DETAILED ACTION
This communication is Non-Final Rejection Office Action in response to the 12/1/2025 submission filed in Application 14/523,642
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claims 2-6, 8-17, 21-24 were previously examined in the action mailed on 10/1/2025.
Claim 24 has been amended. Claims 2-6, 8-17, 21-24 are now presented.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 12/01/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Regarding the rejection under 101, the Applicant argues “However, the Office's assertion fails to account for any of the other claimed limitations and is facially inconsistent with Applicant's Specification. That is, the features recited in claim 24 do not simply provide a graphical depiction of a supply chain network. As such, the Office's interpretation of claim 24 is inconsistent with the Office's own examination procedures.”
The Examiner notes that the Examiner has found the claims to be directed to managing a supply chain, and not merely providing a graphical depiction of a supply chain network.
Regarding the rejection under 101, the Applicant further argues “the Office's assertion fails to account for any of the other claimed limitations and is facially inconsistent with Applicant's Specification. Applicant notes that "a claim does not recite a mental process when it contains limitation(s) that cannot practically be performed in the human mind, for instance when the human mind is not equipped to perform the claim limitation(s)." See e.g., Reminders on evaluating subject matter eligibility of claims under 35 U.S.C. 101, Memorandum, issued August 4, 2025, at p. 2. Contrary to the Office's assertions, Applicant's claims recite specific, hardware-based limitations that in no way can practically be performed in the human mind.”
The Examiner respectfully disagrees. The limitations of performing operations on the primary hardware data, primary software data, and primary customer intelligence data to produce secondary data based on a plurality of variable and learned thresholds and metadata linking data attributes of associated supply chain nodes and generating at least one of a status and performance value based on the secondary data for a
secondary node under their broadest reasonable interpretation, cover performance of the limitations in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components. That is, other than reciting “a processor” nothing in the claim element precludes the performing of operations on the primary data to produce secondary data from being performed in the human mind.
Regarding the rejection under 101, the Applicant further argues “Consistent with current Office procedure, Applicant's Specification describes, and Applicant's claims recite, a specific, technological solution to existing, technical problems supply chain management by "utilize[ing] advanced analytics, logic and visualization to convert extensive, unstructured data into an easy-to-action, prioritized list of tasks for improved SCM functionality." See, e.g., U.S. Patent App. Publ'n No. 2015/0120373 at paras. [0071]-[0073]. By converting the extensive and unstructured data, the claimed platform can identify opportunities "to streamline and optimize SCM by generating better SCM terms, models and implementation of optimal parameter settings." See id. at para. [0073]. For instance, "the SCM platform system advantageously packages processed data to be uniquely visualized on a user's screen," and is "advantageously configured to provide immediate analytics generated from one or more modules in the system.”
The Examiner respectfully disagrees that converting extensive, unstructured data into actionable data is directed to a technical improvement. The Examiner maintains that the recited “performing operations on the primary hardware data, primary software data, and primary customer intelligence data to produce secondary data based on a plurality of variable and learned thresholds and metadata linking data attributes of associated supply chain nodes” are directed to abstract business processes and analysis that can be performed mentally. Limitations that fall into the Abstract idea buckets cannot also integrate the abstract idea into a practical application.
Regarding the rejection under 101, the Applicant further argues “Indeed, and similar to the Court's reasoning in Trading Technologies International, Inc. v. CQG, Inc., No. 05-cv-4811 (N.D. Ill. Jan. 18, 2017) (hereinafter "CQG"), the elements of Applicant's independent claims, when considered as a whole, "do not simply claim displaying information on a graphical user interface." See CQG slip opinion at p. 6. Rather, "[t]he claims require a specific structured graphical user interface paired with a prescribed functionality directly related to the graphical user interface's structure that addressed to and resolves a specifically identified problem in the prior state of the art."
The examiner respectfully disagrees. The examiner asserts that the fact pattern in Trading Technologies does not match the fact pattern in the instant case. For example, in Trading Technologies ’132 and ’304 patents describe and claim a method and system for the electronic trading of stocks, bonds, futures, options and similar products. The patents explain problems that arise when a trader attempts to enter an order at a particular price, but misses the price because the market moved before the order was entered and executed. It also sometimes occurred that trades were executed at different prices than intended, due to rapid market movement. The CAFC found that: The claims require a specific, structured graphical user interface paired with a prescribed functionality directly related to the graphical user interface’s structure that is addressed to and resolves a specifically identified problem in the prior state of the art. The district court concluded that the patented subject matter meets the eligibility standards of Alice Step 1. We agree with this conclusion, for all of the reasons articulated by the district court, including that the graphical user interface system of these two patents is not an idea that has long existed, the threshold criterion of an abstract idea and ineligible concept and added that “the graphical user interface system of these two patents is not an idea that has long existed, the threshold criterion of an abstract idea and ineligible concept. In the instant case, the idea of supply chain management by using visualization, analytics and framework that translate across a diverse spectrum of uses (see Applicant’s specification para. 2) is an idea that has long existed.. As such, the instant case is not analogous to Trading Technologies as it is drawn to a an idea that has long existed and is an Abstract method of organizing human activity and include steps that can be performed mentally.
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 24, 2-6, 8-9, 21-23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter.
When considering subject matter eligibility under 35 U.S.C. 101, in step 1 it must be determined whether the claim is directed to one of the four statutory categories of invention, i.e., process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter. If the claim does fall within one of the statutory categories, in step 2A prong 1 it must then be determined whether the claim is recite a judicial exception (i.e., law of nature, natural phenomenon, and abstract idea). If the claim recites a judicial exception, under step 2A prong 2 it must additionally be determined whether the recites additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. If a claim does not integrate the Abstract idea into a practical application, under step 2B it must then be determined if the claim provides an inventive concept.
In the Instant case, Claims 24, 2-6, 8-9, 21-23 are directed toward platforms managing a supply chain. As such, each of the Claims is directed to one of the four statutory categories of invention.
MPEP 2106.04 II. A. explains that in step 2A prong 1 Examiners are to determine whether a claim recites a judicial exception. MPEP 2106.04(a) explains that:
To facilitate examination, the Office has set forth an approach to identifying abstract ideas that distills the relevant case law into enumerated groupings of abstract ideas. The enumerated groupings are firmly rooted in Supreme Court precedent as well as Federal Circuit decisions interpreting that precedent, as is explained in MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2). This approach represents a shift from the former case-comparison approach that required examiners to rely on individual judicial cases when determining whether a claim recites an abstract idea. By grouping the abstract ideas, the examiners’ focus has been shifted from relying on individual cases to generally applying the wide body of case law spanning all technologies and claim types.
The enumerated groupings of abstract ideas are defined as:
1) Mathematical concepts – mathematical relationships, mathematical formulas or equations, mathematical calculations (see MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2), subsection I);
2) Certain methods of organizing human activity – fundamental economic principles or practices (including hedging, insurance, mitigating risk); commercial or legal interactions (including agreements in the form of contracts; legal obligations; advertising, marketing or sales activities or behaviors; business relations); managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people (including social activities, teaching, and following rules or instructions) (see MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2), subsection II); and
3) Mental processes – concepts performed in the human mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion) (see MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2), subsection III).
As per step 2A prong 1 of the eligibility analysis, claim 24 is directed to the abstract idea of operating a supply chain which falls into the abstract idea categories of certain methods of organizing human activity and mental processes.
The elements of Claim 24 that represent the Abstract idea include:
A supply chain management operating platform to manage a supply chain comprising a plurality of supply chain nodes, the platform comprising:
a primary node of the supply chain nodes communicatively coupled to secondary nodes of the supply chain nodes via a network;
perform operations on the primary hardware data, primary software data, and primary customer intelligence data to produce secondary data based on a plurality of variable and learned thresholds and metadata linking data attributes of associated supply chain nodes;
generate at least one of a status and performance value based on the secondary data for a
secondary node
MPEP 2106.04(a)(2) II. states:
The phrase "methods of organizing human activity" is used to describe concepts relating to:
fundamental economic principles or practices (including hedging, insurance, mitigating risk);
commercial or legal interactions (including agreements in the form of contracts, legal obligations, advertising, marketing or sales activities or behaviors, and business relations); and
managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people, (including social activities, teaching, and following rules or instructions).
The Supreme Court has identified a number of concepts falling within the "certain methods of organizing human activity" grouping as abstract ideas. In particular, in Alice, the Court concluded that the use of a third party to mediate settlement risk is a ‘‘fundamental economic practice’’ and thus an abstract idea. 573 U.S. at 219–20, 110 USPQ2d at 1982. In addition, the Court in Alice described the concept of risk hedging identified as an abstract idea in Bilski as ‘‘a method of organizing human activity’’. Id. Previously, in Bilski, the Court concluded that hedging is a ‘‘fundamental economic practice’’ and therefore an abstract idea. 561 U.S. at 611–612, 95 USPQ2d at 1010.
In the instant case, the limitations of performing operations on the primary hardware data, primary software data, and primary customer intelligence data to produce secondary data based on a plurality of variable and learned thresholds and metadata linking data attributes of associated supply chain nodes are directed to commercial or legal interactions including sales activities or behaviors, and business relations and fundamental economic principles such as managing a supply chain. Para. 89 of the specification as filed states “derived secondary data may be provided to indicate, for example, a recommended buffer for an inventoried part”. Further, para. 107 discloses “As is illustrated in FIG. 10, the platform307, and/or the individual app, may receive primary data and generate therefrom secondary data, such as calculation of the RiSC score.” As disclosed by the Applicant specification, the secondary data is related to supply chain recommendations or supply chain risk. As such, producing secondary data amounts to an abstract idea.
Further, a primary node of the supply chain nodes communicatively coupled to secondary nodes of the supply chain nodes via a network and metadata linking data attributes of associated supply chain nodes amount to a graphical depiction of a supply chain network which amounts to a method of organizing human activity. The metadata is recited broadly and the claim does not state how it is used to link data attributes associated with the nodes. As such, this also amount to an abstract means to configure a graphical depiction of a supply chain network,
MPEP 2106.04(a)(2) states:
The courts consider a mental process (thinking) that "can be performed in the human mind, or by a human using a pen and paper" to be an abstract idea. CyberSource Corp. v. Retail Decisions, Inc., 654 F.3d 1366, 1372, 99 USPQ2d 1690, 1695 (Fed. Cir. 2011). As the Federal Circuit explained, "methods which can be performed mentally, or which are the equivalent of human mental work, are unpatentable abstract ideas the ‘basic tools of scientific and technological work’ that are open to all.’" 654 F.3d at 1371, 99 USPQ2d at 1694 (citing Gottschalk v. Benson, 409 U.S. 63, 175 USPQ 673 (1972)). See also Mayo Collaborative Servs. v. Prometheus Labs. Inc., 566 U.S. 66, 71, 101 USPQ2d 1961, 1965 (2012) ("‘[M]ental processes[] and abstract intellectual concepts are not patentable, as they are the basic tools of scientific and technological work’" (quoting Benson, 409 U.S. at 67, 175 USPQ at 675)); Parker v. Flook, 437 U.S. 584, 589, 198 USPQ 193, 197 (1978) (same).
Accordingly, the "mental processes" abstract idea grouping is defined as concepts performed in the human mind, and examples of mental processes include observations, evaluations, judgments, and opinions
In the instant case, the limitations of performing operations on the primary hardware data, primary software data, and primary customer intelligence data to produce secondary data based on a plurality of variable and learned thresholds and metadata linking data attributes of associated supply chain nodes and generating at least one of a status and performance value based on the secondary data for a
secondary node under their broadest reasonable interpretation, cover performance of the limitations in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components. That is, other than reciting “a processor” nothing in the claim element precludes the performing of operations on the primary data to produce secondary data from being performed in the human mind.
Under step 2A prong 2 the examiner must then determine if the recited abstract idea is integrated into a practical application. MPEP 2106.04 states:
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).
In the instant case, this judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, Claim 24 recites the additional elements of:
wherein the primary node comprises at least one processor configured to receive, via a plurality of data hooks associated with one or more applications, primary hardware data, primary software data, and primary customer intelligence data of the secondary nodes;
non-transitory computer-readable storage medium comprising instructions that when executed by the at least one processor, cause the at least one processor to perform the recited abstract idea;
an interactive node data visualization interface representing the secondary data comprised of at least a single graphical visualization of supply chain risk data, supply chain management data, and supply chain analytics data linked, in part, by the metadata, wherein the interface is configured to display the secondary data as selectable graphical node icons organized in a first hierarchy of upstream node icons and downstream node icons, and
wherein, the at least one processor is configured receive a selection of a graphical node icon to dynamically filter and display on the interface the upstream node icons and downstream node icons into a second hierarchy based on the metadata associated with the selected graphical node icon and;
wherein the interface is further configured to display an interactive hierarchical
representation of the at least one status and performance value of the secondary node relatively and concurrently with other secondary-nodes of the plurality of supply chain nodes.
However, the computer elements (the operating platform, the network, the processor and the memory) are recited at a high level of generality and given the broadest reasonable interpretation are simply generic computers performing generic computer functions. Generic computers performing generic computer functions, alone, do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea and mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer.
Further, the data hooks associated with one or more applications to receive a plurality of application inputs, wherein the data hooks are capable of receiving data amount to receiving and retrieving information e.g., mere data gathering is considered insignificant extra-solution activity (see MPEP 2106.05(g). Further, interfacing with a user to provide secondary data is considered mere data output which is also considered insignificant extra-solution activity (see MPEP 2106.05(g)).
Further, the particular interactive node data visualization interface is not a technical improvement and amounts to post solution activity. Receiving a selection a user interface elements (or icons) and then displaying the information that links to that elements (i.e. upstream or downstream nodes) amount to displaying the result of an analysis. Similarly, the amendments that are directed to displaying interactive hierarchical representation of the at least one status and performance value concurrently with other secondary-nodes amounts insignificant data display and is not in improvement to a user interface.
Further, the claim does not recite how the metadata is used to link nodes. As such, the use of the metadata to link nodes is indicative of adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception. MPEP 2106.05(f) states:
When determining whether a claim simply recites a judicial exception with the words "apply it" (or an equivalent), such as mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, examiners may consider the following:
(1) Whether the claim recites only the idea of a solution or outcome i.e., the claim fails to recite details of how a solution to a problem is accomplished. The recitation of claim limitations that attempt to cover any solution to an identified problem with no restriction on how the result is accomplished and no description of the mechanism for accomplishing the result, does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more because this type of recitation is equivalent to the words "apply it". See Electric Power Group, LLC v. Alstom, S.A., 830 F.3d 1350, 1356, 119 USPQ2d 1739, 1743-44 (Fed. Cir. 2016); Intellectual Ventures I v. Symantec, 838 F.3d 1307, 1327, 120 USPQ2d 1353, 1366 (Fed. Cir. 2016); Internet Patents Corp. v. Active Network, Inc., 790 F.3d 1343, 1348, 115 USPQ2d 1414, 1417 (Fed. Cir. 2015). In contrast, claiming a particular solution to a problem or a particular way to achieve a desired outcome may integrate the judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more. See Electric Power, 830 F.3d at 1356, 119 USPQ2d at 1743.
By way of example, in Intellectual Ventures I v. Capital One Fin. Corp., 850 F.3d 1332, 121 USPQ2d 1940 (Fed. Cir. 2017), the steps in the claims described "the creation of a dynamic document based upon ‘management record types’ and ‘primary record types.’" 850 F.3d at 1339-40; 121 USPQ2d at 1945-46. The claims were found to be directed to the abstract idea of "collecting, displaying, and manipulating data." 850 F.3d at 1340; 121 USPQ2d at 1946. In addition to the abstract idea, the claims also recited the additional element of modifying the underlying XML document in response to modifications made in the dynamic document. 850 F.3d at 1342; 121 USPQ2d at 1947-48. Although the claims purported to modify the underlying XML document in response to modifications made in the dynamic document, nothing in the claims indicated what specific steps were undertaken other than merely using the abstract idea in the context of XML documents. The court thus held the claims ineligible, because the additional limitations provided only a result-oriented solution and lacked details as to how the computer performed the modifications, which was equivalent to the words "apply it". 850 F.3d at 1341-42; 121 USPQ2d at 1947-48 (citing Electric Power Group., 830 F.3d at 1356, 1356, USPQ2d at 1743-44 (cautioning against claims "so result focused, so functional, as to effectively cover any solution to an identified problem")).
In the instant case, the use of metadata was evaluated as part of the abstract idea, but can also be considered an additional element. The broadly recited use of metadata attempts to cover any solution to the identified problem with no restriction on how the result is accomplished and no description of the mechanism for accomplishing the result, does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more because this type of recitation is equivalent to the words "apply it”. For example, the claims do not state how the metadata is used to link attributes or nodes. As such, the broadly recited metadata does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more.
Viewing the generic computer in combination with the receiving and outputting data and the broadly recited use of metadata does not add anything further than looking at the limitations individually. When viewed either individually, or as an ordered combination, the additional limitations do not amount to a claim as a whole that is significantly more than the abstract idea.
In step 2B, the examiner must determine whether the claim adds a specific limitation other than what is well-understood, routine, conventional activity in the field - see MPEP 2106.05(d).
As discussed with respect to Step 2A Prong Two, the additional element of the processor in the claim amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. The same analysis applies here in 2B, i.e., mere instructions to apply an exception on a generic computer cannot integrate a judicial exception into a practical application at Step 2A or provide an inventive concept in Step 2B.
Further, nothing in the specification indicates that the receipt or retrieval of information and the output of information is anything other than conventional. Further, MPEP 2106.05(d) states “Receiving or transmitting data over a network, e.g., using the Internet to gather data, Symantec, 838 F.3d at 1321, 120 USPQ2d at 1362 (utilizing an intermediary computer to forward information); TLI Communications LLC v. AV Auto. LLC, 823 F.3d 607, 610, 118 USPQ2d 1744, 1745 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (using a telephone for image transmission); OIP Techs., Inc., v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363, 115 USPQ2d 1090, 1093 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (sending messages over a network); buySAFE, Inc. v. Google, Inc., 765 F.3d 1350, 1355, 112 USPQ2d 1093, 1096 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (computer receives and sends information over a network); but see DDR Holdings, LLC v. Hotels.com, L.P., 773 F.3d 1245, 1258, 113 USPQ2d 1097, 1106 (Fed. Cir. 2014) ("Unlike the claims in Ultramercial, the claims at issue here specify how interactions with the Internet are manipulated to yield a desired result‐‐a result that overrides the routine and conventional sequence of events ordinarily triggered by the click of a hyperlink."” Further, MPEP 2106.05(d) also states that creating output data has been identified as conventional (see Return Mail, Inc. v. U.S. Postal Service, -- F.3d --, -- USPQ2d --, slip op. at 32 (Fed. Cir. August 28, 2017)).
Further, the Examiner takes official notice that the claimed display is well-known and conventional and does not represent an inventive concept.
Further Claims 2, 3, 6, 9 further limit the abstract idea of an analysis that can be performed mentally, but fail to remedy the deficiencies of the parent claim as they do not impose any limitations that amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself.
Further, Claims 4, 5, 8 recite limitations drawn to the additional element of an interactive display. However this display is recited broadly, and is considered insignificant extra solution activity under Step 2A Prong Two and well-known and conventional under step 2B.
Claims 21-23 recite the use of think clients, thin clients, and partially thin client. This amount to implementing the abstract idea via a particular technological environment which is not sufficient to integrate the abstract ide into a practical application of provide an inventive concept.
Accordingly, the Examiner concludes that there are no meaningful limitations in claims 24, 2-9, 21-23 that transform the judicial exception into a patent eligible application such that the claim amounts to significantly more than the judicial exception itself.
The analysis above applies to all statutory categories of invention. As such, the presentment of claim 24 otherwise styled as a method or computer program product, for example, would be subject to the same analysis. Therefore, Claims 10-18 are rejected for the same rational that applied to claims 24, 2-9.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DEIRDRE D HATCHER whose telephone number is (571)270-5321. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8-4:30.
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, Brian Epstein can be reached at 571-270-5389. 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.
/DEIRDRE D HATCHER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3625