Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Status of Claims
Claims 1-20 were previously pending and subject to a non-final Office Action having a notification date of May 8, 2026 (“non-final Office Action”). Following the non-final Office Action, Applicant filed an amendment on August 10, 2026 (the “Amendment”), amending claims 1, 19, and 20.
The present Final Office Action addresses pending claims 1-20 in the Amendment.
Response to Arguments
Response to Applicant’s Arguments Regarding Claim Rejections Under 35 USC §101
At the top of page 9 of the Amendment in relation to Step 2A-Prong One, Applicant takes the position that a person cannot practically in their mind with pen and paper compare an individual hardware component’s real-time operational usage to a maximum allowed utilization limit to assess the component’s valuation. The Examiner disagrees and asserts that a person could readily observe a real-time utilization value of a component (e.g., number of fan rotations) and quickly compare it to an allowed maximum/threshold for the component to assess a valuation of the component. To the extent that the claims require the individual component valuation assessment to occur in “real-time” more quickly than a human could mentally perform (which the claims do not appear to require in the first place), then the Examiner asserts that such “real-time” processing just amounts to using computers as tools to carry out the abstract idea (MPEP 2106.05(f)). Furthermore, determining a "non-disruptive" valuation of a network device (e.g., for purposes of resale or the like) via assessing a valuation of individual internal hardware components of the device based on comparing real-time utilization data (operational usage) of each of the components (e.g., useful remaining life, functionality, etc.) to a maximum allowed usage limit across one or more predefined valuation categories while the device remains operational still relates to commercial or legal interactions (e.g., sales activities or behaviors). Reference is also made to at least [0038] of the present specification which discusses how the disclosed valuation techniques can be used by enterprises seeking to resell outdated networking equipment.
At the bottom of page 9 of the Amendment in relation to Step 2A-Prong Two, Applicant takes the position that the claims integrate the valuation logic into a practical application by comparing real-time utilization data against a maximum allowed utilization limit for the respective internal hardware component. The Examiner disagrees because the comparing step is part of the abstract idea itself as discussed herein. It is important to keep in mind that an improvement in the abstract idea itself is not an improvement in technology. MPEP §2106.05(a)(II).
In response to Applicant’s assertion that collecting the operational utilization data is not insignificant extra-solution activity but instead is at the very core of the technical solution, the Examiner disagrees because all uses of the abstract idea (i.e., assessing the individual component valuations based on their operational utilization data and determining the valuation of the network device based on the individual component valuations) necessarily require collecting/obtaining/retrieving/receiving such operational utilization data (see MPEP § 2106.05(g)). Therefore, the operational utilization collection step is insignificant extra-solution activity.
On page 10 of the Amendment in relation to Step 2B, Applicant takes the position that the comparison of the real-time telemetry (presumably, the utilization data as recited in the claims) to the maximum allowed utilization limit is a non-routine step that improves how device lifecycles and component wear-and-tear are monitored. However, the Step 2B (significantly more) analysis is in relation to the “additional limitations” instead of the limitations reciting the abstract idea. In this case, the comparison of the real-time telemetry (presumably, the utilization data as recited in the claims) to the maximum allowed utilization limit is part of the abstract idea and thus cannot provide “significantly more” than itself. In assessing patent-eligibility of a claim reciting an abstract idea, the paramount consideration is the claimed additional elements. See Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank Int’l, 573 U.S. 208, 217 (2014) (“consider [all claimed] elements . . . to determine whether the additional elements transform the nature of the claim into a patent-eligible application” (internal citation and quotation marks omitted)); see also MPEP § 2106.05(f) (‘[A] consideration . . . [under] Step 2A Prong Two or ... Step 2B is whether the additional elements amount to .. . more than mere instructions to implement an abstract idea or other exception on a computer.”).
In relation to Applicant’s assertion that the system provides an automated, component-level diagnostic process grounded in physical hardware limits rather than relying on static manifests or removing devices for offline testing, the Examiner notes that such assertion relies on high-level interpretations rather than addressing any specific limitations in the claims. Furthermore, the “diagnostic process” (presumably, the comparison and valuation determination steps in the claims) define the abstract idea such that it cannot provide “significantly more” than itself.
Therefore, claims 1-20 continue to be rejected under 35 USC 101.
Response to Applicant’s Arguments Regarding Claim Rejections Under 35 USC §103
These rejections are withdrawn in view of the 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:
Subject Matter Eligibility Criteria - Step 1:
Claims 1-19 are directed to a device (i.e., a machine) and claim 20 is directed to a method (i.e., a process). Accordingly, claims 1-20 are all within at least one of the four statutory categories. 35 USC §101.
Subject Matter Eligibility Criteria - Alice/Mayo Test: Step 2A - Prong One:
Regarding Prong One of Step 2A of the Alice/Mayo test (which collectively includes the guidance in the January 7, 2019 Federal Register notice and the October 2019 and July 2024 updates issued by the USPTO as incorporated into the MPEP, as supported by relevant case law), the claim limitations are to be analyzed to determine whether, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, they “recite” a judicial exception or in other words whether a judicial exception is “set forth” or “described” in the claims. MPEP 2106.04(II)(A)(1). An “abstract idea” judicial exception is subject matter that falls within at least one of the following groupings: a) certain methods of organizing human activity, b) mental processes, and/or c) mathematical concepts. MPEP 2106.04(a).
Representative independent claim 1 includes limitations that recite at least one abstract idea. Specifically, independent claim 1 recites:
A network device, comprising:
a set of internal hardware components;
a processor; and
a memory communicatively coupled to the processor, wherein the memory comprises a valuation logic that is configured to:
collect real-time utilization data reflecting operational usage of the set of internal hardware components while the network device remains operational within a network environment;
assess, based on the real-time utilization data, an individual component valuation for each of the set of internal hardware components across each of one or more predefined valuation categories, wherein the individual component valuation reflects a condition of the respective internal hardware component derived from a comparison of the operational usage to a maximum allowed utilization limit for the respective internal hardware component; and
determine a non-disruptive valuation of the network device as a function of the individual component valuations assessed across at least one of the one or more predefined valuation categories for each respective internal hardware component.
The Examiner submits that the foregoing underlined limitations constitute: (a) “certain
methods of organizing human activity” because implementing a "valuation logic" (e.g., a thought process) to determine a "non-disruptive" valuation of a network device (e.g., for purposes of resale or the like) via assessing a valuation of individual internal hardware components of the device based on comparing real-time utilization data (operational usage) of each of the components (e.g., useful remaining life, functionality, etc.) to a maximum allowed usage limit across one or more predefined valuation categories while the device remains operational relates to commercial or legal interactions (e.g., sales activities or behaviors). Reference is also made to at least [0038] of the present specification which discusses how the disclosed valuation techniques can be used by enterprises seeking to resell outdated networking equipment.
Furthermore, implementing a "valuation logic" (e.g., a thought process) to assess a valuation of each internal hardware component across each of one or more predefined valuation categories reflecting a condition of the respective component based on comparing real-time operational usage data to an allowed maximum usage limit and determining a non-disruptive valuation of the network device based on the assessed valuation of each of the components across at least one of the one or more predefined valuation categories constitutes (b) “mental processes” because they are observations/evaluations/judgments/analyses that can, at the currently claimed high level of generality, be practically performed in the human mind (e.g., with pen and paper). These recitations, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, are similar to the concepts of collecting information, analyzing it and displaying certain results of the collection and analysis in Electric Power Group, LLC, v. Alstom (830 F.3d 1350, 119 USPQe2d 1739 (Fed. Cir. 2016)). MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III).
Accordingly, the claim recites at least one abstract idea.
Furthermore, dependent claims 2-5, 7-15, 17, and 18 further define the at least one abstract idea (and thus fail to make the abstract idea any less abstract) as set forth below:
-Claim 2 recites how the valuation of the network device corresponds to an aggregate of the valuation of each of the set of components which just further defines the abstract idea(s) discussed above.
-Claim 3 recites how determining the valuation of the network device includes selecting, for each of the set of components, a minimum value from the valuation across each of the one or more valuation categories, wherein the valuation of the network device is determined based on the selected valuation for each of the set of components which just further defines the abstract idea(s) discussed above.
-Claim 4 recites how determining the valuation of the network device includes : applying, for each of the set of components, an aggregation function on the valuation across each of the one or more valuation categories; and obtaining an intermediate valuation for each of the set of components based on applying the aggregation function, wherein the valuation of the network device is determined based on the intermediate valuation obtained for each of the set of components which just further defines the abstract idea(s) discussed above.
-Claim 5 recites how the aggregation function includes at least one of: a sum function, an average function, or a maximum function which just further defines the abstract idea(s) discussed above.
-Claim 7 recites how the one or more valuation includes comprises at least one of: a use time value category, a mechanical value category, or a user-defined value category which just further defines the abstract idea(s) discussed above.
-Claim 8 recites how the utilization data of a component of the set of components includes data associated with one or more functional parameters of the component which just further defines the abstract idea(s) discussed above.
-Claim 9 recites how the one or more functional parameters of the component include at least one of: a power up time period, a product up time period, or an over-heat temperature alarm time period which just further defines the abstract idea(s) discussed above.
-Claim 10 recites how the utilization data of a component of the set of components includes data related to one or more physical parameters of the component which just further defines the abstract idea(s) discussed above.
-Claim 11 recites how the utilization data of a component of the set of components includes at least one of: a count of insertion and removal instances of the component, a count of rotations of the component, or a rotation time period of the component which just further defines the abstract idea(s) discussed above.
-Claim 12 recites how the utilization data of a component of the set of components includes data related to at least one of one or more environmental factors or user-defined criteria which just further defines the abstract idea(s) discussed above.
-Claim 13 recites how the one or more environmental factors include at least one of: a pressure, a humidity, an altitude, a temperature, or a geographical location of the component which just further defines the abstract idea(s) discussed above.
-Claim 14 recites how the valuation logic is further configured to: receive new utilization data for the set of components; and update, based on the new utilization data, the assessed valuation of each of the set of components across each of the one or more valuation categories which just further defines the abstract idea(s) discussed above.
-Claim 15 recites how the valuation logic is further configured to update the valuation of the network device based on the updated valuation of each of the set of components across each of the one or more valuation categories which just further defines the abstract idea(s) discussed above.
-Claim 17 recites how the valuation logic is further configured to: assess a use condition of each of the set of components based on the utilization data; and determine a remaining useful life of the network device based on the use condition of each of the set of components which just further defines the abstract idea(s) discussed above.
-Claim 18 recites how the valuation logic is further configured to determine the valuation of the network device while the network device is in operation deployed in a networking system or environment which just further defines the abstract idea(s) discussed above.
Subject Matter Eligibility Criteria - Alice/Mayo Test: Step 2A - Prong Two:
Regarding Prong Two of Step 2A of the Alice/Mayo test, it must be determined whether the claim as a whole integrates the abstract idea into a practical application. As noted at MPEP §2106.04(II)(A)(2), it must be determined whether any additional elements in the claim beyond the abstract idea integrate the exception into a practical application in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on the judicial exception. The courts have indicated that additional elements such as merely using a computer to implement an abstract idea, adding insignificant extra solution activity, or generally linking use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use do not integrate a judicial exception into a “practical application.” MPEP §2106.05(I)(A).
In the present case, the additional limitations beyond the above-noted at least one abstract idea recited in the claim are as follows (where the bolded portions are the “additional limitations” while the underlined portions continue to represent the at least one “abstract idea”):
A network device, comprising:
a set of internal hardware components;
a processor; and
a memory communicatively coupled to the processor, wherein the memory comprises a valuation logic that is configured to:
collect real-time utilization data reflecting operational usage of the set of internal hardware components while the network device remains operational within a network environment;
assess, based on the real-time utilization data, an individual component valuation for each of the set of internal hardware components across each of one or more predefined valuation categories, wherein the individual component valuation reflects a condition of the respective internal hardware component derived from a comparison of the operational usage to a maximum allowed utilization limit for the respective internal hardware component; and
determine a non-disruptive valuation of the network device as a function of the individual component valuations assessed across at least one of the one or more predefined valuation categories for each respective internal hardware component.
The Examiner submits that the network device including hardware components, processor, and memory, when considered as a whole with the limitations reciting the at least one abstract idea, do not integrate the above-noted at least one abstract idea into a practical application because they amount to merely using a computer or other machinery as tools performing their typical functionality in conjunction with performing the above-noted at least one abstract idea (see MPEP § 2106.05(f)).
Furthermore, collecting real-time utilization data reflecting operational usage of the set of internal hardware components while the network device remains operational within a network environment merely adds insignificant extra-solution activity (data gathering; selecting data to be manipulated) to the at least one abstract idea in a manner that does not meaningfully limit the at least one abstract idea (see MPEP § 2106.05(g)).
Thus, taken alone, the additional elements do not integrate the at least one abstract idea into a practical application. Furthermore, looking at the additional limitations as an ordered combination adds nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually. MPEP §2106.05(I)(A) and §2106.04(II)(A)(2).
For these reasons, representative independent claim 1 and analogous independent claims 19 and 20 do not recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. Accordingly, representative independent claim 1 and analogous independent claims 19 and 20 are directed to at least one abstract idea.
The remaining dependent claim limitations not addressed above fail to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application as set forth below:
-Claim 6: This claim calls for transmitting the network device valuation to a GUI on a user device which amounts to merely using a computer or other machinery as tools performing their typical functionality in conjunction with performing the above-noted at least one abstract idea (see MPEP § 2106.05(f)) and merely represent insignificant extra-solution activity (see MPEP § 2106.05(g)).
-Claim 16: This claim recites how the valuations of each of the components is assessed using an ML model which amounts to merely reciting the idea of a solution or outcome without reciting details of how a solution to a problem is accomplished (see MPEP § 2106.05(f)). Claims drafted using largely (if not entirely) result-focused functional language, containing no specificity about how the purported invention achieves those results, are almost always found to be ineligible for patenting under Section 101.” Beteiro, LLC v. DraftKings Inc., 104 F.4th 1350, 1356 (Fed. Cir. 2024). Claims that do no more than apply established methods of machine learning to a new data environment are not patent eligible. Recentive Analytics, Inc. v. Fox Corp., Fox Broadcasting Company, LLC, Fox Sports Productions, LLC, Case No. 23-2437, (Fed. Cir. 2025), pp. 10, 14. An abstract idea does not become nonabstract by limiting the invention to a particular field of use or technological environment. Id.
When the above additional limitations are considered as a whole along with the limitations directed to the at least one abstract idea, the at least one abstract idea is not integrated into a practical application. Therefore, the claims are directed to at least one abstract idea.
Subject Matter Eligibility Criteria - Alice/Mayo Test: Step 2B:
Regarding Step 2B of the Alice/Mayo test, representative independent claim 1 does not include additional elements (considered both individually and as an ordered combination) that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception for reasons the same as those discussed above with respect to determining that the claim does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application.
As noted above, the network device including the components, processor, and memory amount to merely using a computer or other machinery as tools performing their typical functionality in conjunction with performing the above-noted at least one abstract idea (see MPEP § 2106.05(f)).
In relation to collecting real-time utilization data reflecting operational usage of the set of internal hardware components while the network device remains operational within a network environment which merely adds insignificant extra-solution activity (data gathering; selecting data to be manipulated) to the at least one abstract idea in a manner that does not meaningfully limit the at least one abstract idea (see MPEP § 2106.05(g)), the Examiner has reevaluated this limitation and determined it to not be unconventional as it merely consists of receiving/transmitting data over a network. See Intellectual Ventures I v. Symantec Corp., 838 F.3d 1307, 1321, 120 USPQ2d 1353, 1362 (Fed. Cir. 2016); See MPEP 2106.05(d)(II).
The dependent claims also do not include additional elements (considered both individually and as an ordered combination) that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception for the same reasons to those discussed above with respect to determining that the dependent claims do not integrate the at least one abstract idea into a practical application.
-Claim 6: This claim calls for transmitting the network device valuation to a GUI on a user device which amounts to merely using a computer or other machinery as tools performing their typical functionality in conjunction with performing the above-noted at least one abstract idea (see MPEP § 2106.05(f)) and merely represent insignificant extra-solution activity (see MPEP § 2106.05(g)). Furthermore, the Examiner has reevaluated this limitation and determined it to not be unconventional as it merely consists of receiving/transmitting data over a network. See Intellectual Ventures I v. Symantec Corp., 838 F.3d 1307, 1321, 120 USPQ2d 1353, 1362 (Fed. Cir. 2016); See MPEP 2106.05(d)(II).
-Claim 16: This claim recites how the valuations of each of the components is assessed using an ML model which amounts to merely reciting the idea of a solution or outcome without reciting details of how a solution to a problem is accomplished (see MPEP § 2106.05(f)). Claims drafted using largely (if not entirely) result-focused functional language, containing no specificity about how the purported invention achieves those results, are almost always found to be ineligible for patenting under Section 101.” Beteiro, LLC v. DraftKings Inc., 104 F.4th 1350, 1356 (Fed. Cir. 2024). Claims that do no more than apply established methods of machine learning to a new data environment are not patent eligible. Recentive Analytics, Inc. v. Fox Corp., Fox Broadcasting Company, LLC, Fox Sports Productions, LLC, Case No. 23-2437, (Fed. Cir. 2025), pp. 10, 14. An abstract idea does not become nonabstract by limiting the invention to a particular field of use or technological environment. Id.
Therefore, claims 1-20 are ineligible under 35 USC §101.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JONATHON A. SZUMNY whose telephone number is (303) 297-4376. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 7-5.
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, Jason Dunham, can be reached at 571-272-8109. 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.
/JONATHON A. SZUMNY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3686
