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 .
DETAILED ACTION
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(B) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor, or for pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
Claim 1 recites
in response to the disposal details being present in the device details for the electronic device in the device tracking database, taking no further action regarding the current status of the electronic device and regarding updating the device details;
in response to the device details including at least a portion of the disposal details for the electronic device in the device tracking database, identifying the current status of the respective electronic device in the device tracking database and;…
The first in response clause appears to recite a condition where the disposal details are present in the device details, and the second in response clause appears to recite a condition where at least a portion of the disposal details are in the device details. As written both the second clause and the first clause could be triggered (e.g., when the disposal details are present in the device details, necessarily a portion of the disposal details are present in the device details). As written, the two clauses also appear to taken mutually exclusive paths. (e.g., the first in response clause takes no further action, but the second in response clause recites extensive further processing).
In addition claim 1 further recites,
in response to the current status of the electronic device in the device tracking database indicating that the electronic device is retired …
in response to the current status of the electronic device in the device tracking database indicating that the electronic device is not retired…
These two in response clauses operate on the same electronic device but have mutually exclusive conditions. That is, the one electronic device could not exist in both states.
In addition claim 1 further recites,
in response to the disposal details including at least one of the indication
that the electronic device was disposed and the indication that the
electronic device was sold, …
in response to the disposal details not including at least one of the indication
that the electronic device was disposed and the indication that the
electronic device was sold,…
These two in response clauses operate on the same electronic device but also have mutually exclusive conditions. That is, the one electronic device could not exist in both states.
In addition claim 1 further recites,
in response to the current status indicating that the electronic device
is pending disposal, …
in response to the current status not indicating that the electronic
device is pending disposal,…
These two in response clauses operate on the same electronic device but also have mutually exclusive conditions. That is, the one electronic device could not exist in both states.
Further clarification is required.
Claim 1 is rejected for the reasons above. Claim 15,16 have similar limitations to claim 1 and are rejected for the same reasons. The dependent claims are rejected for the same reasons.
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 a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more. Regarding independent claims 1, 15 (note Claims 15, 16 and 17 appear to recite the limitations of claim 1) the claimed invention recites an abstract idea without significantly more. The claims recites the abstract idea of managing inventory which is a mental process. Other than reciting a processor, database, modules nothing in the claims precludes the steps from being performed mentally. But for the processor, database, modules the limitations on
obtaining disposal details via electronic communication, the disposal details having at least one of the following: a disposal date representative of a date on which the respective electronic device was disposed, a signal that the respective electronic device has a corresponding certificate, an indication that the respective electronic device was disposed, and an indication that the electronic device was sold;
accessing … that includes device details and a current status for each of the electronic devices for which disposal details are obtained;
concurrently comparing, … via execution of computer-readable memory encoded with instructions and for all electronic devices for which disposal details are obtained, the disposal details for the electronic device to the corresponding device details …;
in response to the disposal details being present in the device details for the electronic device …, taking no further action regarding the current status of the electronic device and regarding updating the device details;
in response to the device details including at least a portion of the disposal details for the electronic device …, identifying the current status of the respective electronic … and;
in response to the current status of the electronic device … indicating that the electronic device is retired and the electronic device does not have a corresponding certificate, comparing the disposal date for the respective electronic device to a threshold amount of time and: in response to the disposal date being less than or equal to the threshold amount of time, updating the device details in the device tracking database to include at least a portion of the disposal details; and
in response to the disposal date being greater than the threshold amount of time, generating an alert;
in response to the current status of the electronic device … indicating that the electronic device is not retired, identifying whether the disposal details include either the indication that the electronic device was disposed or the indication that the electronic device was sold and;
in response to the disposal details including at least one of the indication that the electronic device was disposed and the indication that the electronic device was sold, updating the current status for the electronic device … to reflect the indication for the respective electronic device as set out in the disposal details;
in response to the disposal details not including at least one of the indication that the electronic device was disposed and the indication that the electronic device was sold, determining whether the current status of the electronic device … indicates that the electronic device is pending disposal such that:
in response to the current status indicating that the electronic device is pending disposal, updating the device details .. to include at least a portion of the disposal details; and
in response to the current status not indicating that the electronic device is pending disposal, updating the current status … to indicate that the electronic device is pending
is a process that under its broadest reasonable interpretation could be performed by mentally but for the recitation of generic computer elements. If claim limitations, under the broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Further the above limitations related to managing inventory stripped of the identified additional and insignificant elements could also be considered a “Method of Organizing Human Activity” relating to the managing human behavior and interactions. (fundamental economic practice) Thus, the claims recite an abstract idea.
The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. The computers are recited at a high-level of generality such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components. The additional element(s) does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. Simply implementing the abstract idea on a generic computer environment is not a practical application of the abstract idea and does not take the claim out of the mental process or method of organizing human activity grouping.
The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above, with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional element of a processor, database, modules amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer components. Mere instructions to apply an exception using generic computer components cannot provide an inventive concept Collecting, analyzing and displaying information, and receiving and transmitting over a network are conventional in the computing arts. (MPEP 2106.05h; See also MPEP 2106.05, Alice v. CLS, “. Nearly every computer will include a ‘communications controller’ and ‘data storage unit’ capable of performing the basic calculation, storage, and transmission functions required by the method claims.”). The claims are not patent eligible.
Regarding dependent claims, these claims are directed to limitations which serve to limit the inventory management steps. The subject matter of claims 2 (update disposal sold details), 3 (updating disposal details when not pending disposal), 4 (updating disposal details automatically), 5 (obtaining disposal details on a schedule), 6 (requesting disposal details from a vendor and receiving response), 7 (threshold time is 7 days), 8 (disposal details include certificate), 9 (saving certificate), 10 (signal saved certificate), 11 (signal includes storage location), 12 (alert certificate not provided), 13 (status is in stock pending disposal), 14 (status is retired disposed), 18 (provide status information to client), 19 (obtain and use disposal details from vendor), 20 (communicate with vendor to request and receive disposal details) appear to add additional steps to the abstract idea, implemented by generic computers. These claims neither introduce a new abstract idea nor additional limitations which are significantly more than an abstract idea. They provide descriptive details that offer helpful context, but have no impact on statutory subject matter eligibility.
Therefore the limitations on the invention, when viewed individually and in ordered combination are directed to in-eligible subject matter.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ALLEN C CHEIN whose telephone number is (571)270-7985. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8am -5pm.
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, Florian Zeender can be reached at (571) 272-6790. 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.
/ALLEN C CHEIN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3627
Prosecution Insights