System and method for providing an internet of things management platform — Office Actions on US Patent App 18/807,150

System and method for providing an internet of things management platform — Office Actions on US Patent App 18/807,150

All Office Actions (2)

Final Office ActionLatest

Apr 17, 2026 · §101, §103

Final Office Action — all claims 1-26 rejected under §101 (abstract idea) and §103 (obviousness)

The applicant typically has three months (extendable to six) to respond. Common options include filing a Request for Continued Examination (RCE) with amendments or arguments, appealing to the Patent Trial and Appeal Board, or requesting an examiner interview to narrow the issues. An attorney typically handles this; if you'd like patentreply.ai to draft a response, click 'Get this drafted'.

Rejection groups (9)

§ 101Abstract Ideaclaims 1-26

Claims 1-26 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception without significantly more.

Examiner theory

At step 1, claim 1 is directed to a platform, i.e. an apparatus, which is a statutory category of invention. At step 2A prong I, the claims recite an abstract idea. The following limitations recite the abstract idea of Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity: a client interface that is accessible by one or more managers selected by the client; a set of creation tools provided through the platform that allow the client to create custom wallet app content; one or more real world triggers that are each associated with and accessible by at least one of the one or more users; a linker allowing the client to associate the one or more triggers with the custom wallet app content. These steps are directed to marketing, sales activities, and business relationships (see specification paragraph

§ 103Obviousnessclaims 1, 4, 12-15, 19-22

Claims 1, 4, 12-15, and 19-22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Van Os (US 2019/0370805) in view of Lim (US 2022/0318785).

Examiner theory

With reference to claim 1, Van Os teaches a client-user interaction platform for allowing a client to interact with one or more storage unit users associated with the client through a mobile device having an operating system and an operating system wallet application, the platform comprising: at least one non-transitory computer-readable medium storing instructions that, when executed by a processor, cause the processor to provide (see Figure 1A): a client interface that is accessible by the client (see Figure 7A and paragraph 219, interface 706); a set of creation tools provided through the platform that allow the client to create custom wallet app content (see Figures 7C-7N – the user can enter various information about the card); one or more real world triggers that are each associated

§ 103Obviousnessclaims 2-3, 5, 16-18

Claims 2, 3, 5, and 16-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Van Os in view of Lim as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Hirsch (WO 2012154347).

Examiner theory

With reference to claim 2, Van Os and Lim teach all that is required with reference to claim 1, but fail to teach a tracker that logs user interactions with the one or more real world triggers or with the custom wallet app content. Hirsch teaches a tracker that logs user interactions with the one or more real world triggers or with the custom wallet app content (see paragraph 125 – table used to keep track of various statistics for an app). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to incorporate the tracker of Hirsch into the apps of Van Os and Lim to obtain further data on the use of the app, which may be beneficial for device or app manufacturers to track, as is well known in the art. With reference to claim 3, Van Os and Lim teach a

§ 103Obviousnessclaims 6

Claims 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Van Os in view of Lim, further in view of Hirsch as applied to claim 5 above, and further in view of Sami (US 2024/0394502).

Examiner theory

With reference to claim 6, Van Os, Lim, and Hirsch teach all that is required with reference to claim 5, but fail to teach wherein the one or more campaign items are at least one of an email, SMS, or push notification scheduled to a marketing strategy that adapts to user preferences, behaviors, and engagement patterns (see paragraph 87 for various marketing campaign items, and see paragraphs 60, 89 – user/customer preferences are used for targeting the marketing actions). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to incorporate the customized marketing strategy of Sami into the general marketing strategies of Lim and Hirsch, in order to deliver highly targeted and personalized advertisements using behavioral analysis and pattern recogn

§ 103Obviousnessclaims 7

Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Van Os in view of Lim as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Jain (US 2019/0384617).

Examiner theory

With reference to claim 7, Van Os and Lim teach all that is required with reference to claim 1, but fail to teach a wallet pass application programming interface mapper. Jain teaches a wallet pass application programming interface mapper (see paragraph 24 – API modification candidate generator and mapping generator). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the wallet app of Van Os with the API mapper of Jain, in order to identify endpoint patterns (see Jain, paragraph 24), thus improving results.

§ 103Obviousnessclaims 9, 11

Claims 9 and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Van Os and Lim as applied to claims 8 and 1 above, and further in view of Schmidt (US 2022/0051514).

Examiner theory

With reference to claim 9, Van Os and Lim teach all that is required with reference to claim 8, but fail to teach wherein at least one of the one or more real world triggers is depicted on the custom geographic or location map. Schmidt teaches wherein at least one of the one or more real world triggers is depicted on the custom geographic or location map (see paragraph 104 and Figure 10 – map with QR codes (triggers) on it). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the wallet app of Van Os with the map feature of Schmidt, to support the contactless procurement and provision of diverse kinds of valuable services to park guests and visitors (see Schmidt, paragraph 104). With reference to claim 11, Van Os and Lim teach all th

§ 103Obviousnessclaims 10

Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Van Os in view of Lim, further in view of Hirsch as applied to claim 2 above, and further in view of Schmidt.

Examiner theory

With reference to claim 10, Van Os and Lim teach all that is required with reference to claim 2, but fail to teach a graphical depiction of the logged interactions. Schmidt teaches a graphical depiction of the logged interactions (see paragraph 261 and Figure 15B – graphical depiction of data). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the app of Van Os to further include the dashboard of Schmidt in order to manage interactions (see Schmidt, paragraph 261).

§ 103Obviousnessclaims 23-24

Claims 23 and 24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Van Os in view of Lim as applied to claim 22 above, and further in view of Jeong (KR 2022/0000972).

Examiner theory

With reference to claim 23, Van Os and Lim teach all that is required with reference to claim 22, and Lim further teaches wherein at least one of the one or more real world triggers is a second trigger, and wherein the second trigger is an Near Field Communication tag or Quick Response Code (see paragraph 65 – using a QR code to establish the dialog), the method further comprising: enrolling staff of the client as users of the platform (see paragraph 7 – user and client can refer to a user, client, agent, or worker, such that when a user is enrolled per paragraph s43 and 75, it applies to staff as well). Van Os and Lim fail to teach logging staff activation of the second trigger. Jeong teaches logging staff activation of the second trigger (see page 2 – the app logs facility inspection i

§ 103Obviousnessclaims 25-26

Claims 25 and 26 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Van Os in view of Lim as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Hladik (US 8,463,299).

Examiner theory

With reference to claim 25, Van Os and Lim teach all that is required with reference to claim 1, but fail to teach wherein the custom wallet app content comprises a map and customized locations of interest identified on the map for each of the one or more users identified on the map; providing a printout of the map at the site and a trigger on or near the printout, wherein the trigger when activated by the one or more users initiates a display of the map on the mobile device of the one or more users with the locations of interest of the one or more users highlighted. Hladik teaches wherein the custom wallet app content comprises a map and customized locations of interest identified on the map for each of the one or more users identified on the map (see column 4, lines 41-49 – digital maps

Prior art consulted (8)

Identifier	Type	Name / Author	Link
US20190370805	patent publication	Van Os	View ↗
US20220318785	patent publication	Lim	View ↗
WO2012154347	foreign patent	Hirsch	View ↗
US20240394502	patent publication	Sami	View ↗
US20190384617	patent publication	Jain

Procedural framework (1)

MPEP§ 706.07(a)

Non-Final Office Action

Jul 31, 2025 · §101, §103, §112

Non-Final Office Action — all claims 1-26 rejected under §101 abstract idea and §103 obviousness

This is a non-final rejection, so the applicant has three months from the mail date (extendable up to six months with fees) to respond. A response typically involves arguing that the claims are not abstract or are non-obvious, amending claims to add technical detail or distinguish from the prior art, and correcting the indefiniteness and informality issues. Applicants often request an examiner interview to discuss the rejections before filing a written response. An attorney typically handles this; if you'd like patentreply.ai to draft a response, click 'Get this drafted'.

Rejection groups (9)

§ 101Non Statutory Subject Matterclaims 1-21

Claims 1-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter.

§ 101Abstract Ideaclaims 1-26

Claims 1-26 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.