CTNF 18/679,262 CTNF 93451 DETAILED ACTION Status of the Application 07-03-aia AIA 15-10-aia The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA. The following is a Non-Final Office Action in response to claims filed on May 30, 2024. Claims 1-19 are currently pending and have been examined. Information Disclosure Statement The Information Disclosure Statements filed September 3, 2024 and September 5, 2024 have been considered. Initialed copies of the Form 1449 are enclosed herewith. Priority The present application claims priority to Provisional Application 63/506,067, filed on 6/3/2023. Claim Objections 07-29-01 AIA Claim 8 is objected to because of the following informalities: “subscription management user” should read “subscription management user interface ” for consistent claim terminology . Appropriate correction is required. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101 07-04-01 AIA 07-04 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 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. Step 1: Is the claim to a process, machine, manufacture or composition of matter? (MPEP 2106.03) In the present application, claims 1-17 are directed to a method (i.e., a process), claim 18 is directed to a device (i.e., a machine), and claim 19 is directed to a computer product (i.e. an article of manufacture). Thus, the eligibility analysis proceeds to Step 2A. prong one. Step 2A. prong one: Does the claim recite an abstract idea, law of nature, or natural phenomenon? (MPEP 2106.04) While claims 1, 18, and 19, are directed to different categories, the language and scope are substantially the same and have been addressed together below. The claims are directed to abstract ideas of Mental Process and Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity for managing commercial interactions and contracts and presenting information. The abstract idea recited in claims 1, 18, and 19, is displaying… that concurrently includes an indication of a first subscription associated with a user account, wherein the first subscription grants the user account access to a first service, and an indication of a second subscription associated with the user account, wherein the second subscription grants access to a hardware product; receiving… one or more inputs corresponding to a request to revise the first subscription or the second subscription; and in response to receiving the one or more inputs: in accordance with a determination that the one or more inputs includes an input directed to the indication of the first subscription, initiating a process to revise the first subscription; and in accordance with a determination that the one or more inputs includes an input directed to the indication of the second subscription, initiating a process to revise the second subscription. Under the broadest reasonable interpretation, without the recitation of additional elements, the limitations above suggest a process similar to collecting information (receiving input), analyzing the information (evaluation/determination of input), and presenting information (indication of subscription). Because the limitations above closely follow the steps of collecting information and analyzing the collected information, and the steps involved human judgements, observations, and evaluations that can be practically or reasonably performed in the human mind, the claims recite an abstract idea consistent with the “mental processes” grouping of the abstract ideas, set forth in MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III). Additionally, under the broadest reasonable interpretation, other than the additional elements of computer components, the limitations recite process of receiving user request to revise a subscription (i.e., digital service and hardware lease) and initiating a process to update the subscription, which is a functional economic practice and commercial interaction for managing leases, warranties, and service contracts that have been performed by human administrator and businesses before the invention of computers, thus, the claims recite an abstract idea consistent with the “certain methods of organizing human activity” grouping of the abstract ideas, set forth in MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(II). Accordingly, the above-mentioned limitations are considered as a single abstract idea, therefore, the claims recite an abstract idea and the analysis proceeds to Step 2A. prong two. Step 2A. prong two: Does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application? (MPEP 2106.04) This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the additional elements merely add instructions to apply the abstract idea to a computer. The additional elements considered include: Claim 1: “at an electronic device in communication with a display generation component and one or more input devices:” “via the display generation component, a subscription management user interface;” “of the electronic device;” “via the one or more input devices;” Claim 18: “An electronic device in communication with a display generation component and one or more input devices, the electronic device comprising: one or more processors; memory; and one or more programs, wherein the one or more programs are stored in the memory and configured to be executed by the one or more processors, the one or more programs including instructions for:”; “via the display generation component, a subscription management user interface;” “of the electronic device;” “via the one or more input devices;” Claim 19: “A non-transitory computer readable storage medium storing one or more programs, the one or more programs comprising instructions, which when executed by one or more processors of an electronic device in communication with a display generation component and one or more input devices, cause the electronic device to perform a method comprising:”; “via the display generation component, a subscription management user interface;” “of the electronic device;” “via the one or more input devices;” In particular, the claim only recites the above-mentioned additional elements to display, receive, and revise information. The computer in the steps is recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as generic computer components performing a generic computer function; See Applicant’s Specification at least at paragraphs [0032]-[0035] and [0165]-[0167]) such that it amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. That is, the function of limitations [A]-[C] are steps of adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea as discussed in MPEP 2106.05(f) . While the claims recite that the second subscription grants access to a “hardware product,” the claims do not recite any specific technical interaction with, or technical manipulation of the hardware product. The claims merely manage the subscription status of the hardware product. Therefore, the combination of these additional elements is no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer. Accordingly, even in combination, these additional element(s) do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not improve a computer or other technology, do not transform a particular article, do not recite more than a general link to a computer, and do not invoke the computer in any meaningful way; the general computer is effectively part of the preamble instruction to “apply” the exception by the computer. Therefore, the claims are directed to an abstract idea and the analysis proceeds to Step 2B. Step 2B: Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception? (MPEP 2106.05) The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the bold portions of the limitations recited above, were all considered to be an abstract idea in Step2A-Prong Two. The additional elements and analysis of Step2A-Prong two is carried over. For the same reason, these elements are not sufficient to provide an inventive concept. Applicant has merely recited elements that instruct the user to apply the abstract idea to a computer or other machinery. When considered individually and in combination the conclusion, as discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional element of using a computer to perform the above-mentioned limitations [A]-[C] amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the function of the limitations to the exception using generic computer component, as discussed in MPEP 2106.05(f). The claim as a whole merely describes how to generally “apply” the concept for displaying and managing subscription. Thus, viewed as a whole, nothing in the claim adds significantly more (i.e. an inventive concept) to the abstract idea. For these reasons there is no inventive concept in the claims and thus are ineligible. As for dependent claims 2-17, these claims recite limitations that further define the abstract idea noted in the independent claim 1. The additional limitations in the dependent claims merely add further abstract concepts and detail, which do not provide an inventive concept or change the abstract idea of the independent claim. Claims 2-6 recite recommending a hardware product configuration (e.g., storage size, warranty plan) based on the user’s current configuration. Claims 7, 8, and 10 recite determining if an upgrade is available and displaying the price to ungraded versus a date on which the user account will be eligible for the no-cost upgrade. Claims 9, 11-17 further recite abstract step of displaying design choice of specific text fields and account management options. The claims recite the additional element of computer components at a high level of generality (i.e. as a generic computer system performing generic computer functions) such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component, as discussed in MPEP 2106.05(f). Even in combination, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application and do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself. The claims 2-17 are ineligible. In summary, the dependent claims considered both individually and as ordered combination do not provide meaningful limitations to transform the abstract idea into a patent eligible application of the abstract idea such that the claims amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself. The claims do not recite an improvement to another technology or technical field, an improvement to the functioning of the computer itself, or provide meaningful limitations beyond generally linking an abstract idea to a particular technological environment. Therefore, claims 1-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101. Allowable Subject Matter over Prior Art The closest prior art found are: Rahman et al. (US 20210397308 A1) teaches a system and method for displaying a subscription management user interface that concurrently displays multiple subscriptions (Fig. 8A), indication of a first subscription to a service (representation 802c), and receiving input directed to revise the subscriptions such as changing tiers and cancelling (para. [0279]-[0281] and Figs. 8B and 8D). However, Rahman does not explicitly teach a second subscription for a hardware product instead of a second service. Vidnovic et al. (US 20200379741 A1) teaches a system and method for a subscription management user interface optionally includes one or more selectable options that, when selected, change the status of a subscription associated with a user account of the user. Vidnovic teaches the displaying of a subscription management user interface for name of service, tier of subscription, renewal price, and next renewal data, and provides selectable options to modify or cancel the subscription. However, Vidnovic does not explicitly teach a second subscription for a hardware product instead of a second service. Touati et al. (US 20220130380 A1) teaches a platform for integrating disparate enterprise software systems. Touati teaches using natural language processing and low-code/no-code interfaces to allow a user to set up data pipelines. The AI extracts the intent and automatically maps the data fields between the two software systems. Jin et al. (US 20230222603 A1) teaches a a server engine that helps businesses comply with accounting standards, when selling subscriptions. In sum, the combination of the above references does not explicitly teach the specific configuration of the limitation wherein the second subscription grants access to a hardware product; and in accordance with a determination that the one or more inputs includes an input directed to the indication of the second subscription, initiating a process to revise the second subscription, (i.e. in the particular manner it is claimed in the context of the whole claim is not disclosed, taught or suggested in the prior art(s)). Examiner notes that the underlined limitations above, in combination with the other limitations found within the independent claims are found to be allowable over the prior art of record. The prior art of record neither anticipates nor fairly and reasonably teach the independent claims 1, 18, and 19. Examiner notes that while applicant has overcome the art of record, the application is not in condition for allowance, given the outstanding rejection under 35 U.S.C. 101. Relevant Prior Art Not Relied Upon 07-96 AIA The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to Applicant’s disclosure. The additional cited art, including but not limited to the excerpts below, further establishes the state of the art at the time of Applicant’s invention and shows the following was known: W. G. Hatcher, C. Qian, F. Liang, W. Liao, E. P. Blasch and W. Yu, "Secure IoT Search Engine: Survey, Challenges Issues, Case Study, and Future Research Direction," in IEEE Internet of Things Journal , vol. 9, no. 18, pp. 16807-16823, 15 Sept.15, 2022, doi: 10.1109/JIOT.2022.3153171. Conclusion Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to WENREN CHEN whose telephone number is (571)272-5208. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 10AM - 6PM. 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, Nathan C Uber can be reached on (571) 270-3923. 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. /WENREN CHEN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3626 Application/Control Number: 18/679,262 Page 2 Art Unit: 3626 Application/Control Number: 18/679,262 Page 3 Art Unit: 3626 Application/Control Number: 18/679,262 Page 4 Art Unit: 3626 Application/Control Number: 18/679,262 Page 5 Art Unit: 3626 Application/Control Number: 18/679,262 Page 6 Art Unit: 3626 Application/Control Number: 18/679,262 Page 7 Art Unit: 3626 Application/Control Number: 18/679,262 Page 8 Art Unit: 3626 Application/Control Number: 18/679,262 Page 9 Art Unit: 3626 Application/Control Number: 18/679,262 Page 10 Art Unit: 3626
Prosecution Insights