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 .
Status of the Claims
Claims 1-7, 9-17 and 20 are pending. Claims 8 and 18-19 are cancelled. Claims 1, 13 and 20 are amended.
Response to Arguments
Applicants’ arguments, filed 07/23/2026, with respect to the 101 rejection have been considered but are not persuasive.
Applicant argues, on page 8 that amended claim 1 does not recite a certain method of organizing human activity.
Examiner respectfully disagrees. The claim limitations as drafted, recite a concept, that, under broadest reasonable interpretation, is a certain method of organizing human activity. The limitations are analogous to managing personal behavior or interactions between people (interactions between people), or a commercial or legal interaction (sales activity) such as tracking statuses and connection times of devices within an organization (See Specification, par. 0002).
Applicant argues, on pages 9-11, that even if claim 1 recites a judicial exception, the claim as a whole integrates any such exception into a practical application. Applicant argues that the device tracking database is not a mere field of use recitation but rather, recites specific detail about how accessing the first step information is performed. Applicant argues that amended claim does not merely precent more or better information to a human, rather it operates on machine generated device connectivity heartbeat data to keep the device tracking database current at scale and to detect and quarantine erroneous machine-collected data before it corrupts the database and is therefore an improvement to technology.
Examiner respectfully disagrees. As discussed above, the claims recite an abstract idea and the additional elements (electronic devices, computer components, database, application, etc) are recited at a high-level of generality such that they amount to no more than generally linking the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use. When viewed individually and in combination, do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. These elements are recited at a high level of generality and they are not providing an improvement to technology or a technical field. With respect to Trading Technologies Int’l v. IBG, 921 F.3d 1084, 1093-94, 2019 USPQ2d 138290 (Fed. Cir. 2019), the court determined that the claimed user interface simply provided a trader with more information to facilitate market trades, which improved the business process of market trading but did not improve computers or technology. Here, the alleged improvement is to information accuracy being provided to a client and updating statuses quickly is an improvement to the business process of managing hundreds/thousands of devices and not to a technology or technical field. Therefore, the claims are ineligible.
Applicant argues, on page 11, similarity to eligible examples 40 and example 36. Applicant argues that amended claim 1 recites a specific technical implementation that confines the claim to a particular useful application of maintaining database integrity.
Examine respectfully disagrees. The eligible claims mentioned above are integrated into a practical application by providing an improvement to a technology or technical field. As mentioned above, the claims do not provide any such improvement, and they do not apply or use the judicial exception in some other meaningful way. Therefore, the claims recite an abstract idea.
Applicant argues, on page 11, that at step 2B that the analysis merely repeats the conclusion and never separately addresses the specific ordered combination or makes factual findings under Berkheimer. Applicant argues that the ordered combination supplies an inventive concept for the same reasons it integrates the exception into a practical application.
Examiner respectfully disagrees. As discussed above with respect to Step 2A Prong Two, the additional elements, amount to no more than generally linking the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use. The same analysis applies in 2B. Examiner has re-examined the additional elements, and when considered separately and in combination, they do not add significantly more to the exception. They are generally linking the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use and cannot integrate a judicial exception into a practical application at Step 2A or provide an inventive concept in Step 2B. The claims are ineligible. With respect to Berkheimer, At Step 2A Prong Two or Step 2B, there is no requirement for evidence to support a finding that the exception is not integrated into a practical application or that the additional elements do not amount to significantly more than the exception unless the examiner asserts that additional limitations are well-understood, routine, conventional activities in Step 2B.
Novelty/Non-Obviousness
The closest prior art of record is included in the previous office action mailed on 09/10/2025. The claims would be considered allowable if rewritten or amended to overcome the rejections in this Office Action.
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 1-7, 9-17 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1
Claims 1-7, 9-17 and 20 is directed to a series of steps, and therefore is a process.
Independent Claims
Step 2A Prong One
The limitation of Claim 1 recites:
A method of communicating device status information to a client regarding an activity of multiple … (devices) only after confirming the accuracy of the device status information, each … (device) being capable of having one of multiple statuses, the method comprising:
accessing first information regarding the multiple ... (devices), the first information including a connection state for a first plurality of ... (devices) of the multiple ... (devices) representative of a most recent timestamp that each of the first plurality of ... (devices) was active, each respective timestamp being established during a most recent … (communication) between the respective one of the first plurality of … (devices) and … , wherein accessing the first information includes monitoring … transmissions of each … (device) of the first plurality of … (devices) to determine the most recent timestamp representative of the … activity of each … (device) of the first plurality of … (devices);
concurrently determining, …, a first status for each respective ... (device) of the multiple ... (devices) dependent upon the first information;
assigning the first status as a current status for each of the multiple … (devices) …;
accessing second information regarding the multiple ... (devices), the second information including a connection state for a second plurality of ... (devices) of the multiple ... (devices);
concurrently determining, …, a second status for each of the multiple ... (devices) dependent upon the second information;
automatically determining, …, a status change representative of a change from the current status to the second status for each ... (device) of the multiple ... (devices);
comparing the status change to methodology that includes allowable status changes, unusual status changes, and prohibited status changes and:
in response to the status change being an unusual status change or a prohibited status change, automatically indicating, …, a potential inaccuracy of at least one of the first information and the second information and not updating the current status for each applicable … (device) in … remains the first status;
in response to the status change being an allowable status change, automatically confirming an accuracy of at least one of the first information and the second information and updating the current status, …, for each of the multiple … (devices) in … with the second status; and
communicating, in response to the confirmation of the accuracy of at least one of the first information and the second information, the device status information to the client that includes the current status for each respective … (device) for which at least the first information or the second information was confirmed to be accurate,
wherein the steps of accessing the second information, determining the second status, and determining the status change are performed … automatically, concurrently, and in a distributed manner for at least one thousand … (devices) of the multiple … (devices), collectively in less than two hours, so that … is updated before the connection state for the second plurality of … (devices) becomes outdated.
The claim limitations as drafted, recite a concept, that, under broadest reasonable interpretation, is a certain method of organizing human activity. The limitations are analogous to managing personal behavior or interactions between people (interactions between people), or a commercial or legal interaction (sales activity) such as tracking statuses and connection times of devices within an organization. The generic computer implementations (see below) do not change the character of the limitations. Accordingly, the claims recite an abstract idea.
Step 2A Prong Two
The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claims recite the following additional elements:
Claim 1:
electronic devices
electronic communication
computer processor
device tracking database
existing application
one or more servers of a client distributed server system
These additional elements are recited at a high-level of generality such that they amount to no more than generally linking the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use. Accordingly, the additional elements, when viewed individually and in combination, do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claims do not amount to more than generally linking the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use (see MPEP 2106.05(h))
Therefore, the claims recite an abstract idea.
Step 2B
As discussed above with respect to Step 2A Prong Two, the additional elements, amount to no more than generally linking the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use. The same analysis applies here in 2B. The additional elements, when considered separately and in combination, do not add significantly more to the exception. They are generally linking the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use and cannot integrate a judicial exception into a practical application at Step 2A or provide an inventive concept in Step 2B. The claims are ineligible.
Dependent Claims
Dependent claims 2-7, 9-17 and 20 further narrow the same abstract ideas recited in Claim 1. Therefore, claims 2-7, 9-17 and 20 are directed to an abstract idea for the reasons given above.
Step 2A Prong Two
The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the dependent claims recite the following additional elements:
Claim 9:
Electrical transmissions
Claim 10:
Application programming interface
Claim 12:
Enterprise resource planning (ERP) system
unified endpoint management (UEM) system
a mobile device management (MDM) system.
Claim 16:
Application programming interface
These additional elements are recited at a high-level of generality such that they amount to no more than generally linking the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use. Accordingly, the additional elements, when viewed individually and in combination, do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claims do not amount to more than generally linking the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use (see MPEP 2106.05(h)). Therefore, the claims recite an abstract idea.
Step 2B
As discussed above with respect to Step 2A Prong Two, the additional elements, amount to no more than generally linking the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use. The same analysis applies here in 2B. The additional elements, when considered separately and in combination, do not add significantly more to the exception. They are generally linking the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use and cannot integrate a judicial exception into a practical application at Step 2A or provide an inventive concept in Step 2B. The claims are ineligible.
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 ISMAIL A MANEJWALA whose telephone number is (571)272-8904. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8-5.
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 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.
/ISMAIL A MANEJWALA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3628
Prosecution Insights