DETAILED ACTION
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 .
Status of Claims
This action is in reply to the amendment filed on 11/25/2025.
Claims 1, 10, and 13 have been amended and are hereby entered.
Claims 14-15 have been added.
Claims 2, 7-9, and 11-12 have been canceled.
Claims 1, 3-6, 10, and 13-15 are currently pending and have been examined.
This action is made FINAL.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see page 12, filed 11/25/2025, with respect to the specification objections have been fully considered and are persuasive. The specification objections have been withdrawn.
Applicant’s arguments, see page 13, filed 11/25/2025, with respect to the 35 U.S.C. 112(b) rejections of claims 6-9 have been fully considered and are persuasive. Applicant’s amendments to the claims have corrected the antecedent basis issues identified in these claims. The 35 U.S.C. 112(b) rejections of claims 6-9 have been withdrawn. However, Applicant’s amendments to the independent claims have necessitated new 35 U.S.C.112(b) rejections that are discussed below.
Applicant’s arguments, see pages 13-17, filed 11/25/2025, with respect to the 35 U.S.C. 101 rejections of claims 1-13 have been fully considered but are not persuasive. The 35 U.S.C. 101 rejections of claims 1-13 have been maintained.
Applicant makes several arguments in the Remarks. Examiner will address each argument in the order presented by Applicant.
First, Applicant argues on pages 13-14 that the amended claim 1 allegedly recites technical features that provide a technical solution to a technical problem. Applicant argues that the CRM connecting both the billing and provisioning systems provides a solution of removing communication failures that result in incorrect billing in prior art systems and synchronizing control of providing utilities. Examiner respectfully disagrees with the system providing a technical improvement. Particularly, Examiner notes that having a single party process a business transaction instead of multiple parties has benefits and drawbacks, and the claimed system is applying a single party model to a single computing system. While the disclosure points to the drawbacks of multiple parties processing a transactions, there is no indication in the disclosure that there was a technical hurdle that was overcome that had prevented both the billing and the provisioning of utilities from being run on a single system. Therefore, instead of a technical improvement by running both the provisioning and billing systems through a single system, the claimed invention is taking the benefits of a single party conducting a business transaction (an improvement to the abstract idea) and applying the abstract idea using a single system. See MPEP 2106.05(a) II., “However, it is important to keep in mind that an improvement in the abstract idea itself (e.g. a recited fundamental economic concept) is not an improvement in technology”. Accordingly, Applicant’s argument that the amended claim recites a technological improvement is not persuasive.
Next, Applicant argues on page 14 that the provisioning module activating and deactivating IoT sensors is control of physical infrastructure, and the claimed invention is eligible because of this control. Examiner respectfully disagrees. Paragraph [0040] of the disclosure recites the “activation” of IoT sensors, but there is no recitation of how the sensors are being activated or deactivated or any detail as to what the “information for activating or deactivating” the sensors comprises. In other words, there is no recitation of what is physically being controlled/actuated and how it is being physically controlled to activate or deactivate the sensors. Therefore, there is no recitation of control of physical infrastructure in the claim, just that sensors are turned from “deactivated” to “activated” and vice versa. At the level of detail in the amended claims, the claims are generally linking the abstract idea to the field of IoT sensors.
Next, on page 14 of Remarks, Applicant argues that the IoT sensors are specialized devices and not generic devices. Applicant argues that the SIM-based sensors and communicating via a RAN in [0042] make the IoT sensors specialized devices. Examiner respectfully disagrees. Specifically, Examiner notes that [0042] of the specification further recites “The IoT sensors 300 may include one or more Subscriber Identity Module (SIM)-based sensors, e.g., sensors communicatively coupled to one or more SIMs such as a standard SIM (2FF), Micro-SIM (3FF), Nano SIM (4FF), embedded SIM (eSIM), for example, MFF2, and any other suitable types of SIM. The RAN by way of which the usage data (e.g., raw usage data) may be received may include, for example, any one or more of a 2G, 3G, 4G, 5G, or any other suitable telecommunications technology. However, the system is not limited thereto, and may receive the raw data from the IoT sensors 300 by way of any wired or wireless communication” (emphasis added). Applicant’s specification explicitly states that the IoT sensors can comprise “any suitable” form of SIM-based sensor and communicate over “any suitable” telecommunications technology or wired or wireless technology. Instead of indicating a specialized device, Applicant’s specification and claims recite IoT sensors at a general level. Applicant’s argument that the IoT sensors are specialized devices/particular machines is not persuasive.
On page 15, Applicant argues that the matching of the customer MDN to an MDN in the database and determining a billing cycle associated with customer information in the database, selecting utilities plans with billing cycles that match the billing cycle of the customer, and provide the selected utilities plans to the customer without providing any other plans “represents a technical improvement” by aligning billing cycles across independent utilities providers. Examiner respectfully disagrees. Particularly, looking up customer information to see if customer information already exists in records, reviewing customer information, and presenting purchase options that align with known information about a customer are part of the business interaction of selectively advertising/promoting products/services that a customer is likely to be interested in. The automated nature of the lookup is merely applying the abstract idea (“Is there a customer phone number already on file?, What billing cycle does the customer have? What available plans have the same billing cycle?”) using generic computing components, using the computer as a tool to perform the matching and lookups instead of a person.
Applicant continues of page 15 by arguing that the conditional logic of presenting information on all utilities plans when there is not a match for the customer MDN in the database similarly provides a specific technical improvement that cannot be performed mentally in real-time across multiple databases. Examiner respectfully disagrees. Determining whether a customer MDN matches an MDN kept on file, and presenting information on all plans if there is not a match falls under the business interaction of determining if a business has history with a particular customer, and, if not, presenting all wares for purchase to a customer because there is no information on hand about past purchases/preferences of the customer. Regarding the real-time nature of the data processing and the multiple databases allegedly moving this feature beyond the abstract idea, Examiner notes that the amended claims do not recite that the data processing is performed in “real-time”. Additionally, only one database is recited in the amended claims. Further, MPEP 2106.05(a) I. states that accelerating a process of data analysis when the increased speed comes solely from the capabilities of a general-purpose computer is not indicative of a technical improvement (see FairWarning IP, LLC v. Iatric Sys., 839 F.3d 1089, 1095, 120 USPQ2d 1293, 1296 (Fed. Cir. 2016)). In other words, while a human may not be able to keep up with a “real-time” demand across multiple databases, if such a constraint were to be imposed by the claim, using a general purpose computer to speed up the matching process would not provide a technical improvement. Applicant’s argument is not persuasive.
Applicant next argues on pages 15-16 that the amended claims do not recite a Mental Process. Examiner agrees, agreeing that the activation and deactivation of the IoT sensors could not be performed mentally. Accordingly, the eligibility rejections below no longer include the Mental Process grouping. Examiner notes, however, that the claims still recite a judicial exception in the form of Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity.
On the remainder of page 16 and page 17, Applicant summarizes previous arguments about the connection of the provisioning and billing systems, automated MDN matching and billing cycle alignment, and control of IoT sensors, arguing that they provide technical improvements and significantly more than the abstract idea. For the reasons discussed above, Examiner respectfully disagrees with the arguments that a technical improvement is recited in the claims. Regarding whether the claims provide “significantly more” than the abstract idea, MPEP 2106.05(f) and 2106.05(h) state that mere instructions to apply an exception and generally linking an exception to a field of use, respectively, do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. Accordingly, Applicant’s arguments are not persuasive, and the 35 U.S.C. 101 rejections have been maintained.
Applicant’s arguments, see page 17, filed 11/25/2025, with respect to the 35 U.S.C. 103 rejections of claims 1-8 and 10-13 have been fully considered and are persuasive. Applicant’s amendments to the independent claims overcome the prior art of record for the reasoning explained in more detail below. The 35 U.S.C. 103 rejections of claims 1-8 and 10-13 have been withdrawn.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
Claims 1, 3-6, 10, and 13-15 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
Claim 1 recites the limitation “wherein the information comprises…” in line 22 of the claim. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Specifically, it is unclear to which “information” the limitation “the information” is referring to. Information is received from utilities providers in lines 5-6 of claim 1, and information associated with the at least one customer is stored in lines 7-8 of the claim. Further information is received from the CRM module in line 17 of the claim. “Received information” is used to refer back to lines 5-6 and 17 of claim 1, and the stored information is subsequently referred to as “the information associated with the at least one customer”. However, “the information” does not follow any of these conventions, so it is unclear which, if any, of the information received from utilities providers, information associated with the at least one customer, or information received from the CRM module the limitation “the information” is referring to. Accordingly, the scope of claim 1 is indefinite.
Dependent claims 3-6 and 14-15 are indefinite by virtue of their dependence on claim 1.
Regarding claims 10 and 13, the claims recites are indefinite for similar reasoning as discussed above regarding claim 1 (with “the information” being found in line 10 of claim 10 and line 12 of claim 13).
For the purposes of examination, and based on the text of the now-canceled claim 7 lines 1-2, Examiner is interpreting “the information” as “the information associated with the at least one customer”.
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, 3-6, 10, and 13-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claims recite combining charges for various utilities into a single invoice.
As an initial matter, claims 1, 3-6, and 14-15 fall into at least the machine category of statutory subject matter. Claim 10 falls into at least the process category of statutory subject matter. Finally, claim 13 falls into at least the manufacture category of statutory subject matter. Therefore, all claims fall into at least one of the statutory categories. Eligibility analysis proceeds to Step 2A.
Claim 1 recites the concept of combining charges for various utilities into a single invoice which is a certain method of organizing human activity including commercial interactions. Providing integrated utilities billing, comprising: execute the instructions to implement: receive information from utilities providers for providing different types of utilities to at least one customer based on respective utilities plans, comprising a database configured to store information associated with the at least one customer; store plan information regarding at least one utilities plan in association with each of the utilities providers; receive raw data and process the raw data to form processed data; receive the processed data and the information associated with the at least one customer, and to generate a single invoice for the at least one customer based on the received processed data and on the received information, receive information for activating or deactivating according to the received information, wherein the generated single invoice comprises an invoice for each of the utilities providers providing utilities to the at least one customer, wherein the information comprises a mobile directory number (MDN) associated with the at least one customer, wherein is further configured to: receive the plan information; determine whether the MDN of the at least one customer matches an MDN of customer information previously stored in the database; based on the MDN of the at least one customer matching the MDN previously stored in the database, determine a billing cycle associated with the customer information previously stored in the database, select utilities plans from among the plan information that have billing cycles matching the billing cycle associated with the customer information previously stored in the database, and provide information regarding the selected utilities plans to the utilities provider without providing information regarding other utilities plans included in the plan information; and based on the MDN of the at least one customer not matching the MDN previously stored in the database, provide information regarding all utilities plans included in the plan information to the utilities provider; wherein utilities providers are able to control their services and prevent communication failures that cause bills to be inconsistent with services actually provided all, as a whole, fall under the category of commercial interactions. The claim falls into the “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity” grouping of abstract ideas. Mere recitation of generic computer components does not remove the claim from this grouping. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim recites the additional elements of a system, at least one memory storing instructions, at least one processor configured to execute the instructions, a customer relationship management (CRM) module, a product catalogue, a data collection module, a plurality of Internet of Things (IoT) sensors, a utilities rating and billing module, a provisioning module, and the CRM being connected to the utilities rating and billing module and the provisioning module. The recited additional elements 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. The additional element of activating or deactivating IoT sensors according to the received information amounts to no more than generally linking the judicial exception to the field of IoT sensors. Accordingly, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The combination of these additional elements is also no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components and generally linking the judicial exception to the field of IoT sensors. Accordingly, even in combination, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to an abstract idea.
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 of a system, at least one memory storing instructions, at least one processor configured to execute the instructions, a customer relationship management (CRM) module, a product catalogue, a data collection module, a plurality of Internet of Things (IoT) sensors, a utilities rating and billing module, a provisioning module, and the CRM being connected to the utilities rating and billing module and the provisioning module amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components. Also as discussed above, the additional element of activating or deactivating IoT sensors according to the received information amounts to no more than generally linking the judicial exception to the field of IoT sensors. The combination of these additional elements is also no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components and generally linking the judicial exception to the field of IoT sensors. Mere instructions to apply an exception using generic computer components and generally linking the judicial exception to a field of use cannot provide an inventive concept. The claim is not patent eligible.
Claims 3-4 further limit the abstract idea of claim 1 without adding any new additional elements. Therefore, by the analysis of claim 1 above these claims, individually and as an ordered combination, do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application nor amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. The claims are not patent eligible.
Claim 5 further limits the abstract idea of claim 1 while introducing the additional element of a storage. The claim does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because the element of a storage is 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. Adding this new additional element into the additional elements from claim 1 still amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components. The claim also does not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea because mere instructions to apply an exception using generic computer components cannot provide an inventive concept. The claim is not patent eligible.
Claim 6 further limits the abstract idea of claim 1 while introducing the additional element of a collections and dunning processing module and transmitting deactivation information to the provisioning module. The claim does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because the elements of a collections and dunning processing module and transmitting deactivation information to the provisioning module 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. Adding these new additional elements into the additional elements from claim 1 still amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components. The claim also does not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea because mere instructions to apply an exception using generic computer components cannot provide an inventive concept. The claim is not patent eligible.
Claim 10 recites the concept of combining charges for various utilities into a single invoice which is a certain method of organizing human activity including commercial interactions. A method for providing information regarding one or more utilities plans, the method comprising: receiving information from utilities providers for providing different types of utilities to a customer based on respective utilities plans, and storing information associated with the customer in a database; receiving raw data and processing the raw data to form processed data; based on the processed data and the information associated with the at least one customer, generating a single invoice for the customer, wherein the information comprises a mobile directory number (MDN) associated with the at least one customer wherein the generated single invoice comprises an invoice for each of the utilities providers providing utilities to the at least one customer; determining whether an MDN of the at least one customer matches an MDN previously stored in the database; based on the MDN of the at least one customer matching the MDN previously stored in the database, determine a billing cycle associated with the customer information previously stored in the database, select utilities plans from among the plan information that have billing cycles matching the billing cycle associated with the customer information previously stored in the database, and provide information regarding the selected utilities plans to the utilities provider without providing information regarding other utilities plans included in the plan information; and based on the MDN of the at least one customer not matching the MDN previously stored in the database, provide information regarding all utilities plans included in the plan information to the utilities provider all, as a whole, fall under the category of commercial interactions. The claim falls into the “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity” grouping of abstract ideas. Mere recitation of generic computer components does not remove the claim from this grouping. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim recites the additional elements of a product catalogue and a plurality of Internet of Things (IoT) sensors. The recited additional elements 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. The additional element of activating or deactivating IoT sensors according to the received information amounts to no more than generally linking the judicial exception to the field of IoT sensors. Accordingly, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The combination of these additional elements is also no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components and generally linking the judicial exception to the field of IoT sensors. Accordingly, even in combination, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to an abstract idea.
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 of a product catalogue and a plurality of Internet of Things (IoT) sensors amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components. Also as discussed above, the additional element of activating or deactivating IoT sensors according to the received information amounts to no more than generally linking the judicial exception to the field of IoT sensors. The combination of these additional elements is also no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components and generally linking the judicial exception to the field of IoT sensors. Mere instructions to apply an exception using generic computer components and generally linking the judicial exception to a field of use cannot provide an inventive concept. The claim is not patent eligible.
Claim 13 recites the concept of combining charges for various utilities into a single invoice which is a certain method of organizing human activity including commercial interactions. A method for providing information regarding one or more utilities plans, the method comprising: receiving information from utilities providers for providing different types of utilities to a customer based on respective utilities plans, and storing information associated with the customer in a database; receiving raw data and processing the raw data to form processed data; and based on the processed data and the information associated with the at least one customer, generating a single invoice for the customer, wherein the information comprises a mobile directory number (MDN) associated with the at least one customer wherein the generated single invoice comprises an invoice for each of the utilities providers providing utilities to the at least one customer; determining whether an MDN of the at least one customer matches an MDN previously stored in the database; based on the MDN of the at least one customer matching the MDN previously stored in the database, determine a billing cycle associated with the customer information previously stored in the database, select utilities plans from among the plan information that have billing cycles matching the billing cycle associated with the customer information previously stored in the database, and provide information regarding the selected utilities plans to the utilities provider without providing information regarding other utilities plans included in the plan information; and based on the MDN of the at least one customer not matching the MDN previously stored in the database, provide information regarding all utilities plans included in the plan information to the utilities provider all, as a whole, fall under the category of commercial interactions. The claim falls into the “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity” grouping of abstract ideas. Mere recitation of generic computer components does not remove the claim from this grouping. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim recites the additional elements of a non-transitory computer-readable recording medium having recorded thereon instructions executable by at least one processor, at least one processor, a product catalogue, and a plurality of Internet of Things (IoT) sensors. The recited additional elements 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. The additional element of activating or deactivating IoT sensors according to the received information amounts to no more than generally linking the judicial exception to the field of IoT sensors. Accordingly, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The combination of these additional elements is also no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components and generally linking the judicial exception to the field of IoT sensors. Accordingly, even in combination, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to an abstract idea.
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 of a non-transitory computer-readable recording medium having recorded thereon instructions executable by at least one processor, at least one processor, a product catalogue, and a plurality of Internet of Things (IoT) sensors amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components. Also as discussed above, the additional element of activating or deactivating IoT sensors according to the received information amounts to no more than generally linking the judicial exception to the field of IoT sensors. The combination of these additional elements is also no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components and generally linking the judicial exception to the field of IoT sensors. Mere instructions to apply an exception using generic computer components and generally linking the judicial exception to a field of use cannot provide an inventive concept. The claim is not patent eligible.
Claims 14-15 further limit the abstract idea of claim 1 without adding any new additional elements. Therefore, by the analysis of claim 1 above these claims, individually and as an ordered combination, do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application nor amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. The claims are not patent eligible.
Novel/Non-Obvious
Regarding claim 1, Examiner notes that Applicant has amended the subject matter of previous dependent claims 7-9 into claim 1. Therefore, claim 1 is now non-obvious over the prior art of record for similar reasoning as discussed regarding previous claim 9 on pages 35 and 36 of the 08/25/2025 Non-Final Rejection.
Independent claims 10 and 13 have been amended similarly to independent claim 1 and are non-obvious for similar reasons as claim 1. Dependent claims 3-6 and 14-15 are non-obvious by virtue of their dependence on independent claim 1.
Conclusion
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.
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
Alhelo (U.S. Pre-Grant Publication No. 2022/0004902) teaches monitoring energy consumption of buildings and generating an alarm when energy consumption exceeds a threshold
Ba et al. (U.S. Pre-Grant Publication No. 2019/0205774) teaches IoT monitoring devices detecting energy consumption anomalies
Reynders (U.S. Pre-Grant Publication No. 2017/0171178) teaches assigning IoT devices to users
Yamauchi et al. (“Anomaly Detection in Smart Home Operation From User Behaviors and Home Conditions”, published May 2020) teaches anomaly detection in a smart home with IoT sensors
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MICHAEL C MORONEY whose telephone number is (571)272-4403. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 8:30-5:30.
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, Resha H. Desai can be reached at (571) 270-7792. 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.
/M.C.M./Examiner, Art Unit 3628
/RESHA DESAI/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3628