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 .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
2. 5 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 1-12, 18-20
Claims 1-12, 18-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter. The claims fall within at least one of the four categories of patent eligible subject matter. However, the claimed invention is directed to performing a mental process with the aid of a computing tool 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 1-12 describe a non-transitory machine-readable medium, claims 18-20 describe a method/process, therefore satisfying Step 1 of the analysis, except for claim 1, see above rejection.
Step 2 Analysis for Claims 1-12
Step 2A – Prong 1: Is a Judicial Exception Recited?
Claim 1 recites the limitations of receiving information of a plurality of network devices comprising network and storage space data, receive an indication that a device experienced an issue comprising size data, selecting and excluding devices based on the collected data, and sending the selected devices data to the said device. The limitations describe 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 storage medium, a processor or a generic computer). That is, nothing in the claim elements preclude the steps from practically being performed in the mind. The limitations involve making evaluations of the collected object information in order to determine a collection of devices and then notify another device of said collection, thereby describing an observation and/or evaluation of data, and sending resultant data. Such an observation and/or evaluation of data can be performed by a human and recites a mental process using a computer as a tool.
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, 12 recite data analysis and organization of the collected data.
Claims 8-11 recites basic mathematical concepts to determine memory size distribution according to the collected data. As explained in the October 2019 Update to the 2019 PEG, when determining whether a claim recites a mathematical concept (i.e., mathematical relationships, mathematical formulas or equations, and mathematical calculations), consideration must be given as to whether a claim recites a mathematical concept or merely includes limitations that are based on or involve a mathematical concept.
If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, describes the performance of mathematical calculations (even if a formula is not recited in the claim), then it falls within the “Mathematical Concepts” grouping of abstract ideas. See the 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance.
Step 2A – Prong 2: Is the Judicial Exception Integrated into a Practical Application?
Claim 1 recites a storage medium and management system and processing circuits. 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 processor 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 also recites collecting data, analyzing data, and sending analyzed data to device. These limitations describe insignificant extra-solution activity pertaining to mere data gathering, display of calculation results, 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. As such, these limitations do not integrate the abstract idea(s) into a practical application.
Claims 2-12 recite data analysis and mathematical concepts to determine results using the collected data. As currently written, the limitations in the claims describe certain types of data and mathematical calculations and evaluations performed on the data. The mathematical calculations and evaluations describe mathematical concepts 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.
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, claims 1-12 contain additional elements which require evaluation as to whether they provide an inventive concept to the identified abstract idea. The system and data storage device recited in the claim describe a generic computer and/or computer components at a high level and do not represent “significantly more” than the judicial exception.
The limitations pertaining to gathering of data, analyzing, and sending analyzed data 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. Therefore, these limitations recite no additional elements that would amount to significantly more than the abstract ideas defined in the claim.
Step 2 Analysis for Claims 18-20
Claims 18-20 contain limitations for a method which are similar to the limitations for the medium specified in claims 1, 3-6. As such, the analysis under Step 2A – Prong 1, Step 2A – Prong 2, and Step 2B for claims 18-20 is similar to that presented above for claims 1-12.
In light of the above, the limitations in claims 18-20 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 18-20 are therefore not patent eligible.
Allowable Subject Matter
3. Claims 13-17 are allowed.
Response to Arguments
4. Applicant's arguments filed 12/16/25 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
The applicant has argued the claims are directed to an improvement to the technical field of the management of electronic devices. The examiner respectfully disagrees. The claims, as written, recites a management system that receives information of electronic devices, analyzes said data and then sends the analyzed data to an electronic device; however, the management system does not manage, control, transform or remediate any errors on the electronic device. It merely collects data from the device and analyzes and may send the analyzed data to possibly perform an action at a later time, but the management system is not managing or controlling the actual electronic device, only the device’s data. Using the claimed process to transform the devices or remediate any detected errors of the electronic device would be beneficial in the prosecution of the application. One cannot merely claim an improvement to an electronic device or field without applying or controlling any transformation of the device. The claims, as written, merely receive data, organizes said data according to rules and mathematical concepts and then reports the findings. The prior reasons for allowance for claim 13 is an example of such transformation using the collected, analyzed data.
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 CHRISTOPHER S MCCARTHY whose telephone number is (571)272-3651. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8:30-5:00.
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.
/CHRISTOPHER S MCCARTHY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2113