DETAILED ACTION
Status of Application
This action is a Final Rejection. This action is in response to the amendment and response filed on June 9, 2026.
Claims 1, 11, and 16 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 the rejection under 35 U.S.C. 101, Applicant argues that “claim 1 no longer recites control at the level of a result. Rather, the policy is recited as ‘a created data structure completed as an executable file,’ which the device deploys ‘over the network to a local-client policy manager of the user device for execution by the user device.’” Remarks at 9. Because a description of this limitation could not be found in the Specification, it was interpreted broadly and at a high level. A description of this claimed feature, both at a high level and examples, was not found in the Specification. For example, it is not clear what type of operation is being modified and what type of network activity is being restricted. Therefore, the rejection is maintained.
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 § 112(a)
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 1-20 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.
Claim 1 has been amended to recite “controlling, by the device, over the network, the user device based on generated claim submission, the control comprising the executable file executing to automatically monitor and manage real world functionality and digital functionality of the user device without user input, the control comprising the executable file automatically modifying an operation of the user device by restricting at least one network activity of the user device responsive to the determined event.” Claims 11 and 16 recite a similar limitation. Applicant pointed to paragraphs 0042, 0073, and 0080-0082 of the published application as providing support for the claim amendments. See Remarks at 9. These paragraphs along with the full Specification were reviewed and no description of this feature was found. The Specification broadly refers to controlling a device but it does not describe what that means or state that at least one network activity of the user device is restricted responsive to the determined event.
For example, paragraph 0039 of the published application states “[f]or example, engine 200 may provide a device warranty management service, via the cloud system 106, which can monitor and control how device’s operate under respectively applied warranty policies.” This statement does not explain what is being controlled.
Paragraph 0043 states “the framework can effectuate control of a device via, but not limited to, the type of policy, term and/or conditions and exclusions that dictate how the device and/or activity related to the device are covered under the policy, and the real-world/digital manners for which the device can be utilized.” This statement does not suggest that network activity is restricted.
Paragraph 0081 states “[a]nd, in Step 320, engine 200 displays within the UI information related to the determination in Step 318. Accordingly, in some embodiments, a usage report and/or event report can be generated and/or updated that provides a detailed reasoning as to what the claim entailed, the event details, the determination as to whether the claim was approved or denied, and the reasoning, as supported by information from the policy, and the like. Such information can be displayed as IOs, as discussed above at least in relation to Step 310, such that additional and/or supplemental information related to the warranty claim decision can be further researched and understood by the user of the device.” According to this paragraph, a report is generated and provided to the device. Restricting network activity is not described.
If Applicant believes this limitation is disclosed in the original Specification, Applicant should specifically point out and explain the support.
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 compiled as an executable file for managing the user device based on the determined risk metrics, the executable file comprising criteria defined by the policy;
deploying, by the device over the network, the executable file to a local-client policy manager of the user device for execution by the user device;
monitoring, via execution of the executable file, real world and digital activity of the user device;
determining, via execution of the executable file, based on the monitoring, 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 the executable file executing to automatically monitor and manage real world functionality and digital functionality of the user device without user input, the control comprising the executable file automatically modifying an operation of the user device by restricting at least one network activity of the user device responsive to the determined event.
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 comprising the executable file executing to automatically monitor and manage real world functionality and digital functionality of the user device without user input, the control comprising the executable file automatically modifying an operation of the user device by restricting at least one network activity of the user device responsive to the determined event” is not described in the specification and is written at a high level. Therefore, it is interpreted broadly. 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
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any extension fee pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
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.”)
Prosecution Insights