshold of at least one of the set of assets in the device of Bouw and Joshi. The rationale to support a conclusion that the claim would have been obvious for [0161] FIG. 18A another exemplary algorithmic flow diagram to
dynamically process electronic messaging data to automatically generate location predictive retrieval using a networked, multistack computing environment. Here, evaluated data from input data 1302/1502 (FIGS. 13, 15) is compared to a threshold to determine whether alternative retrieval options to a default or first option are available for qeneration (1802). For example, if location data extracted from input data indicates a device associated with an account is outside a threshold distance from any nearby stores that have in inventory a given item, then a default or first option for fulfillment (e.g., shipment) is executed. If a threshold is not exceeded (1804), then user-specified rules are invoked to perform a first option for fulfillment (1806). In other examples, a different type or structure of threshold may be used and is not limited to a comparison in which a determination
is made as to whether the threshold is exceeded, but instead whether a comparison results in a determination that input data is below the threshold. Likewise, a comparison of input data to a threshold may be performed using data other than location data. For example, a comparison of input data to determine temporal proximity to an impending shipment date may be performed to determine when, within a given threshold from a shipment data (e.g., 72 hours from shipment of a next order of a subscribed item) to generate an alternative retrieval option for, in some examples,
picking up or retrieving an item in-store. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been capable of applying this known method of enhancement to a base device in the prior art and the results would have been predictable to one of ordinary skill in the art.
Response to Arguments
Claims 1-20 were pending. On 8/11/25, applicant filed an amendment with an RCE that amends independent claims 1, 9 and 16. Canceling claims 6, 14. After careful consideration of the applicant arguments and amendments, the examiner finds them to be moot/and or non persuasive. This action is a non-final office action.
I. Claim Rejections - 35 U.S.C. § 103 A. Claims 1-2, 4-5, 7-10, 12-13, 15-17 and 19-20 Claims 1-2, 4-5, 7-10, 12-13, 15-17 and 19-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable by U.S. Publication No. 2013/0110675 (hereinafter "Bouw"), in view of U.S.
Publication No. 2016/0071183 (hereinafter "Joshi") and U.S. Patent No. 6,938,027 (hereinafter "Barritz").
Claims 9, 16 are argued similar to claim 1.
Here though claims 3, 6 were offered as potentially allowable with further search/consideration, the offering was for 3, 6 and by dependency claim 2 in combination. Thus applicant amendment is not the same as what was offered. Furthermore, claim 6 may have some optional language which tends to broaden it beyond what was contemplated on original analysis.
Here in regards to claim 3, 6, it was contemplated that the combination of 3, 6 would be allowable.
Allowable subject matter: Claim 3 and interviewing claim 2. Further claim 6 is a choice limiting the applicability of the selected material.
35 USC 101, it is noted that a new rejection is imposed in view of current guidance.
Conclusion
Practical Adoption of Cloud Computing in Power Systems—Drivers, Challenges, Guidance, and Real-World Use Cases IEEE 2022
Using Infrastructure-As-Code and the Public Cloud to Power On-air Media Creation Platforms IEEE 2019
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BRUCE I EBERSMAN whose telephone number is (571)270-3442. The examiner can normally be reached 8:00 am - 5:00 pm Monday-Friday.
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 W Anderson can be reached at 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.
/BRUCE I EBERSMAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3693