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 .
Priority
Examiner acknowledges that the instant application is a National Stage Application under 35 U.S.C. 371 with relation to PCT Application No. SG2021/050622, filed 10/14/2021. Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 04/27/2026 has been entered.
Status of Claims
Applicant’s communications filed on 4/27/2026 have been considered.
Claims 1, 16 and 22 have been amended.
Claims 11-14 and 21 have been cancelled herein.
Claims 4 and 15 have been previously cancelled.
Claims 1-3, 5-10, 16-20, and 22 are currently pending and have been examined.
Interview
Examiner invites the representative of this application to contact the Examiner to schedule an interview to expedite prosecution of this application.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed with respect to the rejection of claims under 35 USC 101 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues on page 9 that the claims are eligible under streamlined eligibility analysis (see MPEP 2106.06) because claim 1 improves the way potential car buyers are able to independently and conveniently assess a car of interest while the security of the cars for sale are maintained without significantly increasing associated infrastructure, with reference to paragraph [0047] of the specification. Applicant further argues that the claim defines additional technical elements of the key fob actuator and server, which improve the security of a remotely-operated car dealership system. This argument has been considered but is not persuasive.
Examiners may use a streamlined eligibility analysis (Pathway A) when the eligibility of the claim is self-evident, e.g., because the claim clearly improves a technology or computer functionality. However, if there is doubt as to whether the applicant is effectively seeking coverage for a judicial exception itself, the full eligibility analysis (the Alice/Mayo test described in MPEP § 2106, subsection III) should be conducted to determine whether the claim integrates the judicial exception into a practical application or recites significantly more than the judicial exception. MPEP 2106.06.
As discussed in the rejection, below, the amended claims recite limitations falling under the “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity” grouping of abstract ideas, in that they recite facilitating user access to cars that the user has indicated interest in. Furthermore, improving the way that potential car buyers are able to assess a car of interest while maintaining security amounts to an improvement in the abstract idea, rather than representing an improvement to technology. Paragraph [0047] of the specification further describes improvements such as doing away with the need for salespersons to be physically present, and providing a greater degree of independence and freedom to a potential buyer, but does not describe the claimed invention with sufficient technical detail such that one of ordinary skill in the art would determine that an improvement to technology is apparent.
It is further noted that, while Applicant claims that the recited additional elements reflect the technical improvement, the amended independent claims do not positively recite actions performed by the server and key fob actuator, and accordingly are insufficient to reflect a technical improvement. For example, limitations including “send an instruction remotely to a key fob actuator located within the at least one car to automatically unlock the at least one car by actuating an unlock key of a key fob of the at least one car”, “receive, from the user device, information to unlock the at least one car”, and “send an instruction to the key fob actuator to automatically lock the at least one car” does not recite the mechanism in which the key fob actuator performs the claimed unlocking and locking, and accordingly, does not reflect an improvement or change to the functioning of the claimed additional elements. Furthermore, merely sending and receiving instructions (i.e., to receive, store or transmit data) does note integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more (see MPEP 2106.05(f). It is further noted the limitations recited above (“send an instruction… to automatically unlock,” “receive… information to unlock,” and “send an instruction… to automatically unlock”) refer to the locking and unlocking operations as intended use, as claimed. Accordingly, eligibility of independent claims 1 and 16 is not self-evident, and subsequent full eligibility analysis reveals that the claims do not recite limitations reflecting a technical improvement, as discussed below.
Applicant further argues on page 10 that the claims integrate the recited judicial exception into a practical application because amended claim 1 amounts to using the judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment. This argument has been considered but is not persuasive. As discussed above, the amended independent claims do not positively recite operations of the additional elements, such as the claimed key fob actuator and server, including the unlocking and locking mechanisms of the key fob actuator. As claimed, the claims recite computing components that do not add a meaningful limitation to the abstract idea, because they do not describe the technical environment (operations of the key fob actuator/server) in which the claimed judicial exception is used with sufficient technical detail, such that the claimed limitations do no more than generally link the claimed judicial exception to a particular technological environment. Accordingly, this argument is not persuasive, and the rejection has been maintained.
Applicant further argues on page 10 that amended claim 1 defines a system that integrates the user of communications between the claimed additional elements to improve the security of the remotely-operated car dealership system. This argument has been considered but is not persuasive. As claimed, the additional elements of the amended claims, both individually and in combination, represent the mere use of generic computing components to facilitate the abstract idea, do not recite a technical improvement, and do no more than generally link the claimed judicial exception to a particular technological environment.
If it is asserted that the invention improves upon conventional function of a computer, or upon conventional technology or technological processes, a technical explanation as to how to implement the invention should be present in the specification. That is, the disclosure must provide sufficient details such that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize the claimed invention as providing an improvement. Although the specification need not explicitly set forth the improvement, it must describe the invention such that the improvement would be apparent to one of ordinary skill in the art. Conversely, if the specification explicitly sets forth an improvement but in a conclusory manner (i.e., a bare assertion of an improvement without the detail necessary to be apparent to a person of ordinary skill in the art), the examiner should not determine the claim improves technology. Furthermore, if the specification does provide support for a technical improvement, the claims must reflect said improvement (see MPEP 2106.05(a); MPEP 2106.04(d)(1)). Currently, the claims do not contain sufficient technical implementation details such that a person of ordinary skill in the art would determine that an improvement to technology is apparent.
The claims do not recite a technical solution to a technical problem. Applicant’s specification does not provide sufficient detail with respect to improvements to the functioning of the claimed technology, and is specific only in its use in facilitating the abstract idea of facilitating user access to cars that the user has indicated interest in. While Applicant cites improvements such as controlling access of a potential buyer to a car of interest in a location that is convenient to the buyer whilst maintaining the security of the cart, addressing potential increased time and costs for the car dealership, and improving the security of the remotely-operated car dealership, the specification as filed does not reveal to one of ordinary skill in the art that Applicant has provided an improvement to the claimed technology. Nor does the specification provide technical detail regarding an improvement to the functioning of a computing component of the claimed system or another technical area. Applicant’s cited portions of the specification (see at least [0047]) further describe advantages of the invention including doing away with the need for salespersons to be physically present, and providing a greater degree of independence and freedom to a potential buyer, but does not describe the claimed invention with sufficient technical detail such that one of ordinary skill in the art would determine that an improvement to technology is apparent. Furthermore, as discussed above, the claim does not positively recite operations of the claimed key fob actuator and server, for example including “send an instruction remotely to a key fob actuator located within the at least one car to automatically unlock the at least one car by actuating an unlock key of a key fob of the at least one car”, “receive, from the user device, information to unlock the at least one car”, and “send an instruction to the key fob actuator to automatically lock the at least one car”. While these elements are recited, they do not describe the role of the claimed computing components in performing the claimed operations, such that the claims merely link the abstract idea to a particular technologic environment without effectuating a change or improvement to the claimed technology. Accordingly, the additional elements of the amended claims, both individually and in combination, do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application, and the rejection has been maintained.
Applicant further argues on pages 11-12 that claim 1 recites additional elements contributing to the inventive concept of decentralizing a car dealership to provide convenience to potential buyers whilst maintaining the security of the cars for sale without significantly increasing any infrastructure associated with the cars, which can increase time and resources. Applicant further argues that the use of a key fob actuator is able to interact with various types of key fobs to facilitate the locking and unlocking of their respective cars. This argument has been considered but is not persuasive.
The alleged improvements of providing convenience to potential buyers, maintaining vehicle security, reducing infrastructure, ensuring that a car is not inadvertently left unlocked by a user, ensuring that a user does not spend more than a pre-defined (allotted) time with an unlocked car, and having a reference point for when the car is unlocked are problems that arise squarely in the commercial realm, thereby improving security, do not rise to improving the functioning of the computer or another technology or technical field. Applicant’s specification (see at least [0047]) describes that the invention does away with the need for salespersons to be physically present and provides a greater degree of independence and freedom to a potential buyer. The improvements manifested by the claimed invention are improvements to the abstract idea itself, rather than the functioning of the computer or another technology or technical field. The instant claims are not directed to improving technology, but are directed to improving the business task of providing greater freedom/independence to potential car buyers.
Furthermore, with regards to Applicant’s argument that the key fob actuator is able to interact with various types of key fobs to facilitate the locking and unlocking of their respective cars, it is noted that the claims do not positively recite operations of the key fob actuator with regards to unlocking and locking a vehicle, as discussed above, and accordingly the claims do not reflect an improvement to the key fob actuator.
Accordingly, the claimed additional elements, both individually and in combination, are insufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception or provide an inventive concept.
Independent claim 16 recites substantially similar subject matter to independent claim 1. The 101 rejections of independent claim 16, as well as dependent claims 3, 5-10, 17-20, and 22, have been maintained in light of the analysis provided above.
Applicant’s arguments filed with respect to the rejection of claims under 35 USC 103 have been fully considered but are rendered moot under new grounds of rejection.
Applicant’s amendments to independent claims 1 and 16, as well as Applicant’s Remarks (see Remarks Pages 12-20), have been considered and are persuasive. Independent claims 1 and 16 have been indicated as subject matter free of the cited prior art, and would be allowable if amended to overcome the 101 rejection set forth in this Office Action, above. Accordingly, the previously filed rejection of the claims under 35 USC 103 have been withdrawn.
Indication of Subject Matter Overcoming Prior Art
Claims 1 and 16 would be allowable if rewritten or amended to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 101, set forth in this Office Action. Claims 3, 5-10, 17-20, and 22 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 101, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims. The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Claim 1 recites the claimed features of: sending by the server an instruction remotely to a key fob actuator located within the at least one car; and actuating, by the key fob actuator, an unlock key of a key fob of the at least one car to automatically unlock the at least one car, wherein the key fob actuator informs the server when unlocking is completed, and wherein the server: receives, from the user device, information to unlock the at least one car prior to the server sending the instruction to the key fob actuator, sends to the user device information relating to an amount of time left for the user to view the at least one car after the at least one car is unlocked, then sends to the user device information indicating time for the user to view the at least one car is up and that the user should lock the at least one car when an allotted time has run out, and then sends an instruction to the key fob actuator to automatically lock the at least one car.
The most relevant prior art made of record includes previously cited Tang et al. (US 10,589,720 B1), hereinafter Tang, newly cited Wisnia et al. (US 11,285,917 B1), hereinafter Wisnia, previously cited Buchake, (US 20210192608 A1), hereinafter Buchake, newly cited Sute et al. (US 10,991,237 B1), hereinafter Sute, and newly cited NPL Reference U (“The Future of Car Sales is Omnichannel”, see Notice of References Cited).
Tang (US 10,589,720 B1) discloses systems and methods allowing for vehicle access in a retail environment with limited human interaction, associating a vehicle for sale with a physical location, and enabling a user to select a vehicle for a test drive, where the system provides access to unlock the vehicle (see at least Tang [abstract]).
Wisnia (US 11,285,917 B1) discloses an apparatus, method and system for use with a vehicle having passive keyless entry and start (PKES) system including a vehicle unit and a key fob storage unit (see at least Wisnia [abstract]). The system includes an application installed on a smartphone and a server used in controlling the system, and the server communicates with a key-in-box (KIB) device located outside of the vehicle to lock, unlock, and start a vehicle ([Fig. 2][Col 8 Ln 35-42][Col 14 Ln 4-12]). When a start command is received by the KIB device, the actuator pushes the unlock button to disarm security, and then pushes the lock button of the fob to re-lock doors and rearm the security system ([Col 19 Ln 32-60]).
Buchake (US 20210193608 A1) discloses a computing device establishing a validated user device of a user, and providing the validated user device with a digital master key providing access rights to each vehicle within an inventory of a vehicle dealership (see at least Buchake [abstract]). Buchake further discloses that the digital master key is only active for a limited time period in which the vehicles are available to be viewed, where a dealer server sends a notification to the user regarding the time period. Once the user has completed browsing vehicles of interest, the access rights, and therefore the digital master key and associated unlocking capability, are removed from the user device ([0031-0033]).
Sute (US 10,991,237 B1) discloses a key fob actuator housing and associated system for controlling a vehicle key fob via a mobile device (see at least Sute [abstract]). The key fob actuator housing is a physical housing containing the key fob and can be mounted, stored, or otherwise permanently connected to the vehicle, and the key fob actuator housing can receive commands from the mobile device via wireless communication ([Col 4 Ln 27-56]).
NPL Reference U (“The Future of Car Sales is Omnichannel”, see Notice of References Cited) discusses approaches for automakers and dealers in adapting to technological innovations in automobiles, as well as changes in car-buying behavior (see at least [p, 1, paragraphs 1-6]). NPL Reference U further discusses the ability for automakers to provide apps within their ecosystems which allow for interactions with vehicles, including remote locking and unlocking (see [p.10, paragraph 1][p. 11, paragraph 2]).
Upon review of the evidence at hand, it is concluded that the totality of the evidence in combination, neither anticipates, reasonably teaches, nor renders obvious the below noted features of the Applicant’s invention as a whole, as the noted features amount to more than a predictable use of elements in the prior art. The allowable features are as follows:
sending by the server an instruction remotely to a key fob actuator located within the at least one car; and
actuating, by the key fob actuator, an unlock key of a key fob of the at least one car to automatically unlock the at least one car,
wherein the key fob actuator informs the server when unlocking is completed, and
wherein the server:
receives, from the user device, information to unlock the at least one car prior to the server sending the instruction to the key fob actuator,
sends to the user device information relating to an amount of time left for the user to view the at least one car after the at least one car is unlocked, then sends to the user device information indicating time for the user to view the at least one car is up and that the user should lock the at least one car when an allotted time has run out, and
then sends an instruction to the key fob actuator to automatically lock the at least one car.
While these references arguably teach the claimed limitations using a piecemeal analysis, these references would only be combined and deemed obvious based on knowledge gleaned from the applicant’s disclosure. Such a reconstruction is improper (i.e., hindsight reasoning). Accordingly, claims 1, and 16, taken as a whole, is indicated to be allowable over the cited prior art. The examiner emphasizes that it is the interrelationship of the limitations that renders these claims free from prior art. Claims 3, 5-10, 17-20, and 22 depend from claims 1 and 16, respectively, and are therefore indicated as containing subject matter free from prior art.
Additionally, the Examiner further emphasizes the claims as a whole and herby asserts the totality of the evidence neither anticipates nor renders obvious the particular combination of elements as claimed. That is, the Examiner emphasized the claims as a whole and hereby asserts that the totality of evidence fails to set forth, either explicitly or implicitly, an appropriate rationale for combining or otherwise modifying the available prior art to arrive at the claimed invention. The combination of features as claimed would not be modifying the available prior art to arrive at the claimed invention. The combination of features as claimed would not be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art because any combination of the evidence at hand to reach the combination of features as claimed would require a substantial reconstruction of Applicant’s claimed invention relying on improper hindsight bias.
It is hereby asserted by the Examiner that, in light of the above and in further deliberation over all of the evidence at hand, that the claims have subject matter free of prior art as the evidence at hand does not anticipate the claims and does not render obvious any further modification of the references to a person of ordinary skill in the art.
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 therefore, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1-3, 5-10, 16-20, and 22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claims recite an abstract idea. The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Under Step 1 of the Subject Matter Eligibility Test for Products and Processes, the claims must be directed to one of the four statutory categories. See MPEP 2106.03. Claims 1-3 and 5-10 are directed towards a machine. Claims 16-20 and 22 are directed towards a process. Therefore, claims 1-3, 5-10, 16-20, and 22 are directed to one of the four statutory categories (Step 1: YES, regarding claims 1-3, 5-10, 16-20, and 22).
Under Step 2A of the MPEP, it is determined whether the claims are directed to a judicially recognized exception. See MPEP 2106.04. Step 2A is a two-prong inquiry.
Under Prong 1, it is determined whether the claim recites a judicial exception. In determining whether the claims are directed to a judicial exception, the claims are analyzed to evaluate whether the claims recite a judicial exception.
Taking Claim 16 as representative, claim 16 recites limitations that fall within the certain methods of organizing human activity groupings of abstract ideas, including:
A method of dealing in cars, the method comprising:
locating cars at different geographic locations;
maintaining a record for each of the cars, the record including a geographic location of the car;
retrieving at least one record;
providing a user with the at least one retrieved record;
receiving from the user information indicating interest in viewing at least one car corresponding to the at least one retrieved record;
sending an instruction; and
unlock the at least one car,
informing when unlocking is completed, and
receives information to unlock the at least one car prior to sending the instruction,
sends information relating to an amount of time left for the user to view the at least one car after the at least one car is unlocked, then sends to the user information indicating time for the user to view the at least one car is up and that the user should lock the at least one car when an allotted time has run out, and
then sends an instruction to lock the at least one car.
Claim 1 additionally recites the following abstract limitations.
maintain a record for each of a plurality of cars for sale, the plurality of cars being located at different geographical sites and each record including a geographic location of a corresponding one of the plurality of cars;
retrieve at least one record;
provide a user with the at least one retrieved record;
receive information from the user indicating interest in viewing at least one car corresponding to the at least one retrieved record; and
send an instruction to unlock the at least one car,
inform when unlocking is completed, and
receive information to unlock the at least one car prior to sending the instruction,
send to the user information relating to an amount of time left for the user to view the at least one car after the at least one car is unlocked, then send to the user information indicating time for the user to view the at least one car is up and that the user should lock the at least one car when an allotted time has run out, and
then send an instruction to lock the at least one car.
Claims 1 and 16 recite certain methods of organizing human activity, such as performing commercial interactions. See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2). The MPEP defines the “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity” grouping as including fundamental economic principles or practices (including hedging, insurance, mitigating risk); commercial or legal interactions (including agreements in the form of contracts; legal obligations; advertising, marketing or sales activities or behaviors; business relations); managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people (including social activities, teaching, and following rules or instructions) (see MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2). The abstract ideas recited in representative claims 1 and 16 are certain methods of organizing human activity because dealing in cars, allowing users to indicate interest in viewing a car and providing the user access to the car, including unlocking and locking, to view the car during a period of time is a commercial or legal interaction because it is an advertising, marketing or sales activity, or business relations.
Accordingly, under Prong One of Step 2A of the Alice/Mayo test, claims 1 and 16 recite an abstract idea (Step 2A, Prong One: YES).
Under Step 2A (prong 2), if it is determined that the claims recite a judicial exception, it is then necessary to evaluate whether the claims recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application of that exception (see MPEP 2106.04). As stated in the MPEP, when “an additional element merely recites the words ‘apply it (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea,” the judicial exception has not been integrated into a practical application. In this case, representative claim 16 includes additional elements such as (additional elements are bolded):
A method of dealing in cars, the method comprising:
locating cars at different geographic locations;
maintaining a database having a record for each of the cars, the record including a geographic location of the car;
retrieving at least one record from the database by a server;
providing a user device with the at least one retrieved record by the server;
receiving by the server from the user device information indicating interest in viewing at least one car corresponding to the at least one retrieved record;
sending by the server an instruction remotely to a key fob actuator located within the at least one car; and
actuating, by the key fob actuator, an unlock key of a key fob of the at least one car to automatically unlock the at least one car,
wherein the key fob actuator informs the server when unlocking is completed, and
wherein the server:
receives, from the user device, information to unlock the at least one car prior to the server sending the instruction to the key fob actuator,
sends to the user device information relating to an amount of time left for the user to view the at least one car after the at least one car is unlocked, then sends to the user device information indicating time for the user to view the at least one car is up and that the user should lock the at least one car when an allotted time has run out, and
then sends an instruction to the key fob actuator to automatically lock the at least one car.
Claim 1 additionally recites the following additional elements:
A car dealership system comprising:
a database configurable to maintain a record for each of a plurality of cars for sale, the plurality of cars being located at different geographical sites and each record including a geographic location of a corresponding one of the plurality of cars;
at least one key fob actuator; and
a server operable to:
retrieve at least one record from the database;
provide a user device with the at least one retrieved record;
receive information from the user device indicating interest in viewing at least one car corresponding to the at least one retrieved record; and
send an instruction remotely to a key fob actuator located within the at least one car to automatically unlock the at least one car by actuating an unlock key of a key fob of the at least one car,
wherein the key fob actuator is operable to inform the server when unlocking is completed, and
wherein the server is further operable to:
receive, from the user device, information to unlock the at least one car prior to the server sending the instruction to the key fob actuator,
send to the user device information relating to an amount of time left for the user to view the at least one car after the at least one car is unlocked, then send to the user device information indicating time for the user to view the at least one car is up and that the user should lock the at least one car when an allotted time has run out, and
then send an instruction to the key fob actuator to automatically lock the at least one car.
These additional elements are described at a high level in Applicant’s specification without any meaningful detail about their structure or configuration. As such, these computer-related limitations are not found to be sufficient to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Claims 1 and 16 specifying that the abstract idea is executed in a computer environment merely indicates a field of use in which to apply the abstract idea because this requirement merely limits the claims to the computer field, i.e., to execution on a generic computer. As such, under Prong Two of Step 2A of the Alice/Mayo test, when considered both individually and as a whole, the limitations of claims 1 and 16 are not indicative of integration into a practical application (Step 2A, Prong Two: NO).
Since claims 1 and 16 recite an abstract idea and fail to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application, claims 1 and 16 are “directed to” an abstract idea (Step 2A: YES). Accordingly, the judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application.
Next, under Step 2B, examiners should evaluate additional elements individually and in combination to determine whether they provide an inventive concept (i.e., whether the additional elements amount to significantly more than the exception itself). In this case, the claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. Returning to representative claims 1 and 16, taken individually or as a whole the additional elements of claims 1 and 16 amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer and/or no more than a general link to a technological environment. For the same reason these elements are not sufficient to provide an inventive concept. Therefore when considering the additional elements alone, and in combination, there is no inventive concept in the claim, and thus the claim is not patent eligible (Step 2B: NO).
Dependent claims 3, 5-10, 17-20, and 22, when analyzed as a whole, are held to be patent ineligible under 35 U.S.C. 101 because they do not add “significantly more” to the abstract idea. As for dependent claims 3, 6-10, and 17-20, these claims recite limitations that further define the same abstract idea noted in independent claims 1 and 16, and do not recite any additional elements other than what is disclosed in independent claims 1 and 16. Therefore, claims 3, 6-10, and 17-20 are considered patent ineligible for the reasons given above.
As for dependent claims 2, 5, and 22, these claims recite limitations that further define the abstract idea noted in independent claims 1 and 16. Furthermore, they recite the following additional limitations in addition to those recite in independent claims 1 and 16:
wherein the user device comprises a mobile device, and wherein the server is further operable to receive a location of the mobile device and wherein retrieving at least one record from the database comprises retrieving at least one record from the database based on the location of the mobile device; and
wherein the instruction to automatically unlock the at least one car comprises a short messaging service (SMS) message sent to the key fob actuator.
The additional elements of a mobile device and a short messaging service (SMS) message are all recited at a high level of generality such that they amount to no more than instructions to apply the judicial exception in a generic technological environment. 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. Accordingly, under the Alice/Mayo test, claims 1-3, 5-10, 16-20, and 22 are ineligible.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ZACHARY R DONAHUE whose telephone number is (571)272-5850. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8a-5p.
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, Marissa Thein can be reached at (571) 272-6764. 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.
/ZACHARY RYAN DONAHUE/ Examiner, Art Unit 3689
/MARISSA THEIN/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3689
Prosecution Insights