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, 6, 13-14, 16, 18 and 19 are amended.
Response to Arguments
Applicants’ arguments, filed 07/23/2026, with respect to the 112f claim interpretation has been considered and is persuasive. Examiner has withdrawn the interpretation.
Applicants’ arguments, filed 07/23/2026, with respect to the 101 rejection have been considered but are not persuasive.
Applicant argues, on pages 11-13 that amended claims 1 and 13 do not recite a certain method of organizing human activity. Applicant argues that the claim recites a computer processors that reconciles machine generated device status records.
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. 0002). Examiner notes that the computer processor does not preclude the claims from reciting an abstract idea. 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. It is noted that the number of people involved in the activity is not dispositive as to whether a claim limitation falls within this grouping. Instead, the determination should be based on whether the activity itself falls within one of the sub-groupings. (See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)).
Applicant argues, on pages 13-15, that even if claim 1 recites a judicial exception, the claim as a whole integrates any such exception into a practical application. Applicant argues that the claims recite a specific technological improvement to accuracy and integrity of a device tracking database. Applicant argues that there is a technological improvement to a device tracking system ensuring database currency and accuracy.
Examiner respectfully disagrees. As discussed above, the claims recite an abstract idea and the additional elements (electronic devices, computer components, database, 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. With respect to 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 improvement is to information accuracy being provided to a client and updating statuses quickly is an improvement to the business process of managing of devices and not to a technology or technical field. Therefore, the claims are ineligible.
Applicant argues, on pages 15-18, that under step 2b the ordered combination amounts to significantly more. Applicant argues that the office action dismisses the additional elements recited in other claims and makes not factual findings and cites no evidence. Applicant argues Berkehimer compliant evidentiary support.
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 06/17/2026. 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 1-12 are directed to a series of steps, and therefore is a process.
Claims 13-20 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 determining a status for … devices with each … device being capable of having one of multiple statuses, the method comprising:
obtaining, …, first client device information that includes an indication that the … device is one of lost and stolen for each … device of a first plurality of … devices, wherein obtaining the first client device information comprises:
establishing an … connection …
requesting, …, access to the first client device information;
gaining access, in response to the request, to the first client device information that includes the indication for … the first plurality of … devices;
accessing a …that includes a second plurality of … devices for which each … device has a current status indicating that the … device is one of lost and stolen;
automatically comparing, …, the first plurality of … devices set out in the first client device information to the second plurality of electronic devices set out in … to identify:
a third plurality of … devices for which the indication for the … device in the first plurality of … devices is the same as the indication of the current status for the corresponding … device in the second plurality of … devices;
a fourth plurality of … devices for which the indication for the … device in the first plurality of … devices is different from the indication of the current status for the corresponding … device in the second plurality of … devices;
a fifth plurality of … devices for which each … device is present in the first plurality of … devices but is absent from the second plurality of … devices;
for each … device of the third plurality of … devices, taking no action regarding the current status for the … device in … such that the current status remains the indication for the corresponding … device in the second plurality of … devices;
for each … device of the fourth plurality of … devices, updating the current status for each … device in the … to the indication for the corresponding …. device in the first plurality of … devices;
for each … device of the fifth plurality of … devices, concurrently identifying the current status for each … device as set out in the … and:
in response to the current status in …. indicating that the … device is one of in stock and retired, generating a first alert indicating a possible error and taking no action to update the current status for the … device in the … such that the current status remains unchanged; and
in response to the current status in the ... indicating that the … device is not one of in stock and retired, updating the current status for the electronic device in the … to the indication for the corresponding … device in the first plurality of … devices wherein the automatically comparing and the taking no action, updating, and generating the first alert for the third, fourth, and fifth pluralities of electronic devices are performed … concurrently for the first plurality of … devices withing a specified period of time, such that the …is updated before the first client device information becomes outdated.
.
The limitation of Claim 13 recites:
A system for determining a status for ... devices with each ... device being capable of having one of multiple statuses, the system comprising:
… having first client device information that includes an indication that the ... device is one of lost and stolen for each ... device of a first plurality of ... devices;
a ... that includes a second plurality of ... devices for which each ... device has a current status indicating that the device is one of lost and stolen;
…:
obtain the first client device information…by:
establishing an ... communication …;
requesting, via ... communication, access to the first client device information; and
gaining access, in response to the request, to the first client device information;
automatically compare the first plurality of ... devices set out in the first client device information to the second plurality of ... devices set out in the ... to identify:
a third plurality of ... devices for which the indication for the ... device in the first plurality of ... devices is the same as the indication of the current status for the corresponding ... device in the second plurality of ... devices;
a fourth plurality of ... devices for which the indication for the ... device in the first plurality of ... devices is different from the indication of the current status for the corresponding ... device in the second plurality of ... devices;
a fifth plurality of ... devices for which each ... device is in the first plurality of ... devices but is absent from the second plurality of ... devices,
wherein, for each ... device of the third plurality of ... devices, the … takes no action regarding the current status for the ... device in the ... such that the current status remains the indication for the corresponding ... device in the second plurality of ... devices,
wherein, for each ... device of the fourth plurality of ... devices, the … updates the current status for each ... device in the ... to the indication for the corresponding ... device in the first plurality of ... devices,
wherein, for each ... device of the fifth plurality of ... devices, the … concurrently identifies the current status for each ... device as set out in the ... and:
in response to the current status in the ... indicating that the ... device is one of in stock and retired, generates a first alert, and
in response to the current status in the ... indicating that the ... device is not one of in stock and retired, updates the current status for the ... device in the ... to the indication for the corresponding ... device in the first plurality of ... devices wherein the … perform the comparing and the taking no action, updating, and generating the first alert for the third, fourth, and fifth pluralities of … devices automatically and concurrently for the first plurality of … devices within a specified period of time, such that the … is updated before the first client device information is outdated.
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. 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
Client distributed server system
one or more servers of the client distributed server system
Electronic connection
Electronic communication
Device tracking database
a computer processor and via execution of computer-readable memory encoded with instructions
client device
Claim 13:
Client distributed server system
one or more servers of the client distributed server system
Electronic device
Device tracking database
a computer processor electronic communication with the client distributed server system and the device tracking database
client device
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 and 14-20 further narrow the same abstract ideas recited in Claims 1 and 13. Therefore, claims 2-12 and 14-20 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 5
Client device database
Claims 6
Communication interface
Claims 8
Storage media
Claim 14:
Communication interface
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