5210124DETAILED ACTION
Status of Claims
This action is in reply to the RCE filed on February 12, 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, 19 and 20 have been amended.
Claim 6 has been canceled.
Claims 1-5 and 7-20 are currently pending and have been examined.
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on February 12, 2026 has been entered.
Response to Amendments
Applicant amendments to claims 1, 19 and 20 are acknowledged.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments regarding 101 rejections have been considered but not found persuasive. Applicant argues:
The claims are directed to interactions among electronic devices that provide for collecting information, such as maintenance information from an equipment manufacturer, and generating/sending a message regarding the same. Applicant respectfully submits that the claims do not recite an abstract idea and, if determined to recite an abstract idea, clearly integrate the abstract idea into a practical application.
Examiner’s Response: In response to Applicant’s arguments above, Applicant is using well known technology to collect and analyze information. There are no improvements to technology or any new technology involved. Collecting information is insignificant extra solution activity. See Mayo, 566 U.S. at 79, 101 USPQ2d at 1968; OIP Techs., Inc. v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363, 115 USPQ2d 1090, 1092-93 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (presenting offers and gathering statistics amounted to mere data gathering).
Furthermore, the courts have recognized the following computer functions as well‐understood, routine, and conventional functions when they are claimed in a merely generic manner (e.g., at a high level of generality) or as insignificant extra-solution activity. Receiving or transmitting data over a network, e.g., using the Internet to gather data, Symantec, 838 F.3d at 1321, 120 USPQ2d at 1362 (utilizing an intermediary computer to forward information); TLI Communications LLC v. AV Auto. LLC, 823 F.3d 607, 610, 118 USPQ2d 1744, 1745 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (using a telephone for image transmission); OIP Techs., Inc., v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363, 115 USPQ2d 1090, 1093 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (sending messages over a network); buySAFE, Inc. v. Google, Inc., 765 F.3d 1350, 1355, 112 USPQ2d 1093, 1096 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (computer receives and sends information over a network).
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 1-20 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) 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. This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. The 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 and transmitting 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 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
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
Prosecution Insights