/25DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Application Status
This is a Continuation (CON) of 17/085,752 now U.S. Patent 11,748,763.
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 06/18/2026 has been entered.
Response to Amendment
The amendment filed 06/18/26 has been entered.
Claim Status
Claims 1-54, 73 and 76-96 have been canceled.
Claims 55-72, 74-75, and 97 are pending. They comprising of 3 groups:
1) System1: 55-64, 97, and
2) Method1: 65-72 and 74, and
3) Article1: 75.
They all of similar scope.
As of 6/18/2026, independent system claim 55 is as followed:
55. (Currently Amended) A system configured to automatically programmatically initiate a claim for an unregistered device caused by a synchronization error, the system comprising at least one processor and at least one memory, the at least one memory comprising computer coded instructions therein, wherein the computer coded instructions are configured to, when executed by the processor, cause the system to:
[1] receive, at a fulfillment subsystem, a claim data object associated with a subscriber identifier data object, the claim data object comprising a device identification data object;
[2] query a device protection program subscriber database associated with the fulfillment subsystem for an enrolled subscriber profile data object associated with the subscriber identifier data object;
[3] receive result data indicative that the device protection program subscriber database does not include the enrolled subscriber profile data object;
[4] generate a third-party enrollment status request data object comprising the subscriber identifier data object and the device identification data object;
[5] transmit the third-party enrollment status request data object to the third-party device management system, causing the third-party device management system to query a[[the]] third- party profile database for an associated third-party subscriber profile data object;
[6] receive a third-party enrollment status response data object from the third-party device management system indicating a matching third-party enrollment status with the subscriber identifier data object, wherein the third-party enrollment status is indicative of a third-party subscriber profile data object stored in the third-party device management system; and
[7] automatically initiate a claim processing instruction set associated with the claim data object based on the third-party enrollment status request data object.
PNG
media_image1.png
87
2
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Note: numbers [1]-[7] are added to the beginning of each step for referential purpose.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
Claims 55-72, 74-75, and 97 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention. In the preamble of independent claims 55, 65 and 75, the phrase “initiate a claim for an unregistered device cause by a synchronizing error” is vague because a synchronizing error would not initiate a claim for an unregistered device. In other word, the cause for “initiating a claim for protection of an unregistered device does not appear to be related to synchronizing error. The initiating of a claim for protection of a device is well known business activity for filing a claim due to an accident or event that causes damage to the device.
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 55-72, 74-75, and 97 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more.
When considering subject matter eligibility under 35 U.S.C. § 101, it must be determined whether the claim is directed to one of the four statutory categories of invention, i.e.,
(1) process,
(2) machine,
(3) manufacture or product, or
(4) composition of matter.
If the claim does fall within one of the statutory categories, it must then be determined whether the claim is directed to a judicial exception, i.e.,
(1) law of nature,
(2) natural phenomenon, and
(3) abstract idea.
and if so, it must additionally be determined whether the claim is a patent-eligible application of the exception. If an abstract idea is present in the claim, any element or combination of elements in the claim must be sufficient to ensure that the claim amounts to significantly more than the abstract idea itself. Examples of abstract ideas include:
(i) a method of organizing human activities,
(2i) an idea of itself, or
(3i) a mathematical relationship or formula.
Step 1:
In the instant case, with respect to claims 55-72, 74-75, and 97:
Claim categories:
System: 55-64, and 97,
Method: 65-72, and 74, and
Article: 75.
Analysis:
Method: claims 65-72, and 74, are directed to a computer-implemented method for initiating a claim for protection of an unregistered device, comprising steps: [1] receive a claim data object, [2] query a device protection program subscriber database, [3] receive result data, [4] generate a 3rd party enrollment status request data object, [5] transmit a third-party enrollment status request, [6] receive a third-party enrollment status response data object, and [7] initiate a claim processing instruction set associated with the claim data object without the subscriber profile data object. (Step 1:Yes).
System: claim 55-64 and 97 are directed to a system comprising (1) a processor and (2) A memory storing instruction for carrying out the steps for initiating a claim for protection of an unregistered device, comprising steps: [1] receive a claim data object, [2] query a device protection program subscriber database, [3] receive result data, [4] generate a 3rd party enrollment status request data object, [5] transmit a third-party enrollment status request, [6] receive a third-party enrollment status response data object, and [7] initiate a claim processing instruction set associated with the claim data object without the subscriber profile data object. (Step 1:Yes).
Article: 75, is directed to an article for initiating a claim for protection of an unregistered device, comprising steps: [1] receive a claim data object, [2] query a device protection program subscriber database, [3] receive result data, [4] transmit a third-party enrollment status request, [5] transmit a third-party enrollment status request, [6] receive a third-party enrollment status response data object, and [7] initiate a claim processing instruction set associated with the claim data object without the subscriber profile data object. (Step 1:Yes).
Thus, the claims are generally directed towards one of the four statutory categories under 35 USC § 101.
Actual Analysis:
Claims 55-72, 74-75 and 97 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Method claim 65, as exemplary, recites the abstract idea of for method for initiating a claim for protection of an unregistered device, comprising steps: [1] receive a claim data object, [2] query a device protection program subscriber database, [3] receive result data, [4] transmit a third-party enrollment status request, [5] transmit a third-party enrollment status request, [6] receive a third-party enrollment status response data object, and [7] initiate a claim processing instruction set associated with the claim data object without the subscriber profile data object. (Step 1:Yes).
These recited limitations fall within the “Certain Methods of Organizing Human activities” grouping of abstract ideas as it relates to business process for managing a business wherein an entity files a claim for protection of an unregistered device. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
(ii) commercial or legal interactions (including agreements in the form of contracts; Legal obligations; Advertising, marketing or sales activities or behaviors; business relations);
Alternatively, the recited limitations also fall within the “Mental process” grouping of abstract ideas as it relates to a business process of initiating a claim for protection of a device. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
B. Step 2A, Prong Two:
The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because it deals with a method for method for initiating a claim for protection of an unregistered device, by carrying out steps of:
The claims recites the additional elements of:
Steps: Types
[1] receive, …, a claim data (data) Data gathering, insignificant extra-solution activity (IESA)
[2] query … subscriber profile data (data) Mental/analysis/querying a item in a database.
[3] receive result data (data). Mental/analysis/query-and- response.
[4] generate an enrollment request (data) Mental/analysis/query.
[5] transmit enrollment status request data. Mental/analysis/query.
[6] receive … response data (data). Mental/analysis/query-and-response.
[7] initiate a claim processing instruction (data). Business activity.
Step [1] is data gathering and transmitting, which are considered as insignificant extra-solution activity steps.
Steps [2]-[6] are mental/analysis/query-and-response steps for determining whether a claim for protection of a device is enrolled in a third party is a business activity step.
Step [7] is a business activity step.
The claim does not result in an improvement to the functioning of the computer system or to any other technology or technical field. Further, the claim limitations are not indicative of integration into a practical application by applying or using the judicial exception in some other meaningful way. The combination of these additional elements is no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer devices or modules or software, data processing system, i.e. an electronic device having a processing unit with a software application thereon. Accordingly, even in combination, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to an abstract idea for (data) comprising step of initiating a claim for protection of an unregistered device, comprises the steps cited above, which does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application. See MPEP 2106.05(f).
C. Step 2B:
The additional elements do not add an inventive element to the claim. The claims recites the additional elements of steps [1]-[7] above.
Step [1] is data gathering and transmitting, which are considered as insignificant extra-solution activity steps.
Steps [2]-[6] are mental/analysis/query-and-response steps for determining whether a claim for protection of a device is enrolled in a third party is a business activity step.
Step [7] is a business activity step.
The additional elements do not result in an improvement to the functioning of the computer system or to any other technology or technical field. The generic computer components merely perform generic computer functions: [1] receive a claim data object, [2] query a device protection program subscriber database, [3] receive result data, [4] transmit a third-party enrollment status request, [5] transmit a third-party enrollment status request, [6] receive a third-party enrollment status response data object, and [7] initiate a claim processing instruction set associated with the claim data object without the subscriber profile data object.
Further, the claim limitations are not indicative of integration into a practical application by applying or using the judicial exception in some other meaningful way. The combination of these additional elements is no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer network devices, i.e. a software application for initiating a claim for an unregistered device. Accordingly, even in combination, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to an abstract idea. See MPEP 2106.05(f).
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because as discussed above, the additional elements, steps [1]-[7], when considered both individually and as an ordered combination do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea(s). As for the system or article claims, mere instructions to apply an exertion using generic computer components cannot provide an inventive concept. These generic computer components, i.e. a processor, a memory to store a set of instructions. The combination of these additional elements is no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer network devices, i.e. a software for initiating a claim for protection of an unregistered device, are claimed at high level of generality to perform their basis functions which amount to no more than generally linking the use of the judicial exception to the particular technological environment of field of use and further see insignificant extra-solution activity MPEP 2106.05 (f), (g) and (h). The Symantec, TLI, and OIP Techs, court decisions cited in MPEP 2106.05(d)(II) indicate that mere receipt or transmission of data over a network, sorting data, analyzing data, and transmitting the data is a well-understood, routine and conventional function when it is claimed in a merely generic manner (as it is here). The claim are basically collect data, analyze data, and provide set of results, which are not patent eligible, see Electric Power Group, LLC. For these reasons, there is no inventive concept in the claim, and thus the claim is not patent eligible.
As for dep. claims 66-67 (part of 65 above), which deal with further details of the fraud and relationship features, these further limits the abstract idea of the fraud and relationship, without including: (a) an improvement to another technology or technical field, (b) an improvement to the functioning of the computer itself, or (c ) meaningful limitations beyond generally linking the use of an abstract idea to a particular technological environment. Therefore, claims 66-67 are not considered as being “significantly more”, and thus does not facilitate the claim to meet the “inventive concept”.
As for dep. claims 68-69 (part of 65 above), which deal with further details of the third party involvement features, these further limits the abstract idea of the third party involvement, without including: (a) an improvement to another technology or technical field, (b) an improvement to the functioning of the computer itself, or (c ) meaningful limitations beyond generally linking the use of an abstract idea to a particular technological environment. Therefore, claims 68-69 are not considered as being “significantly more”, and thus does not facilitate the claim to meet the “inventive concept”.
As for dep. claims 70-72, 74 (part of 65 above), which deal with further details of the third party involvement features, these further limits the abstract idea of the third party involvement, without including: (a) an improvement to another technology or technical field, (b) an improvement to the functioning of the computer itself, or (c ) meaningful limitations beyond generally linking the use of an abstract idea to a particular technological environment. Note that the phrase in dep. claim 74 “initiating a system synchronizing event” wherein the term “initiating” means to “cause (a process or action) to begin” means to initiate or set something in motion,” is broad and the term “event” based on the 3rd party enrollment status response data object is also broad. Therefore, claims 70-72 and 74 are not considered as being “significantly more”, and thus does not facilitate the claim to meet the “inventive concept”.
Therefore, claims 55-72 and 74-75 and 97 are not drawn to eligible subject matter as they are directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. step 2B: NO
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 6/18/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant’s comments on pages 14-17 are noted but not found to be persuasive.
In the preamble of independent claims 55, 65 and 75, the phrase “initiate a claim for an unregistered device cause by a synchronizing error” is vague because a synchronizing error would not initiate a claim for an unregistered device. In other word, the cause for “initiating a claim for protection of an unregistered device does not appear to be related to synchronizing error. The initiating of a claim for protection of a device is well known business activity for filing a claim due to an accident or event that causes damage to the device. Therefore, the benefits of the claim scope “initiating a claim for protection of a device” due to detection of the synchronizing error are not proper since they are not related. Furthermore, the feature “a synchronizing error” only appears in the preamble which may not have any patentable weight since the preamble is considered as optional. Moreover, the benefit of solving “synchronizing error” is well known to a skilled artisan and is taught by SINGH, US 5,758,083 in the Office action of 17/085,752 on 07/29/2022.
PNG
media_image2.png
260
660
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Citations of Prior Art
Claim for a system/method/article for automatically programmatically initiate a claim for an unregistered device caused by database asynchronization issues, as shown in independent system1 claim 55, and respective method1 claim 65, and article claim 75, is neither anticipated by, nor obvious in view of,
Name Publication
(1) OZANIAN US 2020/0.322.800, and
(2) OBERHEIDE et al. US 2015/0.046.989, and
(3) SINGH et al. US 5,758,083.
since claimed invention, which teaches:
55. (Currently Amended) A system configured to automatically programmatically initiate a claim for an unregistered device caused by a database asynchronization between a device protection program subscriber database associated with a fulfillment subsystem and a third-party profile database associated with a third-party device management system, the system comprising at least one processor and at least one memory, the at least one memory comprising computer coded instructions therein, wherein the computer coded instructions are configured to, when executed by the processor, cause the system to:
[1] receive, at [[a]] the fulfillment subsystem, a claim data object associated with a subscriber identifier data object, the claim data object comprising a device identification data object;
[2] query [[a]] the device protection program subscriber database associated with the fulfillment subsystem for an enrolled subscriber profile data object associated with the subscriber identifier data object;
[3] receive result data indicative that the device protection program subscriber database does not include the enrolled subscriber profile data object;
[4] generate a third-party enrollment status request data object comprising the subscriber identifier data object and the device identification data object;
[5] transmit the third-party enrollment status request data object to [[a]] the third-party device management system, causing the third-party device management system to query [[a]] the third- party profile database for an associated third-party subscriber profile data object;
[6] receive a third-party enrollment status response data object from the third-party device management system indicating a matching third-party enrollment status with the subscriber identifier data object, wherein the third-party enrollment status is indicative of a third-party subscriber profile data object stored in the third-party device management system; and
[7] automatically initiate a claim processing instruction set associated with the claim data object based on the third-party enrollment status request data object.
which references neither disclose nor suggest.
No claims are allowed.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Tan "Dean" D NGUYEN whose telephone number is (571)272-6806. The examiner can normally be reached M-F: 6:30 AM - 4:30 PM.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Sarah M Monfeldt can be reached on 571-270-1833. 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.
/TAN D NGUYEN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3689
Prosecution Insights