Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Status of the Claims
Claims 1-20 are pending. Claims 1 and 16 are amended.
Response to Arguments
Applicants’ arguments, filed 07/23/2026, with respect to the 101 rejection have been considered but are not persuasive.
Applicant argues, on 10-12, that the claims do not recite an abstract idea. Applicant argues that the recites describes machine operations on electronic records ( connecting to servers, comparing stored exclusion lists to compute set differences, and reassigning status fields in a database), not the economic, commercial, legal, or interpersonal activities that define the "certain methods of organizing human activity" grouping.
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 determining and communicating statuses of devices within an organization and managing exclusion lists. The generic computer implementations (see below) do not change the character of the limitations. Accordingly, the claims recite an abstract idea.
Applicant argues, on pages 12-14, that the claims integrate any recited exception into a practical application. Applicant argues that the specification identifies a concrete technical problem of it being difficult to track physical locations and statuses when dealing with thousands of devices. Applicant argues that the claimed arrangement yields technical benefits.
Examiner respectfully disagrees. As discussed above, the claims recite an abstract idea and the additional elements (electronic devices, computer components, database, module, server, etc) are recited at a high-level of generality such that they amount to no more than generally linking the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use. When viewed individually and in combination, do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. These elements are recited at a high level of generality and they are not providing an improvement to technology or a technical field. 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, the alleged solution to keeping track of thousands of devices is an improvement to a business practice and not an improvement to a technology or technical field. Therefore, the claims are ineligible.
Applicant argues, on pages 15-17, that the specific ordered combination of elements recited in claims 1 and 16 supplies an inventive concept that is significantly more than the abstract idea. Applicant argues that the analysis does not consider the additional elements in combination under step 2B and that the rejection does not cite to Berkheimer.
Examiner respectfully disagrees. As discussed above with respect to Step 2A Prong Two, the additional elements, amount to no more than generally linking the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use. The same analysis applies in 2B. Examiner has re-examined the additional elements, and when considered separately and in combination, they do not add significantly more to the exception. They are generally linking the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use and cannot integrate a judicial exception into a practical application at Step 2A or provide an inventive concept in Step 2B. The claims are ineligible. With respect to Berkheimer, At Step 2A Prong Two or Step 2B, there is no requirement for evidence to support a finding that the exception is not integrated into a practical application or that the additional elements do not amount to significantly more than the exception unless the examiner asserts that additional limitations are well-understood, routine, conventional activities in Step 2B.
Novelty/Non-Obviousness
The closest prior art of record is included in the previous office action mailed on 07/15/2026. The claims would be considered allowable if rewritten or amended to overcome the rejections in this Office Action.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1
Claims 1-15 are directed to a series of steps, and therefore is a process.
Claims 16-20 is 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 selecting … devices for which statuses are to be determined, the determination being for multiple ... devices each capable of having one of multiple statuses, the method comprising:
obtaining, …, client device information that includes a current device exclusion list having a list of a first plurality of ... devices that are to be excluded from …provided to a client, wherein the obtaining of the client device information comprises:
establishing an … connection with …
requesting, via … communication, access to the client device information;
gaining access, in response to the request, to the client device information;
accessing,…, a previous device exclusion list with the previous device exclusion list having a list of a second plurality of ... devices that were excluded from … previously provided to the client;
comparing,…, the current device exclusion list to the previous device exclusion list to identify a third plurality of ... devices that are listed in the current device exclusion list and are not listed in the previous device exclusion list and a fourth plurality of ... devices that are listed in the previous device exclusion list and are not listed in the current device exclusion list;
for each ... device of the third plurality of ... devices:
excluding,…, each ... device from future determinations of the status of the ... device and from …; and
reassigning,…, a current status listed in … to be indicated as a previous status as listed in the … for each ... device; and for each ... device of the fourth plurality of ... devices:
including,…, each ... device in the …; and
reassigning,…, the previous status listed in the … to be indicated as the current status as listed in the … for each ... device
wherein the comparing, the excluding, the reassigning, and the including are performed automatically by … concurrently for the multiple … .
The limitation of Claim 16 recites:
A system for selecting ... devices for which statuses are to be determined, the determination being for multiple ... devices each capable of having one of multiple statuses, the system comprising:
… having client device information that includes a current device exclusion list having a list of a first plurality of ... devices that are to be excluded from … provided to a client;
a previous device exclusion list having a list of a second plurality of ... devices that were previously excluded from the … previously provided to the client;
…
obtain the current device exclusion list from … by:
establishing an … connection with …;
requesting, …, access to the client device information; and
gaining access, in response to the request, to the client device information;
compare the current device exclusion list to the previous device exclusion list to identify a third plurality of ... devices that are listed in the current device exclusion list and are not listed in the previous device exclusion list and a fourth plurality of ... devices that are listed in the previous device exclusion list and are not listed in the current device exclusion list; and
… within which a current status for each ... device of the third plurality of ... devices as listed in the … is reassigned to be indicated as a previous status and within which the previous status for each ... device of the fourth plurality of ... devices as listed … is reassigned to be indicated as the current status,
wherein, for each ... device of the third plurality of ... devices, … is configured to exclude each ... device from future determinations of the status of the ... device and from … such that the future determination of the status are performed only for … that are not listed in the current device exclusion list,
wherein, for each ... device of the fourth plurality of ... devices, … is configured to include each ... device in future determinations of the status of each ... device and include each ... device in the … , and
wherein …to perform the comparison, the exclusion, the inclusion, and the reassignment of statuses automatically and concurrently for the multiple ….
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 determining and communicating statuses of devices within an organization and managing exclusion lists. The generic computer implementations (see below) do not change the character of the limitations. Accordingly, the claims recite an abstract idea.
Step 2A Prong Two
The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claims recite the following additional elements:
Claim 1:
Electronic device
Computer processor of a device tracking system
Client distributed server system
One or more servers
Device status database
Electronic connection
Device tracking database
Claim 13:
Electronic device
Client distributed server system
One or more servers
Device status database
Electronic connection
Device tracking database
an exclusion and device existence (EAE) module in electronic communication with the client distributed server system and the previous device exclusion list and including at least one computer processor, the EAE module being configured to:
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 2-15 and 17-20 further narrow the same abstract ideas recited in Claims 1 and 13. Therefore, claims 2-15 and 17-20 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:
Claims 3
Storage media
Claims 4
Storage media
Claims 17
Communication module
Claims 18
Storage media
These additional elements are recited at a high-level of generality such that they amount to no more than generally linking the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use. Accordingly, the additional elements, when viewed individually and in combination, do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claims do not amount to more than generally linking the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use (see MPEP 2106.05(h)). Therefore, the claims recite an abstract idea.
Step 2B
As discussed above with respect to Step 2A Prong Two, the additional elements, amount to no more than generally linking the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use. The same analysis applies here in 2B. The additional elements, when considered separately and in combination, do not add significantly more to the exception. They are generally linking the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use and cannot integrate a judicial exception into a practical application at Step 2A or provide an inventive concept in Step 2B. The claims are ineligible.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ISMAIL A MANEJWALA whose telephone number is (571)272-8904. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8-5.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Nathan Uber can be reached on 571-270-3923. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/ISMAIL A MANEJWALA/Examiner, Art Unit 3628
Prosecution Insights