DETAILED ACTION
This Office action is in response to Applicant's amendment and request for
reconsideration filed on March 18, 2026.
Claims 1-19 and 25-35 are pending.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed March 18, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
With regard to Applicant’s remarks, i.e., “…the claimed invention is directed to improving conventional hardware in a network environment to support increased efficiency of energy and network capacity usage … Accordingly, the claimed invention provides more efficient use of battery resources, resulting in more efficient use of a computer and network resources” (see pp. 12), however, the improvement (i.e., “more efficient use of battery resources”) is not reflected in the claimed invention (see MPEP §2106.04(d)(1), “…if the specification sets forth an improvement in technology, the claim must be evaluated to ensure that the claim itself reflects the disclosed improvement. That is, the claim includes the components or steps of the invention that provide the improvement described in the specification.”). For example, the claimed invention simply concludes with the step of “determining a condition causing the operation of the wireless access point in the battery backup mode”. However, merely determining the condition causing the wireless access point to operate in a battery back-up mode, without any further action, does not result in “more efficient use of battery resources”.
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 34-35 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.
As per claim 34, the limitation “based on the wireless service information, detecting that a first communication device of the at least one communication device provided wireless services is no longer provided access through the wireless access point…” is simply unclear. For the purpose of this office action, the Examiner is interpreting the claim to read:
“based on the wireless service information, detecting that a first communication device of the at least one communication device is no longer provided access through the wireless access point…”
As per claim 35, the limitation “communication management hardware” lacks antecedent basis in the claim.
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 1-19, 25, 26, and 28-34 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. §101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter.
As per claim 1, Applicant’s claimed invention falls under the “Mental Processes” subject matter grouping of abstract ideas in the 2019 Revised Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. 50 (Dep’t of Commerce Jan. 07, 2019) (“2019 PEG”) as the claimed invention, under the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claim, is directed to concepts which, but for the recitation of generic computer components (i.e., “via computer processor hardware”), could otherwise be performed in the human mind, or by a human using pen and paper (See Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Symantec Corp., 838 F.3d 1307, 1318 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (‘‘[W]ith the exception of generic computer implemented steps, there is nothing in the claims themselves that foreclose them from being performed by a human, mentally or with pen and paper.’’; and CyberSource Corp. v. Retail Decisions, Inc., 654 F.3d 1366, 1375, 1372 (Fed. Cir. 2011) (holding that the incidental use of ‘‘computer’’ or ‘‘computer readable medium’’ does not make a claim otherwise directed to process that ‘‘can be performed in the human mind, or by a human using a pen and paper’’ patent eligible)). The limitations that are directed to the judicial exception (i.e., mental process) are:
“… receiving a notification indicating operation of a wireless access point in a battery backup mode…;
receiving wireless service information …;
in response to receiving the notification, analyzing the wireless services provided by the wireless access point…; and
based on the analyzed wireless services, determining a condition causing the operation of the wireless access point in the battery backup mode.”
Moreover, the abstract idea is not integrated into a practical application and there are no additional elements in the claim that add significantly more to the abstract idea. As noted above, the use of generic computer components (i.e., “via computer processor hardware”) do not add significantly more to the claim or add significantly more to the judicial exception (see MPEP §2106.05(f)). Furthermore, even considering the “wireless access point” and “communication device” (i.e., “the wireless access point providing wireless services to at least one communication device, the wireless services providing the at least one communication device wireless access to a remote network”) as additional elements under either Step 2A/prong 2 or Step 2B, the presence of the “wireless access point” and “communication device” merely links the use of the judicial exception/metal process steps to a particular technological environment or field of use (i.e., computer networking), and represent well-understood routine and conventional activity. Thus, even in combination with the judicial exception the presence of the “wireless access point” and “communication device” do not add a practical application or significantly more to the judicial exception. As such, claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. §101 as being directed to non-statutory subject matter (i.e., mental processes).
Claims 2-12, but for the recitation of generic computer components (i.e., “via computer processor hardware”), fail to limit the steps of the claimed method from being performed purely though human observations. As such, similar to claim 1, claims 2-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. §101 as being directed to non-statutory subject matter (i.e., mental processes).
Claims 13-19 and 25, recite similar limitations as claims 1-12, and further recite the use of generic computer components (i.e., “a communication management hardware” (see claims 13-19) and “computer-readable storage hardware” (see claim 25)), for otherwise performing the abstract idea/mental process steps of claims 1-12. Furthermore, similar to the use of the “computer processor hardware” in claim 1, the use of generic computer components (i.e., “a communication management hardware” (see claims 13-24), and “computer-readable storage hardware” (see claim 25)) do not add a practical application or significantly more to the claim (see MPEP §2106.05(f)). As such, claims 13-19 and 25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 as being directed to non-statutory subject matter (i.e., mental processes).
As per claim 26, similar to claim 8, first, the added features of the wireless access point (i.e., “primary communication interface” and “secondary communication interface”) do not meaningfully limit how the steps of the claimed method, i.e., the “receiving”, “analyzing”, and “determining” steps, are otherwise performed. Secondly, similar to Electric Power Group, limiting the collection of data (i.e.., “a notification indicating operation of a wireless access point” and “wireless services information”, see claim 1) from a particular environment (e.g., “wherein the wireless access point including a primary communication interface and a second any communication interface…”) is simply an attempt to limit the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment (see MPEP §2106.05(h)), and thus fails to add a practical application or significantly more than the judicial exception. Therefore, claim 26 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 as being directed to non-statutory subject matter (i.e., mental processes).
Unlike claim 26, claim 27, adds a step, i.e., “…in the battery backup mode, via the wireless access point, providing the first communication device access to the remote network via connectivity including the first wireless communication link and the second wireless communication link”, which is not capable of being performed in the human mind. Moreover, when viewed in combination with the judicial exception, the added step of claim 27 meaningfully limits the judicial exception, and therefore integrates the abstract idea into a practical application.
As per claim 28, similar to the “receiving”, “analyzing”, and “determining” steps the further step of “detecting that the wireless access point: i) provides the first communication device access to the remote network prior to the battery backup mode, and ii) discontinues providing the first communication device access to the remote network during the battery backup mode”, but for the recitation of generic computer components (i.e., “via computer processor hardware”), could otherwise be performed in the human mind, or by a human using pen and paper. As such, similar to claim 1, claim 28 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. §101 as being directed to non-statutory subject matter (i.e., mental processes).
As per claim 29, but for the use of generic computer components (i.e., “wirelessly”and “from the wireless access point”) the step of “transmitting a message …. to a user in a subscriber domain in which the wireless access point resides…”, could otherwise be performed in the human mind, or by a human using pen and paper. Moreover, the use of generic computer components (i.e., “wirelessly” and “from the wireless access point”) do not add significantly more to the claim or add significantly more to the judicial exception (see MPEP §2106.05(f)). Alternatively, the step of “wirelessly transmitting a message from the wireless access point to a user in a subscriber domain in which the wireless access point resides…”, similar to displaying and/or outputting the results of analysis (e.g., “a printer that is used to output a report of fraudulent transactions”, see MPEP 2106.05(g)), represents insignificant extra-solution activity (see MPEP §2106.05(g)). As such, claim 29 does not add any additional elements that add a practical application or significantly more than the judicial exception. Therefore, claim 29 is rejected as being directed to non-statutory subject matter (mental processes).
As per claim 30, similar to 29, prompting a user (i.e., “wherein transmission of the message to the user in the subscriber domain prompts the user to check the wireless access point is properly plugged into a primary power source…”), similar to displaying an output of an analysis, represents insignificant extra-solution activity (see MPEP §2106.05(g)), and thus does not add a practical application or significantly more to the judicial exception. As such claim 30, similar to claim 29, is rejected as being directed to non-statutory subject matter (mental processes).
Claims 31-32 recite similar limitations as claims 29-30 and are thus rejected under 35 U.S.C. §101 as being directed to non-statutory subject matter (i.e., mental processes) for similar reasons as noted above.
Claim 33 fails to limit the steps of the claimed method (i.e., “receiving”, “analyzing”, and “determining”) from being performed purely though human observations, but for the recitation of generic computer components (i.e., “via computer processor hardware”, see claim 1). As such, similar to claim 1, claim 33 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. §101 as being directed to non-statutory subject matter (i.e., mental processes).
As per claim 34, similar to the “receiving”, “analyzing”, and “determining” steps the further step of “detecting that a first communication device of the at least one communication device … is no longer provided access through the wireless access point to the remote network during the battery backup mode”, but for the recitation of generic computer components (i.e., “via computer processor hardware”), could otherwise be performed in the human mind, or by a human using pen and paper. As such, similar to claim 1, claim 28 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. §101 as being directed to non-statutory subject matter (i.e., mental processes).
As per claim 35, the step of “via the communication management hardware, controlling switchover of operating the wireless access point from the battery backup mode to a non-battery back-up mode via a communication of a wireless message to the user”, meaningfully limits the judicial exception, and therefore integrates the abstract idea into a practical application.
Allowable Subject Matter
For purposes of 35 U.S.C. §102 and §103, claims 1-19 and 25-35 are allowed over the prior art.
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 BRENDAN HIGA whose telephone number is (571)272-5823. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 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, James Hwang can be reached on (571) 272-4036. 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.
/BRENDAN Y HIGA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2441
Prosecution Insights