DETAILED ACTION
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 .
Status of Claims
Office Action is in response to the Applicant's amendments and remarks filed9/5/2025. Claims 1 and 11 were amended. Claims 1-16 are presently pending and presented for examination.
Response to Remarks/Arguments
In regards to rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 101: Applicant’s arguments, filed 9/5/2025, with respect to claims 1-16 have been fully considered and are not persuasive.
In regards to Applicant’s arguments that “the pending claimed invention is clearly related to interactions and technical functions of technical means or physical entities, for example, the interactions between the warranty activating unit and a server via an internet network, functions of the warranty activating unit to carry out a warranty activation, etc. Therefore, the amended claims 1, 11 interpret a technical solution as a whole, other than a method of organizing human activity grouping or an abstract idea”, (see remarks , pg. 1-2).
Examiner respectfully disagrees, the current claims are not statutory because they are directed towards an abstract idea without significantly more. The claims recite method for providing warranty activation for a product, which is a method of managing interactions between people, which falls into the methods of organizing human activity grouping, as two individuals along with a database can interact with one another to register activation for a product and record its warranty activation in the database for said product. The computing elements such as “storage medium, activating unit, WiFi connection part, internet network, wifi network, server, warranty activation function of claim 1; storage medium, warranty activation function, warranty activating unit, WiFi connection part, internet network, WiFi network, server of claim 11” are recited at a high level of generality and are generically recited computer elements. The generically recited computer elements amount to simply implementing the abstract idea on a computer. The combination of these additional elements are additional elements do no more than generally link the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use. Accordingly, in combination, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. Therefore, elements being analyzed for significantly more are mere generic computer components being implemented to implement the abstract idea on a computer.
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 1-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claim recites method for providing warranty activation for a product.
Step 2A – Prong 1
Independent Claims 1 and 11 as a whole recite a method of organizing human activity. The limitations from exemplary Claim 1 reciting “method for activating warranty comprising: wherein the warranty includes at least a warranty activation request information and is to make the warranty capable to connect and access ; detecting, by the warranty , a login name identical to a login name that is defined according to warranty activation procedures, at least when the warranty required product is powered on but its warranty has not been successfully activated, wherein said information about the login name and the password are stored in the non-transitory of the warranty ; automatically inputting, by the warranty , the login password identical to the password defined according to said warranty activation procedures to connect the warranty with said and access to the ; sending, by the warranty , the warranty activation request information to a which is a with a via the internet, wherein the is configured to generate a successful warranty activation information if the warranty activation request information is valid; sending, by the , the successful warranty activation information to the warranty ; and receiving and storing, by the non-transitory of the warranty , the successful warranty activation information” is a method of managing interactions between people, which falls into the certain methods of organizing human activity grouping. The mere recitation of a generic computer (storage medium, activating unit, WiFi connection part, internet network, wifi network, server, warranty activation function of claim 1; storage medium, warranty activation function, warranty activating unit, WiFi connection part, internet network, WiFi network, server of claim 11) does not take the claim out of the methods of organizing human activity grouping. Thus, the claim recites an abstract idea.
Step 2A - Prong 2: Claims 1-16 and their underlining limitations, steps, features and terms, are further inspected by the Examiner under the current examining guidelines, and found, both individually and as a whole, not to include additional elements that are sufficient to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. The limitations are directed to limitations referenced in MPEP 2106.05 that are not enough to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Limitations that are not enough include, as a non-limiting or non-exclusive examples, such as: (i) adding the words "apply it" (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, e.g., a claim to an abstract idea requiring no more than a generic computer to perform generic computer functions, (ii) insignificant extra solution activity, and/or (iii) generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the claim recites the additional elements of (storage medium, activating unit, WiFi connection part, internet network, wifi network, server, warranty activation function of claim 1; storage medium, warranty activation function, warranty activating unit, WiFi connection part, internet network, WiFi network, server of claim 11). The storage medium, activating unit, WiFi connection part, internet network, wifi network, server, warranty activation function of claim 1; storage medium, warranty activation function, warranty activating unit, WiFi connection part, internet network, WiFi network, server of claim 11, are recited at a high level of generality and are generically recited computer elements. The generically recited computer elements amount to simply implementing the abstract idea on a computer. The combination of these additional elements are additional elements do no more than generally link the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use. Accordingly, in combination, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
The claim do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because, as discussed above, the additional elements do no more than generally link the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use. Thus, even when viewed as an ordered combination, nothing in the claims add significantly more (i.e. an inventive concept) to the abstract idea. The claims are ineligible.
Dependent claims 2-10 and 12-16 are also directed to same grouping of methods of organizing human activity. The additional elements of the activating unit in claims 2-3, 10, 12-13 and 16; internet network in claims 7, 10 and 16; wifi network in claims 6, 10 and 16; server in claims 8, 10 and 16; switching controller in claims 2 and 11; power port in claims 3 and 13; electronic device and WiFi hotspot function in claims 6-7; mobile network and 3G/4G/5G in claim 7; web application in claims 8-9; QR code in claim 9, are additional elements do no more than generally link the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use. Accordingly, in combination, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
Novel/Non-Obvious Subject Matter
Examiner has determined that all of Applicant’s claims have overcome having prior art rejections. The reason for this is that Examiner does not believe that, at the time of Applicant’s priority date, it would have been obvious for a person of ordinary skill in the art to combine prior art disclosures to result in the particular combination of elements/limitations in that claim, including the particular configuration of the elements/limitations with respect to each other in the particular combination, without the use of impermissible hindsight.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 IBRAHIM EL-BATHY whose telephone number is (571)272-7545. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 9am - 7pm.
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, Resha Desai can be reached at 571-270-7792. 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.
/IBRAHIM N EL-BATHY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3628