DETAILED ACTION
Status of Claims
The status of the claims is as follows:
(a) Claims 1-22 remain pending.
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 .
Response to Amendments
The Examiner accepts the amendments received on 01/20/2026.
Response to Arguments
The Examiner has considered the Applicant’s submitted Remarks, filed on 01/20/2026. The Examiner below proceeds with a bona fide attempt to respond properly to each argument raised by the Applicant.
To begin, Applicant argues that the claimed “configuring,” “assigning,” and related operations cannot reasonably be characterized as mental processes because the specification describes those operations as involving technical activities such as protocol inventories, API acquisition, enrollment processes, configured system services, and other computer-implemented functionality. Applicant further argues that the rejection improperly oversimplifies the claims, fails to consider the claims as a whole, and does not sufficiently account for the alleged three-tier technical architecture recited by the claims.
The Examiner respectfully disagrees. With respect to Step 2A, Prong One, claims 1 and 12, as presently drafted, recite limitations at a high level of abstraction and functional generality. As set forth in the rejection, the claims recite, in substance, configuring secondary computing devices for communication with a primary computing device, receiving primary commands, assigning one or more computing devices to fulfill those commands, configuring those devices based on the commands, fulfilling the commands through subordinate activity, and sending a generated output in response. The Examiner maintains that, under the broadest reasonable interpretation, these limitations describe the abstract process of receiving instructions, allocating available resources, translating higher-level directives into lower-level tasks, monitoring task fulfillment, and reporting a result. The claims therefore recite a mental process.
Applicant further argues that it is unreasonable to equate “configuring a set of secondary computing devices for communication with a primary computing device” with mentally designating subordinates in an organizational structure. The Examiner respectfully disagrees because the rejection does not depend on importing the specific technical examples from the specification into the claims. Rather, as written, the claims broadly recite establishing a hierarchical relationship among computing devices for receipt of commands, delegation of subordinate activity, and return of results. Likewise, the claimed “assigning” and “configuring” steps are recited in broad functional terms that reasonably read on the abstract acts of allocating resources and directing subordinate performance. Thus, even if certain embodiments described in the specification may involve technical implementation details that cannot practically be performed in the human mind, the claims themselves are not so limited. The proper inquiry under § 101 is directed to what the claims recite, and not to unclaimed features disclosed elsewhere in the specification.
With respect to Step 2A, Prong Two, Applicant argues that the claims, when considered as a whole, integrate any alleged abstract idea into a practical application by reciting a three-tier computing architecture involving a primary computing device, secondary computing devices, and managed computing devices, along with hierarchical command transmission and distributed computational fulfillment. The Examiner respectfully disagrees. Even when considered as a whole, the claims do not recite any improvement to the functioning of a computer itself, any improvement to network technology, or any other technological improvement. The recited computing devices merely serve as generic tools for carrying out the abstract process of hierarchical task delegation, fulfillment coordination, and result reporting. As explained in the rejection, the claims do not recite any unconventional hardware arrangement, novel data structure, specific resource-allocation technique, or technical solution to a problem in computer technology. Instead, the claims merely use generic computing devices in their ordinary capacities to automate the abstract idea.
Applicant’s characterization of the claims as a “technical control tower architecture” is not persuasive because the claims do not recite a specific technical architecture beyond the abstract hierarchy itself. The mere recitation of a primary device, secondary devices, and assigned devices does not, by itself, amount to a practical application of the abstract idea. The claims remain focused on the organizational relationship between components and the flow of commands and outputs among them, rather than on any asserted technological improvement in the way those components operate. Accordingly, the Examiner maintains that the claims do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
With respect to Step 2B, Applicant has not persuaded the Examiner that the claims recite significantly more than the judicial exception. As previously explained, the additional elements in claims 1 and 12 are generic computing devices, processors, and memories performing conventional functions such as receiving information, processing instructions, assigning resources, and outputting results. The claims do not recite any specialized hardware, any non-conventional software structure, or any particularized arrangement of elements that yields an inventive concept. Considered individually, the additional elements amount to no more than routine and well-understood computer functionality. Considered in combination, the claim elements merely automate the abstract process of hierarchical command processing and fulfillment tracking. Accordingly, the Examiner maintains that the claims do not recite significantly more than the identified judicial exception.
Therefore, for the reasons set forth above, Applicant’s arguments have been considered but are not persuasive. The rejection of claims 1 and 12 under 35 U.S.C. 101 is maintained. Claims 2-11 and 13-22 fall with their respective base claims because Applicant has not presented separate arguments establishing that the additional limitations of the dependent claims render those claims patent eligible.
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 1-22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is not directed to patent eligible subject matter. Specifically, the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception without significantly more.
Analysis for Independent Claims 1 and 22:
Step 1: Determining if claim(s) are directed a statutory class of invention (i.e., process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter).
Independent claim 1 is directed to “a computer-implemented method.” The claim is directed to a process, which is a statutory category. (Step 1: yes)
Independent claim 12 is directed to “a computing system.” The claim is directed to a machine, which is a statutory category. (Step 1: yes)
Step 2A Prong One: Determining if the claim(s) recite a judicial exception (e.g., mathematical concepts, certain method of organizing human activity, or a mental processes (MPEP 2106.04).
Claim 1, in general, recites a computer-implemented method comprising: configuring a set of secondary computing devices to communicate with a primary computing device; receiving a set of primary commands; assigning computing devices to fulfill the commands; configuring those devices to fulfill secondary commands; fulfilling the primary commands based on the fulfillment of secondary commands; and sending a system output to the primary computing device. Claim 12, likewise, recites, in general, a computing system comprising one or more processors and memories configured to perform considerably the same sequence of operations as recited in claim
The Examiner finds the independent claims, as presented, are directed to a judicial exception, specifically, a mental process. Each of the limitations recites functions that can be performed in the human mind or using pen and paper, without requiring any technological innovation. For instance, “configuring a set of secondary computing devices…for communication with a primary computing device” is no different from mentally designating subordinates in an organizational structure to report to a central manager. This type of logical structuring is routine in human activity and involves no technological advance.
Furthermore, the next step, “receiving…a set of primary commands,” is the mental act of understanding or taking note of instructions or tasks, whether through verbal, written, or digital communication. The claim limitation is abstract and does not involve any technological transformation. “Assigning…one or more computing devices” again reflects a managerial or supervisory mental process of delegating work to individuals or resources capable of completing a task. The subsequent steps (i.e., “configuring…devices to fulfill one or more secondary commands” and “fulfilling…primary commands based upon…secondary commands”) are likewise conceptual in nature. The claim limitations reflect common reasoning processes: translating a high-level directive into sub-tasks and then mentally tracking their completion before reporting results. Finally, “sending…a generated system output responding to the…commands” merely reflects the mental act of summarizing outcomes and communicating them back to a requester.
The inclusion of generic computing devices does not alter the underlying nature of the claims. The recitation of a “computing system,” “processors,” and “memories” in claim 12 is merely a nominal environment. These components are claimed at a high level of generality and perform their conventional functions of processing and storing data. Merely instructing a computer to perform steps that could otherwise be executed mentally or manually using pen and paper does not render the claims non-abstract. For example, a human manager could record a set of primary instructions, assign subordinate teams to manage specific tasks, break those tasks into subtasks, and track fulfillment manually with a spreadsheet or on paper. The mental logic of such a process remains unchanged regardless of whether it is done by a human, on paper, or by a general-purpose computer.
Accordingly, under Step 2A, Prong One, both claims 1 and 12 are found to be directed to a judicial exception, namely, a mental process that could be carried out by a human using pen and paper, without any technological innovation or specificity.
Step 2A Prong Two: Determining if additional limitations within the claim(s) integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Independent claims 1 and 12 fail to integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. The claims recite a series of steps that, although performed by computing devices, amount to the mere execution of abstract organizational and managerial functions (i.e., delegating tasks, configuring communication, and reporting results) without any improvement to the functioning of a computer or to any other technology or technical field.
Claim 1 recites a method involving configuring secondary computing devices, receiving commands, assigning devices, configuring devices to fulfill commands, fulfilling those commands, and sending a system output. However, the Examiner finds these limitations are merely functional in nature and describe the abstract flow of information and delegation of responsibility between devices. There is no disclosed improvement to the operation of the computing devices themselves. The claim does not specify any unconventional arrangement of hardware, novel data structures, or improvements to how data is transmitted, stored, or processed. The computing devices merely serve as generic tools to implement an abstract hierarchy of control and task execution.
Similarly, claim 12 recites a computing system that performs operations identical to those in claim 1. The claim includes “one or more processors and one or more memories,” but these components are entirely conventional and invoked in a generic fashion. There is no specific architecture, configuration, or interaction between the processor and memory that yields a technological benefit. The claim simply recites that these components are “configured to perform” the same abstract steps of configuration, assignment, delegation, and reporting. The use of general-purpose computing components to carry out abstract instructions does not constitute integration of the judicial exception into a practical application.
Furthermore, neither claim includes any additional elements that apply or use the abstract idea in a meaningful way beyond merely implementing it on a generic computer system. The limitations are drafted at a high level of abstraction and provide no concrete technological solution to a technical problem. The claims do not improve the functionality of the computer itself, do not enable a new mode of communication, and do not optimize any processing function or resource usage. Instead, they amount to automating a human-driven business process using standard computing devices.
Accordingly, there are no additional claim elements (i.e., individually or in combination) that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. The claimed invention remains directed to the abstract idea of task delegation and hierarchical command processing, merely executed in a computing context without providing any technological improvement or meaningful application beyond the judicial exception.
Step 2B: Determining if the additional elements, taken individually and in combination, do not result in the claim, as a whole, amounting to significantly more than the judicial exception.
The additional elements recited in independent claims 1 and 12, when taken individually or as an ordered combination, do not amount to significantly more than the underlying judicial exception. The claims are directed to abstract concepts (i.e., namely, task delegation, hierarchical communication, and fulfillment tracking) and the inclusion of generic computing elements fails to elevate the claims beyond this abstract idea.
Claim 1, in general, recites steps such as configuring secondary computing devices for communication, receiving commands, assigning computing devices, configuring devices based on commands, fulfilling those commands, and generating system output. These operations are described at a high level of abstraction and are implemented using conventional computing components performing their basic and expected functions. There is no recitation of any specialized hardware, any improved software structure, or any unconventional technique that would indicate the claim includes an inventive concept. Each step is directed to basic data handling or organizational logic (i.e., routine operations that are neither novel nor transformative when implemented on a computer). Configuring devices for communication and managing command fulfillment through delegation are standard administrative tasks and performing them on a generic computing system does not constitute an inventive concept.
Moreover, claim 12 fares no better. The independent claim recites a computing system comprising one or more processors and memories configured to execute the same abstract operations outlined in claim 1. The computing elements are described in purely functional terms without any technical details or specificity. There is no indication that the system requires a particular architecture, specialized processing technique, or any non-conventional hardware implementation. Simply stating that these components are "configured to perform" the abstract process does not render the claim inventive. The processor and memory operate in their ordinary capacities to receive, store, process, and output information (i.e., functions they are designed to perform).
Moreover, when considered as an ordered combination, the claims fail to offer significantly more than the judicial exception. The steps in both claims represent a generic sequence of managerial actions automated through standard computing tools. There is no interaction among the claim elements that produces a technical improvement or transforms the nature of the claim. Instead, the steps merely replicate the flow of hierarchical task processing, using computing devices as conduits for implementing a conceptual plan. The claims do not address or solve a technical problem in the computing domain, nor do they reflect any advancement in computer functionality.
Accordingly, the claims do not include any additional elements (i.e., individually or in combination) that amount to significantly more than the identified mental process. They merely apply an abstract idea using conventional computer components in a routine and well-understood manner. The claims, as a whole, therefore fail to recite an inventive concept under Step 2B.
Conclusion:
The independent claim(s) are directed to the abstract idea of a mental process. Accordingly, claims 1 and 12 are not patent eligible under 35 U.S.C. 101.
Analysis for Dependent Claims 2-10 and 13-22:
Step 1: Determining if the claim(s) are directed a statutory class of invention (i.e., process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter).
The dependent claims are properly directed to claims 1 and 12. As a result, the dependent claims are properly directed to statutory classes. (Step 1: yes)
Step 2A Prong One: Determining if the claim(s) recite a judicial exception (e.g., mathematical concepts, mental processes, certain methods of organizing human activity, fundamental economic practices, and “an idea ‘of itself’”).
The dependent claims continue to encompass the mental process established in the independent claim(s). The same analysis of Step 2A Prong One for the independent claim(s) applies. Therefore, the dependent claims are directed to the judicial exception of a mental process.
Step 2A Prong Two: Determining if additional limitations within the claim(s) integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
The dependent claims recite additional limitations, these limitations, when viewed both individually and in combination for the claim, fail to integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. As a result, the dependent claims are not integrated into a practical application.
Step 2B: Determining if the additional elements, taken individually and in combination, do not result in the claim, as a whole, amounting to significantly more than the judicial exception.
The additional elements in the dependent claims fail to recite any additional elements, viewed both individually (i.e., within a claim) and as a whole (i.e., claim set), that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. The same analysis applies in this step 2B as discussed in Step 2A Prong Two (see independent claim analysis). As a result, the dependent claims fail to claim anything significantly more than the judicial exception and fail to integrate said claims into a practical application.
Conclusion:
The dependent claims are directed to the abstract idea of a mental process. Accordingly, claims 1-22 are not patent eligible.
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 nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) 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 ANDREW J CROMER whose telephone number is (313)446-6563. The examiner can normally be reached M-F: ~ 8:15 A.M. - 6:00 P.M..
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, Faris Almatrahi can be reached at (313) 446-4821. 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.
/ANDREW J CROMER/Examiner, Art Unit 3667
Prosecution Insights