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 .
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.
Claim(s) 1-5, 8-12, 15-19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claims fall within at least one of the four categories of patent eligible subject matter. However, the claimed invention is directed to performing steps that fall within the mental process groupings of abstract ideas because they cover concepts performed in the human mind. An analysis of the claims regarding subject matter eligibility follows:
Step1: Claim(s) 1-5, 8-12, 15-19 recite a method, a product and a system, therefore satisfying Step 1 of the analysis.
Step 2A, Prong 1: Claim(s) 1, 8, 15 recite determining a first machine out of a plurality of machines has encountered an issue, that cannot be resolved, wherein the plurality of machines are connected via a machine to machine (M2M) communication mesh; determining a first solution to the issue encountered by the first machine while performing an assigned task; determining, based on a plurality of structured messages provided by a management hub, a second machine from the plurality of machines can provide the first solution to the issue encountered by the first machine, which, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitations entirely in the human mind and/or with the aid of pen and paper. Specifically, the steps of “determining,” “determining”, and “determining,” may be practically performed in the human mind using observation, evaluation, and judgement (MPEP 2106.04(a)(2), subsection Ill). For example, “determining” in the context of the claim(s) encompasses a user determining a first machine out of a plurality of machines has encountered an issue, that cannot be resolved, wherein the plurality of machines are connected via a machine to machine (M2M) communication mesh, “determining” in the context of the claim(s) encompasses the user determining a first solution to the issue encountered by the first machine while performing an assigned task, and “determining” in the context of the claim(s) encompasses the user determining, based on a plurality of structured messages provided by a management hub, a second machine from the plurality of machines can provide the first solution to the issue encountered by the first machine.
Claim(s) 2-5, 9-12, 16-19 recite further limitations that fall under the judicial exception as recited in claim(s) 1, 8, 15. Each of the further limitations encompass performance of the steps within the human mind.
Step 2A, Prong 2: The additional elements recited in claim(s) 1, 8, 15, “product,” “media,” “processors,” “memories,” “system,” “providing to the first machine a first sharable capability of the second machine, wherein the first sharable capability resolves the issue encountered by the first machine” do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. These limitations are directed to implementing the abstract idea using generic computer components (MPEP 2106.05(f)) and recite selecting a particular data source or type of data to be manipulated, and thus are insignificant extra-solution activity (MPEP 2106.05(g)).
Claim(s) 2-5, 9-12, 16-19 recite further details regarding sending/receiving information, identifying a plurality of sharable capabilities, and integrating a first result. These claims contain no additional elements which would integrate the abstract idea into a practical application.
Accordingly, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the identified abstract idea.
Step 2B: Claim(s) 1, 8, 15 do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed in Step 2A, Prong 2 above, the recitations of “product,” “media,” “processors,” “memories,” “system,” “providing to the first machine a first sharable capability of the second machine, wherein the first sharable capability resolves the issue encountered by the first machine” are recited at a high level of generality. The claim recites only the idea of a solution or outcome i.e., the claim fails to recite details of how a solution to a problem is accomplished, and thus are mere instructions to apply an exception (MPEP 2106.05(f)).
Regarding claim(s) 2-5, 9-12, 16-19, the additional elements are not sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because they simply apply the exception using a generic computer.
Therefore, claim(s) 1-5, 8-12, 15-19 recite an abstract idea without significantly more, and are not patent eligible.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1-4, 8-11, 15-18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Ngo (US20130185408A1).
Ngo discloses:
1. A computer-implemented method comprising:
determining a first machine out of a plurality of machines has encountered an issue, that cannot be resolved, wherein the plurality of machines are connected via a machine to machine (M2M) communication mesh; (fig 4d)
determining a first solution to the issue encountered by the first machine while performing an assigned task;(par 78)
determining, based on a plurality of structured messages provided by a management hub (par 59, 74: 430), a second machine from the plurality of machines can provide the first solution to the issue encountered by the first machine; and (par 78; fig 4d)
providing to the first machine a first sharable capability of the second machine, wherein the first sharable capability resolves the issue encountered by the first machine. (par 76: last sentence, 78; fig 4d: 410)
2. The computer-implemented method of claim 1, further comprising:
sending, to the management hub, machine information for each machine from the plurality of machines, wherein the machine information includes device node properties; (par 64, 74)
receiving, from the management hub, team information for the plurality of machines to perform the assigned task, wherein the team information provides sharable capabilities for each machine from the plurality of machines; (par 74; fig 4a: 410, 430)
receiving, from the management hub, instructions to join the team for each machine from the plurality of machines; and (par 59)
deploying the team to an area to perform the assigned task. (par 60)
3. The computer-implemented method of claim 1, further comprising:
identifying a plurality of sharable capabilities for the plurality of machines utilizing node properties for each machine from the plurality of machines, wherein the plurality of sharable capabilities includes the first sharable capability of the second machine. (par 74, 78; fig 4a: 410, 430)
4. The computer-implemented method of claim 1, further comprising:
providing to a third machine from the plurality of machines the first sharable capability of the second machine, wherein the second machine provides the first sharable capability to the third machine on an alternating basis with the first machine. (par 74; fig 4a: 410, 420; cluster)
Claim(s) 8-11 is/are rejected as being the product implemented by the method of claim(s) 1-4, and is/are rejected on the same grounds.
Claim(s) 15-18 is/are rejected as being the system implemented by the method of claim(s) 1-4, and is/are rejected on the same grounds.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim(s) 5-7, 12-14, 19-20 is/are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims, and if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 101.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KATHERINE LIN whose telephone number is (571)431-0706. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday; 8 a.m. - 5 p.m. EST.
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, Bryce Bonzo can be reached at (571) 272-3655. 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.
/KATHERINE LIN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2113