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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 08/13/2026 has been entered.
Status of the Claims
Claims 1-18 and 20-21 are pending. Claim 19 is cancelled. Claim 21 is new. Claims 1, 3-6, 12, 15-16 and 20 are amended.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, filed 08/13/2026, with respect to the 101 rejection has been considered but it not persuasive.
Applicant argues, on page 14-15, that the claims do not fall within any enumerated subgrouping of abstract idea. Applicant argues that the claims are rooted in computer technology. Applicant argues SRI International Inc vs Cisco systems and argues that the high-level of generality rational cannot support a finding of ineligibility because the Federal Circuit has already held that network-monitoring claims with even less detail are patent eligible.
Examiner respectfully disagrees. The claim limitations as drafted, recite a concept, that, under broadest reasonable interpretation, is a certain method of organizing human activity. The limitations are analogous to managing personal behavior or interactions between people (interactions between people), or a commercial or legal interaction (sales activity) such as tracking statuses and connection times of devices within an organization (see specification, Par. 0003). Examiner notes that the management of these devices within an organization for a financial purpose is in fact part of the business process of sales activities or behaviors and/or managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people (following rules or instructions). Additionally, Examiner notes that “the sub-groupings encompass both activity of a single person (for example, a person following a set of instructions or a person signing a contract online) and activity that involves multiple people (such as a commercial interaction), and thus, certain activity between a person and a computer (for example a method of anonymous loan shopping that a person conducts using a mobile phone) may fall within the "certain methods of organizing human activity" grouping.” (MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)). The limitations are not rooted in computer technology, they represent activity between a person and a computer.
With respect to the arguments regarding SRI international, the claims were considered eligible because the computer improved the functionality of computer networks themselves. An improvement to computers, or a technology or technical field will be considered an integration into a practical application. Here, there is no improvement to computers, and the computer elements recited in the claims are being used in their normal capacity to report statuses.
Applicant argues, on pages 16-18, that Even assuming, arguendo, that amended independent claims 1 and 13 recite an abstract idea under Step 2A Prong One, the claims as amended integrate any such idea into a practical application under Step 2A Prong Two. MPEP 2106.0S(a) instructs that a claim integrates a judicial exception into a practical application when the additional elements reflect "an improvement in the functioning of a computer, or an improvement to other technology or technical field." Applicant argues that the specification describes advantages of performing these determinations in a relatively short amount of time and without separate programs or user interaction.
Examiner respectfully disagrees. The additional elements (computer elements, electronic transmissions/communications/connections, devices, etc) are recited at a high-level of generality such that they amount to no more than generally linking the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use. Accordingly, the additional elements, when viewed individually and in combination, do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claims do not amount to more than generally linking the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use. Therefore, the claims recite an abstract idea.
Furthermore, it is important to keep in mind that an improvement in the abstract idea itself (e.g. a recited fundamental economic concept) is not an improvement in technology. For example, in Trading Technologies Int’l v. IBG, 921 F.3d 1084, 1093-94, 2019 USPQ2d 138290 (Fed. Cir. 2019), the court determined that the claimed user interface simply provided a trader with more information to facilitate market trades, which improved the business process of market trading but did not improve computers or technology. Here, an alleged improvement to performing determinations in a short amount of time without separate programs or user interaction is an improvement to the business practice and not to a technology or technical field.
Applicant argues, on pages 18-19, that Under Step 2B, the additional elements that integrate the exception into a practical application necessarily amount to significantly more.
Examiner respectfully disagrees. As discussed above with respect to Step 2A Prong Two, the additional elements, amount to no more than generally linking the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use. The same analysis applies in 2B. The additional elements, when considered separately and in combination, do not add significantly more to the exception. They are generally linking the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use and cannot integrate a judicial exception into a practical application at Step 2A or provide an inventive concept in Step 2B. Therefore, the claims are ineligible.
Novelty/Non-Obviousness
Examiner has included the closest prior art in the non-final rejection mailed on 03/27/2025. The claims would be considered allowable if amended or re-written to overcome the rejections in this office action.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1-18 and 20-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1
Claims 1-12 and 21 are directed to a series of steps, and therefore is a process.
Claims 13-18 and 20 are directed to a system with multiple components, and therefore is a machine
Independent Claims
Step 2A Prong One
The limitation of Claim 1 recites:
A method of determining an inactivity of multiple ... (devices) with each ... device being capable of having one of multiple statuses indicative of the inactivity of the respective ... device, the method comprising:
automatically determining, …, first … connection states of a first plurality of ... (devices) with more than one ... device of the first plurality of ... (devices) being configured to concurrently connect to any one or more servers of the client distributed server system, wherein the determination of the first electronic connection states of the first plurality of ... (devices) comprises:
continuously monitoring … for a signal representative of a request for the exchange of … information from at least one of the first plurality of … (devices) representative of an … connection of an … (device) of the first plurality of … (devices) to …;
automatically identifying a most recent time at which each … (device) of the first plurality of … (devices) exchanged … information with …; and
automatically recording the most recent time as the first connection state for each of the first plurality of … (devices) with each first connection state being representative of a timestamp indicating the most recent time at which each respective … (device) of the first plurality of … (devices) exchanged information with …;
automatically obtaining, …, first client device information that includes the first connection state for each of the first plurality of … (devices),
accessing a … that includes a second connection state for each of a second plurality of … (devices), the second connection state being representative of, before the first … (device) information was obtained, a timestamp indicating a most recent time at which each respective … (device) of the second plurality of … (devices) exchanged information established an … connection …;
concurrently determining …, a most recent connection state representative of a most recent timestamp for each … (device) of the first plurality of … (devices) and the second plurality of … (devices) dependent upon at least one of the first connection state and the second connection state;
concurrently comparing, … and for each … (device) of the first plurality of … (devices) and the second plurality of … (devices), a first amount of time as measured between the most recent connection state representative of the most recent timestamp and a current time to a designated threshold amount of time;
automatically assigning, … depending upon the comparison, a status indicating the … (device) is active to each … (device) of the first plurality of … (devices) and the second plurality of … (devices) in response to the first amount of time being less than the threshold amount of time;
automatically assigning, … depending upon the comparison, a status indicating the device is inactive to each … (device) of the first plurality of … (devices) and the second plurality of … (devices) in response to the first amount of time being equal to or greater than the threshold amount of time; and
triggering access, to a client and in response to the … (device) being assigned as inactive, to a device status report that includes each of the … (devices) of the first plurality of … (devices) and the second plurality of … (devices) determined to be inactive with the device status report including identification information for each corresponding … (device) therein,
wherein the first plurality of … (devices) includes at least five-hundred … (devices) and the second plurality of … (devices) includes at least five-hundred … (devices), and the automatically assigning of the status indicating the … (device) is one of active and inactive to all … (devices) of the first plurality of … (devices) and the second plurality of … (devices) is performed within a time period of thirty minutes;
wherein the automatically determining of the first … connection states is performed without any separate program or application for determining the first … connection states being installed on any of the first plurality of … (devices) and without user interaction with any of the first plurality of … (devices), the most recent time for each … device of the first plurality of … (devices) being recorded … as part of the exchange of … information between the respective … (device) and the … during normal operation of the respective … (device); and
wherein the automatically obtaining of the first client device information comprises automatically logging in to the … and accessing … in which the first … connection states are recorded.
The limitation of Claim 13 recites:
A system for determining an inactivity of multiple ... (devices) with each ... device being capable of having one of multiple statuses indicative of the inactivity of the respective ... device, the system comprising:
… on each ... (device) of a first plurality of ... (devices) is in communication, … determine first … connection states of the first plurality of ... (devices) by:
continuously monitoring … for a signal representative of a request for the exchange of … information from at least one of the first plurality of ... (devices) representative of an … connection of an ... device of the first plurality of ... (devices) to the … during normal operation of the first plurality of ... (devices);
automatically identifying a most recent time at which each ... (device) of the first plurality of ... (devices) exchanged … information with …;
automatically recording the most recent time as the first … connection state for each ... (device) of the first plurality of ... (devices) with each first … connection state being representative of a timestamp indicating the most recent time at which each respective ... (device) of the first plurality of ... (devices) exchanged information …; and
automatically providing, via … communication, client device information that includes the first … connection state for each ... (device) of the first plurality of ... (devices) to a …;
…a second connection state for each ... (device) of a second plurality of ... (devices) with the second connection state being representative of, at the time the client device information that includes first connection state for each of the first plurality of ... (devices) is provided …, the most recent timestamp each respective ... (device) exchanged information …;
…
concurrently determine, dependent upon at least one of the first connection state in the ... (device) information and the second connection state …, a most recent connection state representative of the most recent timestamp for each ... (device) of the first plurality of ... (devices) and the second plurality of ... (devices);
concurrently compare, for each ... (device) of the first plurality of ... (devices) and the second plurality of ... (devices), a first amount of time as measured between the most recent connection state representative of the most recent timestamp and a current time to a designated threshold amount of time;
automatically assign, to the respective ... (device) … and dependent upon the comparison, a status indicating the ... (device) is active to each ... (device) of the first plurality of ... (devices) and the second plurality of devices in response to the first amount of time being less than the threshold amount of time; and
automatically assign, to the respective ... (device) … and dependent upon the comparison, a status indicating the ... (device) is inactive to each ... (device) of the first plurality of ... (devices) and the second plurality of (devices) in response to the first amount of time being equal to or greater than the threshold amount of time; and
…, as triggered by and in response to the electronic device being assigned as inactive, provide access, to a client, to a device status report that includes each of the … (devices) of the first plurality of … (devices) and the second plurality of … (devices) determined to be inactive with the device status report including identification information for each corresponding … (device) therein,
wherein the first plurality of (… devices) includes at least five-hundred (… devices) and the second plurality of (… devices) includes at least five-hundred (… devices), and the … is configured to assign the status indicating the (… device) is one of active and inactive to all (… devices) of the first plurality of (… devices) and the second plurality of (… devices) during a time period of thirty minutes;
wherein the … is configured to determine the first … connection states without any separate program or application for determining the first … connection states being installed on any of the first plurality of (… devices) and without user interaction with any of the first plurality of (… devices), the … being configured to record the most recent time for each (… device) of the first plurality of (… devices) as part of the exchange of … information between the respective (… device) and the … during normal operation of the respective (… device); and
wherein … in which the first … connection states are recorded, and the … configured to automatically log in to … obtain the first … connection states.
The claim limitations as drafted, recite a concept, that, under broadest reasonable interpretation, is a certain method of organizing human activity. The limitations are analogous to managing personal behavior or interactions between people (interactions between people), or a commercial or legal interaction (sales activity) such as tracking statuses and connection times of devices within an organization. The generic computer implementations (see below) do not change the character of the limitations. Accordingly, the claims recite an abstract idea.
Step 2A Prong Two
The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claims recite the following additional elements:
Claim 1:
existing application
a client distributed server system
electronic devices
server
electronic connection
electronic communication
electronic information
first client device
device tracking database
active analysis module that includes a processor
execution of computer-readable memory encoded with instructions
storage media
client device database
Claim 13:
Existing application
Electronic devices
a client distributed server system that includes one or more servers
electronic connection
electronic communication
electronic information
client device
device tracking database
an active analysis module in electronic communication with the device tracking system, the active analysis module including at least one computer processor and configured, via execution of computer-readable memory encoded with instructions
communication module in communication with the activity analysis module
client device database
These additional elements are recited at a high-level of generality such that they amount to no more than generally linking the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use. Accordingly, the additional elements, when viewed individually and in combination, do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claims do not amount to more than generally linking the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use (see MPEP 2106.05(h))
Therefore, the claims recite an abstract idea.
Step 2B
As discussed above with respect to Step 2A Prong Two, the additional elements, amount to no more than generally linking the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use. The same analysis applies here in 2B. The additional elements, when considered separately and in combination, do not add significantly more to the exception. They are generally linking the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use and cannot integrate a judicial exception into a practical application at Step 2A or provide an inventive concept in Step 2B. The claims are ineligible.
Dependent Claims
Dependent claims 2-12, 21 and 14-18, 20 further narrow the same abstract ideas recited in Claims 1 and 13, respectively. Therefore, claims 2-12, 21 and 14-18, 20 are directed to an abstract idea for the reasons given above.
Step 2A Prong Two
The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the dependent claims recite the following additional elements:
Claim 11:
unified endpoint management (UEM) system and a mobile device management (MDM) system.
These additional elements are recited at a high-level of generality such that they amount to no more than generally linking the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use. Accordingly, the additional elements, when viewed individually and in combination, do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claims do not amount to more than generally linking the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use (see MPEP 2106.05(h)). Therefore, the claims recite an abstract idea.
Step 2B
As discussed above with respect to Step 2A Prong Two, the additional elements, amount to no more than generally linking the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use. The same analysis applies here in 2B. The additional elements, when considered separately and in combination, do not add significantly more to the exception. They are generally linking the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use and cannot integrate a judicial exception into a practical application at Step 2A or provide an inventive concept in Step 2B. The claims are ineligible.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ISMAIL A MANEJWALA whose telephone number is (571)272-8904. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8-5.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Nathan Uber can be reached on 571-270-3923. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/ISMAIL A MANEJWALA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3628
Prosecution Insights