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 1-5, 8-18, and 20-22 are pending. Claims 6-7 and 19 are cancelled. Claims 1, 4-5, 8, 10, 16, 22 are amended.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, filed 06/26/2026, with respect to the 101 rejection has been considered but is not persuasive.
Applicant argues, on pages 12-13, that the independent claims have been amended to emphasize that the claims are technological improvement to the device tracking database itself. Applicant argues that the claims recite a specific multi step automated data integrity verification process.
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 items and determining a status of the device based on a measurement of dates from when they are shipped between different parties (see specification, par. 0003). The additional elements (computer elements, electronics devices, tracking database, inventory module, etc) are recited at a high-level of generality such that they amount to no more than generally linking the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use. Accordingly, the additional elements, when viewed individually and in combination, do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claims do not amount to more than generally linking the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use. As discussed with respect to Step 2A Prong Two, the additional elements, amount to no more than generally linking the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use. The same analysis applies in 2B. The additional elements, when considered separately and in combination, do not add significantly more to the exception. They are generally linking the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use and cannot integrate a judicial exception into a practical application at Step 2A or provide an inventive concept in Step 2B. Therefore, the claims are ineligible.
Applicant argues, on pages 13-17, that even if the claims recite an abstract idea, the claims integrate any alleged abstract idea into a practical application. Applicants argue that the claims are similar to eligible claims in examples 42, 36 and 40. Applicant argues that unlike trading tech, the claims recite an automated safeguard mechanism that operates to automatically prevent inaccurate data from corrupting the database by comparing status changes and taking automated corrective actions.
Examiner respectfully disagrees. The eligible examples mentioned are providing an improvement to a technology or technical field. As mentioned above, the additional elements do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application and they do not provide an improvement to a technology or technical fiel. 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 improvement to the “database system itself” (arguments, page 17) is actually to the prevention of receiving inaccurate information to a client which is part of the business practice of managing the devices and not a computer or technology/technological field. Therefore, the claims are considered ineligible.
Applicant argues, on pages, 17-18, that the step 2B analysis is flawed because it improperly limits its consideration to isolated generic hardware components without properly considering the additional elements as an ordered combination.
Examiner respectfully disagrees. As mentioned 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. Therefore, the claims are ineligible.
Novelty/Non-Obviousness
The closest prior art of record is included in the previous office action mailed on 07/29/2025. The claims would be considered allowable if re-written 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 1-5, 8-18, and 20-22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1
Claims 1-5, 8-15 and 21 are directed to a series of steps, and therefore is a process.
Claims 16-18, 20 and 22 are directed to a system with multiple components, and therefore is a machine
Independent Claims
Step 2A Prong One
The limitation of Claim 1 recites:
A method of maintaining integrity …. ensuring and confirming an accuracy of a current status … regarding an activity of each electronic device of multiple ... (devices) with each ... (device) being capable of having one of multiple statuses indicative of the activity of the corresponding ... (device), the method comprising:
obtaining inventory information via … communication, the inventory information including shipping details regarding the … (devices);
automatically, in response to gaining access to the inventory information, and concurrently, for all ... (devices) in which relevant shipping details are obtained, comparing, …, a first shipped date in the shipping details representative of a date on which the respective ... (device) was shipped to a client to a current date in order to determine a first difference of time and comparing the first difference of time to a first threshold amount of time;
automatically, in response to gaining access to the inventory information, and concurrently, for all ... (devices) in which relevant shipping details are obtained, comparing, …, a second shipped date in the shipping details representative of a date on which the respective ... (device) was shipped to a disposal vendor to a current date in order to determine a second difference of time and comparing the second difference of time to a second threshold amount of time;
automatically, in response to at least one of the first difference of time shipping date being less than the first threshold amount of time and the second difference of time shipping date being less than the second threshold amount of time, accessing … that includes a current status representative of the activity of the … (device) for each of the respective ... (devices);
automatically and concurrently, … for all … (devices) for which at least one of the first difference of time is less than the first threshold amount of time and the second difference of time is less than the second threshold amount of time, determining the accuracy of the current status and the shipping details regarding the respective … (device) by:
identifying the current status of the respective ... (device) as indicated …;
determining a prospective status of the respective … (device) from the shipping details;
identifying a prospective status change from the current status to the prospective status of the respective … (device);
comparing the prospective status change to methodology that includes allowable status changes, unusual status changes, and prohibited status changes;
in response to the current status indicating that the activity of the ... (device) is one of in transit to the client and in use by the client, confirming the accuracy of the current status and the shipping details by determining that no status change is occurring for the respective ... (device);
in response to the current status indicating that the activity of the ... (device) is one of retired, missing, and being returned from the client, noting an inaccuracy of at least one of the current status and the shipping details of the respective … device by determining that the prospective status change is one of an unusual status change and a prohibited status change; and
in response to the current status indicating that the activity of the … (device) is not one of in transit to the client, in use by the client, retired, missing, and being returned from the client, confirming the accuracy of the shipping details by determining that the prospective status change is an allowable status change, identifying whether the inventory information indicates that the … (device) was shipped to the disposal vendor or to the client, and
in response to the inventory information indicating that the … (device) was shipped to the disposal vendor, ensuring the current status for the respective … (device) as set out in the device tracking database is correct by indicating that the current status of the … (device) is now pending disposal; and
in response to the inventory information indicating that the ... (device) was shipped to the client, automatically updating, …, the current status for the respective ... (device) as set out in the … to indicate that the ... (device) is in transit to the client.
The limitation of Claim 16 recites:
access the inventory information via … communication …;
automatically, in response to accessing the inventory information, and concurrently, for all ... (devices) in which relevant shipping details are obtained, compare at least one of a first shipped date in the shipping details representative of a date on which the respective ... (device) was shipped to a client to a current date in order to determine a first difference of time and compare the first difference of time to a first threshold amount of time and a second shipped date in the shipping details representative of a date on which the respective ... (device) was shipped to a disposal vendor to a current date in order to determine a second difference of time and compare the second difference of time to a second threshold amount of time;
concurrently determine, … and for all ... (devices) for which at least one of the first difference of time is less than the first threshold amount of time and the second difference of time is less than the second threshold amount of time, the accuracy of the current status and the shipping details regarding the respective ... (device);
identifying the current status of the respective … (device) as indicated …;
determining a prospective status of the respective … (device) from the shipping details;
identifying a prospective status change from the current status to the prospective status of the respective … (device);
comparing the prospective status change to methodology that includes allowable status changes, unusual status changes, and prohibited status changes;
in response to the current status indicating that the activity of the ... (device) is one of in transit to the client and in use by the client, confirming the accuracy of the current status and the shipping details by determining that no status change is occurring for the respective ... (device);
in response to the current status indicating that the activity of ... (device) is one of retired, missing, and being returned from the client, noting an inaccuracy of at least one of the current status and the shipping details of the respective …(device) by determining that the prospective status change is one of an unusual status change and a prohibited status change; and
in response to the current status indicating that the activity of the … (device) is not one of in transit to the client, in use by the client, retired, missing, and being returned from the client, confirming the accuracy of the shipping details by determining that the prospective status change is an allowable status change, identifying whether the inventory information indicates that the … (device) was shipped to the disposal vendor or to the client, and
in response to the inventory information indicating that the … (device) was shipped to the disposal vendor, ensuring the current status for the respective …(device) as set out … is correct by indicating that the … (device) is pending disposal; and
in response to the inventory information indicating that the … (device) was shipped to the client, ensuring the current status for the respective … (device) as set out … is correct by indicating that the …(device) is in transit to the client.
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 items and determining a status of the device based on a measurement of dates from when they are shipped between different parties. 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:
first storage media
Electronic devices
Electronic communication
a computer processor via execution of computer-readable memory encoded with instructions
device tracking database
Claim 16:
A system for maintaining data integrity of a device tracking database by ensuring and confirming an accuracy of a current status stored in the device tracking database regarding an activity of each electronic device of multiple electronic devices with each electronic device being capable of having one of multiple statuses indicative of the activity of the corresponding electronic device, the system comprising:
a device provider server system having inventory information that includes shipping details regarding the electronic devices;
a device tracking database that includes a current status for each of the electronic devices; and
a shipped-in-inventory module in electronic communication with the device provider server system and the device tracking database and including at least one computer processor configured to, via execution of computer-readable memory encoded with instructions:
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 2-5 and 8-15 and 17-18 and 20-22 further narrow the same abstract ideas recited in Claim 1 and claim 16, respectively. Therefore, claims 2-5 and 8-15 and 17-18 and 20-22 are directed to an abstract idea for the reasons given above.
Step 2A Prong Two
The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the dependent claims recite the following additional elements:
claim 4
second storage media
Claims 18
Communications module
Claim 21
automatically establishing an electronic connection with one or more servers of a device provider server system
establishing the electronic connection and via execution, by a processor, of computer-readable memory encoded with instructions
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/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3628
Prosecution Insights