DETAILED ACTION
Status of Application
This action is a Non-Final Rejection. This action is in response to the request for continued examination filed on November 19, 2025.
Claims 1, 5, 11, 14, 16, and 19 have been amended.
Claims 1-20 are pending and rejected.
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . 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.
Response to Arguments
Regarding claim interpretation, and specifically Applicant’s arguments on page 8 of the Remarks, the claim interpretation is not a rejection but rather an explanation of how the claims are interpreted. This section has been updated based on Applicant’s amendments and remarks.
Regarding the rejections under 35 U.S.C. 112, these rejections have been withdrawn in light of Applicant’s amendments and remarks.
Regarding the rejection under 35 U.S.C. 101, Applicant argues “that the claims are directed to automated network security and device risk management, which represents a technical solution to computer network security problems. Specifically, the claimed subject matter addresses the technical problem of how to automatically assess, monitor, and control network-connected devices based on real-time risk analysis.” Remarks at 9. However, instead of providing a technical solution or technical improvement, the claims are using existing technology to provide a business solution of generating and submitting a warranty claim.
Applicant further argues that “[u]nlike methods for organizing human activity, the claimed subject matter operates entirely through automated computer processes rather than human decision-making, directly controls technical device functionality rather than organizing human behavior, processes technical network data rather than business information, implements real-time computational risk assessment rather than manual evaluation processes, and executes automated network communications rather than facilitating human communications.” Remarks at 9. Applicant further asserts that “[t]he ‘claim submission’ element, while potentially involving insurance or similar processes, is merely incidental to the core technical steps of automated device risk management and control.” Id. However, for example, all of claim 1 relates to the warranty process. The first three steps relate to determining a policy and the next four steps relate to identifying a need for claim and generating and submitting a claim. The last step appears to relate to processing a claim. The use of a computer (i.e., “the device”) does not make the claim eligible. Rather, the device is a programmed general purpose computing device that implements the abstract idea.
Applicant further argues that the claim “steps collectively define a technological process for autonomous device management, involving machine-driven monitoring, event detection, structured data processing, and automated network-based control of device functionality. Such operations go well beyond non-technical warranty handling and instead reflect a practical application rooted in computing technology, improving the functioning of networked devices and enabling automated management that cannot be performed as a mental process or through conventional manual workflows.” Remarks at 10. However, these steps are recited at a high level and do not provide a technological improvement. Instead, existing technology is being used to implement a business process.
Applicant further argues that “the claimed subject matter operates in a specific technological environment of networked computing devices and provides concrete technological improvements including improved network security through automated risk-based device management, enhanced device monitoring through real-time data analysis, automated response capabilities that reduce system response time, and direct technical control mechanisms that can modify device behavior. The claims recite a specific ordered combination of technical steps that work together to provide the technical solution, progressing from data collection to risk analysis to policy determination to event detection to automated submission to device control.” Remarks at 10. However, this description of the claims does not properly portray the claims. Specifically, claim 1 recites steps of a device collecting information about a user device, analyzing the information, determining a policy for the user device, determining an event involving the device, generating a claim submission, submitting the claim, and sending data to the device. The device is being used to perform a business process. Therefore, the rejection is maintained.
Regarding 35 U.S.C. 103, the rejection has been withdrawn in light of Applicant’s claim amendments. Although individual claim features have been found in the art, the combination of claim limitations is not obvious.
Claim Interpretation
Applicant should be aware that there is claim language that does not serve to differentiate the claims from the prior art and/or provide an additional element that can be a consideration for eligibility1. See MPEP 2103(c).
Nonfunctional Descriptive Material
Nonfunctional descriptive material is generally not given patentable weight. See MPEP 2111.05. Any difference related merely to the meaning and information conveyed through labels (i.e., the type of the item) which does not explicitly alter or impact the steps of the method is nonfunctional descriptive material and does not patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art in terms of patentability.
The following limitations include nonfunctional descriptive material:
Claims 3, 12, and 17: “causing display, on a display associated with the user device, of an event report within a displayed user interface (UI), the event report comprising interactive information related to the approval or denial determination”
Claims 5, 14, and 19: “causing display, on a display associated with the user device, of a user interface (UI), the UI comprising a visible display of a usage report for the user device based on the analyzed information and the determined policy, wherein the usage report comprises interactive functionality that identifies supplemental information related to the analyzed information and the determined policy”
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 as being directed to non-statutory subject matter because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1: Does the Claim Fall within a Statutory Category? (see MPEP 2106.03)
Yes, with respect to claims 1-10, which recite a method and, therefore, are directed to the statutory class of process.
Yes, with respect to claims 11-15, which recite a device and, therefore, are directed to the statutory class of machine.
Yes, with respect to claims 16-20, which recite a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium and, therefore, are directed to the statutory class of process.
Step 2A, Prong One: Is a Judicial Exception Recited? (see MPEP 2106.04(a))
The following claims (claims 1-10 are representative) identify the limitations that recite the abstract idea in regular text and that recite additional elements in bold:
1. A method comprising:
collecting, by a device, information related to at least one of network and usage data of a user device, the user device being connected to a network associated with a location;
analyzing, by the device, the information, and determining an eligibility of the user device, the device eligibility comprising information related to determined risk metrics for the user device;
analyzing, by the device, the user device eligibility, and determining a policy for the user device, the policy being a created data structure comprising executable information for managing the user device based on the determined risk metrics, the executable information comprising criteria defined by the policy;
determining, by the device, based on the monitoring via execution of the policy data structure, an event, the event corresponding to activity involving the user device that corresponds to the criteria of the policy;
automatically generating, by the device, a claim submission comprising information related to at least the activity of the event;
electronically submitting, by the device, over the network to an online network resource, without user input, the generated claim submission; and
controlling, by the device, over the network, the user device based on generated claim submission, the control comprising mechanisms that automatically monitor and manage real world functionality and digital functionality of the user device without user input.
2. The method of claim 1, further comprising:
analyzing the generated claim submission; and
determining whether to approve or deny the claim submission for the event.
3. The method of claim 2, further comprising:
causing display, on a display associated with the user device, of an event report within a displayed user interface (UI), the event report comprising interactive information related to the approval or denial determination.
4. The method of claim 1, further comprising:
detecting an initial connection by the user device to the network, wherein the collection of the information is based on the initial connection, wherein the connection corresponds to a threshold satisfying amount of connections by the user device for the location.
5. The method of claim 1, further comprising:
causing display, on a display associated with the user device, of a user interface (UI), the UI comprising a visible display of a usage report for the user device based on the analyzed information and the determined policy, wherein the usage report comprises interactive functionality that identifies supplemental information related to the analyzed information and the determined policy.
6. The method of claim 1, further comprising:
monitoring, based on the executable information of the policy, usage data of the user device;
analyzing the usage data; and
determining, based on the analysis of the usage data, the event.
7. The method of claim 6, wherein the event corresponds to at least one of real-world activity involving the user device and digital activity caused by the user device.
8. The method of claim 1, wherein the collected information comprises information related to the user device and activities of at least one user of the user device.
9. The method of claim 1, wherein the user device comprises a plurality of user devices connected to the network at the location, wherein the policy is determined for the plurality of user devices.
10. The method of claim 1, wherein the network is a Wi-Fi network, whereby the device is associated with a cloud system.
Yes. But for the recited additional elements as shown above in bold, the remaining limitations of the claims recite certain methods of organizing human activity. The claims are directed to determining a warranty policy and submitting a claim. This type of method of organizing human activity is a fundamental economic practice because it involves insurance and a commercial interaction such as agreements in the form of contracts, legal obligations, sales activities or behaviors, and business relations. Thus, the claims recite an abstract idea.
Step 2A, Prong Two: Is the Abstract Idea Integrated into a Practical Application? (see MPEP 2106.04(d))
No. The claims as a whole merely use a computer as a tool to perform the abstract idea. The computing components (i.e., additional elements that are in bold above) are recited at a high level of generality and are merely invoked as a tool to implement the steps. For example, only a programmed general purpose device is needed to perform the claimed process. Furthermore, the limitation of “controlling, by the device, over the network, the user device based on generated claim submission, the control mechanisms for real world and digital functionality of the user device” is written at a high level and does not provide any specific aspects about the controlling. Simply implementing the abstract idea on a generic computer is not a practical application of the abstract idea. Additionally, there is no improvement to the functioning of a computer or technology. Therefore, the abstract idea is not integrated into a practical application.
Step 2B: Does the Claim Provide an Inventive Concept? (see MPEP 2106.05)
No. As discussed with respect to Step 2A, Prong 2, the additional elements in the claims, both individually and in combination, amount to no more than tools to perform the abstract idea. Merely performing the abstract idea using a computer cannot provide an inventive concept. Therefore, the claims do not provide an inventive concept.
As such, the claims are not patent eligible.
Relevant Prior Art
The following references are relevant to Applicant’s invention:
Hurst et al., U.S. Patent Application Publication Number 2016/0105814 A1. This reference teaches monitoring wireless network traffic to determine at least one network communication event. Device warranty and insurance plans are generated and managed.
Cotton, U.S. Patent Application Publication Number 2015/0026074 A1. This reference teaches a consumer-centric portable device warranty management system.
Jordan, II et al., U.S. Patent Application Publication Number 2020/0302549 A1. This reference teaches systems and methods for managing warranty information.
Trandel et al., U.S. Patent Number 8,442,844 B1. This reference teaches product claims management solutions.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ELIZABETH H ROSEN whose telephone number is (571) 270-1850 and email address is elizabeth.rosen@uspto.gov. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 10 AM ET - 7 PM ET.
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, Michael Anderson, can be reached at 571-270-0508. 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.
/ELIZABETH H ROSEN/Primary Examiner, 3693
1 See MPEP 2106.04(d)(2) (“Examiners should keep in mind that in order to qualify as a "treatment" or "prophylaxis" limitation for purposes of this consideration, the claim limitation in question must affirmatively recite an action that effects a particular treatment or prophylaxis for a disease or medical condition. An example of such a limitation is a step of "administering amazonic acid to a patient" or a step of "administering a course of plasmapheresis to a patient." If the limitation does not actually provide a treatment or prophylaxis, e.g., it is merely an intended use of the claimed invention or a field of use limitation, then it cannot integrate a judicial exception under the "treatment or prophylaxis" consideration. For example, a step of "prescribing a topical steroid to a patient with eczema" is not a positive limitation because it does not require that the steroid actually be used by or on the patient, and a recitation that a claimed product is a "pharmaceutical composition" or that a "feed dispenser is operable to dispense a mineral supplement" are not affirmative limitations because they are merely indicating how the claimed invention might be used.”)