DETAILED ACTION
Status of Claims
1. This office action is in response to application filed 9/9/2025.
2. Claims 1-18 are pending.
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 .
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 1-18
Claims 1-18 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.
Step 1: Claims 1-6 are directed to a system; claims 7-12 are directed to a method; claims 13-18 are directed to a non-transitory computer-readable medium – each of which is one of the statutory categories of inventions.
Step 2A: A claim is eligible at revised Step 2A unless it recites a judicial exception and the exception is not integrated into a practical application of the application.
Prong 1: Prong One of Step 2A evaluates whether the claim recites a judicial exception (an abstract idea enumerated in the 2019 PEG, a law of nature, or a natural phenomenon).
Groupings of Abstract Ideas:
I. MATHEMATICAL CONCEPTS
A. Mathematical Relationships
B. Mathematical Formulas or Equations
C. Mathematical Calculations
II. CERTAIN METHODS OF ORGANIZING HUMAN ACTIVITY
A. Fundamental Economic Practices or Principles (including hedging, insurance, mitigating risk)
B. Commercial or Legal Interactions (including agreements in the form of contracts; legal obligations; advertising, marketing or sales activities or behaviors; business relations)
C. Managing Personal Behavior or Relationships or Interactions between People (including social activities, teaching, and following rules or instructions)
III. MENTAL PROCESSES.
Concepts performed in the human mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion).
See MPEP 2106.04 (a) (2) Abstract Idea Groupings [R-10.2019]
The limitations recited in independent clams 1, 7 and 13 –
transmitting, by a [server], a first instruction to a controller of a [lift device] to disable a functionality of the lift device, wherein the functionality of the lift device is associated with a [software as a service application];
receiving, by the [server], a first request to enable the functionality of the lift device;
displaying, by the [server], on a user device a second request for payment to enable the functionality of the lift device;
receiving, by the [server], an indication of payment; and
responsive to receiving the indication of payment, transmitting, by the [server], a second instruction to the controller of the lift device to enable the functionality of the [lift device]
– that constitute Commercial/Legal Interactions and hence fall under the abstract idea category Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity.
The limitations of the dependent claims –
(Claim 2, 8, 14) wherein the indication of payment is associated with the software as a subscription service.
(Claim 3, 9, 15) wherein the lift device is owned by a rental company.
(Claim 4, 10, 16) wherein the server receives the indication of payment from the [user device].
(Claim 5, 11, 17) wherein the server receives the indication of payment from a [second server]
(Claim 6, 12, 18): wherein the functionality is at least one of a tool management, a task management, a lift machine management, a task recommendation management, machine-user management, maintenance management, service management, sensor data management, and multi-lift machine operability.
– also falls under Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity.
Hence under Prong One of Step 2A, claims 1-18 recite a judicial exception.
Prong 2: Prong Two of Step 2A evaluates whether the claim recites additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application of the exception.
Limitations the courts have found indicative that an additional element (or combination of elements) may have integrated the exception into a practical application include:
An improvement in the functioning of a computer, or an improvement to other technology or technical field, as discussed in MPEP §§ 2106.04(d)(1) and 2106.05(a);
Applying or using a judicial exception to effect a particular treatment or prophylaxis for a disease or medical condition, as discussed in MPEP § 2106.04(d)(2);
Implementing a judicial exception with, or using a judicial exception in conjunction with, a particular machine or manufacture that is integral to the claim, as discussed in MPEP § 2106.05(b);
Effecting a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing, as discussed in MPEP § 2106.05(c); and
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, as discussed in MPEP § 2106.05(e).
The courts have also identified limitations that did not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application:
Merely reciting the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or merely including instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely using a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea, as discussed in MPEP § 2106.05(f);
Adding insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception, as discussed in MPEP § 2106.05(g); and
Generally linking the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use, as discussed in MPEP § 2106.05(h).
Additional elements recited by the claims, beyond the abstract idea, include: lift device; user device; server; software as a service application; computer-readable medium comprising a non-transitory storage memory. Examiner finds that any additional element(s), beyond the judicial exception, has been recited at a high level of generality such that the claim limitations amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic components (see MPEP 2106.05(f)) or insignificant data gathering activities (see MPEP 2106.05(g)).
The combination of additional elements does not purport to improve the functioning of a computer or effect an improvement in any other technology or technical field. Instead, the additional elements do no more than use the computer as a tool and/or link the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use. The focus of the claims is not on improvement in computers, but on certain independently abstract ideas – transmit a first instruction to a controller of the lift device to disable a functionality of the lift device, wherein the functionality of the lift device is associated with a software as a service application; receive from the user device a first request to enable the functionality of the lift device; display on the user device a payment request to enable the functionality of the lift device; receive an indication of payment; and responsive to receiving an indication of payment, transmit a second instruction to the controller of the lift device to enable the functionality of the lift device – that merely uses generic computers as tools. Steps that do no more than spell out what it means to “apply it on a computer” cannot confer patent eligibility. Indeed, nothing in claim 1 improves the functioning of the computer, makes it operate more efficiently, or solves any technological problem. See Trading Techs. Int’l, Inc. v. IBG LLC, 921 F.3d 1378, 1384-85 (Fed. Cir. 2019).
Hence, under Prong Two of Step 2A, the additional elements, when considered individually or in combination, do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Hence, the claims are ineligible under Step 2A.
Step 2B:
In Step 2B, the evaluation consists of whether the claim recites additional elements that amount to an inventive concept (aka “significantly more”) than the recited judicial exception.
As discussed in Prong Two, the additional elements in the claims amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic components. When considered individually or as an ordered combination, the additional elements fail to transform the abstract idea of – transmit a first instruction to a controller of the lift device to disable a functionality of the lift device, wherein the functionality of the lift device is associated with a software as a service application; receive from the user device a first request to enable the functionality of the lift device; display on the user device a payment request to enable the functionality of the lift device; receive an indication of payment; and responsive to receiving an indication of payment, transmit a second instruction to the controller of the lift device to enable the functionality of the lift device – into significantly more.
See MPEP 2106.05(f) Mere Instructions To Apply An Exception [R-10.2019].
(2) Whether the claim invokes computers or other machinery merely as a tool to perform an existing process. Use of a computer or other machinery in its ordinary capacity for economic or other tasks (e.g., to receive, store, or transmit data) or simply adding a general purpose computer or computer components after the fact to an abstract idea (e.g., a fundamental economic practice or mathematical equation) does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more.
Hence, the claims are ineligible under Step 2B.
Therefore, the claim(s) are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 as being directed to a judicial exception without significantly more.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 1-18
Claims 1-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kruska (DE102019103644A1) in view of Seung (KR102534758B).
Claim 1:
A system for controlling device functionality comprising:
a lift device;
a user device; and
a server configured to;
transmit a first instruction to a controller of the lift device to disable a functionality of the lift device, wherein the functionality of the lift device is associated with a software as a service application;
receive from the user device a first request to enable the functionality of the lift device;
…
receive an indication of payment; and
responsive to receiving an indication of payment, transmit a second instruction to the controller of the lift device to enable the functionality of the lift device.
(See Kruska:
Pages 4-5 (“What is essential about the lifting device is that the control device is set up to activate the at least one further operating mode of the at least one functional component (only) as a function of the availability of payment information and to base the operation of the at least one functional component on it. In other words, the control device is set up to base the operation of the at least one functional component on the at least one further set of operating parameters depending on the presence of corresponding payment information and thus depending on a user-side payment process described by the payment information. Payment information describes at least one activation of the at least one further operating mode on the user side, ie. H. Payment process completed or made by the user. Accordingly, the control device is set up to base the operation of the at least one functional component on the at least one further operating parameter set as a function of a user-side payment process described by the payment information. It is therefore possible, by making a corresponding payment process, which is then followed by a z. B. on the part of a payee, generated and transmitted to the control device payment information is described, if necessary ("on demand") the scope of functions and services of the at least one functional component - as can be seen from the examples explained below, z. B. the power consumption or power of a lifting device-side drive unit as an example of a corresponding functional component can be expanded as required - to expand or change.
A payment process can in principle be carried out in any way. The user can make the payment process, for example, at a spatial and physical payment station. A corresponding payment station can be outside or inside the lifting device, i. H. in particular outside or inside an open or closed cabin belonging to the lifting device, d. H. z. B. a driver's cab of a lifting device designed as a crane or forklift device, or an open or closed platform belonging to the lifting device, d. H. z. B. a user platform of a lifting device designed as a lifting platform device for a user of the lifting device. In the following, only the term “cabin” is used; all statements in this regard can be transferred analogously to a platform and apply accordingly to such a platform.”)
Pages 9-10 (“Essential to the lifting device 1 is that the control device 6 is set up, the at least one further operating mode of the functional component 3.1 - 3.n (only) to be activated depending on the availability of payment information and the operation of the functional component 3.1 - 3.n to be based on. In other words, it is the controller 6 set up the at least one further operating parameter set for the operation of the functional component 3.1 - 3.n depending on the presence of corresponding payment information and thus depending on a user-side payment process described by the payment information. Payment information describes at least one activation of the at least one further operating mode relating to the user, ie the payment process that has been completed or carried out by the user. Accordingly, the control device 6 established, the operation of the functional component 3.1 - 3.n based on the at least one further operating parameter set as a function of a user-side payment process described by the payment information. It is therefore possible, by making a corresponding payment process, which is then followed by a z. B. generated by a payee and sent to the control device 6 transmitted payment information is described, if necessary ("on demand") the functional and performance scope of the functional component 3.1 - 3.n to expand or change.
A payment process can in principle be carried out in any way. The user can make the payment process, for example, at a spatial and physical payment station. A corresponding payment station can be outside or inside the lifting device 1 , ie in particular outside or inside one of the lifting device 1 associated open or closed cabin 7th , ie for example a driver's cab of a lifting device designed as a forklift or crane device 1 ( 2 , 3 ), or one of the lifting devices 1 associated open or closed platform 8th , ie e.g. a user platform as a lifting platform device trained lifting device 1 ( 4th ), for a user of the lifting device 1 , be provided. In the following, only the term “cabin” is used; all relevant statements can be transferred analogously to a platform.
However, it is also conceivable that a user can carry out payment transactions via suitable software to a virtual payee, ie for example via an Internet payment portal. Appropriate software can, for. B., possibly as a separate user submenu, into a user interface on the lifting device side 9 such as B. a lifting device-side multimedia device can be integrated. A corresponding software can alternatively or additionally z. B. also as a program ("app") for a user-side (portable) device 10 , e.g. B. a notebook, a tablet, a cell phone or a smartphone can be implemented. A corresponding program can also be used as a network application, e.g. B. be implemented in a website.
The amount required to activate the at least one further operating mode can vary as a function of certain user characteristics or a certain user or usage behavior. In this respect, payment information can take into account certain user characteristics or a certain user or usage behavior or can be created on the basis of certain user characteristics or a certain user or usage behavior.”)
Kruska does not specifically disclose:
display on the user device a payment request to enable the functionality of the lift device;
However Seung disclose the above limitation
(See Seung: Page 10 (“In addition, the transmission unit 110 may transmit a rental processing result including information on the target construction machine 1 to the customer terminal 200 . Specifically, the transmission unit 110 may transmit a rental processing result including rental cost information and insurance subscription information for the target construction machine 1 to the customer terminal 200”)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skills in the art before the effective filing date to modify the above noted disclosure of Kruska as it relates to lifting device to include the above noted disclosure of Seung as it relates to construction equipment rental. The motivation for combining the references would have been to insure lifting devices.
Claims 7, 13 are similar to claim 1 and hence rejected on similar grounds.
Claim 2:
wherein the indication of payment is associated with the software as a subscription service.
(See Seung: Page 10)
Claims 8, 14 are similar to claim 2 and hence rejected on similar grounds.
Claim 3:
wherein the lift device is owned by a rental company.
(See Seung: Page 1)
Claims 9, 15 are similar to claim 3 and hence rejected on similar grounds.
Claim 4:
wherein the server receives the indication of payment from the user device.
(See Kruska: Pages 9-10)
Claims 10, 16 are similar to claim 4 and hence rejected on similar grounds.
Claim 5:
wherein the server receives the indication of payment from a second server.
(See Kruska: Pages 9-10)
Claims 11, 17 are similar to claim 6 and hence rejected on similar grounds.
Claim 6:
wherein the functionality is at least one of a tool management, a task management, a lift machine management, a task recommendation management, machine-user management, maintenance management, service management, sensor data management, and multi-lift machine operability.
(See Kruska: Page 3)
Claims 12, 18 are similar to claim 6 and hence rejected on similar grounds.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ARUNAVA CHAKRAVARTI whose telephone number is (571)270-1646. The examiner can normally be reached 9 AM - 5 PM ET.
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, Ryan Donlon can be reached at 571-270-3602. 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.
/ARUNAVA CHAKRAVARTI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3692
Prosecution Insights