DETAILED ACTION
This Office Action is in response to Amendment filed 01 May 2026.
Claims 1-21 are pending. The claims have been considered and examined.
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 .
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 1-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter, an abstract idea. The claims fall within at least one of the four categories of patent eligible subject matter. However, the claimed invention is directed to mental processes without significantly more.
The following is an analysis of the claims regarding subject matter eligibility in accordance with the 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance (2019 PEG):
Subject Matter Eligibility Analysis
Step 1: Do the Claims Specify a Statutory Category?
Claims 1-7 are directed to a method/process, claims 8-14 are directed to a system, claims 15-20 is directed to a computer program product comprising a non-transitory computer-readable medium, and Claim 21 is directed to a method/process, therefore satisfying Step 1 of the analysis.
Step 2 Analysis for Claims 1-17
Step 2A – Prong 1: Is a Judicial Exception Recited?
Independent claim 1, recites the limitations “determining, by the RMA monitor based on the telemetry data about the device, a health status of the device, the determining including analyzing the telemetry data associated with a component of the device;” (Mental Process), “predicting, by the RMA monitor based on the health status of the device thus determined, whether the device or the component thereof faces an imminent failure… to determine that a predicted probability of the imminent failure is above a threshold ;” (Mental Process), ‘the RMA process or remediation action determined based on apply one or more rules associated with the telemetry data” (Mental Process). The limitations cover concepts performed in the human mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion) (see MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2), subsection III).
The limitations cite processes that, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitations in the human mind but for the recitation of generic computer components (i.e., use of a processor or a generic computer). That is, nothing in the claim elements preclude the steps from practically being performed in the mind or managing personal behavior. The limitations involve determining a status based on data and predicting future based on the status, and determining an output or action in response to the rules based on data, thereby describing an observation, evaluation, and/or opinion of data. Such an observation, evaluation, and/or opinion of data can be performed by a human and recites a mental process.
If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers the practical performance of the limitation in the human mind but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. See the 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
Claims 2-7 cite further details pertaining to “determining…” and “predicting…” specified in claim 1; and additionally cite “monitoring an operating status…” (Mental Process) and “determining whether the signals include a fault signal…” (Mental Process). Each of the limitations in these dependent claims describes processes that, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, contain mental processes directed to performing the abstract idea identified in claim 1.
In claims 2-7, The limitations cover concepts performed in the human mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion) (see MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2), subsection III).
If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers the practical performance of the limitation in the human mind but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. See the 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance. Accordingly, claims 2-7 each recite an abstract idea.
Step 2A – Prong 2: Is the Judicial Exception Integrated into a Practical Application?
Claim 1, indicates the method includes a RMA executing on a server. Even if the described methods are implemented on a computer, there is no indication that the combination of elements in the claim solves any particular technological problem other than merely taking advantage of the inherent advantages of using existing computer technology in its ordinary, off-the-shelf capacity to apply the identified judicial exceptions. Simply implementing the abstract idea(s) on a general-purpose processor or other generic computer component is not a practical application of the abstract idea(s). The computer system cited in the claim is described at a high level of generality such that it represents no more than mere instructions to apply the judicial exception on a computer (see MPEP 2106.05(f)). This limitation can also be viewed as nothing more than an attempt to generally link the judicial exception to the technological environment of a computer (see MPEP 2106.05(h)).
Claim 1, further recites the limitations “receiving, by an RMA monitor over a network, real-time signals from an operating device, the signals comprising telemetry data about the device, the RMA monitor executing on a server machine remote from the device;”, “telemetry data associated with a component of the device”, and “automatically initiating, by the RMA monitor, an RMA process to send an RMA code or number to an owner of the device.” These limitations describe insignificant extra-solution activity pertaining to mere data gathering, selecting a particular data source or type of data to be manipulated, and generically applying a resolution to an identified problem, respectively, without providing any details regarding a specific problem being solved or specific remedial actions being taken (See applicant’s specification paragraph 0007) (see MPEP 2106.05(d) and MPEP 2106.05(g)). The limitation “automatically initiating, by the RMA monitor, an RMA process to send an RMA code or number to an owner of the device” can also be viewed as nothing more than displaying certain results (see MPEP 2106.05(h)). As such, these limitations do not integrate the abstract idea(s) into a practical application.
Claim 1, recites "by applying a predictive machine learning model trained using historical RMA data" without any specification of details pertaining to how the associated machine learning model is trained and/or how the actual machine learning is performed. Such details would include description of specific algorithms used in training the machine learning model. As currently written, the limitations in the claims describe merely certain data inputted to the machine learning model and received. There is no indication that the combination of elements solves a technological problem other than merely taking advantage of the inherent advantages of using existing artificial intelligence technology (i.e., machine learning) in its ordinary, off-the-shelf capacity to apply the identified judicial exception. Simply implementing the abstract idea(s) on a general-purpose processor or other generic computer component is not a practical application of the abstract idea(s).
Claims 4, recite several types of telemetry data. This is considered insignificant extra-solution activity of selecting a particular data source or type of data to be manipulated. (See MPEP 2106.05(g)). As such, these limitations do not integrate the abstract idea(s) into a practical application.
Claims 5 and 6 recite various types of components and devices. These limitations can be viewed as nothing more than an attempt to generally link the judicial exception to the technological environment of a computer/network devices and/or components (see MPEP 2106.05(h)).
Claim 7 recites sending a result through an email, mail or messaging service. These limitations can be viewed as nothing more than an attempt to apply the judicial exception to the technological environment on computer (see MPEP 2106.05(f)).
Claims 2-7 describe further details regarding the identifying, calculating, and determining. These claims contain no additional elements which would integrate the abstract idea(s) into a practical application.
Accordingly, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the identified abstract idea(s).
Step 2B: Do the Claims Provide an Inventive Concept?
When evaluating whether the claims provide an inventive concept, the presence of any additional elements in the claims need to be considered to determine whether they add “significantly more” than the judicial exception.
In the instant case, as detailed in the analysis for Step 2A-Prong 2, claim 1 contains additional elements which require evaluation as to whether they provide an inventive concept to the identified abstract idea. The server recited in the claim describe a generic computer processor and/or computer component at a high level and do not represent “significantly more” than the judicial exception.
Claim 1, recites the limitation pertaining to “automatically initiating, by the RMA monitor, a remediation action for the device of the component and a RMA process to send an RMA code or number to an owner of the device” describe insignificant extra-solution activity and are written at a high level in a generic manner without providing any details regarding a specific problem being solved or specific remedial actions being taken. The limitation is nothing more than sending a generic result based on the decision made from the abstract idea limitations or a generic remediation action that could be any remedy for any problem. Therefore, these limitations recite no additional elements that would amount to significantly more than the abstract ideas defined in the claim and do not provide an inventive concept.
Claim 1, recite limitations regarding the use of machine learning and the training of a machine learning model. As discussed above in the Step 2A - Prong 2 analysis regarding integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the limitations, as currently written, describe evaluations that can be performed by a human (i.e., as a mental process and/or by using pen/paper) and are therefore directed to the identified judicial exception. There is no indication that the combination of elements solves a technological problem other than merely taking advantage of the inherent advantages of using existing artificial intelligence technology (i.e., machine learning) in its ordinary, off-the-shelf capacity to apply the identified judicial exception. Simply implementing the abstract idea(s) on a general purpose processor or other generic computer component, or utilizing generic artificial intelligence technology to apply the identified judicial exception, does not describe an inventive concept.
Conclusion
In light of the above, the limitations in claims 1-7 recite and are directed to abstract ideas and recite no additional elements that would amount to significantly more than the identified abstract idea(s). Claims 1-7 are therefore not patent eligible.
Step 2 Analysis for Claims 8-14
Claims 8-14, contain limitations for a system which are similar to the limitations for the methods specified in claims 1-7, respectively. As such, the analysis under Step 2A – Prong 1, Step 2A – Prong 2, and Step 2B for claims 8-14 is similar to that presented above for claims 1-7.
Step 2B: Do the Claims Provide an Inventive Concept?
When evaluating whether the claims provide an inventive concept, the presence of any additional elements in the claims need to be considered to determine whether they add “significantly more” than the judicial exception.
Claims 8-14 contains additional elements which require evaluation as to whether they provide an inventive concept to the identified abstract idea.
Claims 8-14 recites the additional elements of a “A system for return merchandise authorization (RMA), the system comprising: a processor; a non-transitory computer-readable medium; and instructions stored on the non-transitory computer-readable medium and translatable by the processor for implementing an RMA monitor, the instructions when translated by the processor perform:”. The processor and memory cited in the claim describe generic computer components at a high level and do not represent “significantly more” than the identified judicial exception. The configuring of the processors recites intended use of the claimed limitations and does not represent “significantly more” than the identified judicial exception.
Conclusion
In light of the above, the limitations in claims 8-14 recite and are directed to an abstract idea and recite no additional elements that would amount to significantly more than the identified abstract ideas(s). Claims 8-14 are therefore not patent eligible.
Step 2 Analysis for Claims 15-20
Claim 15-20, contains limitations for a computer program product comprising a non-transitory computer-readable medium which are similar to the limitations for the methods specified in claims 1-7. As such, the analysis under Step 2A – Prong 1, Step 2A – Prong 2, and Step 2B for claims 15-20 are similar to that presented above for claim 1-7.
Step 2B: Do the Claims Provide an Inventive Concept?
When evaluating whether the claims provide an inventive concept, the presence of any additional elements in the claims need to be considered to determine whether they add “significantly more” than the judicial exception.
Claims 15-20 contains additional elements which require evaluation as to whether they provide an inventive concept to the identified abstract idea.
Claims 15-20 recites the additional elements of a “A computer program product for return merchandise authorization(RMA), the computer program product comprising a non-transitory computer-readable medium storing instructions translatable by a processor for implementing an RMA monitor, the instructions when translated by the processor perform:”. The computer-readable medium and processors cited in the claim describe generic computer components at a high level and do not represent “significantly more” than the identified judicial exception. The executing of instructions on the processors recites intended use of the claimed limitations and does not represent “significantly more” than the identified judicial exception.
Conclusion
In light of the above, the limitations in claims 15-20 recite and are directed to an abstract idea and recite no additional elements that would amount to significantly more than the identified abstract ideas(s). Claims 15-20 are therefore not patent eligible.
Step 2 Analysis for Claims 21
Independent Claim 21, recites the limitations “predicting, by the RMA monitor, an imminent failure of the component by determining the measurements included in the telemetry data match the failure profile associated with the component” (Mental Process).
The limitations cover concepts performed in the human mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion) (see MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2), subsection III).
The limitations cite processes that, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitations in the human mind but for the recitation of generic computer components (i.e., use of a processor or a generic computer). That is, nothing in the claim elements preclude the steps from practically being performed in the mind or managing personal behavior. The limitations involve determining a match between data, thereby describing an observation, evaluation, and/or opinion of data. Such an observation, evaluation, and/or opinion of data can be performed by a human and recites a mental process.
If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers the practical performance of the limitation in the human mind but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. See the 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
Step 2A – Prong 2: Is the Judicial Exception Integrated into a Practical Application?
Claim 21, indicates the method includes a RMA monitor. Even if the described methods are implemented on a computer, there is no indication that the combination of elements in the claim solves any particular technological problem other than merely taking advantage of the inherent advantages of using existing computer technology in its ordinary, off-the-shelf capacity to apply the identified judicial exceptions. Simply implementing the abstract idea(s) on a general-purpose processor or other generic computer component is not a practical application of the abstract idea(s). The computer system cited in the claim is described at a high level of generality such that it represents no more than mere instructions to apply the judicial exception on a computer (see MPEP 2106.05(f)). This limitation can also be viewed as nothing more than an attempt to generally link the judicial exception to the technological environment of a computer (see MPEP 2106.05(h)).
Claim 21, further recites the limitations “receiving, by an RMA monitor over a network, telemetry data from a network device, wherein the telemetry data includes measurements associated with a component of the device” “obtaining, by the RMA monitor, failure profile associated with the component, the failure profile generated based on historical measurements of the component over time”. These limitations describe insignificant extra-solution activity pertaining to mere data gathering, selecting a particular data source or type of data to be manipulated, and generically applying a resolution to an identified problem, respectively, without providing any details regarding a specific problem being solved or specific remedial actions being taken (See applicant’s specification paragraph 0007) (see MPEP 2106.05(d) and MPEP 2106.05(g)). As such, these limitations do not integrate the abstract idea(s) into a practical application.
Claim 21, further recites “including a RMA process to send an RMA code or number to the owner of the device”. This limitation can be viewed as nothing more than displaying certain results (see MPEP 2106.05(h)). As such, these limitations do not integrate the abstract idea(s) into a practical application.
Step 2B: Do the Claims Provide an Inventive Concept?
When evaluating whether the claims provide an inventive concept, the presence of any additional elements in the claims need to be considered to determine whether they add “significantly more” than the judicial exception.
In the instant case, as detailed in the analysis for Step 2A-Prong 2, claim 21 contains additional elements which require evaluation as to whether they provide an inventive concept to the identified abstract idea. The server recited in the claim describe a generic computer processor and/or computer component at a high level and do not represent “significantly more” than the judicial exception.
Claim 21, recites the limitation pertaining to “automatically initiating, by the RMA monitor, a remediation action for the component, the remediation action including a RMA process to send a RMA code or number to an owner of the device.” describe insignificant extra-solution activity and are written at a high level in a generic manner without providing any details regarding a specific problem being solved or specific remedial actions being taken. The limitation is nothing more than sending a generic result based on the decision made from the abstract idea limitations or a generic remediation action that could be any remedy for any problem. Therefore, these limitations recite no additional elements that would amount to significantly more than the abstract ideas defined in the claim and do not provide an inventive concept.
Conclusion
In light of the above, the limitations in claim 21 recite and are directed to abstract ideas and recite no additional elements that would amount to significantly more than the identified abstract idea(s). Claim 21 is therefore not patent eligible
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 01 May 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that the claims can not be performed in the human mind. Applicant argues that the human mind cannot receive telemetry data in real-time from an operating network device.
The Examiner does not argue that the receiving the data is an abstract idea and thus capable of being performing in the human mind. Rather, that these limitations describe insignificant extra-solution activity pertaining to mere data gathering, selecting a particular data source or type of data to be manipulated (see MPEP 2106.05(d) and MPEP 2106.05(g)). As such, these limitations do not integrate the abstract idea(s) into a practical application.
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 JOSEPH D MANOSKEY whose telephone number is (571)272-3648. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7:30am to 3:30pm.
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, Bryce Bonzo can be reached at 571-272-3655. 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.
/JOSEPH D MANOSKEY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2113 July 2, 2026
Prosecution Insights