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 .
This Final Office Action is responsive to Applicant's amendment filed on 15 April 2026. Applicant’s amendment on 15 April 2026 amended Claim 1. Currently Claims 1-20 are pending and have been examined. The Examiner notes that the 101 rejection has been maintained.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 15 April 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
The Applicant argues on pages 8-9 that Amended Claim 1 does not recite a mental process because the limitations cannot practically be performed in the human mind”.
The Examiner respectfully disagrees.
In response to the arguments in the Examiner notes that while the Applicant argues that amended claim 1 does not recite a mental process within the meaning of MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III)(A) because a human mind cannot practically monitor the electronic communication and transmission of data between multiple electronic devices and one or more servers, and cannot concurrently compare status changes to a three-category methodology across thousands of devices simultaneously. The Examiner has carefully considered this argument but cannot fully concede that the rejection is overcome for the reasons set forth herein.
The Examiner acknowledges, consistent with MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III)(A) and the July 2024 AI Subject Matter Eligibility Update (Federal Register), that claims do not recite a mental process when they contain limitations that cannot practically be performed in the human mind, and that the mental processes grouping is not without limits. The Examiner further acknowledges the Federal Circuit's holding in SRI Int'l, Inc. v. Cisco Systems, Inc., which declined to characterize the collection and analysis of network data as abstract because "the human mind is not equipped to detect suspicious activity by using network monitors and analyzing network packets as recited by the claims." Applicant's amendments adding the limitation that "the connection state is continuously updated by monitoring one or more servers of a client system for an electronic communication between each of the plurality of electronic devices and the one or more servers" do add a limitation that involves real-time server monitoring at scale, and the Examiner recognizes that this limitation, taken in isolation, may not be practically performed entirely in the human mind when applied to a large network of devices.
However, the Examiner maintains that the claimed invention, even as amended, must be evaluated as a whole under the two-step Alice/Mayo framework, and the analysis does not end at Step 2A, Prong One. The fact that certain limitations may be beyond the practical capacity of the human mind does not, standing alone, render the claim patent-eligible. Even assuming, without conceding, that amended claim 1 does not recite a mental process at Step 2A, Prong One, the Examiner must still evaluate whether the claim as a whole integrates the recited judicial exception if any remains into a practical application under Step 2A, Prong Two, and whether the claim amounts to significantly more under Step 2B. Therefore, this argument is only partially persuasive and does not fully dispose of the 101 rejection. The rejection is therefore maintained.
The Applicant argues on page 9 that Claim 1 integrates the Judicial Exception into a practical application, analogous to Example 40 of the subject matter eligibility examples. The Examiner respectfully disagrees.
Applicant argues that even if claim 1 is characterized as reciting a judicial exception, it integrates that exception into a practical application because the claim includes continuously updating the connection state of an electronic device by monitoring one or more servers for electronic communications, which Applicant characterizes as analogous to the monitoring of data exchanged between computer devices on a network found sufficient for practical application integration in USPTO Example 40. The Examiner has carefully considered this argument and responds as follows.
The Examiner notes at the outset that Example 40 is a pre-2019 PEG example (from the prior series, examples 1-36), and the 2019 PEG Introductory Module expressly states that "existing examples 1-36 were issued prior to the 2019 PEG, and some of them present analyses that may not be entirely consistent with the 2019 PEG. Thus, although all the claims indicated as eligible in prior examples 1-36 are still eligible today, you should use these examples with caution." Accordingly, Example 40 cannot be relied upon as controlling authority to the same degree as post-2019 PEG examples. The Examiner is not bound to find eligibility on the basis of a pre-2019 example, particularly where the claim must be evaluated under the current analytical framework including the July 2024 AI-SME Update.
Under the current Step 2A, Prong Two analysis pursuant to MPEP 2106.04(d) and 2106.04(d)(1), the claim must be evaluated to determine whether the additional elements, individually and in combination, integrate the judicial exception into a practical application by, for example, improving the functioning of a computer or improving another technology or technical field. A key distinction recognized in the current guidance is between a claim that reflects an improvement to computer technology described in the specification (which is eligible) and a claim in which the additional elements amount to no more than instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer, or that merely generally link the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use (which is ineligible). See Electric Power Group, LLC v. Alstom; MPEP 2106.05(h).
The Examiner acknowledges that the amended claim now recites continuously updated connection state monitoring via server communication, concurrent status comparison across multiple devices, automatic prevention of prohibited status changes in the device tracking database, automatic updating for allowable status changes, and automatic indication of potential inaccuracy for unusual status changes. These limitations, considered in combination, may more closely resemble the type of specific technical solution that can integrate a judicial exception into a practical application. In particular, the requirement that the system automatically and concurrently perform three distinct, rule-based operations (prevent, update, and flag) across all affected devices simultaneously rather than merely collecting and displaying information may present a closer call to practical application integration analogous to the active remediation steps found sufficient in USPTO Example 47 (Anomaly Detection, Claim 3), which was published under the July 2024 AI-SME Update and is controlling precedent in the current analytical framework.
Nevertheless, the Examiner is not fully persuaded that practical application integration is established for the following reason: the specification must set forth an improvement in technology and the claim itself must reflect the disclosed improvement. See MPEP 2106.04(d)(1). While the amendments identify that the connection state is continuously updated by monitoring servers, and that the computer processor concurrently compares status changes to a three-category methodology, the question remains whether the specification sets forth a specific technological improvement to the device tracking system itself or to computer functioning, or whether the claimed system merely applies a business practice of tracking device status using generic computer components at a high level of functional generality. Applicant is invited to point to specific portions of the specification that articulate a technological improvement as opposed to a business-process improvement to support this argument in any further response. The rejection is therefore maintained.
Applicant's arguments filed 15 April 2026 have been fully considered but they are moot in view of new grounds of rejection as necessitated by amendment.
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 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. When considering claims 1-20 as a whole and all claim elements both individually and in combination, these claim(s) 1-20 are directed to the abstract idea of an electronic device tracking a status analysis without significantly more than the judicial exception itself.
Step 1
Regarding Step 1 of the Subject Matter Eligibility Test for Products and Processes (from the MPEP 2106.05(a) Examination Guidelines), claim(s) (1-20) is/are directed to a system and therefore the claims are viewed as falling in statutory categories.
Step 2A Prong 1
The claim(s) recite(s) mental process. Specifically, the independent claims 1 is a mental process as drafted, the claim recites the limitation of comparing at least one of the tracking and status analysis of electronic devices which is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components. That is, other than reciting a processor, nothing in the claim precludes the determining step from practically being performed in the human mind. For example, but for the “by a processor” language, the claim encompasses the user manually:
External information regarding the multiple electronic devices, the external information including a connection state for a plurality of electronic devices of multiple electronic devise representative of a most recent timestamp that each of the plurality of electronic devise was active.
access the external information and concurrently identify…
identify, in response to gaining access to the external information…
determine, for at least a portion of the multiple electronic devices…
compare the status change to methodology that includes allowable status changes…
prevent the status changing in the device tracking…
prevent the status change for at least a portion of the multiple electronic devices…
update the current status for at least a portion of the multiple electronic devices in the device tracking database with the pending status in response on the status change being an allowable status change.
indicate a potentially inaccuracy of the status change in the device tracking database…
provide device status information for the multiple electronic devices to a client for which the multiple electronic devices… device tracking database.
The mere nominal recitation of a generic processor does not take the claim limitation out of the mental processes grouping. It has been established by ongoing guidance that claims that contain a generic processor are still viewed as mental process when they contain limitations that can practically be performed in the human mind, however this is different for instance when the human mind is not equipped to perform the claim limitations (network monitoring, data encryption for communication, and rendering images). Therefore, these limitations are viewed a mental process.
The determining the current status and pending status are identified would clearly be to a mental activity that a company would go through in order to track and determine the status of electronic devices. The specification makes it clear that the claimed invention is directed to the mental activity data gathering and data analysis to determine how to determine the status and track the electronic devices:
Step 2A Prong 2
Specifically, the determined judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the generically recited computer elements do not add a meaningful limitation to the abstract idea because they amount to simply implementing the abstract idea on a computer and additionally that data accessing, preventing, updating, and transmitting steps required to use the correlation do not add a meaningful limitation to the method as they are insignificant extra-solution activity (including post solution activity).
The claim recites the additional element(s): that a processor is used to perform the determining of the multiple electronic devices for which the current stat us and pending status are identified. The processor in the steps is recited at a high level of generality, i.e., as a generic processor performing a generic computer function of processing data (generating workflows). This generic processor limitation is no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Accordingly, this additional element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to the abstract idea.
The claim recites the additional element(s): Access the external information and concurrently identify, prevent the status changing in the device tracking, automatically prevent the status change for at least a portion of the multiple electronic devices, and transmission module in communication, a device tracking database that includes [information] for each of the multiple devices; a computer processor in electronic communication with the external information and device tracking database, and a transmission module in communication with the device tracking database and configured to, via electronic transmission. performs the determining step. The tracking, access, identify, prevent, update and transmission steps are recited at a high level of generality (i.e., as a general means of managing data for use in the determining step), and amounts to mere data transmission, which is a form of insignificant extra-solution activity. The processor that performs the determining step is also recited at a high level of generality, and merely automates the determining step. Each of the additional limitations is no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component (the processor).
The Examiner has further determined that the claims as a whole does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application in order to provide an improvement in the functioning of a computer or an improvement to other technology or technical field. It has been determined that based on the disclosure does not provide sufficient details such that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize the claimed invention as providing an improvement. It has not been provided clearly in the disclosure that the alleged improvement would be apparent to one of ordinary skill in the art, but is instead 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, and therefore does not improve the technology. Second, in the instance, where it is not clear that the specification sets forth an improvement in technology, the claim must reflect the disclosed improvement (the claims must include components or steps of the invention that provide the improvement described in the specification).
For further clarification the Examiner points out that the claim(s) 1-20 recite(s) External information regarding the multiple electronic devices, Access the external information and concurrently identify, determine, for at least a portion of the multiple electronic devices, prevent the status changing in the device tracking, prevent the status change for at least a portion of the multiple electronic devices, update the current status for at least a portion of the multiple electronic devices in the device tracking database with the pending status in response on the status change being an allowable status changes, and provide device status information which are viewed as an abstract idea in the form of a mental process. This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the use of a computer for obtaining, classifying, quantifying, generation, identifying, and determining which is the abstract idea steps of valuing an idea (tracking and status analysis of electronic devices) in the manner of “apply it”.
Thus, the claims recites an abstract idea directed to a mental process (i.e. to tracking and status analysis of electronic devices). Using a computer to tracking, access, identify, determining, prevent, update and transmission the data resulting from this kind of mental process merely implements the abstract idea in the manner of “apply it”.
The dependent claims recite elements that narrow the metes and bounds of the abstract idea but do not provide ‘something more’.
The dependent claims do not remedy these deficiencies.
Claims 2, 7, and 19 recite limitations which further limit the claimed analysis of data.
Claims 4, 6, 8, 10, 12, 15, 17, and 20 recites limitations directed to claim language viewed insignificantly extra solution activity.
Claims 3, 5, 9, 11, 13, 14, 16, and 18 recites limitations directed to claim language viewed non-functional data labels.
Thus, the problem the claimed invention is directed to answering the question based on gathered and analyzed information about the status and tracking electronic devices. This is not a technical or technological problem but is rather in the realm of asset management and therefore an abstract idea.
Step 2B
The claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because as discussed with respect to Step 2A Prong Two, the additional element in the claim amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component.
The same analysis applies here in 2B, i.e., mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot integrate a judicial exception into a practical application at Step 2A or provide an inventive concept in Step 2B. This is the case because in order for the claims to be viewed as significantly more the claims must incorporate the integral use of a machine to achieve performance of a method, in contrast to where the machine is merely an object on which the method operates, which does not provide significantly more in order for a machine to add significantly more, it must play a significant part in permitting the claimed method to be performed, rather than function solely as an obvious mechanism for permitting a solution to be achieved more quickly. Whether its involvement is extra-solution activity or a field-of-use, i.e., the extent to which (or how) the machine or apparatus imposes meaningful limits on the claim. Use of a machine that contributes only nominally or insignificantly to the execution of the claimed method (e.g., in a data gathering step or in a field-of-use limitation) would not provide significantly more. Additionally, another consideration when determining whether a claim recites significantly more is whether the claim effects a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing. "[T]ransformation and reduction of an article ‘to a different state or thing’ is the clue to patentability of a process claim that does not include particular machines. All together the above analysis shows there is not improvement in computer functionality, or improvement to any other technology or technical field. The claim is ineligible.
Additionally, with respect to the Berkheimer as noted above the same analysis applies to the 2B where the claims are viewed as applying it and as such no further analysis is required. However, with respect to the current claims tracking, accessing, identifying, preventing, updating, transmitting, a device tracking database that includes [information] for each of the multiple devices; a computer processor in electronic communication with the external information and device tracking database, and a transmission module in communication with the device tracking database and configured to, via electronic transmission that are viewed as extra solution or post solution activity the Examiner notes that the claims are viewed as well-understood, routine, and conventional because a citation to a publication that demonstrates the well-understood, routine, conventional nature of the additional element(s). An appropriate publication such as the currently cited prior art “Bennett et al. (U.S. Patent Publication 2010/0130167 A1)” provides those extra solution activities and is viewed as a form of publication which also includes a book, manual, review article, or other source that describes the state of the art and discusses what is well-known and in common use in the relevant industry. The claim is ineligible.
The dependent claims recite elements that narrow the metes and bounds of the abstract idea but do not provide ‘something more’. Specifically, the dependent claims do not remedy these deficiencies of the independent claims.
With respect to the legal concept of prima facie case being a procedural tool of patent examination, which allocates the burdens going forward between the examiner and the applicant. MPEP 2106.07 discusses the requirements of a prima facie case of ineligibility. In particular, the initial burden was on the Examiner and believed to be properly provided as to explain why the claim(s) are ineligible for patenting because of the above provided rejection which clearly and specifically points out in accordance with properly providing the requirement satisfying the initial burden of proof based on the Guidance from the United States Patent and Trademark Office and the burden now shifts to the applicant.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent may not be obtained through the invention is not identically disclosed or described as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the subject matter sought to be patented and the prior art are such that the subject matter as a whole would have been obvious at the time the invention was made to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which said subject matter pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claim 1-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bennett et al. (U.S. Patent Publication 2010/0130167 A1) (hereafter Bennett) in view of Greenbaum (U.S. Patent 11,200,534 B1) in further view of Factor (U.S. Patent Publication 2021/0158305 A1) in further view of MOUSSEAU et al. (U.S. Patent Publication 2021/0134421 A1) (hereafter Mousseau).
Referring to Claim 1, Bennett teaches a system for tracking multiple electronic devices, said method comprising:
a device tracking database that includes a current status for each of the multiple devices stored in storage media distant from the device tracking database (see; par. [0027] and par. [0029] of Bennett teaches tracking server includes an account management system that maintains user profiles and device information. The "device status registration and query control functionality" (element 205 in Fig. 2) actively manages and stores the current operational state of each tracked device. This functionality maintains persistent records of which devices exist in the system and what their current status is at any given time).
external information regarding the multiple electronic devices, the external information including a connection state for a plurality of electronic devices of the multiple electronic devices representative of a most recent timestamp that each of the plurality of electronic devices was active (see; par. [0028] of Bennett teaches that endpoint devices periodically register with tracking servers when powered on, creating a communication channel between devices and the central system. This registration process provides the tracking server with information about device activity).
a computer processor in electronic communication with the external information and database (see; par. [0026], [0028] and par. [0029] and Fig. 2 of Bennett teaches a server (element 121) contains processing components that communicate with both the stored device information (database) and the incoming device registration data (external information). The device status registration and query control functionality (205) operates as a processor-driven component that accesses both data sources to manage device status, and system receives device registration information and processes this information to determine what actions should be taken based on device status. The system "accesses" external device data through the registration process).
access the external information via electronic communication with the client system, concurrently identify, in response to gaining access to the external information and for at least a portion of the multiple electronic devices, a pending status dependent upon the external information (see; par. [0029], par. [0034], and par. [0051] of Bennett teaches automatically takes actions based on device status: "depending on the status of the cellular phone 137, one or more actions are taken by the device management tracking server 121, such as ordering the phone to lock its phone service." This demonstrates automated status change determination—the system evaluates current status and automatically decides what status change should occur
automatically and concurrently determine, for at least a portion of the multiple electronic devices for which the current status and the pending status are identified, a status change representative of a change of the status from the current status to the pending status for each electronic device of the multiple electronic devices (see; par. [0029], par. [0034], and par. [0051] of Bennett teaches automatically takes actions based on device status: "depending on the status of the cellular phone 137, one or more actions are taken by the device management tracking server 121, such as ordering the phone to lock its phone service." This demonstrates automated status change determination the system evaluates current status and automatically decides what status change should occur).
from the current status to the pending status in response to the status change being a prohibited status change such that the current status for each applicable electronic device in the device tracking database remains unchanged (see; par. [0034] and par. [0051] of Bennett teaches status validation logic that prevents unauthorized status transitions. When an unauthorized user attempts to access a device, "the challenge will fail and based on the resident target module 209, the endpoint device has the capability to lock" preventing the unauthorized status change. The system validates status change requests and can reject them).
the status change being an allowable status change (see; par. [0027] and par. [0029] of Bennett teaches allows authorized users to update device status: "the authorized user and/or owner reports that a device is missing" triggering a status update in the system. The tracking server's device status registration functionality manages these status updates).
multiple electronic devices are tracked, the device status information being dependent upon the device tracking database (see; par. [0023]-[0024] of Bennett teaches a user interface that allows authorized users/owners to access device tracking information: "The user interface provides secure login and/or device management screens for activating and/or interfacing with the endpoint device tracking and/or management features." This interface transmits device status information to clients (users)).
Bennett does not explicitly disclose the following limitations, however,
Greenbaum teaches the external information includes a connection states for a plurality of electronic devices representative of a most recent timestamp that each of the plurality of electronic devices was active (see. Col. 8, lines (1-22) of Greenbaum inventory management system maintains a database that stores not only current device statuses but also historical status information with temporal data. The system tracks when devices were last detected or when their status last changed. Specifically, McRae tracks "current or past statuses" and monitors elapsed time since devices were last indicated as being in inventory, enabling the system to identify devices that haven't been detected recently), and
Access external info and concurrently identify pending status (see; col. 15, lines (10-32) and 19, lines (12-34) of Greenbaum teaches inventory server receives "inventory messages" from wireless connection devices (external information) and uses this information to identify which devices need status updates. Critically, McRae processes multiple devices at once: "Upon receiving such inventory message, the inventory server 106 identifies one or more electronic devices 102 associated with the inventory message" and then "updates device records associated with the identified electronic devices 102"—handling multiple devices in a single operation).
A status change (see; col. 15, line (56) – col. 16, line (18) of Greenbaum teaches inventory server "updates device records associated with the identified electronic devices 102 in the database 174... recording device status information." The system compares incoming inventory message data (pending status) against existing database records (current status) and determines which devices need status updates. McRae handles this for multiple devices at once), and
automatically update the current status for at least a portion of the multiple electronic devices in the device tracking database with the pending status in response to (see; col. 15, lines (56) – col. 16, line (18) of Greenbaum teaches inventory server "updates device records associated with the identified electronic devices 102 in the database 174... recording device status information in some embodiments." When the system determines a status update is valid, it automatically writes the new status to the database).
a transmission module in communication with the device tracking database and configured to provide, via electronic transmission, device status information for the multiple electronic devices to a client for which the multiple electronic device (see; col. 19, line (34) – col. 20, line (9) of Greenbaum teaches system generates and transmits inventory information to retail locations and other clients: "implementing the inventory distribution plan may include generating orders for shipment or delivery... to one or more retail locations." The system communicates device/inventory status information to external parties who need it for business operations).
The Examiner notes that Bennett teaches similar to the instant application teaches communication method and infrastructure supporting device security and tracking. Specifically, Bennett discloses the communication utilized for determining location and usage reports of multiple communication devices it is therefore viewed as analogous art in the same field of endeavor. Additionally, Greenbaum teaches managing the inventory of battery powered devices and as it is comparable in certain respects to Bennett which communication method and infrastructure supporting device security and tracking as well as the instant application it is viewed as analogous art and is viewed as reasonably pertinent to the problem faced by the inventor. This provides support that it would be obvious to combine the references to provide an obviousness rejection.
Bennett discloses the communication utilized for determining location and usage reports of multiple communication devices. However, Bennett fails to disclose the external information includes a connection states for a plurality of electronic devices representative of a most recent timestamp that each of the plurality of electronic devices was active, access external info and concurrently identify pending status, a status change, and automatically update the current status for at least a portion of the multiple electronic devices in the device tracking database with the pending status in response to, a transmission module in communication with the device tracking database and configured to provide, via electronic transmission, device status information for the multiple electronic devices to a client for which the multiple electronic device.
Greenbaum discloses the external information includes a connection states for a plurality of electronic devices representative of a most recent timestamp that each of the plurality of electronic devices was active, access external info and concurrently identify pending status, a status change, and automatically update the current status for at least a portion of the multiple electronic devices in the device tracking database with the pending status in response to, a transmission module in communication with the device tracking database and configured to provide, via electronic transmission, device status information for the multiple electronic devices to a client for which the multiple electronic device.
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to include in the task management
(system/method/apparatus) of Bennett the external information includes a connection states for a plurality of electronic devices representative of a most recent timestamp that each of the plurality of electronic devices was active, access external info and concurrently identify pending status, a status change, and automatically update the current status for at least a portion of the multiple electronic devices in the device tracking database with the pending status in response to, a transmission module in communication with the device tracking database and configured to provide, via electronic transmission, device status information for the multiple electronic devices to a client for which the multiple electronic device as taught by Greenbaum since the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable. Additionally, Bennett and Greenbaum teach the collecting and analysis of data in order to and determine the status of electronic devices using associated tasks and they do not contradict or diminish the other alone or when combined.
Bennett in view of Greenbaum does not explicitly disclose the following limitation, however,
Factor teaches automatically prevent the status change in the device tracking database (see; a system where devices can be configured to reject certain status changes based on validation rules. In the "Off" setting, "the electronic device will not change its original device status or provide the user a prompt, no matter where the instructions came from"—the device actively prevents prohibited status changes. In the "Accept Selected Device Status" setting, the device "will only accept changes or prompts from instructions sent by an accepted list of electronic devices while disregarding the instructions provided by other electronic devices" implementing an allow/block list for status changes).
The Examiner notes that Bennett teaches similar to the instant application teaches communication method and infrastructure supporting device security and tracking. Specifically, Bennett discloses the communication utilized for determining location and usage reports of multiple communication devices it is therefore viewed as analogous art in the same field of endeavor. Additionally, Greenbaum teaches managing the inventory of battery powered devices and as it is comparable in certain respects to Bennett which communication method and infrastructure supporting device security and tracking as well as the instant application it is viewed as analogous art and is viewed as reasonably pertinent to the problem faced by the inventor. Additionally, Factor teaches status changes of electronics and as it is comparable in certain respects to Bennett and Greenbaum which communication method and infrastructure supporting device security and tracking as well as the instant application it is viewed as analogous art and is viewed as reasonably pertinent to the problem faced by the inventor. This provides support that it would be obvious to combine the references to provide an obviousness rejection.
Bennett and Greenbaum discloses the communication utilized for determining location and usage reports of multiple communication devices. However, Bennett and Greenbaum fails to disclose automatically prevent the status change in the device tracking database.
Factor discloses automatically prevent the status change in the device tracking database.
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to include in the task management
(system/method/apparatus) of Bennett and Greenbaum automatically prevent the status change in the device tracking database as taught by Factor since the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable. Additionally, Bennett, Greenbaum, and Factor teach the collecting and analysis of data in order to and determine the status of electronic devices using associated tasks and they do not contradict or diminish the other alone or when combined.
Bennett in view of Greenbaum in further view of Factor does not explicitly disclose the following limitations, however,
Mousseau teaches the connection state is continuously updated by monitoring one or more servers of a client system for an electronic communication between each of the plurality of electronic devices and the one or more server (see; Abstract of Mousseau teaches the continuous monitoring multiple devices reporting to a central database, par. [0008] connected to a central server), and
concurrently, for all of the multiple electronic devices for which a status change is determined, compare the status change to methodology that includes allowable status changes, unusual status changes, and prohibited status changes (see; par. [0438] of Mousseau teaches determining a status change to devices where the status change can include, par. [0276] tampering, copying, modification or malicious damage (i.e. different status changes -allowable, unusual, prohibited)), and
automatically indicate a potential inaccuracy of the status change in the device tracking database in response to the status change being an unusual status change (see; par. [0175] a warning that something could be wrong (i.e. potential inaccuracy), par. [0438] determining a status change to devices where the status change can include, par. [0276] tampering, copying, modification or malicious damage (i.e. different status changes -allowable, unusual, prohibited))
The Examiner notes that Bennett teaches similar to the instant application teaches communication method and infrastructure supporting device security and tracking. Specifically, Bennett discloses the communication utilized for determining location and usage reports of multiple communication devices it is therefore viewed as analogous art in the same field of endeavor. Additionally, Greenbaum teaches managing the inventory of battery powered devices and as it is comparable in certain respects to Bennett which communication method and infrastructure supporting device security and tracking as well as the instant application it is viewed as analogous art and is viewed as reasonably pertinent to the problem faced by the inventor. Additionally, Factor teaches status changes of electronics and as it is comparable in certain respects to Bennett and Greenbaum which communication method and infrastructure supporting device security and tracking as well as the instant application it is viewed as analogous art and is viewed as reasonably pertinent to the problem faced by the inventor. Additionally, Mousseau teaches a systems, devices and methods for securing and tracking drug dispensing devices and as it is comparable in certain respects to Bennett, Greenbaum, and Factor which communication method and infrastructure supporting device security and tracking as well as the instant application it is viewed as analogous art and is viewed as reasonably pertinent to the problem faced by the inventor. This provides support that it would be obvious to combine the references to provide an obviousness rejection.
Bennett, Greenbaum, and Factor discloses the communication utilized for determining location and usage reports of multiple communication devices. However, Bennett, Greenbaum, and Factor fails to disclose the connection state is continuously updated by monitoring one or more servers of a client system for an electronic communication between each of the plurality of electronic devices and the one or more server, concurrently, for all of the multiple electronic devices for which a status change is determined, compare the status change to methodology that includes allowable status changes, unusual status changes, and prohibited status changes, and automatically indicate a potential inaccuracy of the status change in the device tracking database in response to the status change being an unusual status change.
Mousseau discloses he connection state is continuously updated by monitoring one or more servers of a client system for an electronic communication between each of the plurality of electronic devices and the one or more server, concurrently, for all of the multiple electronic devices for which a status change is determined, compare the status change to methodology that includes allowable status changes, unusual status changes, and prohibited status changes, and automatically indicate a potential inaccuracy of the status change in the device tracking database in response to the status change being an unusual status change
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to include in the task management
(system/method/apparatus) of Bennett, Greenbaum, and Factor the connection state is continuously updated by monitoring one or more servers of a client system for an electronic communication between each of the plurality of electronic devices and the one or more server, concurrently, for all of the multiple electronic devices for which a status change is determined, compare the status change to methodology that includes allowable status changes, unusual status changes, and prohibited status changes, and automatically indicate a potential inaccuracy of the status change in the device tracking database in response to the status change being an unusual status change as taught by Mousseau since the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable. Additionally, Bennett, Greenbaum, Factor, and Mousseau teach the collecting and analysis of data in order to and determine the status of electronic devices using associated tasks and they do not contradict or diminish the other alone or when combined.
Referring to Claim 2, see discussion of claim 1 above, while Bennett in view of Greenbaum in further view of Factor in further view of Mousseau teaches the system above, Bennett in view of Greenbaum does not explicitly disclose a method having the limitations of:
Factor teaches the transmission module is configured to automatically divide the device status information into batches that are provided to the client in separate transmissions (see; par. [0032] of Factor teaches batches the system specifically implements batch processing where data is divided into separate batches for processing and transmission).
The Examiner notes that Bennett teaches similar to the instant application teaches communication method and infrastructure supporting device security and tracking. Specifically, Bennett discloses the communication utilized for determining location and usage reports of multiple communication devices it is therefore viewed as analogous art in the same field of endeavor. Additionally, Greenbaum teaches managing the inventory of battery powered devices and as it is comparable in certain respects to Bennett which communication method and infrastructure supporting device security and tracking as well as the instant application it is viewed as analogous art and is viewed as reasonably pertinent to the problem faced by the inventor. Additionally, Factor teaches status changes of electronics and as it is comparable in certain respects to Bennett and Greenbaum which communication method and infrastructure supporting device security and tracking as well as the instant application it is viewed as analogous art and is viewed as reasonably pertinent to the problem faced by the inventor. This provides support that it would be obvious to combine the references to provide an obviousness rejection.
Bennett and Greenbaum discloses the communication utilized for determining location and usage reports of multiple communication devices. However, Bennett and Greenbaum fails to disclose the transmission module is configured to automatically divide the device status information into batches that are provided to the client in separate transmissions.
Factor discloses the transmission module is configured to automatically divide the device status information into batches that are provided to the client in separate transmissions.
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to include in the task management
(system/method/apparatus) of Bennett and Greenbaum the transmission module is configured to automatically divide the device status information into batches that are provided to the client in separate transmissions as taught by Factor since the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable. Additionally, Bennett, Greenbaum, and Factor teach the collecting and analysis of data in order to and determine the status of electronic devices using associated tasks and they do not contradict or diminish the other alone or when combined.
Referring to Claim 3, see discussion of claim 2 above, while Bennett in view of Greenbaum in further view of Factor in further view of Mouseau teaches the system above, Bennett does not explicitly disclose a system having the limitations of, however,
Greenbaum teaches each batch includes device status information for at least fifty electronic devices of the multiple electronic devices (see; col. 18, line (58) – col. 19, line (11) of Greenbaum teaches processing large number of processes inventory data for many devices at retail locations. While it doesn't specify "50 devices per batch," it teaches batch processing of device data. Batch size is a tunable performance parameter. Too small (e.g., 1-5 devices) creates excessive network overhead; too large (e.g., 10,000 devices) creates memory/processing bottlenecks. Fifty devices represents a reasonable middle ground—large enough for efficiency but small enough for manageable processing. This is routine optimization that any database engineer would perform based on system performance testing).
The Examiner notes that Bennett teaches similar to the instant application teaches communication method and infrastructure supporting device security and tracking. Specifically, Bennett discloses the communication utilized for determining location and usage reports of multiple communication devices it is therefore viewed as analogous art in the same field of endeavor. Additionally, Greenbaum teaches managing the inventory of battery powered devices and as it is comparable in certain respects to Bennett which communication method and infrastructure supporting device security and tracking as well as the instant application it is viewed as analogous art and is viewed as reasonably pertinent to the problem faced by the inventor. This provides support that it would be obvious to combine the references to provide an obviousness rejection.
Bennett discloses the communication utilized for determining location and usage reports of multiple communication devices. However, Bennett fails to disclose each batch includes device status information for at least fifty electronic devices of the multiple electronic device.
Greenbaum discloses each batch includes device status information for at least fifty electronic devices of the multiple electronic device.
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to include in the task management
(system/method/apparatus) of Bennett each batch includes device status information for at least fifty electronic devices of the multiple electronic device as taught by Greenbaum since the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable. Additionally, Bennett and Greenbaum teach the collecting and analysis of data in order to and determine the status of electronic devices using associated tasks and they do not contradict or diminish the other alone or when combined.
Referring to Claim 4, see discussion of claim 1 above, while Bennett in view of Greenbaum in further view of Factor in further view of Mouseau teaches the system above, Bennett further discloses a method having the limitations of:
the transmission module provides, via electronic transmission, at least one digital document associated with the device status information of the multiple electronic devices to the client (see; par. [0023]-[0024] of Bennett teaches a transmission of device status information to multiple devices)
Referring to Claim 5, see discussion of claim 4 above, while Bennett in view of Greenbaum in further view of Factor in further view of Mouseau teaches the system above, Bennett does not explicitly disclose a system having the limitations of, however,
Greenbaum teaches the at least one digital document is one of a certificate of wipe and a certificate of sale associated with a disposal of an electronic device of the multiple electronic devices (see; col. 8, lines 1-22 of Greenbaum teaches the inventory application may access, edit, and update, remove, and generate inventory data in a database and the inventory server may determine a location… associated with the wireless connection device, which may be extracted from the inventory message. The system generates and transmits data reports and documents to clients (i.e. wipe or sale). Providing this information as documents is conventional in electronic data transmission).
The Examiner notes that Bennett teaches similar to the instant application teaches communication method and infrastructure supporting device security and tracking. Specifically, Bennett discloses the communication utilized for determining location and usage reports of multiple communication devices it is therefore viewed as analogous art in the same field of endeavor. Additionally, Greenbaum teaches managing the inventory of battery powered devices and as it is comparable in certain respects to Bennett which communication method and infrastructure supporting device security and tracking as well as the instant application it is viewed as analogous art and is viewed as reasonably pertinent to the problem faced by the inventor. This provides support that it would be obvious to combine the references to provide an obviousness rejection.
Bennett discloses the communication utilized for determining location and usage reports of multiple communication devices. However, Bennett fails to disclose the at least one digital document is one of a certificate of wipe and a certificate of sale associated with a disposal of an electronic device of the multiple electronic devices.
Greenbaum discloses the at least one digital document is one of a certificate of wipe and a certificate of sale associated with a disposal of an electronic device of the multiple electronic devices.
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to include in the task management
(system/method/apparatus) of Bennett the at least one digital document is one of a certificate of wipe and a certificate of sale associated with a disposal of an electronic device of the multiple electronic devices device as taught by Greenbaum since the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable. Additionally, Bennett and Greenbaum teach the collecting and analysis of data in order to and determine the status of electronic devices using associated tasks and they do not contradict or diminish the other alone or when combined.
Referring to Claim 6, see discussion of claim 1 above, while Bennett in view of Greenbaum in further view of Factor in further view of Mouseau teaches the system above, Bennett does not explicitly disclose a system having the limitations of, however,
Greenbaum teaches a previous exclusion list that includes a previous list of electronic devices that were to be excluded from a previous version of the device status information provided to the client; and an exclusion and asset existence (EAE) module in electronic communication with the current exclusion list, the previous exclusion list, and the device tracking database with the EAE module being configured to compare the current exclusion list to the previous exclusion list and update the device tracking database to reflect changes (see; col. 15, lines (10-32) of Greenbaum teaches comparing current device information against previous/historical information to detect changes (which devices are now missing that were previously present). Where a previous execution list is seen in both the current and previous version of lists, comparing the lists, and organizing the functionality which is wat a EAE module performs).
The Examiner notes that Bennett teaches similar to the instant application teaches communication method and infrastructure supporting device security and tracking. Specifically, Bennett discloses the communication utilized for determining location and usage reports of multiple communication devices it is therefore viewed as analogous art in the same field of endeavor. Additionally, Greenbaum teaches managing the inventory of battery powered devices and as it is comparable in certain respects to Bennett which communication method and infrastructure supporting device security and tracking as well as the instant application it is viewed as analogous art and is viewed as reasonably pertinent to the problem faced by the inventor. This provides support that it would be obvious to combine the references to provide an obviousness rejection.
Bennett discloses the communication utilized for determining location and usage reports of multiple communication devices. However, Bennett fails to disclose a previous exclusion list that includes a previous list of electronic devices that were to be excluded from a previous version of the device status information provided to the client; and an exclusion and asset existence (EAE) module in electronic communication with the current exclusion list, the previous exclusion list, and the device tracking database with the EAE module being configured to compare the current exclusion list to the previous exclusion list and update the device tracking database to reflect changes.
Greenbaum discloses a previous exclusion list that includes a previous list of electronic devices that were to be excluded from a previous version of the device status information provided to the client; and an exclusion and asset existence (EAE) module in electronic communication with the current exclusion list, the previous exclusion list, and the device tracking database with the EAE module being configured to compare the current exclusion list to the previous exclusion list and update the device tracking database to reflect changes.
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to include in the task management
(system/method/apparatus) of Bennett a previous exclusion list that includes a previous list of electronic devices that were to be excluded from a previous version of the device status information provided to the client; and an exclusion and asset existence (EAE) module in electronic communication with the current exclusion list, the previous exclusion list, and the device tracking database with the EAE module being configured to compare the current exclusion list to the previous exclusion list and update the device tracking database to reflect changes as taught by Greenbaum since the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable. Additionally, Bennett and Greenbaum teach the collecting and analysis of data in order to and determine the status of electronic devices using associated tasks and they do not contradict or diminish the other alone or when combined.
Bennett in view of Greenbaum does not explicitly disclose the following limitation, however,
Factor teaches a current exclusion list within the external information that includes a list of electronic devices of the multiple electronic devices that are to be excluded from the device status information provided to the client (see; par. [0034] of Factor teaches the concept of maintaining a list that determines which devices are included/excluded – the accepted list is essentially an inclusion list, and devices NOT on the list are excluded. This teaches filtering devices based on defined list).
The Examiner notes that Bennett teaches similar to the instant application teaches communication method and infrastructure supporting device security and tracking. Specifically, Bennett discloses the communication utilized for determining location and usage reports of multiple communication devices it is therefore viewed as analogous art in the same field of endeavor. Additionally, Greenbaum teaches managing the inventory of battery powered devices and as it is comparable in certain respects to Bennett which communication method and infrastructure supporting device security and tracking as well as the instant application it is viewed as analogous art and is viewed as reasonably pertinent to the problem faced by the inventor. Additionally, Factor teaches status changes of electronics and as it is comparable in certain respects to Bennett and Greenbaum which communication method and infrastructure supporting device security and tracking as well as the instant application it is viewed as analogous art and is viewed as reasonably pertinent to the problem faced by the inventor. This provides support that it would be obvious to combine the references to provide an obviousness rejection.
Bennett and Greenbaum discloses the communication utilized for determining location and usage reports of multiple communication devices. However, Bennett and Greenbaum fails to disclose a current exclusion list within the external information that includes a list of electronic devices of the multiple electronic devices that are to be excluded from the device status information provided to the client.
Factor discloses a current exclusion list within the external information that includes a list of electronic devices of the multiple electronic devices that are to be excluded from the device status information provided to the client.
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to include in the task management
(system/method/apparatus) of Bennett and Greenbaum a current exclusion list within the external information that includes a list of electronic devices of the multiple electronic devices that are to be excluded from the device status information provided to the client as taught by Factor since the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable. Additionally, Bennett, Greenbaum, and Factor teach the collecting and analysis of data in order to and determine the status of electronic devices using associated tasks and they do not contradict or diminish the other alone or when combined.
Referring to Claim 7, see discussion of claim 6 above, while Bennett in view of Greenbaum in further view of Factor in further view of Mouseau teaches the system above, Bennett does not explicitly disclose a system having the limitations of, however,
Greenbaum teaches the EAE module is configured to compare each electronic device present in the external information to the device tracking database and, in response to the electronic device being missing from the tracking database, generate an alert to a tracking service provider of the device tracking database of a potential error (see; col. 15, lines (10-32) and col. 16, line (56) – col. 17, line (18) of Greenbaum teaches an electronic device may be identified as missing if the electronic device was previously determined to be in inventory at the retail location associated with the inventory message but is not indicated as being in inventory in the received inventory message… if the determined time exceeds a missing device threshold… the missing electronic device is recorded as missing from the inventory in the database, where the information is viewed to be flagged as missing is seen as the alert).
The Examiner notes that Bennett teaches similar to the instant application teaches communication method and infrastructure supporting device security and tracking. Specifically, Bennett discloses the communication utilized for determining location and usage reports of multiple communication devices it is therefore viewed as analogous art in the same field of endeavor. Additionally, Greenbaum teaches managing the inventory of battery powered devices and as it is comparable in certain respects to Bennett which communication method and infrastructure supporting device security and tracking as well as the instant application it is viewed as analogous art and is viewed as reasonably pertinent to the problem faced by the inventor. This provides support that it would be obvious to combine the references to provide an obviousness rejection.
Bennett discloses the communication utilized for determining location and usage reports of multiple communication devices. However, Bennett fails to disclose a previous exclusion list that includes a previous list of electronic devices that were to be excluded from a previous version of the device status information provided to the client; and an exclusion and asset existence (EAE) module in electronic communication with the current exclusion list, the previous exclusion list, and the device tracking database with the EAE module being configured to compare the current exclusion list to the previous exclusion list and update the device tracking database to reflect changes.
Greenbaum discloses a previous exclusion list that includes a previous list of electronic devices that were to be excluded from a previous version of the device status information provided to the client; and an exclusion and asset existence (EAE) module in electronic communication with the current exclusion list, the previous exclusion list, and the device tracking database with the EAE module being configured to compare the current exclusion list to the previous exclusion list and update the device tracking database to reflect changes.
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to include in the task management
(system/method/apparatus) of Bennett a previous exclusion list that includes a previous list of electronic devices that were to be excluded from a previous version of the device status information provided to the client; and an exclusion and asset existence (EAE) module in electronic communication with the current exclusion list, the previous exclusion list, and the device tracking database with the EAE module being configured to compare the current exclusion list to the previous exclusion list and update the device tracking database to reflect changes as taught by Greenbaum since the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable. Additionally, Bennett and Greenbaum teach the collecting and analysis of data in order to and determine the status of electronic devices using associated tasks and they do not contradict or diminish the other alone or when combined.
Referring to Claim 8, see discussion of claim 1 above, while Bennett in view of Greenbaum in further view of Factor in further view of Mouseau teaches the system above, Bennett further discloses a method having the limitations of:
a lost-stolen-missing (LSM) module in electronic communication with the external information and the device tracking database with the LSM module being configured to identify any electronic devices of the multiple electronic devices that have a pending status of one of Missing Lost and Missing Stolen dependent upon the external information (see; par. [0024], par. [0034], and par. [0051] of Bennett teaches the complete functionality for identifying devices that are missing or stolen, the system explicitly handles both missing and stolen scenarios, taking the missing/stolen identification functionality and organizing it into a dedicated module improves code organization, maintainability and reusability (standard software engineering) which is viewed as performing what an LSM module would).
Referring to Claim 9, see discussion of claim 8 above, while Bennett in view of Greenbaum in further view of Factor in further view of Mouseau teaches the system above, Bennett further discloses a method having the limitations of:
the LSM module includes the computer processor (see; par. [0026], par. [0029, and par. [0034] of Bennett teaches tracking server includes processing capabilities for managing device status, including missing/stolen status identification. This is viewed to provide what an LSM module would include or utilize).
Referring to Claim 10, see discussion of claim 1 above, while Bennett in view of Greenbaum in further view of Factor in further view of Mouseau teaches the system above, Bennett does not explicitly disclose a system having the limitations of, however;
Greenbaum teaches a disposal module in electronic communication with the external information and the device tracking database with the disposal module being configured to determine the pending status of each electronic device of the multiple electronic devices, dependent upon disposal details in the external information, that are present in the disposal details (see; col. 19, lines (9-53) of Greenbaum teaches the managing of device disposal/removal from inventory. Creating a dedicated disposal module for this functionality is routine modularization).
The Examiner notes that Bennett teaches similar to the instant application teaches communication method and infrastructure supporting device security and tracking. Specifically, Bennett discloses the communication utilized for determining location and usage reports of multiple communication devices it is therefore viewed as analogous art in the same field of endeavor. Additionally, Greenbaum teaches managing the inventory of battery powered devices and as it is comparable in certain respects to Bennett which communication method and infrastructure supporting device security and tracking as well as the instant application it is viewed as analogous art and is viewed as reasonably pertinent to the problem faced by the inventor. This provides support that it would be obvious to combine the references to provide an obviousness rejection.
Bennett discloses the communication utilized for determining location and usage reports of multiple communication devices. However, Bennett fails to disclose a disposal module in electronic communication with the external information and the device tracking database with the disposal module being configured to determine the pending status of each electronic device of the multiple electronic devices, dependent upon disposal details in the external information, that are present in the disposal details.
Greenbaum discloses a disposal module in electronic communication with the external information and the device tracking database with the disposal module being configured to determine the pending status of each electronic device of the multiple electronic devices, dependent upon disposal details in the external information, that are present in the disposal details.
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to include in the task management
(system/method/apparatus) of Bennett a disposal module in electronic communication with the external information and the device tracking database with the disposal module being configured to determine the pending status of each electronic device of the multiple electronic devices, dependent upon disposal details in the external information, that are present in the disposal details as taught by Greenbaum since the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable. Additionally, Bennett and Greenbaum teach the collecting and analysis of data in order to and determine the status of electronic devices using associated tasks and they do not contradict or diminish the other alone or when combined.
Referring to Claim 11, see discussion of claim 10 above, while Bennett in view of Greenbaum in further view of Factor in further view of Mouseau teaches the system above, Bennett does not explicitly disclose a system having the limitations of, however;
Greenbaum teaches the pending statuses dependent upon the disposal details are at least one of Retired Disposed and Retired Sold (see; col. 10, lines (9-24) of Greenbaum teaches removing devices from inventory, which inherently includes disposed and sold statuses. The specific nomenclature “retired disposed” and “retired sold” are merely labels for the conventional states of device disposition (disposed vs. sold)).
The Examiner notes that Bennett teaches similar to the instant application teaches communication method and infrastructure supporting device security and tracking. Specifically, Bennett discloses the communication utilized for determining location and usage reports of multiple communication devices it is therefore viewed as analogous art in the same field of endeavor. Additionally, Greenbaum teaches managing the inventory of battery powered devices and as it is comparable in certain respects to Bennett which communication method and infrastructure supporting device security and tracking as well as the instant application it is viewed as analogous art and is viewed as reasonably pertinent to the problem faced by the inventor. This provides support that it would be obvious to combine the references to provide an obviousness rejection.
Bennett discloses the communication utilized for determining location and usage reports of multiple communication devices. However, Bennett fails to disclose the pending statuses dependent upon the disposal details are at least one of Retired Disposed and Retired Sold.
Greenbaum discloses the pending statuses dependent upon the disposal details are at least one of Retired Disposed and Retired Sold.
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to include in the task management
(system/method/apparatus) of Bennett a disposal module in electronic communication with the external information and the device tracking database with the disposal module being configured to determine the pending status of each electronic device of the multiple electronic devices, dependent upon disposal details in the external information, that are present in the disposal details as taught by Greenbaum since the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable. Additionally, Bennett and Greenbaum teach the collecting and analysis of data in order to and determine the status of electronic devices using associated tasks and they do not contradict or diminish the other alone or when combined.
Referring to Claim 12, see discussion of claim 10 above, while Bennett in view of Greenbaum in further view of Factor in further view of Mouseau teaches the system above, Bennett further discloses a system having the limitations of,
the external information are received from a disposal vendor (see; par. [0021]-[0022] of Bennett teaches receiving information from external sources about device status).
Bennett does not explicitly disclose the following limitation, however,
Greenbaum teaches the disposal details (see; col. 10, lines (9-24) of Greenbaum teaches removing devices from inventory, which inherently includes disposed and sold statuses. The specific nomenclature “retired disposed” and “retired sold” are merely labels for the conventional states of device disposition (disposed vs. sold)).
The Examiner notes that Bennett teaches similar to the instant application teaches communication method and infrastructure supporting device security and tracking. Specifically, Bennett discloses the communication utilized for determining location and usage reports of multiple communication devices it is therefore viewed as analogous art in the same field of endeavor. Additionally, Greenbaum teaches managing the inventory of battery powered devices and as it is comparable in certain respects to Bennett which communication method and infrastructure supporting device security and tracking as well as the instant application it is viewed as analogous art and is viewed as reasonably pertinent to the problem faced by the inventor. This provides support that it would be obvious to combine the references to provide an obviousness rejection.
Bennett discloses the communication utilized for determining location and usage reports of multiple communication devices. However, Bennett fails to disclose the disposal details.
Greenbaum discloses the disposal details.
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to include in the task management
(system/method/apparatus) of Bennett the disposal details as taught by Greenbaum since the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable. Additionally, Bennett and Greenbaum teach the collecting and analysis of data in order to and determine the status of electronic devices using associated tasks and they do not contradict or diminish the other alone or when combined.
Referring to Claim 13, see discussion of claim 1 above, while Bennett in view of Greenbaum in further view of Factor in further view of Mouseau teaches the system above, Bennett further discloses a system having the limitations of,
wherein the current status and the pending status for each electronic device of the multiple electronic devices are each one of the following: In Stock Available, In Stock Unavailable, In Stock Pending Disposal, In Transit Shipped, In Transit Delivered, In Transit Exception, In Transit Returning, In Transit Delayed Return, In Use Active, In Use Attention Required, Retired Disposed, Retired Sold, Retired Lease End, Retired Vendor Credit, Missing Lost, and Missing Stolen (see; par. [0034] and par. [0051] of Fitch teaches missing, stolen, and unauthorized (i.e. multiple statuses).
Bennet does not explicitly disclose the following limitation, however,
Greenbaum teaches current status and the pending status for each electronic device of the multiple electronic devices are each one of the following: In Stock Available, In Stock Unavailable, In Stock Pending Disposal, In Transit Shipped, In Transit Delivered, In Transit Exception, In Transit Returning, In Transit Delayed Return, In Use Active, In Use Attention Required, Retired Disposed, Retired Sold, Retired Lease End, Retired Vendor Credit, Missing Lost, and Missing Stolen (see; col. 8, lines (1-22) of Greenbaum teaches inventory, shipping and in use statuses).
The Examiner notes that Bennett teaches similar to the instant application teaches communication method and infrastructure supporting device security and tracking. Specifically, Bennett discloses the communication utilized for determining location and usage reports of multiple communication devices it is therefore viewed as analogous art in the same field of endeavor. Additionally, Greenbaum teaches managing the inventory of battery powered devices and as it is comparable in certain respects to Bennett which communication method and infrastructure supporting device security and tracking as well as the instant application it is viewed as analogous art and is viewed as reasonably pertinent to the problem faced by the inventor. This provides support that it would be obvious to combine the references to provide an obviousness rejection.
Bennett discloses the communication utilized for determining location and usage reports of multiple communication devices. However, Bennett fails to disclose current status and the pending status for each electronic device of the multiple electronic devices are each one of the following: In Stock Available, In Stock Unavailable, In Stock Pending Disposal, In Transit Shipped, In Transit Delivered, In Transit Exception, In Transit Returning, In Transit Delayed Return, In Use Active, In Use Attention Required, Retired Disposed, Retired Sold, Retired Lease End, Retired Vendor Credit, Missing Lost, and Missing Stolen.
Greenbaum discloses current status and the pending status for each electronic device of the multiple electronic devices are each one of the following: In Stock Available, In Stock Unavailable, In Stock Pending Disposal, In Transit Shipped, In Transit Delivered, In Transit Exception, In Transit Returning, In Transit Delayed Return, In Use Active, In Use Attention Required, Retired Disposed, Retired Sold, Retired Lease End, Retired Vendor Credit, Missing Lost, and Missing Stolen.
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to include in the task management
(system/method/apparatus) of Bennett current status and the pending status for each electronic device of the multiple electronic devices are each one of the following: In Stock Available, In Stock Unavailable, In Stock Pending Disposal, In Transit Shipped, In Transit Delivered, In Transit Exception, In Transit Returning, In Transit Delayed Return, In Use Active, In Use Attention Required, Retired Disposed, Retired Sold, Retired Lease End, Retired Vendor Credit, Missing Lost, and Missing Stolen as taught by Greenbaum since the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable. Additionally, Bennett and Greenbaum teach the collecting and analysis of data in order to and determine the status of electronic devices using associated tasks and they do not contradict or diminish the other alone or when combined.
Bennett in view of Greenbaum does not explicitly disclose the following limitation, however,
Factor teaches for each electronic device of the multiple electronic devices are each one of the following: In Stock Available, In Stock Unavailable, In Stock Pending Disposal, In Transit Shipped, In Transit Delivered, In Transit Exception, In Transit Returning, In Transit Delayed Return, In Use Active, In Use Attention Required, Retired Disposed, Retired Sold, Retired Lease End, Retired Vendor Credit, Missing Lost, and Missing Stolen (see; par. [0008] of Factor teaches multiple status types which is viewed that the specific enumeration of the statuses is viewed to represent routine categorizations of device states that would arise naturally in an asset tracking system. The specific labels and granularity represent optimization of categorization to meet business needs).
The Examiner notes that Bennett teaches similar to the instant application teaches communication method and infrastructure supporting device security and tracking. Specifically, Bennett discloses the communication utilized for determining location and usage reports of multiple communication devices it is therefore viewed as analogous art in the same field of endeavor. Additionally, Greenbaum teaches managing the inventory of battery powered devices and as it is comparable in certain respects to Bennett which communication method and infrastructure supporting device security and tracking as well as the instant application it is viewed as analogous art and is viewed as reasonably pertinent to the problem faced by the inventor. Additionally, Factor teaches status changes of electronics and as it is comparable in certain respects to Bennett and Greenbaum which communication method and infrastructure supporting device security and tracking as well as the instant application it is viewed as analogous art and is viewed as reasonably pertinent to the problem faced by the inventor. This provides support that it would be obvious to combine the references to provide an obviousness rejection.
Bennett and Greenbaum discloses the communication utilized for determining location and usage reports of multiple communication devices. However, Bennett and Greenbaum fails to disclose for each electronic device of the multiple electronic devices are each one of the following: In Stock Available, In Stock Unavailable, In Stock Pending Disposal, In Transit Shipped, In Transit Delivered, In Transit Exception, In Transit Returning, In Transit Delayed Return, In Use Active, In Use Attention Required, Retired Disposed, Retired Sold, Retired Lease End, Retired Vendor Credit, Missing Lost, and Missing Stolen.
Factor discloses for each electronic device of the multiple electronic devices are each one of the following: In Stock Available, In Stock Unavailable, In Stock Pending Disposal, In Transit Shipped, In Transit Delivered, In Transit Exception, In Transit Returning, In Transit Delayed Return, In Use Active, In Use Attention Required, Retired Disposed, Retired Sold, Retired Lease End, Retired Vendor Credit, Missing Lost, and Missing Stolen.
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to include in the task management
(system/method/apparatus) of Bennett and Greenbaum for each electronic device of the multiple electronic devices are each one of the following: In Stock Available, In Stock Unavailable, In Stock Pending Disposal, In Transit Shipped, In Transit Delivered, In Transit Exception, In Transit Returning, In Transit Delayed Return, In Use Active, In Use Attention Required, Retired Disposed, Retired Sold, Retired Lease End, Retired Vendor Credit, Missing Lost, and Missing Stolen as taught by Factor since the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable. Additionally, Bennett, Greenbaum, and Factor teach the collecting and analysis of data in order to and determine the status of electronic devices using associated tasks and they do not contradict or diminish the other alone or when combined.
Referring to Claim 14, see discussion of claim 13 above, while Bennett in view of Greenbaum in further view of Factor in further view of Mouseau teaches the system above, Bennett does not explicitly disclose a system having the limitations of, however,
Greenbaum teaches the prohibited status change is one of the following: from In Stock Available to In Transit Returning, from In Stock Available to In Use Active, from In Stock Available to In Use Attention Required, from In Stock Available to Missing Lost, from In Stock Available to Missing Stolen, from In Stock Unavailable to In Transit Returning, from In Stock Unavailable to In Use Active, from In Stock Unavailable to In Use Attention Required, from In Stock Unavailable to Missing Lost, from In Stock Unavailable to Missing Stolen, from In Stock Pending Disposal to In Transit Returning, from In Stock Pending Disposal to In Use Active, from In Stock Pending Disposal to In Use Attention Required, from In Stock Pending Disposal to Missing Lost, from In Stock Pending Disposal to Missing Stolen, from In Transit Returning to In Transit Shipped, and from In Transit Returning to In Use Active, from In Transit Returning to In Use Attention Required, from In Transit Delayed Return to In Transit Shipped, from In Transit Delayed Return to In Use Active, from In Transit Delayed Return to In Use Attention Required, from Retired Disposed to any other status, from Retired Sold to any other status, from Retired Lease End to any other status, from Retired Vendor Credit to any other status, from Missing Lost to Missing Stolen, and from Missing Stolen to Missing Lost (see; col. 2, lines (11-31) of Greenbaum teaches the status change of an electronic device from in stock to active).
The Examiner notes that Bennett teaches similar to the instant application teaches communication method and infrastructure supporting device security and tracking. Specifically, Bennett discloses the communication utilized for determining location and usage reports of multiple communication devices it is therefore viewed as analogous art in the same field of endeavor. Additionally, Greenbaum teaches managing the inventory of battery powered devices and as it is comparable in certain respects to Bennett which communication method and infrastructure supporting device security and tracking as well as the instant application it is viewed as analogous art and is viewed as reasonably pertinent to the problem faced by the inventor. This provides support that it would be obvious to combine the references to provide an obviousness rejection.
Bennett discloses the communication utilized for determining location and usage reports of multiple communication devices. However, Bennett fails to disclose the prohibited status change is one of the following: from In Stock Available to In Transit Returning, from In Stock Available to In Use Active, from In Stock Available to In Use Attention Required, from In Stock Available to Missing Lost, from In Stock Available to Missing Stolen, from In Stock Unavailable to In Transit Returning, from In Stock Unavailable to In Use Active, from In Stock Unavailable to In Use Attention Required, from In Stock Unavailable to Missing Lost, from In Stock Unavailable to Missing Stolen, from In Stock Pending Disposal to In Transit Returning, from In Stock Pending Disposal to In Use Active, from In Stock Pending Disposal to In Use Attention Required, from In Stock Pending Disposal to Missing Lost, from In Stock Pending Disposal to Missing Stolen, from In Transit Returning to In Transit Shipped, and from In Transit Returning to In Use Active, from In Transit Returning to In Use Attention Required, from In Transit Delayed Return to In Transit Shipped, from In Transit Delayed Return to In Use Active, from In Transit Delayed Return to In Use Attention Required, from Retired Disposed to any other status, from Retired Sold to any other status, from Retired Lease End to any other status, from Retired Vendor Credit to any other status, from Missing Lost to Missing Stolen, and from Missing Stolen to Missing Lost.
Greenbaum discloses the prohibited status change is one of the following: from In Stock Available to In Transit Returning, from In Stock Available to In Use Active, from In Stock Available to In Use Attention Required, from In Stock Available to Missing Lost, from In Stock Available to Missing Stolen, from In Stock Unavailable to In Transit Returning, from In Stock Unavailable to In Use Active, from In Stock Unavailable to In Use Attention Required, from In Stock Unavailable to Missing Lost, from In Stock Unavailable to Missing Stolen, from In Stock Pending Disposal to In Transit Returning, from In Stock Pending Disposal to In Use Active, from In Stock Pending Disposal to In Use Attention Required, from In Stock Pending Disposal to Missing Lost, from In Stock Pending Disposal to Missing Stolen, from In Transit Returning to In Transit Shipped, and from In Transit Returning to In Use Active, from In Transit Returning to In Use Attention Required, from In Transit Delayed Return to In Transit Shipped, from In Transit Delayed Return to In Use Active, from In Transit Delayed Return to In Use Attention Required, from Retired Disposed to any other status, from Retired Sold to any other status, from Retired Lease End to any other status, from Retired Vendor Credit to any other status, from Missing Lost to Missing Stolen, and from Missing Stolen to Missing Lost.
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to include in the task management
(system/method/apparatus) of Bennett the prohibited status change is one of the following: from In Stock Available to In Transit Returning, from In Stock Available to In Use Active, from In Stock Available to In Use Attention Required, from In Stock Available to Missing Lost, from In Stock Available to Missing Stolen, from In Stock Unavailable to In Transit Returning, from In Stock Unavailable to In Use Active, from In Stock Unavailable to In Use Attention Required, from In Stock Unavailable to Missing Lost, from In Stock Unavailable to Missing Stolen, from In Stock Pending Disposal to In Transit Returning, from In Stock Pending Disposal to In Use Active, from In Stock Pending Disposal to In Use Attention Required, from In Stock Pending Disposal to Missing Lost, from In Stock Pending Disposal to Missing Stolen, from In Transit Returning to In Transit Shipped, and from In Transit Returning to In Use Active, from In Transit Returning to In Use Attention Required, from In Transit Delayed Return to In Transit Shipped, from In Transit Delayed Return to In Use Active, from In Transit Delayed Return to In Use Attention Required, from Retired Disposed to any other status, from Retired Sold to any other status, from Retired Lease End to any other status, from Retired Vendor Credit to any other status, from Missing Lost to Missing Stolen, and from Missing Stolen to Missing Lost as taught by Greenbaum since the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable. Additionally, Bennett and Greenbaum teach the collecting and analysis of data in order to and determine the status of electronic devices using associated tasks and they do not contradict or diminish the other alone or when combined.
Referring to Claim 15, see discussion of claim 13 above, while Bennett in view of Greenbaum in further view of Factor in further view of Mouseau teaches the system above, Bennett further discloses a system having the limitations of,
a communication module configured to automatically generate an alert in response to the status change being an unusual status change (see; par. [0029] of Bennett teaches a device status registration that monitors the status of an electronic device status and communication).
Referring to Claim 16, see discussion of claim 15 above, while Bennett in view of Greenbaum in further view of Factor in further view of Mouseau teaches the system above, Bennett does not explicitly disclose a system having the limitations of, however,
Greenbaum teaches the unusual status change is one of the following: from In Stock Available to Retired Disposed, from In Stock Available to Retired Sold, from In Stock Available to Retired Lease End, from In Stock Unavailable to Retired Disposed, from In Stock Unavailable to Retired Sold, from In Stock Unavailable to Retired Lease End, from In Stock Pending Disposal to In Transit Shipped, from In Transit Shipped to In Stock Pending Disposal, from In Transit Shipped to Retired Disposed, from In Transit Shipped to Retired Sold, from In Transit Shipped to Retired Lease End, from In Transit Delivered to In Stock Available, from In Transit Delivered to In Stock Unavailable, from In Transit Delivered to In Stock Pending Disposal, from In Transit Delivered to Retired Disposed, from in stock delivered to Retired Sold, from In Transit Delivered to Retired Lease End, from In Transit Exception to Retired Disposed, from In Transit Exception to Retired Sold, from In Transit Exception to Retired Lease End, from In Transit Returning to Retired Disposed, from In Transit Returning to Retired Sold, from In Transit Delayed Return to Retired Disposed, from In Transit Delayed Return to Retired Sold, from In Use Active to Retired Disposed, from In Use Active to Retired Sold, from In Use Attention Required to Retired Disposed, from In Use Attention Required to Retired Sold, from Missing Lost to In Stock Available, from Missing Lost to In Stock Unavailable, from Missing Lost to In Stock Pending Disposal, from Missing Lost to Retired Disposed, from Missing Lost to Retired Sold, from Missing Lost to Retired Lease End, from Missing Lost to Retired Vendor Credit, from Missing Stolen to In Stock Available, from Missing Stolen to In Stock Unavailable, from Missing Stolen to In Stock Pending Disposal, from Missing Stolen to Retired Disposed, from Missing Stolen to Retired Sold, from Missing Stolen to Retired Lease End, and from Missing Stolen to Retired Vendor Credit (see; col. 2, lines (11-31) of Greenbaum teaches the status change of an electronic device from in stock to active).
The Examiner notes that Bennett teaches similar to the instant application teaches communication method and infrastructure supporting device security and tracking. Specifically, Bennett discloses the communication utilized for determining location and usage reports of multiple communication devices it is therefore viewed as analogous art in the same field of endeavor. Additionally, Greenbaum teaches managing the inventory of battery powered devices and as it is comparable in certain respects to Bennett which communication method and infrastructure supporting device security and tracking as well as the instant application it is viewed as analogous art and is viewed as reasonably pertinent to the problem faced by the inventor. This provides support that it would be obvious to combine the references to provide an obviousness rejection.
Bennett discloses the communication utilized for determining location and usage reports of multiple communication devices. However, Bennett fails to disclose the unusual status change is one of the following: from In Stock Available to Retired Disposed, from In Stock Available to Retired Sold, from In Stock Available to Retired Lease End, from In Stock Unavailable to Retired Disposed, from In Stock Unavailable to Retired Sold, from In Stock Unavailable to Retired Lease End, from In Stock Pending Disposal to In Transit Shipped, from In Transit Shipped to In Stock Pending Disposal, from In Transit Shipped to Retired Disposed, from In Transit Shipped to Retired Sold, from In Transit Shipped to Retired Lease End, from In Transit Delivered to In Stock Available, from In Transit Delivered to In Stock Unavailable, from In Transit Delivered to In Stock Pending Disposal, from In Transit Delivered to Retired Disposed, from in stock delivered to Retired Sold, from In Transit Delivered to Retired Lease End, from In Transit Exception to Retired Disposed, from In Transit Exception to Retired Sold, from In Transit Exception to Retired Lease End, from In Transit Returning to Retired Disposed, from In Transit Returning to Retired Sold, from In Transit Delayed Return to Retired Disposed, from In Transit Delayed Return to Retired Sold, from In Use Active to Retired Disposed, from In Use Active to Retired Sold, from In Use Attention Required to Retired Disposed, from In Use Attention Required to Retired Sold, from Missing Lost to In Stock Available, from Missing Lost to In Stock Unavailable, from Missing Lost to In Stock Pending Disposal, from Missing Lost to Retired Disposed, from Missing Lost to Retired Sold, from Missing Lost to Retired Lease End, from Missing Lost to Retired Vendor Credit, from Missing Stolen to In Stock Available, from Missing Stolen to In Stock Unavailable, from Missing Stolen to In Stock Pending Disposal, from Missing Stolen to Retired Disposed, from Missing Stolen to Retired Sold, from Missing Stolen to Retired Lease End, and from Missing Stolen to Retired Vendor Credit to any other status, from Missing Lost to Missing Stolen, and from Missing Stolen to Missing Lost.
Greenbaum discloses the unusual status change is one of the following: from In Stock Available to Retired Disposed, from In Stock Available to Retired Sold, from In Stock Available to Retired Lease End, from In Stock Unavailable to Retired Disposed, from In Stock Unavailable to Retired Sold, from In Stock Unavailable to Retired Lease End, from In Stock Pending Disposal to In Transit Shipped, from In Transit Shipped to In Stock Pending Disposal, from In Transit Shipped to Retired Disposed, from In Transit Shipped to Retired Sold, from In Transit Shipped to Retired Lease End, from In Transit Delivered to In Stock Available, from In Transit Delivered to In Stock Unavailable, from In Transit Delivered to In Stock Pending Disposal, from In Transit Delivered to Retired Disposed, from in stock delivered to Retired Sold, from In Transit Delivered to Retired Lease End, from In Transit Exception to Retired Disposed, from In Transit Exception to Retired Sold, from In Transit Exception to Retired Lease End, from In Transit Returning to Retired Disposed, from In Transit Returning to Retired Sold, from In Transit Delayed Return to Retired Disposed, from In Transit Delayed Return to Retired Sold, from In Use Active to Retired Disposed, from In Use Active to Retired Sold, from In Use Attention Required to Retired Disposed, from In Use Attention Required to Retired Sold, from Missing Lost to In Stock Available, from Missing Lost to In Stock Unavailable, from Missing Lost to In Stock Pending Disposal, from Missing Lost to Retired Disposed, from Missing Lost to Retired Sold, from Missing Lost to Retired Lease End, from Missing Lost to Retired Vendor Credit, from Missing Stolen to In Stock Available, from Missing Stolen to In Stock Unavailable, from Missing Stolen to In Stock Pending Disposal, from Missing Stolen to Retired Disposed, from Missing Stolen to Retired Sold, from Missing Stolen to Retired Lease End, and from Missing Stolen to Retired Vendor Credit.
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to include in the task management
(system/method/apparatus) of Bennett the unusual status change is one of the following: from In Stock Available to Retired Disposed, from In Stock Available to Retired Sold, from In Stock Available to Retired Lease End, from In Stock Unavailable to Retired Disposed, from In Stock Unavailable to Retired Sold, from In Stock Unavailable to Retired Lease End, from In Stock Pending Disposal to In Transit Shipped, from In Transit Shipped to In Stock Pending Disposal, from In Transit Shipped to Retired Disposed, from In Transit Shipped to Retired Sold, from In Transit Shipped to Retired Lease End, from In Transit Delivered to In Stock Available, from In Transit Delivered to In Stock Unavailable, from In Transit Delivered to In Stock Pending Disposal, from In Transit Delivered to Retired Disposed, from in stock delivered to Retired Sold, from In Transit Delivered to Retired Lease End, from In Transit Exception to Retired Disposed, from In Transit Exception to Retired Sold, from In Transit Exception to Retired Lease End, from In Transit Returning to Retired Disposed, from In Transit Returning to Retired Sold, from In Transit Delayed Return to Retired Disposed, from In Transit Delayed Return to Retired Sold, from In Use Active to Retired Disposed, from In Use Active to Retired Sold, from In Use Attention Required to Retired Disposed, from In Use Attention Required to Retired Sold, from Missing Lost to In Stock Available, from Missing Lost to In Stock Unavailable, from Missing Lost to In Stock Pending Disposal, from Missing Lost to Retired Disposed, from Missing Lost to Retired Sold, from Missing Lost to Retired Lease End, from Missing Lost to Retired Vendor Credit, from Missing Stolen to In Stock Available, from Missing Stolen to In Stock Unavailable, from Missing Stolen to In Stock Pending Disposal, from Missing Stolen to Retired Disposed, from Missing Stolen to Retired Sold, from Missing Stolen to Retired Lease End, and from Missing Stolen to Retired Vendor Credit as taught by Greenbaum since the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable. Additionally, Bennett and Greenbaum teach the collecting and analysis of data in order to and determine the status of electronic devices using associated tasks and they do not contradict or diminish the other alone or when combined.
Referring to Claim 17, see discussion of claim 15 above, while Bennett in view of Greenbaum in further view of Factor in further view of Mouseau teaches the system above, Bennett further discloses a system having the limitations of,
Status change (see; par. [0029] of Bennett teaches status updates are tracks and monitored).
Bennett does not explicitly disclose the following limitations, however,
Greenbaum teaches the computer processor is configured to automatically update the current status for each of the multiple devices in the device tracking database with the pending status in response to the status change being an unusual status change (see; col. 15, lines (56) – col. 16, line (18) of Greenbaum teaches inventory server "updates device records associated with the identified electronic devices 102 in the database 174... recording device status information in some embodiments." When the system determines a status update is valid, it automatically writes the new status to the database).
The Examiner notes that Bennett teaches similar to the instant application teaches communication method and infrastructure supporting device security and tracking. Specifically, Bennett discloses the communication utilized for determining location and usage reports of multiple communication devices it is therefore viewed as analogous art in the same field of endeavor. Additionally, Greenbaum teaches managing the inventory of battery powered devices and as it is comparable in certain respects to Bennett which communication method and infrastructure supporting device security and tracking as well as the instant application it is viewed as analogous art and is viewed as reasonably pertinent to the problem faced by the inventor. This provides support that it would be obvious to combine the references to provide an obviousness rejection.
Bennett discloses the communication utilized for determining location and usage reports of multiple communication devices. However, Bennett fails to disclose the computer processor is configured to automatically update the current status for each of the multiple devices in the device tracking database with the pending status in response to the status change being an unusual status change.
Greenbaum discloses the computer processor is configured to automatically update the current status for each of the multiple devices in the device tracking database with the pending status in response to the status change being an unusual status change.
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to include in the task management
(system/method/apparatus) of Bennett the computer processor is configured to automatically update the current status for each of the multiple devices in the device tracking database with the pending status in response to the status change being an unusual status change as taught by Greenbaum since the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable. Additionally, Bennett and Greenbaum teach the collecting and analysis of data in order to and determine the status of electronic devices using associated tasks and they do not contradict or diminish the other alone or when combined.
Referring to Claim 18, see discussion of claim 1 above, while Bennett in view of Greenbaum in further view of Factor in further view of Mouseau teaches the system above, Bennett does not explicitly disclose a system having the limitations of, however,
Greenbaum teaches the multiple electronic devices include at least one thousand electronic devices and the computer processor automatically determines the status change, prevents the status change, and updates the current status for at least a majority of the multiple electronic devices (see; col. 18, line (58) – col. 19, line (11) of Greenbaum teaches processes inventory data for many devices with “near real-time” updates based on monitored inventory levels. The system handles retail locations with multiple devices and processes inventory messages continuously).
The Examiner notes that Bennett teaches similar to the instant application teaches communication method and infrastructure supporting device security and tracking. Specifically, Bennett discloses the communication utilized for determining location and usage reports of multiple communication devices it is therefore viewed as analogous art in the same field of endeavor. Additionally, Greenbaum teaches managing the inventory of battery powered devices and as it is comparable in certain respects to Bennett which communication method and infrastructure supporting device security and tracking as well as the instant application it is viewed as analogous art and is viewed as reasonably pertinent to the problem faced by the inventor. This provides support that it would be obvious to combine the references to provide an obviousness rejection.
Bennett discloses the communication utilized for determining location and usage reports of multiple communication devices. However, Bennett fails to disclose the multiple electronic devices include at least one thousand electronic devices and the computer processor automatically determines the status change, prevents the status change, and updates the current status for at least a majority of the multiple electronic devices.
Greenbaum discloses the multiple electronic devices include at least one thousand electronic devices and the computer processor automatically determines the status change, prevents the status change, and updates the current status for at least a majority of the multiple electronic devices.
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to include in the task management
(system/method/apparatus) of Bennett the multiple electronic devices include at least one thousand electronic devices and the computer processor automatically determines the status change, prevents the status change, and updates the current status for at least a majority of the multiple electronic devices as taught by Greenbaum since the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable. Additionally, Bennett and Greenbaum teach the collecting and analysis of data in order to and determine the status of electronic devices using associated tasks and they do not contradict or diminish the other alone or when combined.
Referring to Claim 19, see discussion of claim 18 above, while Bennett in view of Greenbaum in further view of Factor in further view of Mouseau teaches the system above, Bennett does not explicitly disclose a system having the limitations of, however,
Greenbaum teaches the computer processor automatically determines the status change, prevents the status change, and updates the current status for the majority of the at least one thousand electronic devices in less than two hours (see; col. 19, line (54) – col. 20, line (9) of Greenbaum teaches real-time or near-real-time inventory processing based on monitored inventory levels at retail locations, processing device information with time constraints. The specific time limit less than two hours represents optimization of processing speed. It is noted that These are tunable parameters optimized based on: Hardware capacity (servers, memory, network bandwidth), Database optimization (indexing, query optimization), Parallelization (distributed processing), and Business requirements (how quickly decisions must be made)
Achieving these performance targets requires no inventive concept—only application of known scaling and optimization techniques (database partitioning, load balancing, caching, parallel processing)).
The Examiner notes that Bennett teaches similar to the instant application teaches communication method and infrastructure supporting device security and tracking. Specifically, Bennett discloses the communication utilized for determining location and usage reports of multiple communication devices it is therefore viewed as analogous art in the same field of endeavor. Additionally, Greenbaum teaches managing the inventory of battery powered devices and as it is comparable in certain respects to Bennett which communication method and infrastructure supporting device security and tracking as well as the instant application it is viewed as analogous art and is viewed as reasonably pertinent to the problem faced by the inventor. This provides support that it would be obvious to combine the references to provide an obviousness rejection.
Bennett discloses the communication utilized for determining location and usage reports of multiple communication devices. However, Bennett fails to disclose the multiple electronic devices include at least one thousand electronic devices and the computer processor automatically determines the status change, prevents the status change, and updates the current status for at least a majority of the multiple electronic devices.
Greenbaum discloses the multiple electronic devices include at least one thousand electronic devices and the computer processor automatically determines the status change, prevents the status change, and updates the current status for at least a majority of the multiple electronic devices.
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to include in the task management
(system/method/apparatus) of Bennett the multiple electronic devices include at least one thousand electronic devices and the computer processor automatically determines the status change, prevents the status change, and updates the current status for at least a majority of the multiple electronic devices as taught by Greenbaum since the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable. Additionally, Bennett and Greenbaum teach the collecting and analysis of data in order to and determine the status of electronic devices using associated tasks and they do not contradict or diminish the other alone or when combined.
Referring to Claim 20, see discussion of claim 1 above, while Bennett in view of Greenbaum in further view of Factor in further view of Mouseau teaches the system above, Bennett discloses a system having the limitations of.
Bennett teaches tracking servers (i.e. par. [0021]-[0023] of Bennett teaches multiple servers in coordination).
Bennett does not explicitly disclose the following limitation, however,
Greenbaum teaches the computer processor includes multiple computing components that are configured to operate in conjunction to perform determinations (see; col. 7, lines (41-67) of Greenbaum teaches a controller that receives, processes, produces, transmits and stores data for multiple computing components).
The Examiner notes that Bennett teaches similar to the instant application teaches communication method and infrastructure supporting device security and tracking. Specifically, Bennett discloses the communication utilized for determining location and usage reports of multiple communication devices it is therefore viewed as analogous art in the same field of endeavor. Additionally, Greenbaum teaches managing the inventory of battery powered devices and as it is comparable in certain respects to Bennett which communication method and infrastructure supporting device security and tracking as well as the instant application it is viewed as analogous art and is viewed as reasonably pertinent to the problem faced by the inventor. This provides support that it would be obvious to combine the references to provide an obviousness rejection.
Bennett discloses the communication utilized for determining location and usage reports of multiple communication devices. However, Bennett fails to disclose the computer processor includes multiple computing components that are configured to operate in conjunction to perform determinations.
Greenbaum discloses the computer processor includes multiple computing components that are configured to operate in conjunction to perform determinations.
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to include in the task management
(system/method/apparatus) of Bennett the computer processor includes multiple computing components that are configured to operate in conjunction to perform determinations as taught by Greenbaum since the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable. Additionally, Bennett and Greenbaum teach the collecting and analysis of data in order to and determine the status of electronic devices using associated tasks and they do not contradict or diminish the other alone or when combined.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon considered pertinent to Applicant’s disclosure.
Sidhu (U.S. Patent Publication 2026/0050866 A1) discloses systems and methods for electronic device tracking and status analysis.
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 STEPHEN S SWARTZ whose telephone number is (571)270-7789. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 9:00 - 6:00.
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, Boswell Beth can be reached at 571 272-6737. 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.
/S.S.S/Examiner, Art Unit 3625
/BETH V BOSWELL/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3625
Prosecution Insights