DETAILED ACTION
This office action is in response to the communication filed on November 12, 2025. Claims 1-20 are currently 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 on November 12, 2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive for the following reasons:
Applicant in Pages 10-11 argues that the Office Action, in its analysis of step 2A omits the hardware components, networks, connections, and devices being erased from the identified claim elements, and thus analyzes claim limitation excerpts out of context of the larger system which includes a at least a remote computing system, a first computing device, a second computing device, a memory that is to be erased, an erasure analysis unit, and networks interconnecting hardware components in a unique architecture.
Examiner respectfully disagrees. The argued elements were not omitted from analysis, but were separately analyzed in step 2A prong two and step 2B, and were considered to be additional elements recited at a high-level of generality, such that it amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception analyzed in step 2A prong one using generic computer components.
Applicant in Pages 10-19 of the Remarks argues that the methods of amended independent claims 1 and 14 clearly recite subject matter that cannot be performed in the human mind, and that the inventions of independent claims 1 and 14 relate to an improved method for automatically providing device-specific information on an erasure process to a user in order to facilitate decision-making regarding the erasure process selection.
Examiner respectfully disagrees. Examiner notes that no claim amendments have been presented by the applicant in the latest response submitted on November 12, 2025. Examiner is interpreting that applicant’s arguments with respect to “amended independent claims 1 and 14” are referring to the claim amendments previously submitted on March 18, 2025.
It is important to note, the judicial exception alone cannot provide the improvement. The improvement can be provided by one or more additional elements. (MPEP 2106.05(a)).
Independent claim 1 and similarly independent claim 14 cover several steps, such as the comparing, determining, analyzing, determining, predicting, and selecting steps in claim 1, and the analyzing, determining, predicting, selecting, and generating steps in claim 14, that recite an abstract idea within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas, because a person can mentally or using a pen and paper perform the limitations recited in said steps, which is discussed in detail in the current 101 rejection below.
The remaining steps in the claims that are identified as reciting additional elements, such as the maintaining, receiving, sending, performing, and storing steps in claim 1, the retrieving, sending, displaying, performing, and sending steps in claim 14, and the steps recited in the dependent claims, either amount to no more than mere instructions to apply an exception using generic computer component, which cannot provide an inventive concept, or are only adding insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception, and are recognized as a well understood, routine, and conventional activity within the field of computer functions, which is not sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception and are not directed to any specific improvement in computer technology, which are discussed in detail in the current 101 rejection below.
Accordingly, the additional elements, individually or in combination, do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application, even viewing the claims a whole, because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
For the above reasons, Examiner states that rejection of the current Office action is proper.
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 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
At step 1:
Independent claims 1 and 14 both recite a method, which are directed to a statutory category such as a process, machine, or an article of manufacture.
At step 2A, prong one:
Independent claim 1 recites the limitations:
“comparing…in response to the receiving, the all or some of the one or more device parameters characterizing the second computing device to device parameters maintained in the erasure report database to find one or more erasure reports relevant for the second computing device”;
A person can mentally or using a pen and paper analyze received device parameters characterizing a computing device and analyze device parameters maintained in a erasure report database, and mentally or using a pen and paper compare the parameters to find one or more erasure reports that are relevant to the computing device.
“determining…one or more expected erasure process properties for each of at least one erasure process for erasing a memory or part thereof of the second computing device based on one or more erasure process properties of the one or more relevant erasure reports”,
A person can mentally or using a pen and paper analyze erasure process properties of relevant erasure reports to determine the expected erasure process properties for an erasure process for erasing a memory or part thereof of a computing device.
the determining further comprising:
“analyzing…the plurality of erasure reports describing erasure processes carried out for a plurality of computing devices and the one or more expected erasure properties”;
A person can mentally or using a pen and paper analyze a plurality of erasure
reports describing erasure processes carried out for a plurality of computing devices and one or more expected erasure properties.
“determining, based on the analyzing a probability of occurrence of each of the erasure processes described in the plurality of erasure reports”;
A person can mentally or using a pen and paper determine, based on an analysis, a probability of occurrence of each erasure processes described in plurality of erasure reports.
“predicting, based on the probability of occurrence of each of the erasure processes described in the plurality of erasure reports, a predetermined number of most common erasure processes”;
A person can mentally or using a pen and paper predict, based on a probability of occurrence of erasure processes described in plurality of erasure reports, a predetermined number of most common erasure processes.
“selecting, based on the results of the determining, at least one erasure process for erasing the at least a part of the memory of the second computing device”;
A person can mentally or using a pen and paper analyze results of a
determination, and based on the analyzed results mentally or using a pen and paper
select at least one erasure process for erasing at least a part of a memory of a
computing device.
The limitations, as recited above in claim 1, are processes that, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, cover steps that can be performed in the human mind or by a human using a pen and paper, but for recitation of generic computer components.
If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claims recite an abstract idea.
Independent claim 14 recite the limitations:
“analyzing…a plurality of erasure reports describing erasure processes carried out for a plurality of computing devices and one or more expected erasure properties”;
A person can mentally or using a pen and paper analyze a plurality of erasure reports describing erasure processes carried out for a plurality of computing devices and one or more expected erasure properties.
“determining, based on the analyzing, a probability of occurrence of each
of the erasure processes described in the plurality of erasure reports”;
A person can mentally or using a pen and paper determine, based on an analysis, a probability of occurrence of each erasure processes described in plurality of erasure reports.
“predicting, based on the probability of occurrence of each of the erasure processes described in the plurality of erasure reports, a predetermined number of most common erasure processes”;
A person can mentally or using a pen and paper predict, based on a probability of occurrence of erasure processes described in plurality of erasure reports, a predetermined number of most common erasure processes.
“selecting, based on the information on the predetermined number of most common erasure processes displayed…at least one erasure process for erasing the memory or part thereof of the second computing device”;
A person can mentally or using a pen and paper analyze information on one or more expected erasure process properties that are being displayed, and based on the analyzed information mentally or using a pen and paper select at least one erasure process for erasing at least a part of a memory of a computing device.
“generating…in response to the selected erasure process concluding, an erasure report for the erasure process, wherein the erasure report for the erasure process comprises at least the one or more device parameters of the second computing device and one or more erasure process properties comprising at least an outcome of the erasure process”;
A person can mentally or using a pen and paper observe device parameters of a computing device involved in an erasure process and the erasure process properties such as the outcome of an erasure process and mentally or by using a pen and paper generate an erasure report for the erasure process.
The limitations, as recited above in claim 14, are processes that, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, cover steps that can be performed in the human mind or by a human using a pen and paper, but for recitation of generic computer components.
If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claims recite an abstract idea.
At step 2A, prong two:
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application.
Independent claim 1 recites the limitations:
“maintaining, in an erasure report database, information on a plurality of erasure reports describing erasure processes carried out for a plurality of computing devices, wherein each erasure report comprises one or more erasure process properties for an erasure process used for erasing a memory or part thereof of a computing device and one or more device parameters characterizing the computing device for which the erasure process was performed”, which is a step of maintaining or storing information, and is just adding insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception as a form of mere data gathering (MPEP 2106.05(g)).
“receiving, in a remote computing system, all or some of the one or more device parameters characterizing a second computing device via a communications network from a first computing device”, which is a step of receiving device parameters, and is just adding insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception as a form of mere data gathering (MPEP 2106.05(g)).
“sending, by the remote computing system, the predetermined number of
most common erasure processes to the first computing device via the communications network for facilitating decision-making of a user of the first computing device in regards to selecting a suitable erasure process for erasing the memory or part thereof of the second computing device”, which is a step of sending erasure process properties, and is just adding insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception as a form of mere data gathering (MPEP 2106.05(g)).
“performing, via the first computing device, the at least one erasure process on the second computing device”, which is a step of performing an erasure process on a computing device, and amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply an exception using generic computer component. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept (MPEP 2106.05(f)).
“storing, by the remote computing system, in response to receiving an erasure report for an erasure process carried out for the second computing device from the first computing device via the communications network, the erasure report to the erasure report database, wherein the erasure report for the second computing device comprises at least the one or more device parameters characterizing the second computing device and one or more erasure process properties for the erasure process”, which is a step of storing erasure reports, and is just adding insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception as a form of mere data gathering (MPEP 2106.05(g)).
The additional elements “an erasure report database”, “a plurality of computing devices”, “a memory or part thereof of a computing device”, “a remote computing system”, “a second computing device”, “via a communications network”, “via an erasure analysis unit”, and “a first computing device” in the steps in claim 1 are recited at a high-level of generality, such that it amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components.
Accordingly, the additional elements, individually or in combination, do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application, even viewing the claims a whole, because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
Independent claim 14 recites the limitations:
“retrieving, by a first computing device, one or more device parameters characterizing a second computing device electrically connected to the first computing device from a memory of the second computing device”, which is a step of retrieving data, and is just adding insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception as a form of mere data gathering (MPEP 2106.05(g)).
“sending, by the first computing device, the one or more device parameters via a communications network to a remote computing system”, which is a step of sending data, and is just adding insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial
exception as a form of mere data gathering (MPEP 2106.05(g)).
“displaying, by the first computing device, in response to receiving the one
or more expected erasure process properties for erasing the memory or part thereof of the second computing device from the remote computing system via the communications network, information on the predetermined number of most common erasure processes to a user via a display of the first computing device”, which is a step of displaying data for presentation, and is just adding insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception as a form of mere data gathering (MPEP 2106.05(g)).
“performing, by the first computing device, in response to receiving a user input confirming the selection of an erasure process of said predetermined number of most common erasure processes via a user input device of the first computing device, the selected erasure process for erasing the memory or part thereof of the second computing device”, which is a step of performing a selected erasure process by a computing device for erasing memory of another computing device, and amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept (MPEP 2106.05(f))
“sending, by the first computing device, the erasure report to the remote computing system via the communications network”, which is a step of receiving device parameters, and is just adding insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception as a form of mere data gathering (MPEP 2106.05(g)).
The additional elements “by a first computing device”, “a second computing device electronically connected to the first computing device”, “a memory of the second computing device”, “a communications network”, “a remote computing system”, “via an erasure analysis unit”, “a display of the first computing device”, and “via a user input device” in the steps in claim 14 are recited at a high-level of generality, such that it amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components.
Accordingly, the additional elements, individually or in combination, do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application, even viewing the claims a whole, because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
At step 2B:
Independent claims 1 and 14 recite the same additional elements as identified in step 2A prong two above. These additional elements are not sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Independent claim 1 recites the limitations:
“maintaining, in an erasure report database, information on a plurality of erasure reports describing erasure processes carried out for a plurality of computing devices, wherein each erasure report comprises one or more erasure process properties for an erasure process used for erasing a memory or part thereof of a computing device and one or more device parameters characterizing the computing device for which the erasure process was performed”, which is a step of maintaining or storing information, and is recognized as a well understood, routine, and conventional activity within the field of computer functions as an element of storing and retrieving information in memory (MPEP 2106.05(d)(II)(iv)).
“receiving, in a remote computing system, all or some of the one or more device parameters characterizing a second computing device via a communications network from a first computing device”, which is a step of receiving device parameters, and is recognized as a well understood, routine, and conventional activity within the field of computer functions as an element of receiving or transmitting data over a network (MPEP 2106.05(d)(II)(i)).
“sending, by the remote computing system, the predetermined number of most common erasure processes to the first computing device via the communications network for facilitating decision-making of a user of the first computing device in regards to selecting a suitable erasure process for erasing the memory or part thereof of the second computing device”, which is a step of sending erasure process properties, and is recognized as a well understood, routine, and conventional activity within the field of computer functions as an element of receiving or transmitting data over a network (MPEP 2106.05(d)(II)(i)).
“performing, via the first computing device, the at least one erasure process on the second computing device”, which is a step of performing an erasure process on a computing device, and amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply an exception using generic computer component. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept (MPEP 2106.05(f)).
“storing, by the remote computing system, in response to receiving an erasure report for an erasure process carried out for the second computing device from the first computing device via the communications network, the erasure report to the erasure report database, wherein the erasure report for the second computing device comprises at least the one or more device parameters characterizing the second computing device and one or more erasure process properties for the erasure process”, which is a step of storing erasure reports, a and is recognized as a well understood, routine, and conventional activity within the field of computer functions as an element of storing and retrieving information in memory (MPEP 2106.05(d)(II)(iv)).
Independent claim 14 recites the limitations:
“retrieving, by a first computing device, one or more device parameters characterizing a second computing device electrically connected to the first computing device from a memory of the second computing device”, which is a step of retrieving data, and is recognized as a well understood, routine, and conventional activity within the field of computer functions as an element of storing and retrieving information in memory (MPEP 2106.05(d)(II)(iv)).
“sending, by the first computing device, the one or more device parameters via a communications network to a remote computing system”, which is a step of sending data, and is recognized as a well understood, routine, and conventional activity within the field of computer functions as an element of receiving or transmitting data over a network (MPEP 2106.05(d)(II)(i)).
“displaying, by the first computing device, in response to receiving the one or more expected erasure process properties for erasing the memory or part thereof of the second computing device from the remote computing system via the communications network, information on the predetermined number of most common erasure processes to a user via a display of the first computing device”, which is a step of displaying received data for presentation, and is recognized as a well understood, routine, and conventional activity within the field of computer functions as an element of presenting offers and gathering statistics (MPEP 2106.05(d)(II)(iv)).
“performing, by the first computing device, in response to receiving a user input confirming the selection of an erasure process of said predetermined number of most common erasure processes via a user input device of the first computing device, the selected erasure process for erasing the memory or part thereof of the second computing device”, which is a step of performing a selected erasure process by a computing device for erasing memory of another computing device, and amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply an exception using generic computer component. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept (MPEP 2106.05(f)).
“sending, by the first computing device, the erasure report to the remote computing system via the communications network”, which is a step of sending device parameters, and is recognized as a well understood, routine, and conventional activity within the field of computer functions as an element of receiving or transmitting data over a network (MPEP 2106.05(d)(II)(i)).
Accordingly, the additional limitations are not sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. Therefore, the claims are directed to an abstract idea and are not patent eligible.
Dependent claim 2 recites additional limitations, such as:
wherein the comparing of the one or more device parameters to device parameters maintained in the erasure report database comprises:
“generating, for each available erasure process, a vector based on at least one of the one or more device parameters, wherein each element of each vector has a numerical value representing a particular feature of the second computing device defined by a particular device parameter or multiple device parameters”;
These limitations are directed to the same abstract idea under the mental processes grouping as independent claim 1, because a person can mentally or using a pen and paper generate vectors based on the device parameters, and because the limitations do not recite any additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more.
“comparing, for each available erasure process, the vector associated with the second computing device to one or more corresponding vectors generated for one or more computing devices of the plurality of computing devices based on the device parameters in the plurality of erasure reports”.
These limitations are directed to the same abstract idea under the mental processes grouping as independent claim 1, because a person can mentally or using a pen and paper compare device parameters by generating vectors based on the device parameters comparing the vectors, and because the limitations do not recite any additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more.
Accordingly, the additional elements, individually or in combination, do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application, even viewing the claims a whole, because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
Dependent claim 3 recites additional limitations, such as:
“wherein the comparing of the one or more device parameters to device parameters maintained in the erasure report database further comprises: identifying a device category of the second computing device based on the one or more device parameters received from the first computing device, wherein the one or more corresponding vectors generated for the one or more computing devices of the plurality of computing devices are selected to be of the same device category as the second computing device”.
These limitations are directed to the same abstract idea under the mental processes grouping as independent claim 1, because a person can mentally or using a pen and paper compare device parameters by identifying and selecting devices by device categories based on vectors, and because the limitations do not recite any additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more.
Accordingly, the additional elements, individually or in combination, do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application, even viewing the claims a whole, because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
Dependent claim 4 recites additional limitations, such as:
wherein the comparing of the one or more device parameters to the device parameters maintained in the erasure report database further comprises:
“determining, for each available erasure process, whether one or more of the one or more vectors associated with the same device category as the second computing device match the vector of the second computing device according to pre-defined criteria”;
These limitations are directed to the same abstract idea under the mental processes grouping as independent claim 1, because a person can mentally or using a pen and paper determine a match between vectors according to a pre-defined criteria, and because the limitations do not recite any additional elements that are sufficient to
amount to significantly more.
“in response to one or more matches according to the pre-defined criteria being found, selecting, for each of said at least one erasure process, one or more erasure reports associated with said one or more matching vectors as a classification cluster for the second computing device”,
These limitations are directed to the same abstract idea under the mental processes grouping as independent claim 1, because a person can mentally or using a pen and paper select matching vectors as a classification cluster in response to finding a match, and because the limitations do not recite any additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more.
“wherein the method further comprises: performing, in response to the selecting of the classification cluster, the determining of the one or more expected erasure process properties for each of said at least one erasure process based on erasure reports associated with the classification cluster”.
These limitations are directed to the same abstract idea under the mental processes grouping as independent claim 1, because a person can mentally or using a pen and paper perform a determination in response to selecting a classification cluster, and because the limitations do not recite any additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more.
Accordingly, the additional elements, individually or in combination, do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application, even viewing the claims a whole, because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
Dependent claim 5 recites additional limitations, such as:
“wherein the comparing of the vector to the one or more corresponding vectors comprises calculating, for each vector of the second computing device associated with a particular erasure process, a value of a distance metric quantifying a difference between the vector of the second computing device and the one or more corresponding vectors and the pre-defined criteria comprise a pre-defined upper threshold for the distance metric”.
These limitations are directed to the same abstract idea under the mental processes grouping as independent claim 1, because a person can mentally or using a pen and paper compare vectors by calculating a distance quantifying a difference between vectors based on a threshold, and because the limitations do not recite any additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more.
Accordingly, the additional elements, individually or in combination, do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application, even viewing the claims a whole, because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
Dependent claim 6 recites additional limitations, such as:
“in response to determining that none of the one or more vectors associated with the same device category as the second computing device match the vector of the second computing device according to pre-defined criteria for any erasure process, sending, by the remote computing system, information on a failure of determining the one or more expected erasure process properties from the remote computing system to the first computing device via the communications network”, which is a step of sending data.
At step 2A prong two, the step is recited at a high level of generality, and amounts to mere data gathering, which is a form of insignificant extra-solution activity.
At step 2B, the step is recognized as a well understood, routine, and conventional activity within the field of computer functions as an element of receiving or transmitting data over a network (MPEP 2106.05(d)(II)(i)).
Accordingly, the additional elements, individually or in combination, do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application, even viewing the claims a whole, because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
Dependent claim 7 recites additional limitations, such as:
“wherein the one or more expected erasure process properties for the erasure of the memory or part thereof of the second computing device are determined using one or more of statistical analysis methods, extrapolation, interpolation, averaging and calculating a median or a mode”.
These limitations are directed to the same abstract idea under the mental processes grouping as independent claim 1, because a person can mentally or using a pen and paper make a determination using one or more of statistical analysis methods, extrapolation, interpolation, averaging and calculating a median or a mode, and because the limitations do not recite any additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more.
Accordingly, the additional elements, individually or in combination, do not
integrate the abstract idea into a practical application, even viewing the claims a whole, because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
Dependent claim 8 recites additional limitations, such as:
“wherein the first computing device is one of a laptop and a desktop computer and each of the second computing device and the plurality of computing devices is a mobile device”, which amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply an exception using generic computer component. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept (MPEP 2106.05(f)).
Accordingly, the additional elements, individually or in combination, do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application, even viewing the claims a whole, because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
Dependent claim 9 recites additional limitations, such as “wherein the one or more erasure process properties for the erasure process in each erasure report comprise at least one of: one or more of an outcome of the erasure process and a duration of the erasure process, or the one or more expected erasure process properties for said at least one erasure process comprise, for each of said at least one erasure process, one or more of a probability of success of the erasure process and an expected duration of the erasure process”, which is a step of maintaining or storing information.
At step 2A prong two, the step is recited at a high level of generality, and
amounts to mere data gathering, which is a form of insignificant extra-solution activity.
At step 2B, the step is recognized as a well understood, routine, and conventional activity within the field of computer functions as an element of storing and retrieving information in memory (MPEP 2106.05(d)(II)(iv)).
Accordingly, the additional elements, individually or in combination, do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application, even viewing the claims a whole, because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
Dependent claim 10 recites additional limitations, such as:
“wherein the one or more device parameters retrieved by at least one of: the first computing device, or the one or more device parameters comprised in each erasure report comprise at least information on a clock speed of a processor of a corresponding computing device, a type of each or some of one or more memories of the corresponding computing device and a capacity of each or some of said one or more memories of the corresponding computing device”, which is a step of retrieving data.
At step 2A prong two, the step is recited at a high level of generality, and amounts to mere data gathering, which is a form of insignificant extra-solution activity.
At step 2B, the step is recognized as a well understood, routine, and
conventional activity within the field of computer functions as an element of storing and
retrieving information in memory (MPEP 2106.05(d)(II)(iv)).
Accordingly, the additional elements, individually or in combination, do not
integrate the abstract idea into a practical application, even viewing the claims a whole,
because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
Dependent claim 11 recites additional limitations, such as:
“a remote computing system comprising means for performing a method according the claim 1”, which amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply an exception using generic computer component. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept (MPEP 2106.05(f)).
The additional elements “a remote computing system comprising means for performing” in claim 11 are recited at a high-level of generality, such that it amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components.
Accordingly, the additional elements, individually or in combination, do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application, even viewing the claims a whole, because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
Dependent claim 12 recites additional limitations, such as:
“wherein at least one of: the remote computing system is a cloud-based system, or the erasure report database is a cloud-based database”, which amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply an exception using generic computer component. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept (MPEP 2106.05(f)).
The additional elements “wherein at least one of: the remote computing system is
a cloud-based system, or the erasure report database is a cloud-based database” in claim 12 are recited at a high-level of generality, such that it amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components.
Accordingly, the additional elements, individually or in combination, do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application, even viewing the claims a whole, because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
Dependent claim 13 recites additional limitations, such as:
“a non-transitory computer readable media having stored thereon instructions that, when executed by a computing device, cause the computing device to perform a method according to claim 1”, which amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply an exception using generic computer component. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept (MPEP 2106.05(f)).
The additional elements “wherein at least one of: the remote computing system is a cloud-based system, or the erasure report database is a cloud-based database” in claim 13 are recited at a high-level of generality, such that it amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components.
Accordingly, the additional elements, individually or in combination, do not
integrate the abstract idea into a practical application, even viewing the claims a whole,
because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
Dependent claim 15 recites additional limitations, such as:
“wherein the one or more expected erasure process properties for said at least one erasure process comprise, for each of said at least one erasure process, at least one of: one or more of an outcome of the erasure process and a duration of the erasure process, or one or more of a probability of success of the erasure process and an expected duration of the erasure process”.
This limitation is directed to the same abstract idea under the mental processes grouping as independent claim 14, because a person can mentally or using a pen and paper analyze one or more expected erasure process properties comprising one or more information associated with erasure processes, and because the limitation does not recite any additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more.
Accordingly, the additional elements, individually or in combination, do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application, even viewing the claims a whole, because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
Dependent claim 16 recites additional limitations, such as:
“a first computing device comprising means for performing a method according to claim 14”, which amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply an exception using generic computer component. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept (MPEP 2106.05(f)).
The additional elements “a first computing device comprising means for performing a method” in claim 16 are recited at a high-level of generality, such that it amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components.
Accordingly, the additional elements, individually or in combination, do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application, even viewing the claims a whole, because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
Dependent claim 17 recites additional limitations, such as:
“wherein at least one of the first computing device is one of a laptop or a desktop computer, or the second computing device electrically connected to the first computing device is a mobile device”, which amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply an exception using generic computer component. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept (MPEP 2106.05(f)).
Accordingly, the additional elements, individually or in combination, do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application, even viewing the claims a whole, because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
Dependent claim 18 recites additional limitations, such as:
“a non-transitory computer readable media having stored thereon instructions that, when executed by a computing device, cause the computing device to perform a method according to claim 14”, which amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply an exception using generic computer component. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide
an inventive concept (MPEP 2106.05(f)).
The additional elements “a non-transitory computer readable media having stored thereon instructions that, when executed by a computing device, cause the computing device to perform a method” in claim 18 are recited at a high-level of generality, such that it amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components.
Accordingly, the additional elements, individually or in combination, do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application, even viewing the claims a whole, because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
Dependent claim 19 recites additional limitations, such as:
“a system comprising: a remote computing system according to claim 11, and one or more first computing devices according to claim 16”, which amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply an exception using generic computer component. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept (MPEP 2106.05(f)).
Accordingly, the additional elements, individually or in combination, do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application, even viewing the claims a whole, because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
Dependent claim 20 recites additional limitations, such as:
“one or more second computing devices, wherein each second computing device comprises at least one memory and is connected electrically to one of the one or more first computing devices”, which amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply an exception using generic computer component. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept (MPEP 2106.05(f)).
Accordingly, the additional elements, individually or in combination, do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application, even viewing the claims a whole, because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
Accordingly, dependent claims 2-13 and 15-20 are also directed to abstract idea without significantly more and are not patent eligible.
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.
Contact Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to REZWANUL MAHMOOD whose telephone number is (571)272-5625. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9-5:30.
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, Ann J. Lo can be reached at 571-272-9767. 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.
/R.M/Examiner, Art Unit 2159
/ANN J LO/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2159