DETAILED ACTION
Status of Claims
The following is a Final office action in response to the communications received on August 6, 2026.
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claims 1 and 19-20 have been amended.
Claim 6 has been canceled.
Clams 1-5 and 7-20 are pending and have been examined.
Response to Amendments
Applicant amendments to claims 1 and 19-20 are acknowledged.
Response to Arguments
Applicants’ arguments have been considered but not found persuasive. Applicant argues:
The claims clearly integrate the abstract idea into a practical application.
Examiner’s Response: In response to Applicant’s argument that the claims clearly integrate the abstract idea into a practical application, similar to Example 46 (101 Subject Matter Eligibility-Livestock behavioral monitoring), applicant’s invention is merely applying general computer components for data gathering and analysis. The new limitation on activating a piece of equipment is merely activating a general computer equipment such as a refrigerator, stove or fryer. There are no meaningful limitations that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception, such as for example activating a specific machinery that moves (Ex. activating a robot, forklift, etc to control it). There is no new technology or any technological improvement involved. Simply implementing the abstract idea on a generic computer environment is not a practical application of the abstract idea and does not take the claims out of a method of organizing a human activity and mathematical concept grouping.
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 and 7-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., an abstract idea) without “significantly more.”
Regarding Claims 1, 19 and 20, the claims recite an enterprise communication system to keep track of equipment data which is a method of organizing a human activity (commercial interaction-contracts, agreements-see at least paragraph 0041;a vendor that performs a service for an enterprise) and the limitations regarding the Machine Learning Model encompasses a mathematical concept. The limitations on accessing data, collecting information, generating a message, and transmitting a message recite functions directed to commercial interactions. The limitations regarding the use of Machine Learning encompasses a mathematical concept. The new limitation on activating a piece of equipment is merely activating a general computer equipment such as a refrigerator, stove or fryer for data collection. This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. Computers are recited at a high-level of generality such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components. Accordingly, this additional element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. Simply implementing the abstract idea on a generic computer environment is not a practical application of the abstract idea and does not take the claim out of the method of organizing a human activity and mathematical concept grouping. The claims are directed to an abstract idea.
The claims do not include additional elements that even in combination 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 element of using computers to perform the accessing, collecting, generating, transmitting and activating steps amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components. Mere instructions to apply an exception using generic computer components cannot provide an inventive concept. There are no improvements to technology or any new technology involved. The claims are not patent eligible.
Regarding dependent claims 2-5 and 7-18, these claims are directed to limitations which serve to limit the components, processing steps and the information used. These claims neither introduce a new abstract idea nor additional limitations which are significantly more than an abstract idea. They provide descriptive details that offer helpful context, but have no impact on statutory subject matter eligibility.
Therefore the limitations on the invention, when viewed individually and in ordered combination are directed to in-eligible subject matter.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-5 and 7-20 are allowable over prior art and would be allowed if 101 rejections are overcome. Examiner agrees with Applicant’s arguments filed on February 12, 2026. None of the cited art references, separately or in combination, explicitly discloses or render obvious each and every one of the limitations in independent claims 1, 19 and 20. Oakes discloses an enterprise communication system that enables access to maintenance and repair information. However, when considering the independent claims as a whole and as an ordered combination of elements, the limitations regarding accessing an enterprise equipment data store to determine enterprise equipment parameters associated with the selected enterprise identifier, wherein the enterprise equipment data store contains electronic records associated with the plurality of enterprises, and for each enterprise, a set of electronic records including an enterprise identifier, a set of enterprise equipment identifiers, and equipment parameters associated with each enterprise equipment identifier, wherein at least one equipment parameter is associated with a Machine Learning ("ML") predictive model, and the equipment parameters include Internet of Things ("loT") information and at least an equipment type, an equipment manufacturer, an equipment model number, and a date of manufacture; collecting, via an enterprise communication engine using at least one of WiFi, an IP address and a URL, information from an equipment manufacturer for the selected enterprise identifier; based on the determined enterprise equipment parameters and collected information from the equipment manufacturer, automatically generating at least one electronic message for the selected enterprise; automatically transmitting, by the enterprise communication engine, the electronic message in accordance with the enterprise communication link data; and performing further training of the ML predictive model as results become known from processing current information such that the ML predictive model adapts itself to changing equipment conditions in combination with the other limitations on independent claims 1, 19 and 20 are novel and non-obvious over the prior art of record.
CONCLUSION
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 extension fee 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 date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DENISSE Y ORTIZ ROMAN whose telephone number is (571)270-5506. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday 9-7.
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, Fahd A Obeid can be reached at 571-270-3324. 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.
/DENISSE Y ORTIZ ROMAN/Examiner, Art Unit 3627 /ARIEL J YU/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3627
