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 .
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, 3-8, 10-16 and 18-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Under Step 1, claims are directed to at least one statutory category, a system, a system and a method, respectively.
Under Step 2A, Prong 1, claim 1 or claim 8 or claim 16 is directed to an abstract idea of that perform the operations comprising: (a) generate a utilization demand metrics display data comprising instructions for generating comprises demand metrics input fields that comprises utilization threshold data, duration data, resource categorization data, and resource compliance data; (b) receive the utilization demand metrics display data by; (c) render; (d) receive a first input and a second input from an end user to the demand metrics input fields, wherein the first input is a specified threshold and the second input is compliance data; (e) initiating a remote utilization demand through operations comprising (i) decoding a certificate received from utilizing a shared key to create a received identifier, (ii) comparing the received device identifier to a known device identifier stored to database (iii) when the received device identifier matches the known device identifier, generating a remote utilization demand, and (iv) transmitting by, utilization demand data comprising (A) unique user identifier data, (B) the utilization demand account identifier data, and (C) provider identifier data; (f) running and training data, wherein performs the operations of (i) iteratively training, using the training data, to generate simulated priority data, (ii) inserting the training data into an iterative training and testing loop to predict a target variable, (iii) repeatedly determining, during each iteration of the training and testing loop, the target variable, wherein each iteration of the training and testing loop has differing weights assigned to, each of the differing weights being updated with each iteration of the training and testing loop to reduce error in predicting the target variable and improve predictability of thereby creating, and (iv) deploying the trained; (g) generating by, a remote utilization demand comprising utilization demand data and terminal data, wherein the terminal data comprises (i) terminal administrator identifier data, (ii) a terminal source categorization code, (iii) utilization product identifier data, (iv) terminal location data, and (v) utilization value data; (h) receiving by (i) the remote utilization demand, (ii) utilization demand metrics comprising (A) utilization duration data, and (B) utilization threshold data, (iii) availability database records, wherein each availability data record comprises (A) resource value data, and (B) utilization event time code data, and (iv) user account data; (i) executing by, a utilization classification analysis using the remote utilization demand, the availability database records, and the user account data, wherein the utilization classification analysis generates received resource categorization data; (j) executing a utilization threshold analysis by comprising the operations of (v) generating current utilization demand data by aggregating the utilization value data with the resource value data for availability database records having (A) utilization event time code data that falls within a duration represented by the utilization duration data, and (B) the resource categorization data that matches the received resource categorization data, and (ii) determining whether the current utilization demand data exceeds the utilization threshold data; (f) generating by, a utilization threshold message, wherein (i) the utilization threshold message comprises a demand fail command if the current utilization data exceeds the utilization threshold data, and wherein (ii) the utilization threshold message comprises a demand pass command if the current utilization data does not exceed the utilization threshold data; and (k) transmitting the utilization threshold message to for display to a user. This concept falls under the abstract idea category of certain methods of organizing human activity, specifically commercial or legal interactions as it is directed to sales activities or behaviors.
Under Step 2A, Prong Two, the additional elements recited in claim 1 or claim 8 or claim 16 include: automated application of utilization thresholds comprising a network computing device comprising a Resource Monitor software service, a terminal computing device, and a user computing device having an integrated display device, wherein the network computing device, the terminal computing device, and the user computing device each comprise one or more integrated software applications: a Utilization Demand Metrics graphical user interface, wherein the Utilization Demand Metrics graphical user interface; the user computing device; the Utilization Demand Metrics graphical user interface on the integrated display device; a user computing device; digital; device; a network; a machine-learning software module; the machine-learning software module; a neural network; one or more nodes of the neural network; the neural network; a trained neural network; at least one neural network; a user computing device to a terminal computing device; a terminal computing device; a Resource Monitor software service running on the network computing device; the Resource Monitor software service; at least one neural network; the network computing device; the terminal computing device on the integrated display device do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. In particular, the claimed computer components, receiving and transmitting data are amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer system, which is not indicative of integration into a practical application; see MPEP 2106.05(f). Applicant’s specification in paragraph 0004 discloses a user computing device that can be a personal computer, cellular smart phone, or a "smart card" that includes an integrated microprocessor, memory, and software and in paragraph 0043 discloses user computing device can be a larger device, such as a laptop or desktop computer 104, or a mobile computing device 106, such as smart phone or tablet device with processing and communication capabilities. The additional elements amount to no more than merely linking the general technology to the judicial exception without significantly more and, in the alternative, mere insignificant extra-solution activity to gather data used in the claimed system/method. Accordingly, even in combination, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. 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.
Under Step 2B, the claimed invention is considered as a whole whether the additional elements individually or as an ordered combination amount to an inventive concept. Upon further determination, the claims do not integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional element of automated application of utilization thresholds comprising a network computing device comprising a Resource Monitor software service, a terminal computing device, and a user computing device having an integrated display device, wherein the network computing device, the terminal computing device, and the user computing device each comprise one or more integrated software applications: a Utilization Demand Metrics graphical user interface, wherein the Utilization Demand Metrics graphical user interface; the user computing device; the Utilization Demand Metrics graphical user interface on the integrated display device; a user computing device; digital; device; a network; a machine-learning software module; the machine-learning software module; a neural network; one or more nodes of the neural network; the neural network; a trained neural network; at least one neural network; a user computing device to a terminal computing device; a terminal computing device; a Resource Monitor software service running on the network computing device; the Resource Monitor software service; at least one neural network; the network computing device; the terminal computing device on the integrated display device is recited at a high-level of generality such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer system, and recites the steps of data manipulation. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer system and/or adding insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception is not indicative of an inventive concept. The sending and receiving data over a network have been determined by the courts to be well-known, conventional and routine functions, see MPEP 2106.05(d)(II)(i). Claim 8 or 16 recites similar limitations and are ineligible for similar rational. Therefore, claims 1, 8 and 16 are not patent eligible.
As for dependent claims 3-7, these claims recite limitation that further define the same abstract idea noted in claim 1. Therefore, they are considered patent ineligible for the reasons given above.
As for dependent claims 10-15, these claims recite limitation that further define the same abstract idea noted in claim 8. Therefore, they are considered patent ineligible for the reasons given above.
As for dependent claims 18-20, these claims recite limitation that further define the same abstract idea noted in claim 16. Therefore, they are considered patent ineligible for the reasons given above.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 9/23/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
The applicant amended the claims, the examiner has updated the 101 rejections base on applicant’s amendment.
In response to applicant’s argument that pending claims are not directed to an abstract idea under Step 2A, the examiner respectfully disagrees. The claims are directed to an abstract idea of that perform the operations comprising: (a) generate a utilization demand metrics display data comprising instructions for generating comprises demand metrics input fields that comprises utilization threshold data, duration data, resource categorization data, and resource compliance data; (b) receive the utilization demand metrics display data by; (c) render; (d) receive a first input and a second input from an end user to the demand metrics input fields, wherein the first input is a specified threshold and the second input is compliance data; (e) initiating a remote utilization demand through operations comprising (i) decoding a certificate received from utilizing a shared key to create a received identifier, (ii) comparing the received device identifier to a known device identifier stored to database (iii) when the received device identifier matches the known device identifier, generating a remote utilization demand, and (iv) transmitting by, utilization demand data comprising (A) unique user identifier data, (B) the utilization demand account identifier data, and (C) provider identifier data; (f) running and training data, wherein performs the operations of (i) iteratively training, using the training data, to generate simulated priority data, (ii) inserting the training data into an iterative training and testing loop to predict a target variable, (iii) repeatedly determining, during each iteration of the training and testing loop, the target variable, wherein each iteration of the training and testing loop has differing weights assigned to, each of the differing weights being updated with each iteration of the training and testing loop to reduce error in predicting the target variable and improve predictability of thereby creating, and (iv) deploying the trained; (g) generating by, a remote utilization demand comprising utilization demand data and terminal data, wherein the terminal data comprises (i) terminal administrator identifier data, (ii) a terminal source categorization code, (iii) utilization product identifier data, (iv) terminal location data, and (v) utilization value data; (h) receiving by (i) the remote utilization demand, (ii) utilization demand metrics comprising (A) utilization duration data, and (B) utilization threshold data, (iii) availability database records, wherein each availability data record comprises (A) resource value data, and (B) utilization event time code data, and (iv) user account data; (i) executing by, a utilization classification analysis using the remote utilization demand, the availability database records, and the user account data, wherein the utilization classification analysis generates received resource categorization data; (j) executing a utilization threshold analysis by comprising the operations of (v) generating current utilization demand data by aggregating the utilization value data with the resource value data for availability database records having (A) utilization event time code data that falls within a duration represented by the utilization duration data, and (B) the resource categorization data that matches the received resource categorization data, and (ii) determining whether the current utilization demand data exceeds the utilization threshold data; (f) generating by, a utilization threshold message, wherein (i) the utilization threshold message comprises a demand fail command if the current utilization data exceeds the utilization threshold data, and wherein (ii) the utilization threshold message comprises a demand pass command if the current utilization data does not exceed the utilization threshold data; and (k) transmitting the utilization threshold message to for display to a user. This concept falls under the abstract idea category of certain methods of organizing human activity, specifically commercial or legal interactions as it is directed to sales activities or behaviors. Therefore, the applicant’s argument is not persuasive.
In response to applicant’s argument in regard to example 39 and example 23, the examiner respectfully disagrees. The current case unlike example 39 and example 37 has 101 rejections based on the MPEP. Therefore, the applicant’s argument is not persuasive.
In response to applicant’s argument that the claim is similar to example 37, the examiner respectfully disagrees. Unlike example 37, the current case is different from example 37. Therefore, the applicant’s argument is not persuasive.
In response to applicant’s arguments that similar to claims in Data Engine Techs., Core Wireless Licensing and Trading Technologies, the examiner respectfully disagrees. Unlike the patentable claims in Data Engine Techs., Core Wireless Licensing and Trading Technologies, the current claims are rejected under 101 based on the MPEP. Therefore, the applicant’s argument is not persuasive.
In response to applicant’s argument that the claim is similar to example 40, the examiner respectfully disagrees. Unlike example 40, the current case is different from example 40. Therefore, the applicant’s argument is not persuasive.
In response to applicant’s argument that claims are directed to significantly more, the examiner respectfully disagrees. Under Step 2B, the claimed invention is considered as a whole whether the additional elements individually or as an ordered combination amount to an inventive concept. Upon further determination, the claims do not integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional element of automated application of utilization thresholds comprising a network computing device comprising a Resource Monitor software service, a terminal computing device, and a user computing device having an integrated display device, wherein the network computing device, the terminal computing device, and the user computing device each comprise one or more integrated software applications: a Utilization Demand Metrics graphical user interface, wherein the Utilization Demand Metrics graphical user interface; the user computing device; the Utilization Demand Metrics graphical user interface on the integrated display device; a user computing device; digital; device; a network; a machine-learning software module; the machine-learning software module; a neural network; one or more nodes of the neural network; the neural network; a trained neural network; at least one neural network; a user computing device to a terminal computing device; a terminal computing device; a Resource Monitor software service running on the network computing device; the Resource Monitor software service; at least one neural network; the network computing device; the terminal computing device on the integrated display device is recited at a high-level of generality such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer system, and recites the steps of data manipulation. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer system and/or adding insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception is not indicative of an inventive concept. The sending and receiving data over a network have been determined by the courts to be well-known, conventional and routine functions, see MPEP 2106.05(d)(II)(i). Claim 8 or 16 recites similar limitations and are ineligible for similar rational. Therefore, the applicant’s argument is not persuasive.
In response to applicant’s argument regards to Bascom, the Examiner respectfully disagrees. In Bascom, they use the unconventional step of filtering Internet content using ISP. The filtering was performing remote server rather than local server. In Bascom, they provided technical basis and provided non-conventional and non-routine way of changing the filtering of Internet content using ISP. Unlike Bascom, the current case is all of the elements in the current case are doing merely communicating or sending data back and forth and courts have recognized the computer function: receiving or transmitting data over a network, e.g., using the Internet to gather data to be routine and conventional, therefore the current case is conventional. The current claims do not recite anything non-conventional and non-routine. The claim is merely gathered information of information over conventional network. Therefore, applicant’s argument with respect Bascom is not persuasive.
In response to applicant’s argument in regard to Berkheimer Memo and additional elements not well-understood, routine, and conventional, the examiner respectfully disagrees. The current case is all of the elements in the current case are doing merely communicating or sending data back and forth and courts have recognized the computer function: receiving or transmitting data over a network, e.g., using the Internet to gather data to be routine and conventional, therefore the current case is conventional. The current claims do not recite anything non-conventional and non-routine. The claim is merely gathered information of information over conventional network. Therefore, the applicant’s argument is not persuasive.
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.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to I JUNG LIU whose telephone number is (571)270-1370. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Christine Behncke can be reached at (571)272-8103. 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.
I JUNG LIU
Examiner
Art Unit 3695
/I JUNG LIU/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3695