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 with respect to rejections under 35 USC 101 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant asserts the amended claims are not directed to an abstract idea. In response to the comparison with Example 37, claim 1, Examiner notes the facts do not align. The instant specification does not address an analogous problem with automatic icon organization in an interface. The instant specification describes a computer implemented application for creating and managing service tickets. Creating and managing service tickets is an abstract idea as described in the rejection below. Carrying out the method “by a request server” amounts to using a computer as a tool to perform the abstract idea. On page 15 of the remarks, Applicant emphasizes the latest amendment and asserts the claim provide a technological solution. However, as seen from the updated rejection below, these amended features are abstract ideas and do not provide a technological improvement or integrate the abstract idea into a practical application.
From MPEP 2106.05(f)(2) “Use of a computer or other machinery in its ordinary capacity for economic or other tasks (e.g., to receive, store, or transmit data) or simply adding a general-purpose computer or computer components after the fact to an abstract idea (e.g., a fundamental economic practice or mathematical equation) does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more. See Affinity Labs v. DirecTV, 838 F.3d 1253, 1262, 120 USPQ2d 1201, 1207 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (cellular telephone); TLI Communications LLC v. AV Auto, LLC, 823 F.3d 607, 613, 118 USPQ2d 1744, 1748 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (computer server and telephone unit). Similarly, "claiming the improved speed or efficiency inherent with applying the abstract idea on a computer" does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide an inventive concept. Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Capital One Bank (USA), 792 F.3d 1363, 1367, 115 USPQ2d 1636, 1639 (Fed. Cir. 2015). In contrast, a claim that purports to improve computer capabilities or to improve an existing technology may integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more. McRO, Inc. v. Bandai Namco Games Am. Inc., 837 F.3d 1299, 1314-15, 120 USPQ2d 1091, 1101-02 (Fed. Cir. 2016); Enfish, LLC v. Microsoft Corp., 822 F.3d 1327, 1335-36, 118 USPQ2d 1684, 1688-89 (Fed. Cir. 2016). See MPEP §§ 2106.04(d)(1) and 2106.05(a) for a discussion of improvements to the functioning of a computer or to another technology or technical field.”
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.
Claim(s) 21-40 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more. Claim(s) 21-40 is/are directed to a method, system, and computer-readable medium. Thus, all the claims are within the four potentially eligible categories of invention (a process, an article of manufacture and a machine), satisfying Step 1 of the Subject Matter Eligibility (SME) test.
As per Prong One of Step 2A of the §101 eligibility analysis, the Examiner notes that the claims are directed to a judicial exception since the recite certain methods of organizing human activity. More specifically, independent claims 21, 31 and 40 recite the steps of:
receiving an identifier of an asset or component within the physical facility wherein the identifier is associated with the user to determine a location of the device within the physical facility and wherein the identifier is associated with information about the asset or component within a database; [mental process – observation; and certain methods of organizing human activity – rule or instruction a person follows to carry out the process of presenting information or generating a maintenance ticket]
transmitting a user request to a user including one or more unique fields of information to be entered by the user, wherein the one or more unique fields of information have been selected and transmitted based on the identifier, the location and a unique identifier of the user; [mental process – pen and paper; and certain methods of organizing human activity – rule or instruction a person follows to carry out the process of presenting information or generating a maintenance ticket]
based on the identity of the user and the interaction with the one or more unique fields of information, displaying one or more additional fields of information based on the user identify and location of the user, the one or more additional fields distinct from one or more additional fields of information displayed based on a second user identity; [mental process – pen and paper (requesting more information based on first information and depending on user id and location)]
determining if the user request is a request for information of the asset or component of the physical facility or a request for maintenance of the asset or component of the physical facility based on the one or more unique fields of information entered by the user; [mental process – observation/evaluation; and certain methods of organizing human activity – rule or instruction a person follows to carry out the process of presenting information or generating a maintenance ticket]
in response to determining the user request is the request for information of the asset or component of the physical facility, accessing a plurality of information about the asset or component in the database, based on the location of the device associated with the user and the identifier; [mental process – observation/evaluation; and certain methods of organizing human activity – rule or instruction a person follows to carry out the process of presenting information or generating a maintenance ticket]
in response to determining the user request is the request for maintenance of the asset or component of the physical facility, generating a ticket for initiating maintenance of the asset or component; [mental process – observation/evaluation; and certain methods of organizing human activity – rule or instruction a person follows to carry out the process of presenting information or generating a maintenance ticket]
storing the generated ticket according to the identifier and the location of the device associated with the user; [certain methods of organizing human activity – rule or instruction a person follows to carry out the process of presenting information or generating a maintenance ticket] and
transmitting the plurality of information about the asset or component of the physical facility or the ticket for initiating maintenance of the asset or component of the physical facility. [mental process – pen and paper; and certain methods of organizing human activity – rule or instruction a person follows to carry out the process of presenting information or generating a maintenance ticket] and include the recitation of certain methods of organizing human activity and mental process. The claims set forth the steps of gathering data regarding users, location and assets or components of a facility and generating information relating to an asset or component or a request for maintenance of an asset or component which are considered the rules or steps one would perform to carry out the method. Further, the steps represent how the process would be carried out between two people with one requesting information and the second responding with information or generation of the ticket for initiating maintenance.
The nominal recitation of generating a user interface comprising one or more unique fields of information to be entered by the user… and receiving, transmitting, determining and storing data by a request server does not necessarily preclude the claim from reciting an abstract idea as evidenced by the analysis at Prong 2 of Step 2A.
Regarding Prong Two of Step 2A, a claim reciting an abstract idea must be analyzed to determine if the claim recites additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. Limitations that are indicative of integration into a practical application include: Improvements to the functioning of a computer, or to any other technology or technical field, as discussed in MPEP 2106.05(a); Applying or using a judicial exception to effect a particular treatment or prophylaxis for disease or medical condition – see Vanda Memo; Applying the judicial exception with, or by use of, a particular machine, as discussed in MPEP 2106.05(b); Effecting a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing, as discussed in MPEP 2106.05(c); and Applying or using the judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment, such that the claim as a whole is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception, as discussed in MPEP 2106.05(e) and the Vanda Memo issued in June 2018.
In this case, the claims do not include limitations that meet the criteria listed above, thus the abstract idea is not integrated into a practical application. Independent claim 21 is a computer implemented method wherein information is received from a device and transmitted to the device. The claimed server, database, user interface, optical recognition (described in the spec gathering an image from a camera) and graphical representation on a display amount to using a computer as a tool to perform the abstract idea function together to perform the claimed receiving, transmitting, determining and transmitting steps to perform the abstract idea using a computer. The abstract idea is not integrated into a practical application. Independent claim 31 is a system claim with memory storage storing instructions to perform the abstract idea and one or more processors, a server and a display configured to execute the instructions. Additionally, claim 31 includes the user device which transmits and receives data, user interface, optical recognition (described in the spec gathering an image from a camera) and graphical representation on a display amount to using a computer as a tool to perform the abstract idea function together to perform the claimed receiving, transmitting, determining and transmitting steps to perform the abstract idea using a computer. These additional elements amount to instructions to perform an abstract idea using a computer and there is no integration into a practical application. Independent claim 40 is directed to a computer-readable medium storing instructions that when executed by a processor, cause the processor to execute the abstract idea. Claim 40 also includes the user device which transmits and receives data, user interface display, optical recognition (described in the spec gathering an image from a camera) and graphical representation on a display amount to using a computer as a tool to perform the abstract idea function together to perform the claimed receiving, transmitting, determining and transmitting steps to perform the abstract idea using a computer. These elements amount to instructions to perform an abstract idea using a computer and there is no integration into a practical application.
The dependent claims add additional limitations to the abstract idea without any integration into a practical application. Specifically, in claims 23-30 and 33-39, the additional information describing the requests for information and request for maintenance on add additional limitations that are part of the abstract idea identified in the independent claims without additional elements to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. The location detection in claims 22 and 32 does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because there is no improvement to the functioning of the computer or any other technology and the use of location technology with the referenced abstract idea does not apply or use the abstract idea in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the abstract idea to a particular technological environment. When considered individually the system and software claim elements only contribute generic recitations of technical elements to the claims. It is readily apparent for example, that the claim is not directed to any specific improvements of these elements. The invention is not directed to a technical improvement. When the claims are considered individually and as a whole, the additional elements noted above, appear to merely apply the abstract concept to a technical environment in a very general sense.
Lastly and in accordance with Step 2B, the claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements amount to no more than mere instruction to apply the exception using generic computer component. Mere instruction to apply an exception using generic computer components cannot provide an inventive concept.
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 JOHNNA LOFTIS whose telephone number is (571)272-6736. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7:00am-3:30pm.
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, Brian Epstein can be reached at 571-270-5389. 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.
JOHNNA LOFTIS
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 3625
/JOHNNA R LOFTIS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3625