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 .
DETAILED ACTION
Applicant filed an amendment on 5/6/26. Claims 1,4-5,7-9,12-13, 15-16, 19-20 are pending, claims 1, 9, and 16 are amended and claims 2-3, 6,10-11, and 17-18 are cancelled herein. After careful consideration of applicant arguments and amendments, the examiner finds them to be moot and/or non persuasive. This action is a Final Rejection.
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 1,4-5, 7-9,12-13 and 15-16, 19-20 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;
determining, based on the analysis of the identified usage data, the operations performed via at least a portion of the set of software solutions in accordance with the subscription not satisfying a performance level threshold of at least one of the set of assets, modifications to the subscription being required when the subscriptions are not satisfying the performance level threshold of the at least one of the set of assets; modifying the assigned subscription based on the identified usage data when modification to the subscription is required; and controlling, by .. over the network, the operations performed by the
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 4-5, 7-8, 12-13, 15, 19-20 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.
By amendment, it is noted that the further limitations are generally directed to balancing or modifying the subscription data based on usage. However, this is not much different than what a human might do. It is not a technical solution but for the automation.
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) 1,4-5,7-9,12-13, 15-16 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, US Patent Publication to Barritz 6938027 and Fredrich et al (PGPub 2018/0365753).
As per claim 1, Bouw discloses; receiving, over a network by a device from a user, a request for a software solution
determining, based on the analysis of the identified usage data, Bouw(0008, receive usage)
the operations performed via at least a portion of the set of software solutions in accordance with the subscription not satisfying a performance level threshold of at least one of the set of assets,
Bouw(this is a rather open ended term, “not satisfying”, for at least one,
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; the modified assigned subscription 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) Bouw, Joshi and Barritz do not explicitly disclose what Fredrich teaches; modifications to the subscription being required when the subscriptions are not satisfying the performance level threshold of the at least one of the set of assets; modifying the assigned subscription based on the identified usage data when modification to the subscription is required; an (0042-3 adaptive subscription process to modify subscriptions based on needs)
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 disclosure of Bouw with the subscription teachings of Fredrich for the motivation of “providing convenience to the customers”, (0002)
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]
Response to Arguments
Applicant filed an amendment on 5/6/26. Claims 1-20 are pending, claims 1, 9, and 16 are amended and claims 2-3, 10-11, and 17-18 are cancelled herein. After careful consideration of applicant arguments and amendments, the examiner finds them to be moot and/or non persuasive. This action is a Final Rejection.
I. Claim Rejection Under 35 U.S.C. § 101
Applicant respectfully traverses the rejection of claims 1-15 under 35 U.S.C. § 101. The Office Action asserts that the claims are directed to a "mental process" and therefore recite an abstract idea.
Not a practical application because the claims purportedly recite only generic computer implementation.
claim 1 recites, in relevant part:
determining, by the device, 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 the device, 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 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, execution and operation of each software solution in
the set of software solutions;
analyzing, by the device, the identified usage data;
determining, based on the analysis of the identified usage data, the
operations performed via at least a portion of the set of software
solutions in accordance with the subscription not satisfying a
performance level threshold of at least one of the set of assets,
modifications to the subscription being required when the
subscriptions are not satisfying the performance level threshold of
the at least one of the set of assets;
modifying the assigned subscription based on the identified usage
data when modification to the subscription is required; and
controlling, by the device over the network, the operations
performed by the user based on the modified assigned subscription.
Here the context for practical application and “mental process” being that the tasks are generally directed to generic computing elements such as “device”, “network” “software solution”, and “set of assets” Here the elements are generic in the context that no specific elements are actually claimed. In order to be a mental process it theoretically could be performed by a human.
Claim 1 does not recite a mental process and therefore should not be treated as reciting an abstract idea. MPEP §2106.04(a)(2) specifies sub-groupings of "mental processes" that require a computer to be 1) performing a mental process on a generic computer, 2) performing a mental process in a generic computing environment, or 3) using a computer to perform a mental process. The common thread among these sub-groupings is that the claimed operations can practically be performed in the human mind or with pen and paper.
In contrast, claim 1 recites a computer-implemented subscription control architecture that dynamically monitors execution and operation of distributed software solutions over a network, identifies usage data associated with those operations, analyzes the identified usage data relative to performance level thresholds associated with assets, automatically modifies assigned subscriptions based on the identified usage data, and controls subsequent operations performed over the network according to the modified assigned subscription. These operations are rooted in network-based software execution environments and require continuous machine monitoring, automated analysis of operational usage data, dynamic modification of subscription parameters, and machine-based control of software execution permissions and operations across multiple software solutions.
The claimed invention therefore is not directed to a process that can be practically
performed in the human mind. A human cannot realistically monitor execution and operation of distributed software solutions over a network, dynamically identify and analyze operational usage data in real time, determine whether asset performance thresholds are satisfied, automatically modify subscription attributes including credits, portfolios, and usage determinations, and control network-based software operations in accordance with modified subscriptions. Rather, claim 1 recites a technological solution implemented through specialized computer operations that manage execution access and operational control of software solutions in a networked computing environment.
Since claim 1 does not include subject matter falling into the "mental process" grouping described in MPEP §2106.04(a), claim 1 does not recite an abstract idea and therefore cannot be directed to an abstract idea.
Additionally, even if claim 1 were determined to include an abstract idea, any such
abstract idea is integrated into a practical application. Specifically, claim 1 recites a computer- implemented technique that improves management and operational control of network-executed software solutions through dynamic subscription analysis and modification based on monitored usage data and performance threshold determinations. As recited, the claimed invention continuously monitors execution and operation of software solutions over a network, identifies and analyzes operational usage data, determines whether performance thresholds associated with assets are satisfied, modifies assigned subscriptions when performance thresholds are not satisfied, and controls subsequent operations performed by users in accordance with the modified subscription.
These claimed operations provide a technological improvement to computerized
subscription management and network-based software control systems. Rather than merely organizing human activity, the claims improve the functioning of distributed software execution environments by enabling automated monitoring of software usage, automated determination of operational deficiencies relative to performance thresholds, dynamic modification of subscription parameters, and automated control of software operations based on updated subscription conditions. The claimed invention therefore improves how computer systems manage access, execution, and operational control of software solutions in a distributed network environment.
Applicant argues elements like “automated control” , “dynamic modification”. Dynamic modification is not claimed, automatic control. Is found in claims 5, 13, and thus not relevant to the independent claims.
Applicant specification is directed to automatically manipulating the software subscriptions for the user. It would be desirable to claim this as supported to be an improvement of the technology rather than an automation of the existing tech.
The 2019 PEG explains that an important consideration in determining whether a claim integrates a judicial exception into a practical application is whether the claimed invention improves the functioning of a computer or another technology. Here, claim 1 recites a technical solution implemented by network-connected computing devices that improves computerized subscription management, operational monitoring, and control of distributed software execution systems. Accordingly, any alleged abstract idea is integrated into a practical application.
For at least the foregoing reasons, Applicant respectfully submits that claims 1-15 are patent eligible and respectfully requests withdrawal of the rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 101.
Here the technical solution is not claimed as argued though monitoring and control are claimed. However, as stated previously the claims are similar to those that would be performed by a user. In fact claim 5 indicates that the assigning is without user input which implies that claim 1 might be weigh user input, thus by a human.
II. 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"). Although the following remarks are specifically directed to amended independent claim 1, amended independent claims 9 and 16 are patentable over the cited references for at least the same reasons discussed below regarding amended independent claim 1.
The Examiner has indicated that the combination of dependent claims 2, 3 and 6 may
include allowable subject matter. Applicant has amended the independent claims 1, 9 and 16 to incorporate features of dependent claims 2-3 and 6, which Applicant submits places amended claim in condition for allowance over the art or record. Correspondingly, Applicant submits that amended claims 1, 9 and 16 and dependent claims 2, 4-5, 7-8, 10, 12-13, 15, 17 and 19-20 are now in condition for allowance and requests that the Examiner withdraw the rejection of claims 1-2, 4-5, 7-10, 12-13, 15-17 and 19-20 under § 103
Claims 2,3 and 6 are indeed canceled.
Here the arguments are moot. Applicant has not exactly rolled up 2, 3 and 6 but, if they had, it would still not as of yet remove the 35 USC 101 concerns.
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
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 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
Prosecution Insights