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 .
Response to Amendment
The amendment filed on May 7, 2026 cancelled claims 3-6, 10-13, and 20. Claims 1, 7-8, 16-17, and 19 were amended and new claims 21-29 were added. Thus, the currently pending claims addressed below are claims 1-2, 7-9, 14-19, and 21-29.
Claim Interpretation
The following terms require interpretation because they have either been defined in the applicant’s specification in a manner inconsistent with the general meaning of the term or the applicant has not provided a definition of the terms in the applicant’s specification. As such, the following terms and/or phrases have required interpretation:
Management module – a computer such as a server, executing instructions (Based on applicant’s specification on page 6, line 29 through page 7, line 23, the management module is a system such as a server contain software. Thus, the applicant has defined the module as a device, and not software)
Data aggregator – a computer (Based on applicant’s specification on page 6, line 8, the data aggregator is any device, typically a computer system)
Claim Objections
The applicant has cancelled claims 4-6, thus the claim objections to claims 4-6 are hereby withdrawn.
The amendment to claim 7 has overcome the claim objection. Thus, the objection is hereby withdrawn
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The amendment filed on May 7, 2026 has overcome the 35 U.S.C. 112(a) rejections of claims 16 and 19 raised on the Office Action dated December 16, 2026. Thus, the rejections are hereby withdrawn.
The amendment filed on May 7, 2026 has overcome the 35 U.S.C. 112(b) rejections of claim 8 raised on the Office Action dated December 16, 2026. Thus, the rejections are hereby withdrawn.
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 1-2, 7-9, 14-19, and 21-29 are directed to a system, a method, and a computer program product which would be classified under one of the listed statutory classifications (i.e., 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance (hereinafter “PEG”) “PEG” Step 1=Yes).
However, claims 1-2, 7-9, 14-19, and 21-29 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. Independent claim(s) 1-2, 9, 15, 17, 22, 25 and 28 recite(s) the following abstract idea: (Examiner note: the one or more devices are outside the scope of the applicant’s invention and, as such, have been included as part of the abstract idea itself, because they cannot be considered “additional elements” of the claimed invention)
identifying one or more devices;
retrieving stored maintenance agreement information;
providing/displaying a list of the one or more devices;
displaying one or more filters;
receiving a filter request to filter the list based on the one or more filters;
providing/displaying a portion of the list limited to a subset of the one or more devices, the subset corresponding to the request to filter the list;
displaying/providing a respective maintenance agreement status associated with each device of the subset of the one or more devices, the respective maintenance agreement status being based on whether a respective device of the one or more devices is associated with a maintenance agreement; and
providing/displaying analytic data associated with at least three classifications including: a first classification of devices covered by a maintenance agreement expiring in a predetermined number of days or more, a second classification of devices covered by a maintenance agreement expiring in less than a predetermined number of days; and a third classification of device not covered by an active maintenance agreement, wherein the analytic data is displayed using a graph, wherein the graph illustrates a visual representation for each of the three classifications displaying a relative percentage of devices covered by the respective classification, and wherein the graph comprises an area assigned to each of the three classifications;
receiving a user selection input requesting a numeric representation of the respective percentage corresponding to the respective classification; and
displaying, based on the user selection input, the requested numeric representation of the respective percentage corresponding to the respective classification.
The limitations as detailed above, as drafted, falls within the “Certain Method of Organizing Human Activity” grouping of abstract ideas namely commercial or legal interactions and/or business relations because they recite the managing of agreements, contracts, and/or warrantees. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea (i.e. “PEG” Revised Step 2A Prong One=Yes).
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the claim only recites the additional elements of:
a computer (i.e., a management module – see Claim Interpretation section above) with a processor and a memory storing instructions (e.g., a general-purpose computer with generic computer components); and
a user interface that provides information to and accepts user input (e.g., a generic computer element as per the Intellectual Ventures I v. Capital One decision), wherein the user interface includes tooltips associated with areas of a graph and when a tooltip of a respective area is selected by a user, additional data associated with the respective area is displayed (e.g., a generic computer element).
The following limitations, if removed from the abstract idea and considered additional elements, merely perform generic computer function of processing, storing, communicating (e.g., transmitting and receiving), and displaying data and, as such, are insignificant extra-solution activities (see MPEP 2016.05(d)(II) and MPEP 2106.05(g)):
providing/displaying a list of the one or more devices (transmitting data and/or displaying data);
displaying one or more filters (displaying data);
receiving a filter request to filter the list based on the one or more filters (receiving data);
providing/displaying a portion of the list limited to a subset of the one or more devices, the subset corresponding to the request to filter the list (transmitting data and/or displaying data);
providing/displaying a respective maintenance agreement status associated with each device of the subset of the one or more devices, the respective maintenance agreement status being based on whether a respective device of the one or more devices is associated with a maintenance agreement (transmitting data and/or displaying data); and
providing/displaying analytic data associated with at least three classifications including: a first classification of devices covered by a maintenance agreement expiring in a predetermined number of days or more, a second classification of devices covered by a maintenance agreement expiring in less than a predetermined number of days; and a third classification of device not covered by an active maintenance agreement, wherein the analytic data is displayed using a graph, wherein the graph illustrates a visual representation for each of the three classifications displaying a relative percentage of devices covered by the respective classification, and wherein the graph comprises an area assigned to each of the three classifications (transmitting data and/or displaying data);
receiving a user selection input requesting a numeric representation of the respective percentage corresponding to the respective classification (receiving data); and
providing/displaying, based on the user selection input, the requested numeric representation of the respective percentage corresponding to the respective classification (transmitting data and/or displaying data).
The additional technical elements above are recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as a generic processor and generic computer components performing a generic computers function of processing, communicating and displaying) such that it amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using one or more general-purpose computers and generic computer components. The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the additional technical elements above do not integrate the abstract idea/judicial exception into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. More specifically, the additional elements fail to include (1) improvements to the functioning of a computer or to any other technology or technical field (see MPEP 2106.05(a)), (2) applying or using a judicial exception to effect a particular treatment or prophylaxis for a disease or medical condition (see Vanda memo), (3) applying the judicial exception with, or by use of, a particular machine (see MPEP 2106.05(b)), (4) effecting a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing (see MPEP 2106.05(c)), or (5) applying or using the judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment, such that the claim as a whole is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception (see MPEP 2106.05(e) and Vanda memo).
Rather, the limitations merely add the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on one or more computers, or merely uses computers as a tool to perform an abstract idea (see MPEP 2106.05(f)), or generally link the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use (see MPEP 2106.05(h)).
Thus, the claim is “directed to” an abstract idea (i.e. “PEG” Revised Step 2A Prong Two=Yes)
When considering Step 2B of the Alice/Mayo test, the claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the claims do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea.
More specifically, as discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements of using a general-purpose computer (i.e., a management module – see Claim Interpretation section above) with generic computer components (i.e., a processor and a memory storing instructions), and a generic computer element (i.e., a user interface that provides information to and accepts user input (e.g., a generic computer element as per the Intellectual Ventures I v. Capital One decision), wherein the user interface includes tooltips associated with areas of a graph and when a tooltip of a respective area is selected by a user, additional data associated with the respective area is displayed (i.e., a generic computer element) to perform the claimed functions amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using one or more general-purpose computers and one or more generic computer component.
“Generic computer implementation” is insufficient to transform a patent-ineligible abstract idea into a patent-eligible invention (See Affinity Labs, _F.3d_, 120 U.S.P.Q.2d 1201 (Fed. Cir. 2016), citing Alice, 134 S. Ct. at 2352, 2357) and more generally, “simply appending conventional steps specified at a high level of generality” to an abstract idea does not make that idea patentable (See Affinity Labs, _F.3d_, 120 U.S.P.Q.2d 1201 (Fed. Cir. 2016), citing Mayo, 132 S. Ct. at 1300). Moreover, “the use of generic computer elements like a microprocessor or user interface do not alone transform an otherwise abstract idea into patent-eligible subject matter (See FairWarning, 120 U.S.P.Q.2d. 1293, citing DDR Holdings, LLC v. Hotels.com, L.P., 773 F.3d 1245, 1256 (Fed. Cir. 2014)). As such, the additional elements of the claim do not add a meaningful limitation to the abstract idea because they would be generic computer functions in any computer implementation. Thus, taken alone, the additional elements do not amount to significantly more than the above-identified judicial exception (the abstract idea). Looking at the limitations as an ordered combination adds nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually. There is no indication that the combination of elements improves the functioning of the computer or improves any other technology. Their collective functions merely provide generic computer implementation.
The Examiner notes simply implementing an abstract concept on one or more computers, without meaningful limitations to that concept, does not transform a patent-ineligible claim into a patent-eligible one (See Accenture, 728 F.3d 1336, 108 U.S.P.Q.2d 1173 (Fed. Cir. 2013), citing Bancorp, 687 F.3d at 1280), limiting the application of an abstract idea to one field of use does not necessarily guard against preempting all uses of the abstract idea (See Accenture, 728 F.3d 1336, 108 U.S.P.Q.2d 1173 (Fed. Cir. 2013), citing Bilski, 130 S. Ct. at 3231), and further the prohibition against patenting an abstract principle “cannot be circumvented by attempting to limit the use of the [principle] to a particular technological environment” (See Accenture, 728 F.3d 1336, 108 U.S.P.Q.2d 1173 (Fed. Cir. 2013), citing Flook, 437 U.S. at 584), and finally merely limiting the field of use of the abstract idea to a particular existing technological environment does not render the claims any less abstract (See Affinity Labs, _F.3d_, 120 U.S.P.Q.2d 1201 (Fed. Cir. 2016), citing Alice, 134 S. Ct. at 2358; Mayo, 132 S. Ct. at 1294; Bilski v. Kappos, 561 U.S. 593, 612 (2010); Content Extraction & Transmission LLC v. Wells Fargo Bank, Nat’l Ass’n, 776 F.3d 1343, 1348 (Fed. Cir. 2014); buySAFE, Inc. v. Google, Inc., 765 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2014).
Applicant herein only requires one or more general-purpose computer and generic computer components (as evidenced from page 6, line 29 through page 7, line 23 and page 15, lines 6-18 of the applicant’s specification; the Intellectual Ventures I v. Capital One decision; and Lamas, Create charts with JavaScript and Chart.js, August 5, 2024, https://web.archive.org/web/20240914145907/https://www.luisllamas.es/en/ javascript-chartjs/, pages 1-5 which discloses that Chart.js is was, before the effective filing date of the invention, of the most well-known and popular JavaScript libraries for creating interactive charts including line, bar, and pie (e.g., circular) charts that are interactive by default, with features like tooltips and legends); therefore, there does not appear to be any alteration or modification to the generic activities indicated, and they are also therefore recognized as insignificant activity with respect to eligibility. Finally, the following limitations, if removed from the abstract idea and considered additional elements, would be considered insignificant extra solution activity as they are directed to merely receiving, displaying, storing, and/or transmitting data (see MPEP 2016.05(d)(II) and MPEP 2106.05(g)):
providing/displaying a list of the one or more devices (transmitting data and/or displaying data);
displaying one or more filters (displaying data);
receiving a filter request to filter the list based on the one or more filters (receiving data);
providing/displaying a portion of the list limited to a subset of the one or more devices, the subset corresponding to the request to filter the list (transmitting data and/or displaying data);
providing/displaying a respective maintenance agreement status associated with each device of the subset of the one or more devices, the respective maintenance agreement status being based on whether a respective device of the one or more devices is associated with a maintenance agreement (transmitting data and/or displaying data); and
providing/displaying analytic data associated with at least three classifications including: a first classification of devices covered by a maintenance agreement expiring in a predetermined number of days or more, a second classification of devices covered by a maintenance agreement expiring in less than a predetermined number of days; and a third classification of device not covered by an active maintenance agreement, wherein the analytic data is displayed using a graph, wherein the graph illustrates a visual representation for each of the three classifications displaying a relative percentage of devices covered by the respective classification, and wherein the graph comprises an area assigned to each of the three classifications (transmitting data and/or displaying data);
receiving a user selection input requesting a numeric representation of the respective percentage corresponding to the respective classification (receiving data); and
providing/displaying, based on the user selection input, the requested numeric representation of the respective percentage corresponding to the respective classification (transmitting data and/or displaying data).
Thus, taken individually and in combination, the additional elements do not amount to significantly more than the above-identified judicial exception (the abstract idea) (i.e., “PEG” Step 2B=No).
Dependent claims 8, 14-16, and 18-19 appear to merely further limit the abstract idea by adding the additional steps of receiving a requests and storing additional maintenance agreement data which are considered part of the abstract idea (Claim 8); further limiting the maintenance agreement status and adding an additional step of displaying the maintenance agreement status which are both considered part of the abstract idea (Claims 14-15 and 18); adding an additional step of receiving at least one identity from a database associated with a point-of-sale system which is considered part of the abstract idea (Claims 16 and 19, Examiner note: The point-of-sale system and its database are outside the scope of the applicant’s invention and have been included as part of the abstract idea itself because they cannot be considered as “additional elements” of the claimed invention); further limiting the graph and the numeric representation which are both considered part of the abstract idea (Claims 21, 24, and 27); adding the additional steps of determining a data conflict, and discarding the conflicting portion which are both considered part of the abstract idea (Claim 23); and adding an additional step of displaying data which is considered part of the abstract idea (Claims 26 and 29) , and therefore only further limit the abstract idea (i.e. “PEG” Revised Step 2A Prong One=Yes), does/do not include any new additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception, and as such are “directed to” said abstract idea (i.e. “PEG” Step 2A Prong Two=Yes); and do not add significantly more than the idea (i.e. “PEG” Step 2B=No).
Dependent claim 7 appear further limits the abstract idea by adding the additional steps of receiving one or more identities of one or more devices from a point-of-sale system, and associating the one or more identities with one or more maintenance agreements (Claim 7)., and therefore only further limit the abstract idea (i.e. “PEG” Revised Step 2A Prong One=Yes).
Claim 7 does introduce a new additional element which is a data aggregator (i.e., a second general-purpose computer based on the applicant’s disclosure on page 6, line 8) for performing the claimed additional steps.
The following limitation of claim 7, if removed from the abstract idea and considered an additional element, merely perform generic computer function of processing, storing, communicating (e.g., transmitting and receiving), and displaying data and, as such, are insignificant extra-solution activities (see MPEP 2016.05(d)(II) and MPEP 2106.05(g)): receive one or more identities of one or more devices from a point-of-sale system.
The additional technical elements when considered individually amount to a first general-purpose computer with generic computer components (i.e., management module) upon which a portion of an abstract idea is applied; a generic computer element (i.e., user interface) used when implementing a portion of the abstract ides; and a second general-purpose computer (i.e., data aggregator) that perform a portion of the abstract idea. The additional technical elements, when considered in combination amount to two general-purpose computers, generic computer components, and a generic computer element that merely apply the abstract idea. While an arrangement of devices can transform an abstract idea into a practical application, the arrangement of devices claimed requires the first general-purpose computer with generic computer components using the generic computer element to perform every significant step of the abstract idea other than associating the identity of the device with a maintenance agreement. The examiner can think of no improvement obtained by having the second general-purpose computer (i.e., data aggregator) perform the associating step based on received information, as opposed to having the first general-purpose computer (i.e., management module) perform such an association based upon received information. Additionally, the applicant’s disclosure does not appear to disclose any improvement associated with this arrangement of devices. As such, the arrangement of devices does not appear to transform the abstract idea into a practical application. Thus, the claim 7 is “directed to” an abstract idea (i.e. “PEG” Revised Step 2A Prong Two=Yes)
When considering Step 2B of the Alice/Mayo test, the claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the claims do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. Applicant herein only requires the well-understood, routine, and conventional additional elements of two general-purpose computers; generic computer components; and a generic computer element (as evidenced from page 6, line 8; page 6, line 29 through page 7, line 23 and page 15, lines 6-18 of the applicant’s specification; the Intellectual Ventures I v. Capital One decision; and Lamas, Create charts with JavaScript and Chart.js, August 5, 2024, https://web.archive.org/web/ 20240914145907/https://www.luisllamas.es/en/javascript-chartjs/, pages 1-5 which discloses that Chart.js is was, before the effective filing date of the invention, of the most well-known and popular JavaScript libraries for creating interactive charts including line, bar, and pie (e.g., circular) charts that are interactive by default, with features like tooltips and legends)). When considered individually and in combination these well-understood, routine, and conventional additional elements do not appear to result in any improvement that is capable of being considered “significantly more” than the above-identified judicial exception (the abstract idea) (i.e., “PEG” Step 2B=No).
Thus, based on the detailed analysis above, claims 1-2, 7-9, 14-19, and 21-29 are not patent eligible.
Possible Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-2, 7-9, 14-19, and 21-29 contain subject matter that would be allowable over the prior art if the applicant were to be able to overcome the 35 USC 101 rejections above.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: The examiner has found prior art (see Trandal et al.: 8,229,861 and Gayle et al.: WO2006/039401 which discloses a system, a method, and a non-transitory computer readable medium for managing maintenance agreements, warrantees, service contracts, and maintenance agreement data, comprising:
a computer with a processor and a memory storing instructions configured to perform the steps of:
identifying one or more devices;
providing/displaying, via a user interface, a list of the one or more devices;
providing/displaying, via the user interface, one or more filter options to the user;
receiving a filter request to filter the list based on the one or more filter options;
providing/displaying a portion of the list limited to a subset of the one or more devices, the subset corresponding to the request to filter the list;
providing/displaying, via the user interface, a respective maintenance agreement status associated with each device of the subset of the one or more devices, the respective maintenance agreement status being based on the maintenance agreement information retrieved from a database and on whether a respective device of the one or more devices is associated with a maintenance agreement; and
providing/displaying, via the user interface, analytic data associated with at least three classification including a first classification of devices covered by a maintenance agreement expiring in a predetermined number of days or more, a second classification of devices covered by a maintenance agreement expiring in less than the predetermined number of days, and a third classification of devices not covered by an active maintenance agreement,
wherein the analytic data is displayed using at least a graph, wherein the graph illustrates a visual representation for each of the three classifications displaying a relative percentage of devices covered by the respective classification, and wherein the graph comprises an area assigned to each of the three classifications and displays a numeric representation of the respective percentage corresponding to the respective classification.
However, the combination of Trandal and Gayle do not disclose that the displaying of the numeric representation of the respective percentage corresponding to the respective classification is performed when a user selects the area of the graph.
The examiner has also found prior art (see Potter et al.: 12,373,898) which discloses when a user selects an area of the graph, displaying a numeric representation of the respective percentage corresponding to the respective classification. Thus, the examiner has found prior art which teaches each and every limitation of the claims.
However, the examiner has determined that it would not have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine Trandal, Gayle, and Potter to arrive at the clamed invention without the use of impermissible hindsight by using the applicant’s claims as a roadmap. Combining these three references would require modifying the Gayle reference using the Potter reference, and then modifying the Trandal reference using the combined reference of Gayle and Potter. Since, arriving at the applicant’s invention would require a modification of a secondary reference, rather than a modification to the primary reference, the obviousness of such a combination becomes suspect. Thus, it is more likely than not, that the combination of Trandal, Gayle, and Potter would require impermissible hindsight reasoning instead of such a combination being obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art.
As such, claims 1-2, 7-9, 14-19, and 21-29 contain subject matter that would be allowable over the prior art if the applicant were to be able to overcome the 35 USC 101 rejections above.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed May 7, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
The applicant’s arguments with respect to the Claim Objections, 112(a) rejections, and 112(b) rejections are moot as the claim amendment has overcome these issues as indicated in the rejection above.
The applicant argues, with respect to the 101 rejections, that the claims overcome the 35 USC 101 rejection under Step 2a, Prong 1 because the claims do not recite a judicial exception. The examiner strongly disagrees. As indicated in the rejection above, the claims clearly recite an abstract idea which falls within the “Certain Methods of Organizing” grouping of abstract ideas namely commercial or legal interactions and/or business relations because they recite the managing of agreements, contracts, and/or warrantees. The applicant’s remarks alleges that the claims do not fall within the mental process category of abstract idea as alleged by the office. However, the examiner has never provided any indication that the claims recited a mental process. Thus, the examiner is unsure where the applicant got such an idea. The examiner has only ever indicated that the claims fall within the “Certain Methods of Organizing” grouping of abstract ideas. Thus, the argument is not convincing and the rejections have been maintained.
The applicant argues, with respect to the 101 rejections, that the claims overcome the 35 USC 101 rejection under Step 2a, Prong 1 because they do not recite a “Certain Methods of Organizing” such as commercial or legal interactions and/or business relations because they are not directed to the managing of agreements, contracts, and/or warrantees. The applicant then asserts that the tracking of warranties and service agreements between the user and one or more vendor is not the managing of agreements, contracts, and/or warrantees because the claims are not directed to creating, modifying, or otherwise managing such warrantees an/or service agreements. This argument is not convincing. The tracking of warrantees and service agreements is managing of said warrantees and service agreements. One need not create or modify such warrantees and service agreements in order to manage them. Likewise, whether the user or the vendor is performing such management functions is irrelevant. Irrespective of who is performing such management functions, they are still commercial or legal interactions and/or business relations because they recite the managing of agreements, contracts, and/or warrantees. The purpose of such management might be different because a user may do it to determine when and/if they should purchase a contract extension or extended warrantee or just purchase a new device, whereas a vendor might to it to determine when to approach a user about purchasing a contract extension or new device. In both cases the managing of the agreements, contracts, and/or warrantees is still occurring. As such, in both cases, the claims fall within the does not change the fact that the claims are indeed reciting an abstract idea that falls within the “Certain Methods of Organizing” grouping of abstract ideas namely commercial or legal interactions and/or business relations. The cases the applicant refers to are examples of cases the courts have decided fall within the “Certain Methods of Organizing” grouping of abstract ideas and/or the commercial or legal interactions and/or business relations subgrouping. They are not intended to be an exhaustive list of the only types of such an abstract idea. Therefore, the fact that the claims are not able to be mapped directly to the claims of previous court decisions is not a convincing argument. Instead, they are meant to be examples of claims that fall within the category. In the instant case, managing agreements, contracts, and/or warrantees has been properly categorized falling within the subcategory of commercial or legal interactions and/or business relations subgrouping As such, the applicant’s arguments are not convincing and the rejections have been maintained.
The applicant argues, with respect to the 101 rejections, that the claims overcome the 35 USC 101 rejection under Step 2a, Prong 2 because the claim as a whole integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. The examiner disagrees. The applicant appears to be misconstruing either the August Memorandum or the 101 rejections detailed by the examiner. First, absolutely nothing in the August Memorandum changed the way the office analyses claims. Instead, it was merely a reminder of the requirement laid out in MPEP 2106. As clearly indicated in MPEP 2106, the judicial exception alone cannot provide the improvement and an improvement in the abstract idea itself is not an improvement in technology (see MPEP 2106.05(a) - “It is important to note, the judicial exception alone cannot provide the improvement”; and MPEP 2106.05(a)(II) - “However, 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”). As such, in the instant case, the claims when considered as a whole recite merely applying the abstract idea using a general-purpose computer with generic computer components as a tool which is insufficient to transform an abstract idea into a practical application under Step 2a, Prong 2 and/or insufficient to be considered significantly more under Step 2b. Any purported improvement obtained by practicing the claimed invention is rooted solely in the abstract idea itself which is applied using the “additional elements” of the claims as a tool. According to the cited sections of MPEP 2106 above, such improvements cannot be considered to be improvements to technology and, as such, do not overcome the 101 rejections. As such, the claims can only be considered to be taking an abstract idea claiming to “apply it” using the “additional elements” of the claim as a tool. If any improvement is realized by practicing the claimed invention, such an improvement is an improvement to an abstract idea which is an improvement in ineligible subject matter (see MPEP 2106.05(a) - “It is important to note, the judicial exception alone cannot provide the improvement”; and MPEP 2106.05(a)(II) - “However, 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”; and the SAP v Investpic decision - Page 2, line 22 through Page 3, line 13 - Even assuming that the algorithms claimed are groundbreaking, innovative or even brilliant, the claims are ineligible because their innovation is an innovation in ineligible subject matter because they are nothing but a series of mathematical algorithms based on selected information and the presentation of the results of those algorithms. Thus, the advance lies entirely in the realm of abstract ideas, with no plausible alleged innovation in the non-abstract application realm. An advance of this nature is ineligible for patenting; and Page 10, lines 18-24 - Even if a process of collecting and analyzing information is limited to particular content, or a particular source, that limitations does not make the collection and analysis other than abstract.). Therefore, the claims cannot be said to recite an improvement to the function of a computer or an improvement to other technology or technical field. The computer remains unchanged when it executes software to perform the abstract idea so it is not improved in any way. The user interface is a generic user interface with generic functionality for displaying data and receiving user input so it cannot be said to be an improved user interface. The claims do not recite an improvement to technology because an improvement to an abstract idea is not an improvement in technology. Thus, the applicant’s arguments are not convincing and the rejections have been maintained.
The applicant argues, with respect to the 101 rejections, that the claims overcome the 35 USC 101 rejection under Step 2a, Prong 2 because the claims are similar to the claims in abstract idea example 37. The examiner disagrees. The instant claims bear no similarity to the claims of abstract idea example 37. In abstract idea example 37, the claims recites a specific graphical user interface, where a user could move the icons to the part of the GUI the desired them to be placed; tracked the amount of time each of the icons presented on the user interface were interacted; and then automatically rearranged the icons within the graphical user based on this tracked information. This was found to be an improved graphical user interface that did not operate in the manner of traditional graphical user interfaces because such interfaces did have mechanisms for rearranging icons, but not were able to do so using tracked interaction data. In contrast, the claims of the instant invention recite a graph that provides interactivity using tooltips. Such interactive graphs were not invented by the applicant and said functionality is how traditional interactive graphs operate. Such interactive graphs can display any type of data that a user which to associated with the function. Thus, the type of data displayed when such traditional functionality is invoked is not a function of the user interface, but is instead a function of the type of data someone stores in association with functionality. This is not an improved graphical user interface. Instead, it is a traditional graphical user interface being used as a tool to merely apply an abstract idea. Thus, it is clear that the instant claims bear no similarity to the claim of abstract idea example 37. As such, the applicant’s arguments are not convincing and the rejections have been maintained.
The applicant argues, with respect to the 101 rejections, that the claims overcome the 35 USC 101 rejection under Step 2a, Prong 2 because the dependent claims reflect other limitations reflecting technical improvements such as a computer that allows data to be uploaded and then stores data. The examiner disagrees. First none of the claims recite uploading data. Instead, they recite receiving a request to store data, wherein the request includes the data. This is merely receiving data, wherein the data includes additional data; and then merely storing such data. Thus, such steps are part of the abstract idea itself. Such steps, when merely applied using a general-purpose computer as a tool, cannot be considered technical improvement. Instead, they can merely be considered an improvement to an abstract idea which is an improvement in ineligible subject matter. The applicant asserts that these “user interfaces” including the ability of such interfaces to display different types of data, and including a graph that can be interact with are clearly a practical application. The examiner disagrees. First, there is only one user interface claimed so the examiner is unsure what the applicant might mean by these user interfaces. Second, while it is true that a user interface that displays data and includes a graph that may be interacted with is a practical application, it is nothing more than a generic interactive user interface which displays data and accepts user input using traditional user interface functionality. As such, the user interface and its functionality do not result in an improved graphical user interface. The type of data displayed is part of the abstract idea itself. Thus, the interface need only display data to operate as claimed. Likewise, the interactive functions of the graph are traditional interactive functions of graphs and therefore not improvements to the user interface. Thus, there is no improvement to the graphical user interface itself which means that the user interface is merely a generic computer element being used as a tool. Improvements of this nature are improvements to an abstract idea which are improvements in ineligible subject matter. In order to overcome a 101 rejection under Step 2a, Prong 2 and/or Step 2b, any purported improvement must be rooted in the additional elments of a claim in a manner other than merely applying an abstract idea using the “additional elements” as a tool. As such, the applicant’s arguments are not convincing and the rejections have been maintained.
The applicant argues, with respect to the 101 rejections, that the August Memorandum reminds examiners that if it is a close call as to whether a claim is eligible then the rejection should not be made/maintained. This is true, the August Memorandum did remind examiners of this. However, given the detailed analysis performed by the examiner it is clear that the instant claims absolutely recite an abstract idea under Step 2a, Prong 1; clearly recite merely applying said abstract idea using the “additional elements” as a tool; and do not recite any improvements that are rooted in the “additional elements” of the claim. As such, the instant claims are incapable of transforming the abstract idea into a practical application under Step 2a, Prong 2 and are incapable of being considered significantly more under Step 2b. Thus, the instant claims are not a close call as to whether the claims are eligible and the rejections have been maintained.
The applicant’s arguments with regards to the 102/103 rejections are moot as the claim amendments have overcome the prior art rejections.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
Cotton (PGPUB: 2015/0026074) which discloses a warranty application that identifies one or more devices; associating the one or more devices with a warranty, storing the device and warranty information; tracking warranty expiration dates; and an alert system that notifies the user of forthcoming warranty expiration, wherein the alerts are provided based on predefined notification dates such as 90 days before the expiration dates. Additionally, the user is able to manually enter the warranty expiration dates for each warranted product if said data is not received from the warrantor.
Chang et al. (PGPUB: 2014/0136380) which discloses a cloud management method of electronic devices to achieve the effects of reminding warranty expiration by obtaining data identifying one or more devices; obtaining a manufacturer and warranty expiration date of the device, storing them in an account; reminding the user that a warranty expiration date is due in a predetermined time ahead of the warranty expiration date; and querying the user for extending the warranty expiration date.
Tennur Narayana et al. (PGPUB: 2021/0398187) which disclose identifying one or more devices; identifying a warranty associated with the one or more devices; receiving usage data from the one or more devices device; determining a usage profile of the device; and predicting a component of the device is likely to fail and at what time; if the component is expected to fail after the current warranty expires, performing a cost/benefit analysis and depending on the outcome of the analysis recommending the user purchase an extended warranty that extends the end date of the current warranty.
Wyne, M.F. et al, (I-Tracker: Warranty Tracking, June 2020, In 2020 ASEE Virtual Annual Conference Content Access, pages 1-10) which discloses a web application for user’s to track warranties on products they purchase, wherein the dashboard presents color-coded boxes, which correspond to the amount of time the user has remaining on the warranties they have submitted to the web application, as well as, a table that identifies products by name, their associated warranty number, the status of each warranty, the expiration date of each warranty, and the company, wherein users can input warranty information and view details of warranties.
expirationreminder (Expiration Date Tracking, October 6, 2024, https://web. archive.org/web/20241006203551/https://www.expirationreminder.com/features/renewal-date-tracking, pages 1-8) which discloses a dashboard that includes the count of each tracked item that is up-to-date, near expiry, and expired as well as a graphical representation of each of these statuses as a relative percentages of tracked items.
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 JOHN W VAN BRAMER whose telephone number is (571)272-8198. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday 5:30 am - 4 pm EST.
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, Spar Ilana can be reached at 571-270-7537. 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.
/John Van Bramer/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3622
Prosecution Insights