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
Claims 1, 5-10 and 14-19 have been examined in this Final Rejection. Claims 2-4, and 11-13 have been canceled. Claims 1, 5-10 and 14-19 are currently pending.
Priority
Application 18/128,116 filed 03/29/2023 is continuation of abandoned application 16/131,661 filed 09/14/2018.
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, 5-10, and 14-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more. Claims 1, 5-10, and 14-19 are directed to a system, method, or product which are/is one of the statutory categories of invention. (Step 1: YES).
Claims 1, 10, and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claim recites a method and computing device for managing leasing records. For Claims 1, 10 and 19 the limitations of (Claim 1 being representative):
maintain, in a database […], a plurality of records, wherein each record of the plurality of records corresponds to an asset and comprises an asset identifier and a policy, the policy defining conditions and an action to be performed upon the conditions being met;
receive, […], a selection of a selected asset and a third party, the third party being associated to a default policy, wherein […] an icon for each asset corresponding to each of the plurality of records and an area of a display […] associated to the third party, wherein the selection comprises a […] icon corresponding to the selected asset into the area of the display associated to the third party;
create, in the database, a duplicate record of a record associated to the selected asset;
modify the duplicate record to comprise the default policy of the third party;
modify the record associated to the selected asset to include a pointer to the duplicate record;
receive sensor data associated to the selected asset;
obtain, from the record associated to the selected asset, a first policy defining first conditions and a first action;
perform the first action when the first conditions are satisfied by the sensor data;
obtain, from the duplicate record, a second policy defining second conditions and a second action; and
perform the second action when the second conditions are satisfied by the sensor data, as drafted, are processes that, under the broadest reasonable interpretation, covers certain methods of organizing human activity (i.e., commercial or legal interactions and/or managing personal behavior including following rules or instructions) but for recitation of generic computer components. The Examiner notes that “certain method[s] of organizing human activity” includes commercial or legal interactions and/or a person's interaction with a computer (see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(II)). That is, other than reciting a system implemented by a processor, computing device, user interface, and non-transitory computer-readable medium the claimed invention amounts to managing personal behavior or interaction between people. For example, but for the processor, computing device, user interface, and non-transitory computer-readable medium, this claim encompasses a person to maintain records comprising a policy and asset identifier, receive a selection of a selected asset and third party, duplicate the record, modify the duplicated record to include a default policy of the third party, modify the record associated to the selected asset to include a pointer to the duplicated record, receive data related to the asset, obtain a policy defining a condition and action from the record associated to the selected asset, perform the action and condition when conditions are satisfied by sensor data, obtain a second policy defining second conditions from a second action from the duplicate record, perform the second action when the conditions are satisfied, based on this data in the manner described in the identified abstract idea, supra. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers marketing or sales activities or behaviors and/or managing personal behavior or interactions between people but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “certain methods of organizing human activity” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, Claims 1, 10 and 19 recite an abstract idea. (Step 2A- Prong 1: YES. The claims recite an abstract idea).
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. Claims 1, 10, and 19 recites the additional elements of a processor (Claims 1, 10, and 19), computing device (Claims 1, 10, and 19), user interface (Claims 1, 10, and 19), drag- and-drop (Claims 1, 10, and 19), and a non-transitory computer-readable medium (Claim 19) that implements the identified abstract idea. These additional elements are not described by the applicant and are recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., one or more generic computers performing a generic computer functions) such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer components. Accordingly, even in combination these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. Claims 1, 10, and 19 are directed to an abstract idea. (Step 2A-Prong 2: NO: the additional claimed elements are not integrated into a practical application).
The claims do 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 processor (Claims 1, 10, and 19), computing device (Claims 1, 10, and 19), user interface (Claims 1, 10, and 19), drag- and-drop (Claims 1, 10, and 19), and a non-transitory computer-readable medium (Claim 19), to perform the noted steps amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept (“significantly more”). Accordingly, even in combination, these additional elements do not provide significantly more. As such claims 1, 10, and 19 are not patent eligible. (Step 2B: NO. The claims do not provide significantly more).
Dependent Claims 5-9, and 14-18 are similarly rejected because they further define/narrow the abstract idea of independent claims 1, 10 and 19 as discussed above and/or do not further limit the claim to a practical application or provide an inventive concept such that the claims are subject matter eligible even when considered individually or as an ordered combination. Claim(s) 5 & 14 merely describe(s) a color-code to indicate an availability of a corresponding asset. Claim(s) 6 & 15 merely describe(s) receiving a new policy for the selected asset and modifying the duplicate record to include the new policy. Claim(s) 7 & 16 merely describe(s) displaying an icon for each asset located in a geofence. Claim(s) 8 & 17 merely describe(s) a given asset being determined to be located in the geofence based on data received from a location sensor of the given asset. Claim(s) 9 & 18 merely describe(s) a given asset being determined to be located in the geofence based on data received from sensors located at ingress and egress points of the geofence.
Claims 5-9, 14, and 16 include the additional elements of the computing device, and user interface. The computing device, and user interface are analyzed in the same manner as the computing device, and user interface in the independent claim and does not provide a practical application or significantly more for the same reasons above. Therefore, dependent claims 5-9, and 14-18 are considered patent ineligible for the reasons given above.
Subject Matter Distinguishable from Prior Art
As previously disclosed in the Final Office Action on 11/21/2025, Independent Claim 1, Claim 10, and Claim 19, would be allowable if rewritten or amended to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 101 set forth in this Office Action.
Dependent Claims 2-9, and 11-18 were also allowable over the prior art due to their dependencies on claim 1, claim 10, and claim 19.
An updated search was conducted and no relevant art was found.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 1/23/2026 with respect to 35 U.S.C. § 101, have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant argues that the claims are integrated into a practical application since there is a problem of “it being time-consuming to individually select assets and assign them to other customer leasing partners. Further, it can be time consuming for the lessee to assign polices to each asset that is being leased”, and that the problem is addressed by automatically ensuring that both the polices of the lessor and lessee are applied to the asset by duplicating the record associated to the asset, applying a policy of the third party to the duplicate record, and adding a pointer pointing to the duplicate record to the original record. The Examiner respectfully disagrees. The alleged improvement of “providing a user interface to allow users to assign an asset to a third party by drag-and-dropping an icon corresponding to the asset to an area of a display corresponding to the third party” is not convincing because the claims merely recite a set of rules or instructions to be performed on generic computing devices, which are merely deemed to be “apply it” level elements in that they are merely instruction the use of a device (drag-and-drop) in it ordinary capacity to select assets related to the abstract idea. Assigning an asset to a third party by drag-and-dropping an icon corresponding to the asset to an area of a display corresponding to the third party that the Applicant argues does not recite a technical solution to a technical problem. Here, the Applicant’s argued problem is not a technological problem caused by the technological environment to which the claims are confined (computing system). The additional elements of a processor, computing device, user interface, drag-and-dropping of an icon, and non-transitory computer-readable medium are recited at a high level of generality and do not amount to a practical application that integrates the abstract idea into a specific technical improvement in computer functionality or another technology. The claimed features do not reflect an improvement to the technology used to process the data, but rather use that technology as a tool to merely perform the abstract analysis (apply it). Therefore, the claims do not recite significantly more, only high-level instructions of managing leasing records. The claim does not recite any technical improvement to the function of drag-and-dropping or computer operations, but rather uses the additional elements to perform the abstract concept of managing leasing assets. Further, the problem of a customer or lessor having multiple leasing partners and many assets was not a problem caused by the computing device involved in the process. At best, the problem(s) described in the as-filed disclosure are business problems. Based on the updated rejection above and the response presented here, the 101 rejection is maintained.
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 Emily M Kraisinger whose telephone number is (703)756-4583. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7:30 AM -4:30 PM.
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, Jessica Lemieux can be reached at 571-270-3445. 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.
/E.M.K./Examiner, Art Unit 3626
/JESSICA LEMIEUX/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3626
Prosecution Insights