DETAILED ACTION
Status of the Application
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . This communication is a non-final action in response to application filed on 9/11/2023. Claims 1-18 are currently pending and have been considered below.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-18 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.
Claims 1-18 are rejected for limitations identified below for insufficient antecedent basis, unclear meaning or grammatical errors; or being dependent from a parent claim with identified deficiencies.
“the computer comprising…” in claim 1,
“the mobile device app …” in claim 1,
“…installed in the computer” in claim 1,
“the mobile device app …” in claim 2,
“when the app is launched” in claim 2,
“wherein the interface further provide…” in claim 2,
“the users in another implementation” in claim 2,
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 1-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter. Claims 1-18 are determined to be directed to an abstract idea.
The claims 1-18 are directed to a judicial exception (i.e., law of nature, natural phenomenon, or abstract idea), without providing a practical application integration and without providing significantly more.
As per Step 1 of the subject matter eligibility analysis, Claims 1-18 are directed to a system (i.e., apparatus) which is one of the four statutory categories of invention.
As per Step 2A-Prong 1 of the subject matter eligibility analysis, Claim 1 is directed specifically to the abstract idea of managing, facilitating and streamlining commercial moves by to perform operations relating to commercial office moves; executing instructions relating to moving activities, to transmit instructions to save or retrieve data related to commercial moving; to transmit instructions to save or retrieve commercial moving related data; for recording and retrieving commercial moving data that tracks moving activities and provide coordination for the moving activities; to save or retrieve commercial moving data, to connect, transmit and save moving related data and retrieve moving related data, wherein the data is synchronized and displayed; which include mental processes (observing and evaluating data related to commercial moves for a judgement or opinion of facilitating a commercial move), and certain methods of organizing human activity based on fundamental economic practice (managing business logistics including Office moves), and managing personal behavior and interactions between people (following rules and instructions to managing, facilitating and streamlining commercial moves). Claims 2-18 are directed to the abstract idea of claim 1 with further details on the parameters/attributes of the abstract idea which includes mental processes and certain methods of organizing human activity for similar reasons as provided above for claim 1. After considering all claim elements, both individually and in combination and in ordered combination, it has been determined that the claims do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself.
As per Step 2A-Prong 2 of the subject matter eligibility analysis, while the claims 1-18 recite additional limitations which are hardware or software elements, such as a system that utilizes a mobile phone app, a web based interface or computer based interface and a backend infrastructure that stores data, at least one server with a processor coupled to a memory, the memory for storing instructions executable by the system to cause the system to perform operations; a mobile device with a processor and a memory, the processor executing instructions via the mobile phone app installed on the mobile device, wherein the processor is invoked to transmit instructions to the server to save or retrieve data; a computer system running a commercial moving app via a browser, wherein the computer comprising a processor that is invoked to transmit instructions to the server to save or retrieve data; a plurality of interfaces on the mobile device app and the computer system for recording and retrieving data in the system that electronically tracks via the mobile phone app or the web based interface executed from the browser installed in the computer; a communication network that connects the mobile device and the computer system to the server to save or retrieve data, wherein the mobile device and the computer system are authenticated to connect, transmit and save data to the server and retrieve data from the server, wherein the data is synchronized and displayed in a mobile phone app, and wherein the data is displayed on the computer system via a browser; launches the mobile device app and the computer based app, wherein the plurality of interfaces on the mobile device app and computer based app, defaults to a tabbed interface when the app is launched, wherein the tabbed interface provides a tab for login, another tab for contact and another tab for frequently asked questions (FAQ), wherein the login tab provides a dedicated window for displaying ads and announcements, and the login tab further provides a login text field where a user enters a username as an email or a phone number and another text field for a password, and hit a log in button to login, or hit a forgot user id or password button to reset the password, wherein the interface further provide a create account button link for a user to create a user account; logs into the system and launches the app, wherein the system provides for changing of personal info utilizing a button link that opens an interface with text fields and a submit button for changing data to update the system; logs onto the system and gets authenticated to a client main interface, wherein the client main interface displays button links; wherein each of the button links utilized for data entry displays an interface corresponding to task of said button link for entering and storing data into the system; various button links and interfaces; these limitations are not enough to qualify as a practical application being recited in the claims along with the abstract idea since these elements are merely invoked as a tool to apply instructions of an abstract idea in a particular technological environment, and mere application of an abstract idea in a particular technological environment and merely limiting the use of an abstract idea to a particular technological field do not integrate an abstract idea into a practical application (MPEP 2106.05(f)&(h)). The claims do not amount to "practical application" for the abstract idea because they neither (1) recite any improvements to another technology or technical field; (2) recite any improvements to the functioning of the computer itself; (3) apply the judicial exception with, or by use of, a particular machine; (4) effect a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing; (5) provide other meaningful limitations beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment. Alternatively, receiving and/or transmitting data between devices is mere data gathering and insignificant extrasolution activity, which does not provide a practical application for the abstract idea (MPEP 2106.05(g)).
As per Step 2B of the subject matter eligibility analysis, while the claims 1-18 recite additional limitations which are hardware or software elements, such as a system that utilizes a mobile phone app, a web based interface or computer based interface and a backend infrastructure that stores data, at least one server with a processor coupled to a memory, the memory for storing instructions executable by the system to cause the system to perform operations; a mobile device with a processor and a memory, the processor executing instructions via the mobile phone app installed on the mobile device, wherein the processor is invoked to transmit instructions to the server to save or retrieve data; a computer system running a commercial moving app via a browser, wherein the computer comprising a processor that is invoked to transmit instructions to the server to save or retrieve data; a plurality of interfaces on the mobile device app and the computer system for recording and retrieving data in the system that electronically tracks via the mobile phone app or the web based interface executed from the browser installed in the computer; a communication network that connects the mobile device and the computer system to the server to save or retrieve data, wherein the mobile device and the computer system are authenticated to connect, transmit and save data to the server and retrieve data from the server, wherein the data is synchronized and displayed in a mobile phone app, and wherein the data is displayed on the computer system via a browser; launches the mobile device app and the computer based app, wherein the plurality of interfaces on the mobile device app and computer based app, defaults to a tabbed interface when the app is launched, wherein the tabbed interface provides a tab for login, another tab for contact and another tab for frequently asked questions (FAQ), wherein the login tab provides a dedicated window for displaying ads and announcements, and the login tab further provides a login text field where a user enters a username as an email or a phone number and another text field for a password, and hit a log in button to login, or hit a forgot user id or password button to reset the password, wherein the interface further provide a create account button link for a user to create a user account; logs into the system and launches the app, wherein the system provides for changing of personal info utilizing a button link that opens an interface with text fields and a submit button for changing data to update the system; logs onto the system and gets authenticated to a client main interface, wherein the client main interface displays button links; wherein each of the button links utilized for data entry displays an interface corresponding to task of said button link for entering and storing data into the system; various button links and interfaces; these limitations are not enough to qualify as “significantly more” being recited in the claims along with the abstract idea since these elements are merely invoked as a tool to apply instructions of an abstract idea in a particular technological environment, and mere application of an abstract idea in a particular technological environment and merely limiting the use of an abstract idea to a particular technological field do provide significantly more to an abstract idea (MPEP 2106.05 (f) & (h)). The claims do not amount to "significantly more" than the abstract idea because they neither (1) recite any improvements to another technology or technical field; (2) recite any improvements to the functioning of the computer itself; (3) apply the judicial exception with, or by use of, a particular machine; (4) effect a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing; (5) add a specific limitation other than what is well-understood, routine and conventional in the field; (6) add unconventional steps that confine the claim to a particular useful application; nor (7) provide other meaningful limitations beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment. Alternatively, receiving and/or transmitting data between devices is mere data gathering and insignificant extrasolution activity, and also is well-understood, routine and conventional which do not provide a practical application for the abstract idea (MPEP 2106.05(g) & (d)).
Therefore, since there are no limitations in the claims 1-18 that transform the exception into a patent eligible application such that the claims amount to significantly more than the exception itself, and looking at the limitations as an ordered combination adds nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually, the claims are rejected under 35 USC § 101 as being directed to non-statutory subject matter.
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 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Viggiani (US20140280102A1)
As per Claim 1, Wuehler teaches a system that utilizes a mobile phone app, a web based interface or computer based interface and a backend infrastructure that stores data to streamline commercial office moves (para. 0002-0004, Figs. 1-8), the system comprising:
at least one server with a processor coupled to a memory, the memory for storing instructions executable by the system to cause the system to perform operations relating to commercial office moves (Figs. 1 and 4, Claim 4);
a mobile device with a processor and a memory, the processor executing instructions relating to moving activities via the mobile phone app installed on the mobile device, wherein the processor is invoked to transmit instructions to the server to save or retrieve data related to commercial moving (Figs. 1-8, para. 0013-0016, 0019-0020, and 0027-0031);
a computer system running a commercial moving app via a browser, wherein the computer comprising a processor that is invoked to transmit instructions to the server to save or retrieve commercial moving related data (Figs. 1-8, para. 0013-0016, 0019-0020, and 0027-0031);
a plurality of interfaces on the mobile device app and the computer system for recording and retrieving commercial moving data in the system that electronically tracks moving activities and provide coordination for the moving activities via the mobile phone app or the web based interface executed from the browser installed in the computer (Figs. 1-8, para. 0029-0032);
a communication network that connects the mobile device and the computer system to the server to save or retrieve commercial moving data, wherein the mobile device and the computer system are authenticated to connect, transmit and save moving related data to the server and retrieve moving related data from the server, wherein the data is synchronized and displayed in a mobile phone app, and wherein the data is displayed on the computer system via a browser (Figs. 1-8, para. 0013-0016, 0019-0020, and 0027-0031).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 2-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Viggiani (US20140280102A1) in view of Official Notice.
As per Claims 2-18, Viggiani teaches a system as provided in claim 1 above. Viggiani further teaches tabs/interfaces/buttons/links (figs. 5-8).
Official Notice is taken it is well-understood routine and conventional to use/have type of data, categories, requirements, actions, operations listed in claims 2-18 related to office/business moves. It would be obvious, before the effective filing date of the application, to detail the moving operation with type of data, categories, requirements, actions, operations listed in claims 2-18 with the motivation to successfully manage every aspect and requirement of such a business move.
Note that it would also be obvious for an ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the application, to reorganize the parts of an invention to create button links, tabs, interfaces for each data group or type or operation of a commercial move with the motivation to successfully manage every aspect and requirement of such a business move.
Conclusion
Additional relevant art not relied upon, specifically related to blockchain and PBFT combination, includes:
Deshpande et al (US8700537B1), regarding “Methods and apparatuses are disclosed for providing integrated management of a workflow for moving industry quotes. A processor can be configured to execute workflow management software to manage a plurality of moving industry quote workflows. Each moving industry quote workflow may correspond to a move transaction. The moving industry quote workflows may correspond to a plurality of workflow types, and each workflow type may comprise an associated plurality of interrelated tasks for different aspects of managing a moving industry quote workflow. Users can interact with a plurality of graphical user interfaces (GUIs) to perform the interrelated tasks.” And “As shown in FIG. 3( b), a central quoting process 314 can be fed with leads from a variety of sources, both home office sources 310 (e.g., a worldwide website/mobile application 310 a, a container website/mobile application 310 b, a national van line website/mobile application 310 c, and a toll-free telephone number 310 d) and agency sources 312 (e.g., an agent tablet 312 a, and agent telephone call 312 b, an agent website 312 c, and a national account website 312 d).”
It appears the inventor(s) filed the current application pro se (i.e., without the benefit of representation by a registered patent practitioner). While inventors named as applicants in a patent application may prosecute the application pro se, lack of familiarity with patent examination practice and procedure may result in missed opportunities in obtaining optimal protection for the invention disclosed. The inventor(s) may wish to secure the services of a registered patent practitioner to prosecute the application, because the value of a patent is largely dependent upon skilled preparation and prosecution. The Office cannot aid in selecting a patent practitioner.
A listing of registered patent practitioners is available at https://oedci.uspto.gov/OEDCI/. Applicants may also obtain a list of registered patent practitioners located in their area by writing to Mail Stop OED, Director of the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office, P.O. Box 1450, Alexandria, VA 22313-1450.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MEHMET YESILDAG whose telephone number is (571)272-3257. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:30 am - 5:00 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, Jerry O'Connor can be reached on (571) 272-6787. 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.
Sincerely,
/MEHMET YESILDAG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3624