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 .
DETAILED ACTION
Claims 1-20 are pending.
Examiner Notes
Examiner cites particular paragraphs and/or columns and lines in the references as applied to Applicant’s claims for the convenience of the Applicant. Although the specified citations are representative of the teachings in the art and are applied to the specific limitations within the individual claim, other passages and figures may apply as well. It is respectfully requested that, in preparing responses, the Applicant fully consider the references in entirety as potentially teaching all or part of the claimed invention, as well as the context of the passage as taught by the prior art or disclosed by the examiner. The prompt development of a clear issue requires that the replies of the Applicant meet the objections to and rejections of the claims. Applicant should also specifically point out the support for any amendments made to the disclosure. See MPEP § 2163.06.
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
Authorization for Internet Communications in a Patent Application
Applicant is encouraged to file an Authorization for Internet Communications in a Patent Application form (http://www.uspto.gov/sites/default/files/documents/sb0439.pdf) along with the response to this office action to facilitate and expedite future communication between Applicant and the examiner. If the form is submitted then Applicant is requested to provide a contact email address in the signature block at the conclusion of the official reply.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-20 would be allowable over the prior art of record if rewritten to overcome the applicable rejection(s) and/or objection(s) set forth in this Office action because the examiner found no prior art reference found that would primarily teach the majority of the recited limitations. Furthermore, neither any of the prior art cited in its entirety, nor based on the prior art, was there any motivation to combine any of the said prior art without resorting to using piecemeal examination (see MPEP 707.07(g)).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (an abstract idea) without significantly more.
Step 1: The claim is a process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter:
Claim 1. A computer-implemented method when executed on data processing hardware causes the data processing hardware to perform operations comprising.
Step 2A Prong One: The claim recites an abstract idea because it includes limitations that can be considered mental processes (concepts performed in the human mind including an observation, evaluation, judgment, and/or opinion). If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the human mind or via pen and paper, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea:
for each device of the plurality of devices:
validating the device based on the obtained device identifier (abstract idea mental process); and
classifying the device based on the respective resource capabilities and the respective resource needs of the device (abstract idea mental process); and
generating a device controller matrix by:
identifying, based on the respective resource needs of each device of the plurality of devices, an ecosystem resource requirement for the plurality of devices in the ecosystem of the vehicle (abstract idea mental process);
predicting, based on the device classifications for the plurality of devices, an ecosystem resource availability for the plurality of devices in the ecosystem of the vehicle (abstract idea mental process); and
prioritizing the respective resource capabilities and the respective resource needs of each device of the plurality of devices based on the ecosystem resource requirement and the ecosystem resource availability (abstract idea mental process).
Step 2A Prong Two: The abstract idea is not integrated into a practical application because the abstract idea is recited but for generically recited additional computer elements (i.e. data storage, processor, memory, computer readable medium, etc.) which do not add meaningful limitations to the abstract idea amounting to simply implementing the abstract idea on a generic computer using generic computing hardware and/or software (e.g. generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use (see MPEP 2106.05(h)). Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. The generic computing components are recited at a high-level of generality such that they amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using the recited generic computer components. Accordingly, 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:
Claim 1. A computer-implemented method when executed on data processing hardware (generic computing components) causes the data processing hardware to perform operations comprising:
obtaining a device identifier for each of a plurality of devices within an ecosystem of a vehicle (generic computing components), each device identifier including respective resource capabilities and respective resource needs of the device (generic computing components performing extra-solution activity of receiving data/information).
Step 2B: The claim includes limitations which can be considered extra-solution activity (see MPEP 2106.05(g)) insufficient to amount to significantly more than the abstract idea because the additional limitations only perform at least one of collecting, gathering, displaying, generating, modifying, updating, storing, retrieving, sending, and receiving data/information data which are well-understood, routine, conventional computer functions as recognized by the court decisions listed in MPEP § 2106.05(d)II. The claim further includes limitations that do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application because they merely recite the words "apply it" (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or merely including instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely using a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea, as discussed in MPEP § 2106.05(f). Therefore, the claim, and its limitations when considered separately and in combination, is directed to patent ineligible subject matter:
obtaining a device identifier for each of a plurality of devices within an ecosystem of a vehicle, each device identifier including respective resource capabilities and respective resource needs of the device (extra-solution activity of receiving data/information).
Claim 2. The method of Claim 1, wherein classifying each device of the plurality of devices based on the respective resource capabilities and the respective resource needs of the device further comprises assigning a role to each device of the plurality of devices (abstract idea mental process).
Claim 3. The method of Claim 2, wherein the assigned role of each device of the plurality of devices includes one of a donor device, a recipient device, or a hybrid device (abstract idea mental process).
Claim 4. The method of Claim 3, wherein generating the device controller matrix further includes reassigning a hybrid device as one of a donor device or a recipient device based on the ecosystem resource requirement and the ecosystem resource availability (abstract idea mental process).
Claim 5. The method of Claim 1, wherein classifying each device of the plurality of devices based on the respective resource capabilities and the respective resource needs of the device includes assigning a role to the device (abstract idea mental process); and
wherein prioritizing the respective resource capabilities and the respective resource needs of each device of the plurality of devices comprises identifying a first device of the plurality of devices having respective resource capabilities that exceed respective resource needs (abstract idea mental process).
Claim 6. The method of Claim 5, wherein generating the device controller matrix further comprises:
updating the device classification of the first device by reassigning the role of the first device to a donor device role (abstract idea mental process); and
assigning the respective resource capabilities of the first device that exceed the respective resource needs of the first device to a second device having a recipient device role (abstract idea mental process).
Claim 7. The method of Claim 1, wherein classifying each device of the plurality of devices based on the respective resource capabilities and the respective resource needs of the device includes assigning a role to the device (abstract idea mental process); and
wherein prioritizing the respective resource capabilities and the respective resource needs of each device of the plurality of devices comprises identifying a first device of the plurality of devices having respective resource needs that exceed respective resource capabilities (abstract idea mental process).
Claim 8. The method of Claim 7, wherein generating the device controller matrix further comprises:
updating the device classification of the first device by reassigning the role of the first device to a recipient device role (abstract idea mental process); and
assigning the respective resource capabilities of a second device having a donor device role to the first device (abstract idea mental process).
Claim 9. The method of Claim 1, wherein the generating the device controller matrix is further based on a device presence pattern (abstract idea mental process).
Claim 10. The method of Claim 1, wherein a first device of the plurality of devices includes a first communication protocol, and a second device of the plurality of devices includes a second communication protocol, the first device and the second device in communication through the ecosystem of the vehicle (extra-solution activity of sending/receiving data/information).
As per claim 11, it has similar limitations as claim 1 and is therefore rejected using the same rationale.
As per claim 12, it has similar limitations as claim 2 and is therefore rejected using the same rationale.
As per claim 13, it has similar limitations as claim 3 and is therefore rejected using the same rationale.
As per claim 14, it has similar limitations as claim 4 and is therefore rejected using the same rationale.
As per claim 15, it has similar limitations as claim 5 and is therefore rejected using the same rationale.
As per claim 16, it has similar limitations as claim 6 and is therefore rejected using the same rationale.
As per claim 17, it has similar limitations as claim 7 and is therefore rejected using the same rationale.
As per claim 18, it has similar limitations as claim 8 and is therefore rejected using the same rationale.
As per claim 19, it has similar limitations as claim 9 and is therefore rejected using the same rationale.
As per claim 20, it has similar limitations as claim 10 and is therefore rejected using the same rationale.
Citation of Relevant Prior Art
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to Applicant's disclosure:
Aggarwal et al. (US 2006/0047813) in at least [0044] disclose prioritization information associated with a ranking of available resources in terms of their compatibility with desired attributes for a requested resource and prioritizing resource capacity and processing capability of a resource.
Hamilton et al. (US 2004/0230974) in at least [0053] disclose donors donating resources to recipients in need of resources.
Merg et al. (US 2019/0266808) in at least [0127] and [0131] disclose computing tasks and stored data associated with a computing device and/or server can be distributed across different computing devices based at least in part on the processing/communication requirements of a computing device and/or server and the processing/communication capabilities of computing devices.
Oesterling et al. (US 2019/0259227) in at least [0113] disclose a device identifier of a personal device can be used to facilitate the pairing process and/or to authenticate the device.
Abdelwahab et al. (US 2025/0231813) in at least [0007] disclose classifying devices based on resource capabilities and a resource preference/requirement associated with a module to be deployed to / executed on the device.
Doostnejad et al. (US 2023/0305895) in at least [0276] disclose that a resource demand may be associated with any combination of devices within an electric vehicle.
Hicks et al. (US 2007/0061461) in at least [0029] disclose forecasting resource availability based on the number and types of devices to be migrated.
Moravapalle et al. (US 2018/0376348) in at least [0008] disclose classifying each device based on a quantity of resources demanded by the device over a period of time and a predicted resource share.
Hassan et al. (US 2021/0212096) in at least [0083] disclose a donor donating resources.
Karout et al. (US 2023/0345437) in at least [0050] disclose a donor donating resources.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Adam Lee whose telephone number is (571) 270-3369. The examiner can normally be reached on M-TH 8AM-5PM.
If attempts to reach the above noted Examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the Examiner’s supervisor, Pierre Vital, can be reached at the following telephone number: (571) 272-4215. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from Patent Center. Status information for published applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Patent Center for authorized users only. Should you have questions about access to Patent Center, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free).
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) Form at https://www.uspto.gov/patents/uspto-automated-interview-request-air-form.
/Adam Lee/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2198 June 5, 2026
Prosecution Insights