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 .
Authorization for Internet Communication
In the interest of compact prosecution, the Examiner recommends filing a written authorization for Internet communication. Doing so would permit the USPTO to communicate using Internet e-mail to schedule interviews or discuss other aspects of the application. Without a written authorization in place, the USPTO cannot respond to Internet e-mail correspondence. The preferred method of providing authorization is by filing form PTO/SB/439, available at: https://www.uspto.gov/patent/forms/forms. See MPEP § 502.03. Authorizations in an Internet e-mail do not have the same effect as filing the form in the record.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 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 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. Claims 1, 19, and 20 recite logging data, being prompted, and tagging records. Other than reciting network entities, an access point, a wireless network, a device, a processor, and a memory, nothing in the claims precludes the steps from practically being performed in the mind.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claims recite the aforementioned elements at a high-level of generality, amounting to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components. Alternatively, to practically being performed in the mind, recording data and receiving a trigger are extra-solution activity.
Accordingly, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. Therefore, the claims are directed towards an abstract idea.
The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As aforementioned regarding the failure to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components. Mere instructions to apply an exception using generic computer components cannot provide an inventive concept. Therefore, the claims are patent ineligible.
The dependent claims merely set forth additional details of the abstract idea and also fail to recite additional elements sufficient to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or amounting to significantly more than the judicial exception. Therefore, claims 1-20 are not patent eligible.
Response to Arguments
The arguments have been fully considered.
The applicant argues that “[a]n ‘access point,’ as described in the specification, is a specialized piece of telecommunications hardware . . . .” (Resp. 8.) A specific access point, however, is not claimed.
The applicants further argues that “’network entities’ are specific devices like User Equipment (UE) or loT devices” (id.), and “[a] human mind cannot ‘receive, from one network entity... a trigger’ in the manner of a base station receiving a wireless signal.” (Id.) Neither UEs, IoT devices, a base station, nor a wireless signal however, are claimed.
The applicants argues that its “solution involves a specific, non-abstract sequence of operations inextricably tied to network hardware. For example:
1. An access point (a specific piece of network infrastructure, e.g., a Base Station) records activity entries for network entities connected to it.
2. The access point receives, from a network entity, a trigger indicating an event.
3. The access point itself then tags its own activity log based on this trigger.” (Resp. 7.)
None of these steps are tied to technology, supra; all can practically be performed in the mind.
That said, the limitations of claims 4 or 9 might be able to be recited in a more specific manner to overcome the rejection.
Other Art
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to the instant disclosure. For example, US 10360767 teaches an indication of an action, a date or time of the action, or a user identifier associated with a user that initiated the action, may be displayed via a register device page when an activity log tab is selected. (¶ 43)
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 Lance Leonard Barry whose telephone number is (571)272-5856. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 700-430 ET 730-1630.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Ario Etienne can be reached on 571-272-4001. 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.
/LANCE LEONARD BARRY/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2457
Prosecution Insights