DETAILED ACTION
Status of Claims
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
This action is a non-final, first office action in response to the Applicant's Request for Continued Prosecution filed 26 March 2026.
Claims 1, 3, 13, and 14 have been amended.
The 103 rejections of claims 1-20 have been overcome by amendments.
Claims 1-20 are currently pending and have been examined.
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 27 March 2026 has been entered.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 27 March 2026 with respect to the 101 rejection have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
With respect to the claims, the Applicant argues on page 11 of their response, “The claim 1 limitation of this particular tiered cloud memory goes beyond the ‘Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity’ subject matter grouping because a communication records database stored across multiple ones of the plurality of computing devices does not recite any fundamental economic principles or practices, does not recite any commercial or legal interactions, and does not recite any managing of personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people.” The Examiner respectfully disagrees with the Applicant’s interpretation of the requirements under 35 USC 101, the bounds of the claimed invention, and the grounds of the previous and current rejection. With respect to the Applicant’s argument that, “tiered cloud memory goes beyond the ‘Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity,’” the Examiner is not persuaded. In particular, the Examiner notes that the Applicant has amended the claim to state, “a cloud processing system that includes: at least one network interface configured to engage in communications with user client devices and client devices associated with management personnel; a plurality of computing devices that include: at least one core processor coupled to the at least one network interface; and a plurality of cloud processors coupled to the at least one core processor via a corresponding plurality of cloud processing interfaces and operate under coordination by the at least core processor; and a memory that includes: a tiered cloud memory including a plurality of cloud memory devices coupled to the at least one core processor and the plurality of cloud processors via a plurality of cloud memory interfaces, wherein the tiered cloud memory stores at least one database that includes a communication records database and, wherein the memory also stores executable instructions that, when executed cause cloud processing system to….” (Emphasis added). As shown and emphasized here, the Applicant has amended the claim to recite the computer hardware components that carry out the remainder of the claim; and it is further noted that the Applicant has not argued the remainder of the claim, and instead, merely asserted that these hardware elements are not “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity.” With respect to this, it is noted that the respective hardware components are recited at a high level of generality, and act merely as a tool to carry out the recited abstract idea. Further, it is noted that MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(II) states, “Second, this grouping is limited to activity that falls within the enumerated sub-groupings of fundamental economic principles or practices, commercial or legal interactions, and managing personal behavior and relationships or interactions between people, and is not to be expanded beyond these enumerated sub-groupings except in rare circumstances as explained in MPEP § 2106.04(a)(3). Finally, the sub-groupings encompass both activity of a single person (for example, a person following a set of instructions or a person signing a contract online) and activity that involves multiple people (such as a commercial interaction), and thus, certain activity between a person and a computer (for example a method of anonymous loan shopping that a person conducts using a mobile phone) may fall within the "certain methods of organizing human activity" grouping. It is noted that the number of people involved in the activity is not dispositive as to whether a claim limitation falls within this grouping. Instead, the determination should be based on whether the activity itself falls within one of the sub-groupings.” (Emphasis added). Further MPEP 2106.05(a)(2)(II)(B) continues, “An example of a claim reciting a commercial or legal interaction, where the interaction is an agreement in the form of contracts, is found in buySAFE, Inc. v. Google, Inc., 765 F.3d. 1350, 112 USPQ2d 1093 (Fed. Cir. 2014). The agreement at issue in buySAFE was a transaction performance guaranty, which is a contractual relationship. 765 F.3d at 1355, 112 USPQ2d at 1096. The patentee claimed a method in which a computer operated by the provider of a safe transaction service receives a request for a performance guarantee for an online commercial transaction, the computer processes the request by underwriting the requesting party in order to provide the transaction guarantee service, and the computer offers, via a computer network, a transaction guaranty that binds to the transaction upon the closing of the transaction. 765 F.3d at 1351-52, 112 USPQ2d at 1094. The Federal Circuit described the claims as directed to an abstract idea because they were "squarely about creating a contractual relationship--a ‘transaction performance guaranty’." 765 F.3d at 1355, 112 USPQ2d at 1096.” (Emphasis added). As shown and emphasized here, the MPEP and the Courts have shown that merely reciting the use of a computer to perform the abstract idea, does not prevent the claim from reciting elements that fall into the “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity,” grouping of abstract ideas. Further, it is noted that MPEP 2106.05(f) states, “Whether the claim invokes computers or other machinery merely as a tool to perform an existing process. Use of a computer or other machinery in its ordinary capacity for economic or other tasks (e.g., to receive, store, or transmit data) or simply adding a general purpose computer or computer components after the fact to an abstract idea (e.g., a fundamental economic practice or mathematical equation) does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more. See Affinity Labs v. DirecTV, 838 F.3d 1253, 1262, 120 USPQ2d 1201, 1207 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (cellular telephone); TLI Communications LLC v. AV Auto, LLC, 823 F.3d 607, 613, 118 USPQ2d 1744, 1748 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (computer server and telephone unit). Similarly, "claiming the improved speed or efficiency inherent with applying the abstract idea on a computer" does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide an inventive concept. Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Capital One Bank (USA), 792 F.3d 1363, 1367, 115 USPQ2d 1636, 1639 (Fed. Cir. 2015).” (Emphasis added). As shown and emphasized here, the invoking of computers as a tool to carry out an abstract idea or perform their ordinary tasks, is deemed insufficient to add significantly more to the abstract idea. In this case, the Applicant’s claims have recited the use of generic computer elements as tools to carry out the abstract and perform their ordinary functions. Thus, as the Applicant has failed to argue the elements that the previous and current rejection have stated recite the abstract idea, and instead relied on an argument that the hardware components are not “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity,” the Examiner is not persuaded. It is further noted that the Applicant’s argument, addressed here, was solely for claim 1, which has a different scope than that of claim 14, where claim 14 lacks any elements directed towards a communication records database stored across multiple ones of the plurality of computing devices. As such, the Applicant’s argument is deemed not relevant to claim 14, and the rejection is thus maintained as proper. Therefore, the Examiner maintains that this rejection is proper.
The Applicant continues on page 11 of their response, “The claim 1 limitation of this particular tiered cloud memory also goes beyond the "Mental Processes" subject matter grouping because the human mind cannot practically implement at least one database that includes a communication records database stored across the plurality of cloud memory devices of the tiered cloud memory.” The Examiner respectfully disagrees with the Applicant’s interpretation of the requirements under 35 USC 101, the bounds of the claimed invention, and the grounds of the previous and current rejection. In this case, with respect to the Applicant’s argument that, “tiered cloud memory also goes beyond the ‘Mental Processes’ subject matter grouping because the human mind cannot practically implement at least one database that includes a communication records database stored across the plurality of cloud memory devices of the tiered cloud memory,” the Examiner is not persuaded. Notably, the Examiner did not state that a human mind implemented at least one database that includes a communication records database stored across the plurality of cloud memory devices of the tiered cloud memory, and thus the Applicant’s argument is not reflective of the previous and current rejection. Further, with respect to the claims reciting a “Mental Process,” it is noted that MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III)(C) states, “Using a computer as a tool to perform a mental process. An example of a case in which a computer was used as a tool to perform a mental process is Mortgage Grader, 811 F.3d. at 1324, 117 USPQ2d at 1699. The patentee in Mortgage Grader claimed a computer-implemented system for enabling borrowers to anonymously shop for loan packages offered by a plurality of lenders, comprising a database that stores loan package data from the lenders, and a computer system providing an interface and a grading module. The interface prompts a borrower to enter personal information, which the grading module uses to calculate the borrower’s credit grading, and allows the borrower to identify and compare loan packages in the database using the credit grading. 811 F.3d. at 1318, 117 USPQ2d at 1695. The Federal Circuit determined that these claims were directed to the concept of "anonymous loan shopping", which was a concept that could be "performed by humans without a computer." 811 F.3d. at 1324, 117 USPQ2d at 1699. Another example is Berkheimer v. HP, Inc., 881 F.3d 1360, 125 USPQ2d 1649 (Fed. Cir. 2018), in which the patentee claimed methods for parsing and evaluating data using a computer processing system. The Federal Circuit determined that these claims were directed to mental processes of parsing and comparing data, because the steps were recited at a high level of generality and merely used computers as a tool to perform the processes. 881 F.3d at 1366, 125 USPQ2d at 1652-53.” (Emphasis added). As shown here, the mere use of computers and a computer network to perform the otherwise recited abstract idea, does not prevent the recited abstract idea from falling into the ”Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. With respect to the Applicant’s claims, as discussed above, the Applicant’s claims recite the use of the cloud processing systems and cloud memory as a tool to carry out the abstract idea, which is insufficient to prevent the recited abstract idea from falling into the ”Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. It is further noted that the Applicant’s argument, addressed here, was solely for claim 1, which has a different scope than that of claim 14, where claim 14 lacks any elements directed towards a communication records database stored across multiple ones of a plurality of cloud memory devices of the tiered cloud memory. As such, the Applicant’s argument is deemed not relevant to claim 14, and the rejection is thus maintained as proper. Therefore, the Examiner maintains that this rejection is proper.
The Applicant continues on page 12 of their response, “These two limitations go beyond the ‘Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity’ subject matter grouping because processing of a plurality of maintenance notification data simultaneously via parallel processing and storing of communications in a communication records database across the multiple ones of the plurality of computing devices does not recite any fundamental economic principles or practices, does not recite any commercial or legal interactions, and does not recite any managing of personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people.” The Examiner respectfully disagrees with the Applicant’s interpretation of the requirements under 35 USC 101, the bounds of the claimed invention, and the grounds of the previous and current rejection. In this case, the Applicant has argued that the claim amendments, “process the plurality of maintenance notification data simultaneously via parallel processing via the plurality of cloud processors, wherein processing the maintenance notification data includes processing contemporaneously with other ones of the plurality of maintenance notification data,” and, “storing communications between maintenance personnel and the user of the one of the client devices regarding the maintenance request in the communication records database across the plurality of cloud memory devices of the tiered cloud memory, wherein the communication between maintenance personnel and the user of the client device regarding the maintenance request are accessible via the maintenance personnel,” go beyond “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity,” which the Examiner is not persuaded. In this case, as noted in the previous rejection, “receiving maintenance notification data that indicates a selected maintenance issue category and a selected maintenance issue type and a property identifier, processing the maintenance notification data, determining specific premises equipment at the specific property unit, generating maintenance self-help data based on the maintenance notification data and the specific premises equipment at the specific property unit, sending the maintenance self-help data to the one of the user client devices, facilitating communications between clients and personnel, storing communication records, and making records available to personnel; encompass a user reporting a maintenance issue (along with category, type, and location) to a maintenance management service, wherein the service processes the data and replies with a self-help guide for the conducting the maintenance, and wherein communication information between a client and worker are recorded and provided to a worker (e.g. providing a worker the maintenance issues); which is the management of business relations, and the managing of human behavior.” (Emphasis added). As shown and emphasized here, the Examiner previously identified these argued elements, except the use of generic computer and machine elements, as reciting the management of business relations, and the managing of human behavior, which falls under the “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity grouping of abstract ideas. With respect to the Applicant’s argument that, “processing of a plurality of maintenance notification data simultaneously via parallel processing and storing of communications in a communication records database across the multiple ones of the plurality of computing devices does not recite any fundamental economic principles or practices, does not recite any commercial or legal interactions, and does not recite any managing of personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people,” the Examiner is not persuaded. In this case, the Applicant has provided no reasoning or explanation as to why processing maintenance notification data and storing communications in a records databased are not managing business relations, and the managing of human behavior, as pointed out in the previous rejection. Notably, if the Applicant wishes to argue the “computer” performance aspects of these elements, as discussed above, these are additional elements that were shown to merely recite “apply it,” and would thus, not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. It is further noted that the Applicant’s argument, addressed here, was solely for claim 1, which has a different scope than that of claim 14, where claim 14 lacks any elements directed towards a communication records database stored across multiple ones of the plurality of computing devices. As such, the Applicant’s argument is deemed not relevant to claim 14, and the rejection is thus maintained as proper. Therefore, the Examiner is not persuaded by the Applicant’s conclusory argument, and maintains that this rejection is proper.
The Applicant continues on page 12 of their response, “The claim 1 limitation of storing communications between maintenance personnel and the user of the one of the client devices regarding the maintenance request in the communication records database across the plurality of cloud memory devices of the tiered cloud memory also goes beyond the ‘Mental Processes’ subject matter grouping because the human mind cannot practically process a plurality of maintenance notification data simultaneously via parallel processing and further cannot store communications in a communication records database across the plurality of cloud memory devices of a tiered cloud memory.” The Examiner respectfully disagrees with the Applicant’s interpretation of the requirements under 35 USC 101, the bounds of the claimed invention, and the grounds of the previous and current rejection. With respect to the Applicant’s argument regarding, “storing communications between maintenance personnel and the user of the one of the client devices regarding the maintenance request in the communication records database across the plurality of cloud memory devices of the tiered cloud memory also goes beyond the ‘Mental Processes’ subject matter grouping because the human mind cannot practically process a plurality of maintenance notification data simultaneously via parallel processing and further cannot store communications in a communication records database across the plurality of cloud memory devices of a tiered cloud memory,” the Examiner is not persuaded. Notably, the previous rejection stated, “In addition, the claims recite… processing maintenance data simultaneously… and storing communication records; which encompass elements that can be performed in the human mind (observation, evaluation, opinion, judgement, memorization).” In this case, the Examiner notes that the rejection identified the argued “computer” aspects as additional elements, specifically identified and explained why the elements themselves still recite an abstract idea under the “Mental Process” category. Specifically, with regards to, “storing communications between maintenance personnel and the user of the one of the client devices regarding the maintenance request in the communication records database across the plurality of cloud memory devices of the tiered cloud memory,” it is noted that storing communications between maintenance personnel and the user of the one of the client devices regarding the maintenance request in the communication records database; encompasses merely memorization, which a human mind could perform. Additionally, as discussed above, the mere use of computers as a tool to carry out the abstract idea, or performing the abstract idea in a computer environment, does not prevent the claim from reciting an abstract idea in the “Mental Processes” category of abstract ideas (MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III)(C)). As the Applicant has failed to provide any reasoning or rebuttal evidence against the previous rejection regarding this analysis, and instead made a conclusory statement that the claims don’t recite a “Mental Process,” which is not persuasive. It is further noted that the Applicant’s argument, addressed here, was solely for claim 1, which has a different scope than that of claim 14, where claim 14 lacks any elements directed towards a communication records database stored across multiple ones of a plurality of cloud memory devices of the tiered cloud memory. As such, the Applicant’s argument is deemed not relevant to claim 14, and the rejection is thus maintained as proper. Therefore, the Examiner maintains that this rejection is proper.
The Applicant continues on page 13 of their response, “The Applicant respectfully submits that this particular cloud computing and tiered cloud memory structure set forth in the amended claims provide a particular combination of elements that are not well-understood routine and conventional.” The Applicant continues on page 14 of their response, “The Applicant respectfully submits that these additional elements are also not well-understood routine and conventional.” The Examiner respectfully disagrees with the Applicant’s interpretation of the requirements under 35 USC 101, the bounds of the claimed invention, and the grounds of the previous and current rejection. In this case, the Examiner notes that the Applicant has argued the cloud processing system, core processors, cloud processing interfaces, and tiered cloud memory including cloud memory devices are not well-understood, routine and conventional activity; however, as noted above, this structure is deemed merely a recitation of generic computer elements being invoked as a tool to carry out the abstract idea, which does not add significantly more to the abstract idea itself. Further, the Applicant has argued processing notification data via cloud processors and storing communications across cloud memory devices is not well-understood, routine, and conventional; however, as noted above, this structure is deemed merely a recitation of generic computer elements being invoked as a tool to carry out the abstract idea, which does not add significantly more to the abstract idea itself. As such, the Applicant has failed to show any reasoning as to why these elements would add significantly more to the abstract idea themselves, nor has the Applicant identified how the functions performed by the general purpose computers add significantly more to the abstract idea. It is noted that MPEP 2106.05(d) states, “Courts have held computer‐implemented processes not to be significantly more than an abstract idea (and thus ineligible) where the claim as a whole amounts to nothing more than generic computer functions merely used to implement an abstract idea, such as an idea that could be done by a human analog (i.e., by hand or by merely thinking). On the other hand, courts have held computer-implemented processes to be significantly more than an abstract idea (and thus eligible), where generic computer components are able in combination to perform functions that are not merely generic. DDR Holdings, LLC v. Hotels.com, L.P., 773 F.3d 1245, 1257-59, 113 USPQ2d 1097, 1105-07 (Fed. Cir. 2014).” (Emphasis added). In this case, the claim as a whole amounts to nothing more than generic computer functions merely used to implement an abstract idea, and does not recite generic computer components, in combination, performing functions that are not merely generic. It is further noted that the Applicant’s argument, addressed here, was solely for claim 1, which has a different scope than that of claim 14, where claim 14 lacks any elements directed towards the hardware elements of a cloud processing system. As such, the Applicant’s argument is deemed not relevant to claim 14, and the rejection is thus maintained as proper. As such, the Examiner maintains that this rejection is proper.
Applicant's arguments filed 27 March 2026 with regards to the 112a rejection have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
With respect to the claims, the Applicant has argued on page 14 of their response, “Claims 1-13 were rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) as failing to comply with the written description requirement. In particular, the Office objected to the term "the client device" in reference to the parallel processing. The claims have been amended as discussed above. The Applicant respectfully submits the amended claims are sufficiently supported by the specification to satisfy the statute and requests that this rejection be withdrawn.” The Examiner respectfully disagrees with the Applicant’s interpretation of the grounds of the previously cited rejection and the bounds of the Applicant’s disclosure. In this case, the Examiner notes that the Final Rejection stated in paragraphs 16 and 17 of the office action:
“With respect to claim 1, the Applicant has amended the claim to state:
a plurality of computing devices that include:
a network interface configured to engage in communications with user client devices and client devices associated with management personnel;
at least one processor coupled to the network interface;
and a memory that stores:
at least one database that includes a communication records database across multiple ones of the plurality of computing devices, and, executable instructions that, when executed by the at least one processor, cause the client device to:
receive, via the network interface, each of a plurality of maintenance notification data from a corresponding user client device of the user client devices, wherein maintenance notification data of the plurality of maintenance notification data is generated via a graphical user interface of one of the user client devices, and indicates a selected one of a plurality of maintenance issue categories and a selected one of a plurality of maintenance issue types that is specific to the selected one of the plurality of maintenance issue categories and a property identifier that indicates a specific property unit;
process the plurality of maintenance notification data simultaneously via parallel processing, wherein processing the maintenance notification data includes contemporaneously with processing other ones of the plurality of maintenance notification data:
automatically determining, based on the maintenance notification data, specific premises equipment at the specific property unit;
generating maintenance self-help data, based on the maintenance notification data and the specific premises equipment at the specific property unit, wherein the maintenance self-help data includes self-help procedures specific to the specific premises equipment;
sending the maintenance self-help data, via the network interface, to the one of the user client devices for display via the graphical user interface;
receiving, via the one of the user client devices, maintenance self-help results data indicating whether or not the selected one of the plurality of maintenance issue types has been resolved in response to the self-help procedures; and
facilitating a maintenance request associated with the maintenance notification data and with the specific property unit, when the selected one of the plurality of maintenance issue types has not been resolved in response to the self-help procedures.”
The Applicant has failed to provide a written description that would convey to one skilled in the art that they were in possession of the claimed invention at the time of filing. In this case, the Applicant has amended the claim to state that the computing devices (i.e. user client devices and management personnel client devices) include memory that when executed by a processor, that causes the client device (which client device is not defined) to process the plurality of maintenance notification data simultaneously via parallel processing. Additionally, the claim continues to state that processing the maintenance notification data includes contemporaneously with processing other ones of the plurality of maintenance notification data, and then reciting the steps of the claimed invention. In this case, the Applicant’s specification states in paragraph 45, “In addition, in various examples, the automated P/M platform 30 utilizes parallel processing to simultaneously/contemporaneously serve multiple client devices 20 and multiple clients 25 - again a process that could not practically be performed within the human mind.” (Emphasis added). As shown here, the Applicant’s sole reference to “parallel processing” is a general statement that the property maintenance system uses parallel processing to serve multiple client devices and clients simultaneously, which is explicitly not what is claimed. Specifically, this disclosure refers to the property maintenance system as using parallel processing to serve multiple client device and clients simultaneously; and not the claimed client device using “parallel processing” to process the plurality of maintenance notification data simultaneously. Additionally, this disclose does not state that the client device process the maintenance notification data including contemporaneously with processing other ones of the plurality of maintenance notification data, and then reciting performing the steps of the claimed invention; but instead refers to the property maintenance system as serving multiple client devices and clients simultaneously. It is also noted that paragraph 130 states, “As applicable, one or more functions associated with the methods and/or processes described herein can require data to be manipulated in different ways within overlapping time spans. The human mind is not equipped to perform such different data manipulations independently, contemporaneously, in parallel, and/or on a coordinated basis within a reasonable period of time, such as within a second, a millisecond, microsecond, a real-time basis or other high speed required by the machines that generate the data, receive the data, convey the data, store the data and/or use the data.” (Emphasis added). As shown here, the Applicant has made a general statement that some functions can require data to be manipulated within overlapping time spans, and this in parallel; however this does not describe or set forth that the client devices (or the property maintenance system) as processing maintenance notification data simultaneously via parallel processing, which includes contemporaneously with processing other ones of the plurality of maintenance notification data. As the Applicant has failed to disclose the amended elements, the claim has been amended to recite new matter. Appropriate correction is required Claims 2-13 depend on claim 1, and therefore are rejected via dependency.”
As shown here, the Examiner did not object “to the term ‘the client device’ in reference to the parallel processing, and instead rejected the previously cited amendments for multiple instances of new matter, one aspect being the client device processing the plurality of maintenance notification data simultaneously via parallel processing. Another aspect was, “processing the maintenance notification data includes contemporaneously with processing other ones of the plurality of maintenance notification data,” which the Applicant has not addressed in their arguments. Particularly, the Applicant’s specification, for the same reasons as identified in the previous Final Rejection, does not disclose a cloud processing system that is caused to, “process the plurality of maintenance notification data simultaneously via parallel processing via the plurality of cloud processors, wherein processing the maintenance notification data includes processing contemporaneously with other ones of the plurality of maintenance notification data.” Therefore, the Examiner maintains that this rejection is proper.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
With respect to claim 1, the Applicant has amended the claim to state:
“a cloud processing system that includes:
at least one network interface configured to engage in communications with user client devices and client devices associated with management personnel;
a plurality of computing devices that include:
at least one core processor coupled to the at least one network interface; and
a plurality of cloud processors coupled to the at least one core processor via a corresponding plurality of cloud processing interfaces and operate under coordination by the at least core processor; and
a memory that includes: a tiered cloud memory including a plurality of cloud memory devices coupled to the at least one core processor and the plurality of cloud processors via a plurality of cloud memory interfaces, wherein the tiered cloud memory stores at least one database that includes a communication records database; and,
wherein the memory also stores executable instructions that, when executed cause cloud processing system to:
receive, via the network interface, each of a plurality of maintenance notification data from a corresponding user client device of the user client devices, wherein maintenance notification data of the plurality of maintenance notification data is generated via a graphical user interface of one of the user client devices, and indicates a selected one of a plurality of maintenance issue categories and a selected one of a plurality of maintenance issue types that is specific to the selected one of the plurality of maintenance issue categories and a property identifier that indicates a specific property unit;
process the plurality of maintenance notification data simultaneously via parallel processing via the plurality of cloud processors, wherein processing the maintenance notification data includes processing contemporaneously with other ones of the plurality of maintenance notification data;
automatically determining, based on the maintenance notification data, specific premises equipment at the specific property unit;
generating maintenance self-help data, based on the maintenance notification data and the specific premises equipment at the specific property unit, wherein the maintenance self-help data includes self-help procedures specific to the specific premises equipment;
sending the maintenance self-help data, via the network interface, to the one of the user client devices for display via the graphical user interface;
receiving, via the one of the user client devices, maintenance self-help results data indicating whether or not the selected one of the plurality of maintenance issue types has been resolved in response to the self-help procedures; and
facilitating a maintenance request associated with the maintenance notification data and with the specific property unit, when the selected one of the plurality of maintenance issue types has not been resolved in response to the self-help procedures.”
The Applicant has failed to provide a written description that would convey to one skilled in the art that they were in possession of the claimed invention at the time of filing. In this case, the Applicant has amended the claim to state that the cloud processing system that includes memory that when executed by a processor, causes the cloud processing system to process the plurality of maintenance notification data simultaneously via parallel processing. Additionally, the claim continues to state that processing the maintenance notification data includes contemporaneously with processing other ones of the plurality of maintenance notification data, and then reciting the steps of the claimed invention. In this case, the Applicant’s specification states in paragraph 45, “In addition, in various examples, the automated P/M platform 30 utilizes parallel processing to simultaneously/contemporaneously serve multiple client devices 20 and multiple clients 25 - again a process that could not practically be performed within the human mind.” (Emphasis added). As shown here, the Applicant’s sole reference to “parallel processing” is a general statement that the property maintenance system uses parallel processing to serve multiple client devices and clients simultaneously, which is explicitly not what is claimed. Specifically, this disclosure refers to the property maintenance system as using parallel processing to serve multiple client device and clients simultaneously; and not the claimed cloud processing system using “parallel processing” to process the plurality of maintenance notification data simultaneously. Additionally, this disclose does not state that the cloud processing system processes the maintenance notification data including contemporaneously with processing other ones of the plurality of maintenance notification data, and then reciting performing the steps of the claimed invention; but instead refers to the property maintenance system as serving multiple client devices and clients simultaneously. It is also noted that paragraph 130 states, “As applicable, one or more functions associated with the methods and/or processes described herein can require data to be manipulated in different ways within overlapping time spans. The human mind is not equipped to perform such different data manipulations independently, contemporaneously, in parallel, and/or on a coordinated basis within a reasonable period of time, such as within a second, a millisecond, microsecond, a real-time basis or other high speed required by the machines that generate the data, receive the data, convey the data, store the data and/or use the data.” (Emphasis added). As shown here, the Applicant has made a general statement that some functions can require data to be manipulated within overlapping time spans, and this in parallel; however, this does not describe or set forth that the cloud processing system as processes maintenance notification data simultaneously via parallel processing, which includes contemporaneously with processing other ones of the plurality of maintenance notification data. As the Applicant has failed to disclose the amended elements, the claim has been amended to recite new matter. Appropriate correction is required. Claims 2-13 depend on claim 1, and therefore are rejected via dependency.
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 1-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claims recite a cloud processing system that includes: at least one network interface configured to engage in communications with user client devices and client devices associated with management personnel; a plurality of computing devices that include: at least one core processor coupled to the at least one network interface; and a plurality of cloud processors coupled to the at least one core processor via a corresponding plurality of cloud processing interfaces and operate under coordination by the at least core processor; and a memory that includes: a tiered cloud memory including a plurality of cloud memory devices coupled to the at least one core processor and the plurality of cloud processors via a plurality of cloud memory interfaces, wherein the tiered cloud memory stores at least one database that includes a communication records database and, wherein the memory also stores executable instructions that, when executed cause cloud processing system to: receive, via the network interface, each of a plurality of maintenance notification data from a corresponding user client device of the user client devices, wherein maintenance notification data of the plurality of maintenance notification data is generated via a graphical user interface of one of the user client device, and indicates a selected one of a plurality of maintenance issue categories and a selected one of a plurality of maintenance issue types that is specific to the selected one of the plurality of maintenance issue categories and a property identifier that indicates a specific property unit; process the plurality of maintenance notification data simultaneously via parallel processing via the plurality of cloud processors, wherein processing the maintenance notification data includes processing contemporaneously with other ones of the plurality of maintenance notification data; automatically determining, based on the maintenance notification data, specific premises equipment at the specific property unit; generating maintenance self-help data, based on the maintenance notification data and the specific premises equipment at the specific property unit, wherein the maintenance self-help data includes self-help procedures specific to the specific premises equipment; sending the maintenance self-help data, via the network interface, to the one of the user client devices for display via the graphical user interface; receiving, via the one of the user client devices, maintenance self-help results data indicating whether or not the selected one of the plurality of maintenance issue types has been resolved in response to the self-help procedures; and facilitating a maintenance request associated with the maintenance notification data and with the specific property unit, when the selected one of the plurality of maintenance issue types has not been resolved in response to the self-help procedures; wherein facilitating the maintenance request includes facilitating the communications between maintenance personnel and a user of the client device regarding the maintenance request; storing communications between maintenance personnel and the user of the one of the client devices regarding the maintenance request in the communication records database across the plurality of cloud memory devices of the tiered cloud memory, wherein the communication between maintenance personnel and the user of the client device regarding the maintenance request are accessible via the maintenance personnel; and wherein the communications between maintenance personnel and the user of the one of the client devices include communications generated by maintenance personnel, communications generated by the user of the one of the client devices and one or more acknowledgements indicating that one or more of the communications generated by the user of the one of the client devices have been read by the maintenance personnel.
The limitations of receiving maintenance notification data that indicates a selected maintenance issue category and a selected maintenance issue type and a property identifier, processing the maintenance notification data, determining specific premises equipment at the specific property unit, generating maintenance self-help data based on the maintenance notification data and the specific premises equipment at the specific property unit, sending the maintenance self-help data to the one of the user client devices, receiving maintenance self-help results data indicating whether or not the selected one of the plurality of maintenance issue types has been resolved in response to the self-help procedures, and facilitating a maintenance request associated with the maintenance notification data and with the specific property unit when the selected one of the plurality of maintenance issue types has not been resolved in response to the self-help procedures, facilitating communications between maintenance personnel and user regarding the maintenance request, storing communications between maintenance personnel and the user, making accessible the communications to the maintenance personnel, and wherein the communications include communications generated by maintenance personnel, the user of the one of the client devices, and one or more acknowledgements indicating that one or more of the communications have been read by the maintenance personnel; as drafted, under the broadest reasonable interpretation, encompasses the management of commercial activity (managing business relations), managing human behavior or relationships, and a series of mental steps. That is, other than reciting the use of generic computer elements (cloud processing system, network interface, cloud memory, core processor, cloud processors, client device, user interface, display, parallel processing, communication records database), the claims recite an abstract idea. In particular, receiving maintenance notification data that indicates a selected maintenance issue category and a selected maintenance issue type and a property identifier, processing the maintenance notification data, determining specific premises equipment at the specific property unit, generating maintenance self-help data based on the maintenance notification data and the specific premises equipment at the specific property unit, sending the maintenance self-help data to the one of the user client devices, facilitating communications between clients and personnel, storing communication records, making records available to personnel, and wherein the communication records include those generated by different parties and confirmations of them being read; encompass a user reporting a maintenance issue (along with category, type, and location) to a maintenance management service, wherein the service processes the data and replies with a self-help guide for the conducting the maintenance, and wherein communication information between a client and worker are recorded and provided to a worker (e.g. providing a worker the maintenance issues); which is the management of business relations, and the managing of human behavior. In addition, receiving maintenance self-help results data indicating whether or not the selected one of the plurality of maintenance issue types has been resolved in response to the self-help procedures, and facilitating a maintenance request associated with the maintenance notification data and with the specific property unit when the selected one of the plurality of maintenance issue types has not been resolved in response to the self-help procedures; encompass worker informing a management service whether the self-help guide worked or failed, and if it failed, then facilitating further help (i.e. hiring another party); which is the management of business relations, and the managing of human behavior. Thus, the claims recite elements that fall into the “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity” grouping of abstract ideas. In addition, the claims recite receiving maintenance notification data that indicates a selected maintenance issue category and a selected maintenance issue type and a property identifier, processing maintenance data simultaneously, determining specific premises equipment at the specific property unit, generating maintenance self-help data based on the maintenance notification data and the specific premises equipment at the specific property unit, providing the maintenance self-help data, receiving maintenance self-help results data indicating whether or not the selected one of the plurality of maintenance issue types has been resolved in response to the self-help procedures, facilitating a maintenance request associated with the maintenance notification data and with the specific property unit when the selected one of the plurality of maintenance issue types has not been resolved in response to the self-help procedures, and storing communication records, wherein the communication records include those generated by different parties and confirmations of them being read; which encompass elements that can be performed in the human mind (observation, evaluation, opinion, judgement, memorization). Thus, the claims recite elements that fall into the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. The claims recite an abstract idea.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. The claims do not recite additional elements, when taken individually and in an ordered combination with the abstract idea, that improve the functioning of a computer, another technology, or technical field. The claims do not recite the use of, or apply the abstract idea with, a particular machine, the claims do not recite the transformation of an article from one state or thing into another. Finally, the claims do not recite additional elements, taken individually and in an ordered combination, that apply or use the abstract idea in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment. Instead, the claims recite the use of generic computer elements (cloud processing system, network interface, cloud memory, core processor, cloud processors, client device, user interface, display, parallel processing, communication records database) as tools to carry out the abstract idea. The claims are directed to an abstract idea.
The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements, when taken individually and in an ordered combination with the abstract idea, 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 element of using generic computer elements and machines to perform the 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. The claims are directed to non-patent eligible subject matter.
The dependent claims 2-13, when taken individually and in an ordered combination with the abstract idea, do not recite additional elements that integrate the abstract idea into a practical application, or add significantly more to the abstract idea. In particular, the claims further recite storing a property equipment database that correlates instances of premises equipment to each property unit of a plurality of property units, and storing an equipment repair database that correlates maintenance self-help data to the instances of premises equipment and also to corresponding ones of the plurality of maintenance issue types; which merely further invokes storing business information, which is the management of commercial activity and mental processes, and thus recites elements that fall into the ”Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity” and “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas (claim 2). In addition, the claims further recite facilitating the maintenance request includes facilitating communications between maintenance personnel and a user regarding the maintenance request via an anonymized communication system utilizing one of the client devices associated with management personnel; which merely further invokes customers and service providers communicating for business, which is the management of commercial activity, and thus recites elements that fall into the ”Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity” grouping of abstract ideas (claim 3). In addition, the claims further recite facilitating the maintenance request includes providing the maintenance personnel access to the maintenance request via a maintenance portal utilizing one of the client devices associated with management personnel; which encompasses allowing service personnel to view maintenance job details, which is the management of commercial activity, and thus recites elements that fall into the ”Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity” grouping of abstract ideas (claim 4). In addition, the claims further recite storing a communication records database, and storing the communications between maintenance personnel and the user in the communication records database, and wherein the communications between maintenance personnel and the user of regarding the maintenance request are accessible via the maintenance personnel utilizing the maintenance portal; which encompasses storing a job communication and pairing between a customer and service provider, and making the record accessible, which is the management of commercial activity, and thus recites elements that fall into the ”Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity” grouping of abstract ideas (claim 5). In addition, the claims further recite wherein the communications are accessible with a subsequent maintenance request associated with the specific property unit; which encompasses making previous job details accessible for future jobs, which is the management of commercial activity, and thus recites elements that fall into the ”Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity” grouping of abstract ideas (claim 6). In addition, the claims further recite queuing the maintenance request; which encompasses placing job requests in a queue, which encompasses providing the job request to service providers, which is the management of commercial activity, and thus recites elements that fall into the ”Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity” grouping of abstract ideas (claim 7). In addition, the claims further recite forwarding the maintenance request to a maintenance vendor, property management personnel, or other maintenance personnel and shifting the maintenance from the maintenance request queue to a separate maintenance queue; which encompasses providing the job request to service providers, which is the management of commercial activity, and thus recites elements that fall into the ”Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity” grouping of abstract ideas (claim 8). In addition, the claims further recite storing a maintenance history database, storing records regarding the maintenance request in the maintenance history database, and wherein the records regarding the maintenance request are accessible; which encompasses storing maintenance request history and making it available, which is the management of commercial activity, and thus recites elements that fall into the ”Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity” grouping of abstract ideas (claim 9). In addition, the claims further recite storing records regarding maintenance parts inventory in the maintenance parts database, and wherein the records are accessible; which encompasses storing maintenance parts history and making it available, which is the management of commercial activity, and thus recites elements that fall into the ”Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity” grouping of abstract ideas (claim 10). In addition, the claims further recite storing records regarding maintenance vendors in the maintenance vendor database, and wherein the records regarding the maintenance vendors are accessible; which encompasses storing maintenance vendors history and making it available, which is the management of commercial activity, and thus recites elements that fall into the ”Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity” grouping of abstract ideas (claim 11). In addition, the claims further recite providing maintenance personnel access to a maintenance parts ordering system; which encompasses allowing service providers to order parts for maintenance; which is the management of commercial activity, and thus recites elements that fall into the ”Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity” grouping of abstract ideas (claim 12). In addition, the claims further recite wherein the maintenance notification data further indicates a selected maintenance issue subcategories, wherein the selected one of a plurality of a maintenance issue types is further specific to the selected one of the plurality of maintenance issue subcategories, and wherein the maintenance notification data is generated in response to interaction with the first menu, the second menu and the third menu via a user of the client device; which encompasses including more specific data in a maintenance request further defining the issue, which is the management of commercial activity, and thus recites elements that fall into the ”Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity” grouping of abstract ideas (claim 13). In addition, the claims further recite the use of a graphical user interface presents a first menu, a second menu, and a third menu; which further recites the use of generic computer elements to receive input regarding selections for a request, and further narrows the field of use; and thus does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application, or add significantly more to the abstract idea (claim 13).
Claims 14-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claims recite a network interface configured to engage in communications with a cloud computing system of the property management platform; a display device confirmation to implement a graphical user interface; at least one processor coupled to the network interface and the display device; and a memory that stores executable instructions that, when executed by the at least one processor, cause the client device to: generate, via the graphical user interface, maintenance notification data that indicates a selected one of a plurality of maintenance issue categories and a selected one of a plurality of maintenance issue types that is specific to the selected one of the plurality of maintenance issue categories; send to the property management platform, via the network interface, the maintenance notification data and a property identifier that indicates a specific property unit; receive from the property management platform, via the network interface, maintenance self-help data that includes self-help procedures generated based on the selected one of the plurality of maintenance issue categories and the selected one of the plurality of maintenance issue types, and is further based on automatic determination, via the property management platform, of specific premises equipment at the specific property unit and wherein the maintenance self-help data is specific to the specific premises equipment at the specific property unit; display the maintenance self-help data via the graphical user interface to facilitate the self- help procedures; receive, via the graphical user interface, maintenance self-help results data indicating whether or not the selected one of the plurality of maintenance issue types has been resolved in response to the self-help procedures; and facilitate a maintenance request of the property management platform associated with the selected one of the plurality of maintenance issue types associated with the specific property unit, when the selected one of the plurality of maintenance issue types has not been resolved in response to the self-help procedures, wherein the property management platform includes a communication records database stored via a tiered cloud memory of the property management platform, and wherein facilitating the maintenance request includes storing the communications between maintenance personnel and the user of the client device regarding the maintenance request in the communication records database, and wherein the communications between maintenance personnel and the user of the client device regarding the maintenance request are accessible via the maintenance personnel and wherein the communications between maintenance personnel and the user of the client device include communications generated by maintenance personnel, communications generated by the user of the client device and one or more acknowledgements indicating that one or more of the communications generated by the user of the client device have been read by the maintenance personnel.
The limitations of generating maintenance notification data that indicates a maintenance issue category and a maintenance issue type, sending to the property management platform the maintenance notification data and a property identifier, receiving from the property management platform maintenance self-help data that includes self-help procedures based on the issue categories, issue types, and on the specific premises equipment at the specific property unit, displaying the maintenance self-help data, receiving maintenance self-help results data indicating whether the maintenance issue type has been resolved, facilitating a maintenance request of the property management platform associated with the selected one of the plurality of maintenance issue types associated with the specific property unit when the selected one of the plurality of maintenance issue types has not been resolved in response to the self-help procedures, storing communication records, making the communications accessible, and wherein the communications include communications generated by maintenance personnel, the user of the client device, and one or more acknowledgements indicating that the communications been read by the maintenance personnel; as drafted, under the broadest reasonable interpretation, encompasses the management of commercial activity (managing business relations), managing human behavior or relationships, and a series of mental steps. That is, other than reciting the use of generic computer elements (network interface, cloud computing system, memory, processor, client devices, user interface, display device, communication records database, tiered cloud memory), the claims recite an abstract idea. In particular, receiving maintenance notification data that indicates a selected maintenance issue category and a selected maintenance issue type and a property identifier, determining specific premises equipment at the specific property unit, generating maintenance self-help data based on the maintenance notification data and the specific premises equipment at the specific property unit, sending the maintenance self-help data to the one of the user client devices; encompass a user reporting a maintenance issue (along with category, type, and location) to a maintenance management service, wherein the service replies with a self-help guide for the conducting the maintenance; which is the management of business relations, and the managing of human behavior. In addition, receiving maintenance self-help results data indicating whether or not the selected one of the plurality of maintenance issue types has been resolved in response to the self-help procedures, and facilitating a maintenance request associated with the maintenance notification data and with the specific property unit when the selected one of the plurality of maintenance issue types has not been resolved in response to the self-help procedures; encompass worker informing a management service whether the self-help guide worked or failed, and if it failed, then facilitating further help (i.e. hiring another party); which is the management of business relations, and the managing of human behavior. In addition, storing communications, making them accessible to workers, and , and wherein the communications include communications generated by maintenance personnel, the user of the client device, and one or more acknowledgements indicating that the communications been read by the maintenance personnel; encompasses managing business relations. Thus, the claims recite elements that fall into the “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity” grouping of abstract ideas. In addition, the claims recite receiving maintenance notification data that indicates a selected maintenance issue category and a selected maintenance issue type and a property identifier, determining specific premises equipment at the specific property unit, generating maintenance self-help data based on the maintenance notification data and the specific premises equipment at the specific property unit, providing the maintenance self-help data, receiving maintenance self-help results data indicating whether or not the selected one of the plurality of maintenance issue types has been resolved in response to the self-help procedures, facilitating a maintenance request associated with the maintenance notification data and with the specific property unit when the selected one of the plurality of maintenance issue types has not been resolved in response to the self-help procedures, storing communication record, and wherein the communications include communications generated by maintenance personnel, the user of the client device, and one or more acknowledgements indicating that the communications been read by the maintenance personnel; which encompass elements that can be performed in the human mind (observation, evaluation, opinion, judgement, and memorization). Thus, the claims recite elements that fall into the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. The claims recite an abstract idea.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. The claims do not recite additional elements, when taken individually and in an ordered combination with the abstract idea, that improve the functioning of a computer, another technology, or technical field. The claims do not recite the use of, or apply the abstract idea with, a particular machine, the claims do not recite the transformation of an article from one state or thing into another. Finally, the claims do not recite additional elements, taken individually and in an ordered combination, that apply or use the abstract idea in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment. Instead, the claims recite the use of generic computer elements (network interface, cloud computing system, memory, processor, client devices, user interface, display device, communication records database, tiered cloud memory) as tools to carry out the abstract idea. The claims are directed to an abstract idea.
The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements, when taken individually and in an ordered combination with the abstract idea, 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 element of using generic computer elements and machines to perform the 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. The claims are directed to non-patent eligible subject matter.
The dependent claims 15-20, when taken individually and in an ordered combination with the abstract idea, do not recite additional elements that integrate the abstract idea into a practical application, or add significantly more to the abstract idea. In particular, the claims further recite storing a property equipment database that correlates instances of premises equipment to each property unit of a plurality of property units, and storing an equipment repair database that correlates maintenance self-help data to the instances of premises equipment and also to corresponding ones of the plurality of maintenance issue types; which merely further invokes storing business information, which is the management of commercial activity and mental processes, and thus recites elements that fall into the ”Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity” and “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas (claim 15). In addition, the claims further recite facilitating the maintenance request includes facilitating communications between maintenance personnel and a user regarding the maintenance request via an anonymized communication system utilizing one of the client devices associated with management personnel; which merely further invokes customers and service providers communicating for business, which is the management of commercial activity, and thus recites elements that fall into the ”Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity” grouping of abstract ideas (claim 16). In addition, the claims further recite facilitating the maintenance request includes providing the maintenance personnel access to the maintenance request via a maintenance portal utilizing one of the client devices associated with management personnel; which encompasses allowing service personnel to view maintenance job details, which is the management of commercial activity, and thus recites elements that fall into the ”Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity” grouping of abstract ideas (claim 17). In addition, the claims further recite storing a communication records database, and storing the communications between maintenance personnel and the user in the communication records database, and wherein the communications between maintenance personnel and the user of regarding the maintenance request are accessible via the maintenance personnel utilizing the maintenance portal; which encompasses storing a job communication and pairing between a customer and service provider, and making the record accessible, which is the management of commercial activity, and thus recites elements that fall into the ”Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity” grouping of abstract ideas (claim 18). In addition, the claims further recite queuing the maintenance request; which encompasses placing job requests in a queue, which encompasses providing the job request to service providers, which is the management of commercial activity, and thus recites elements that fall into the ”Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity” grouping of abstract ideas (claim 19). In addition, the claims further recite forwarding the maintenance request to a maintenance vendor, property management personnel, or other maintenance personnel and shifting the maintenance from the maintenance request queue to a separate maintenance queue; which encompasses providing the job request to service providers, which is the management of commercial activity, and thus recites elements that fall into the ”Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity” grouping of abstract ideas (claim 20).
Novelty/Non-Obviousness
Claims 1-20 are allowed over the prior art of record, however remain rejected under other statutes. In this instance, while individually, each other recited claim elements is taught by the prior art, the specific combination of elements is deemed to render the claims non-obvious over the combination of references.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MICHAEL P HARRINGTON whose telephone number is (571)270-1365. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9-5.
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, Jeffrey Zimmerman can be reached at (571)-272-4602. 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.
Michael Harrington
Primary Patent Examiner
23 July 2026
Art Unit 3628
/MICHAEL P HARRINGTON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3628
Prosecution Insights