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
This communication is a Non-Final Office Action in response to amendments received on 1/2/26.
Claims 4-5, 8-10, 19, 21-27 have been previously cancelled. Claim 6 has been cancelled.
Claims 1 and 7 are amended.
Therefore, Claims 1-3, 7, 11-14, 16-18, 20 are now pending and have been addressed below.
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 1/2/26 has been entered.
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 1-3, 7, 11-14, 16-18, 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (an abstract idea) without significantly more.
Step 1: Identifying Statutory Categories
In the instant case, claims 1-3, 7, 11-14, 16-18, 20 are directed to a computing device/system (i.e. a machine). Thus, this claim falls within one of the four statutory categories. Nevertheless, the claim falls within the judicial exception of an abstract idea.
Step 2A – Prong 1
Claims 1-3, 7, 11-14, 16-18, 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. Independent claim 1 recite method for optimizing a supply chain design for manufacturing including customizable rules iterating the case-by-case optimization in relation to at least two Dfx component; optimizing comprises a time to produce an electronic report including feedback on mitigating flaw in supply change design; receiving information including third party design information including the third party design information of a supply chain related to the manufacturing design; access to historical data of prior runs of Dfx/ third party design information previously received; calculating and issuing ate least electronic feedback report from of at least supply metrics, analytics, data mining and historical data; the electronic feedback report comprising improved mitigation of the computed design flaw in the manufacturing design based on past, present and projected feed based in accordance with the third party design information; the historical data of prior runs; second historical data of prior runs; accessed trends suitable to flow and the feedback in relation to a single item design issue; allowing a set of authorized used to securely communicate; the electronic feedback report comprises an optimized time to report due to inclusion of the third party design information, the historical third party design information, the historical data, the second historical data; the feedback report comprises a custom report directed specifically to one of the DfM, the DfT, DfA, DfC which includes chronic design flaw and prospective mitigation techniques based on past, present and projected feedback; receiving the single-item design issue obtaining from the results of the electronic feedback report associated with the single-item design issue, and displaying the results of the electronic feedback report associated with the single-item design issue; tracing digital interactions from the set of authorized users; standardizing and storing the traced user interactions; the interaction being input by the authorized user with respect to the electronic feedback report and wherein the traced digital interactions of the electronic feedback report are associated with historical third party design information, such that the traced user interactions are incorporated into an issuance of an updated electronic feedback report comprising improved mitigation of the computed design flaws in the manufacturing design.
These limitation as drafted, are a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers methods of organizing human activity (commercial interactions including marketing or sales activities or behaviors and business relations); managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people (including social activities, teaching, and following rules or instructions); a person’s interaction with a computer (using a computer as a tool See MPEP2106.04(a)(2)(II))), but for the recitation of generic computer components. That is, other than reciting the structural elements (such as a Dfx engine comprising non-transitory computer code; a third party software interface associated with the Dfx engine, database, an analytical tool communicative with the Dfx engine; a collaboration tool comprising a web based user interface user, contractor firewall, a dashboard), the claims are directed to optimizing at least one manufacturing design using DfX system and sharing electronic report. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation of organizing human activity but for the recitation of generic computer components, the claim recites an abstract idea. Regarding Step 2A-prong 2, this judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the claim merely describes how to generally “apply” the concept of receiving information including third party design data, analyzing it, and providing feedback. In particular, the claims only recites the additional element – Dfx engine comprising non-transitory computer code; a third party software interface associated with the Dfx engine, database, an analytical tool communicative with the Dfx engine; a collaboration tool comprising a web based user interface user, contractor firewall, a dashboard. These additional elements are recited at a high-level of generality such that it amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Simply implementing the abstract idea on generic components is not a practical application of the abstract idea. Accordingly, these additional element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. a) The additional elements merely add the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea, as discussed in MPEP 2106.05(f). These claim limitations are merely invoked as a tool to perform instructions of the abstract idea in a particular technological environment and mere instructions to apply/automate an abstract idea to a particular technological environment and merely limiting the use of an abstract idea to a particular technological environment do not provide practical application for an abstract idea (MPEP 2106.05(f)&(h)). The limitation of “digital interaction” is simply interaction between users by using a computer as a tool. The claims do not amount to practical application for the abstract idea because they neither (1) recite any improvements to another technology or technical field; (2) recite any improvements to the functioning of the computer itself; (3) apply the judicial exception with, or by use of, a particular machine; (4) effect a transformation or reduction of a particular device to a different state or thing; (5) provide other meaningful limitations beyond generally linking the use of judicial exception to a particular technological environment. The claim is directed to an abstract idea. When considered in combination, the claims do not amount to improvements to the functioning of a computer, or to any other technology or technical field, as discussed in MPEP 2106.05(a), applying the judicial exception with, or by use of, a particular machine, 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), or 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). Accordingly, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. Therefore, the claims are directed to an abstract idea.
Step 2B: Considering Additional Elements
The claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claim(s) limitations are grouped as methods of organizing human activity. This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the additional element of using Dfx engine comprising non-transitory computer code; a third party software interface associated with the Dfx engine, database, an analytical tool communicative with the Dfx engine; a collaboration tool comprising a web based user interface user, contractor firewall, a dashboard to perform the steps amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. The claim(s) do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. The independent claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. Even when viewed as a whole, nothing in the claim adds significantly more (i.e., an inventive concept) to the abstract idea. The claims are not patent eligible. With respect to the Dfx engine comprising non-transitory computer code; a third party software interface associated with the Dfx engine, database, an analytical tool communicative with the Dfx engine; a collaboration tool comprising a web based user interface user, contractor firewall, a dashboard, these limitations are described in Applicant’s own specification as generic and conventional elements. See Applicants specification, Paragraph 0056-0059 details “A general-purpose processor may be a microprocessor, but, in the alternative, the processor may be any conventional processor, controller, microcontroller, or state machine.”. Further, see Applicants specification Figure 16 and para 0061-0063 recites “The computer platform 700 may include a central processing unit (CPU) 704, random access memory (RAM) and/or read only memory (ROM) 706, a hard disk drive (HDD) 708, a keyboard 710, a mouse 712, a display 714, and a communication interface 716, which are connected to a system bus 702. Further para [0008] recites a user interface, [0032] recites a web interface, [0039] recites Fig 2 provides a dashboard accessible to a user”. With respect to the user/web interface, representative claims merely invokes computers generating a user interface as a tool to display the information generated in the abstract idea. Therefore the user interface amount to mere instructions to apply the exception to a computing environment. See MPEP 2106.05(f). These are basic computer elements applied merely to carry out data processing such as, discussed above, receiving, analyzing, transmitting and displaying data. Furthermore, these steps/components are not explicitly recited and therefore must be construed at the highest level of generality and amount to mere instructions to implement the abstract idea on a computer." Prior art Whipple (US 6289384) teaches a collaboration tool accessible across firewall and Bulumulla (US 2015/0286828) discusses portal for collaboration with partners and customers [0062]; Fig 3 disclose defining list for access (manage users)and [0066]. See Symantec, 838 F.3d at 1321, 120 USPQ2d at 1362 (utilizing an intermediary computer to forward information); TLI Communications LLC v. AVAuto. LLC, 823 F.3d 607, 610, 118 USPQ2d 1744, 1745 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (using a telephone for image transmission); filtering content, BASCOM Global Internet v. AT&T Mobility, LLC, 827 F.3d 1341, 1345-46, 119 USPQ2d 1236, 1239 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (finding that filtering content was an abstract idea under step 2A ) (MPEP2106.05(f)); 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." (emphasis added)); Lastly, the additional elements, provides only a result-oriented solution which lacks details as to how the computer performs the claimed abstract idea. Therefore, the additional elements amounts to mere instructions to apply the exception. See MPEP 2106.05(f). Furthermore, these steps/components are not explicitly recited and therefore must be construed at the highest level of generality and amount to mere instructions to implement the abstract idea on a computer. Therefore, the claimed invention does not demonstrate a technologically rooted solution to a computer-centric problem or recite an improvement to another technology or technical field, an improvement to the function of any computer itself, applying the exception with, or by use of, a particular machine, effect a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing, add a specific limitation other than what is well-understood, routine and conventional in the field, add unconventional steps that confine the claim to a particular useful application, or provide meaningful limitations beyond generally linking an abstract idea to a particular technological environment such as computing. Viewing the limitations as an ordered combination does not add anything further than looking at the limitations individually. Taking the additional claimed elements individually and in combination, the computer components at each step of the process perform purely generic computer functions. Viewed as a whole, the claims do not purport to improve the functioning of the computer itself, or to improve any other technology or technical field. Use of an unspecified, generic computer does not transform an abstract idea into a patent-eligible invention. Thus, the claim does not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself.
Dependent claims 2-3, 7, 11-14, 16-18, 20 add additional limitations, for example an electronic report, a collaboration tool, a standardization tool, security access but these only serve to further limit the abstract idea, and hence are nonetheless directed towards fundamentally the same abstract idea as claim 1. Claims 2-3 recite software comprises business process software/engineering software. Claims 7, 11, 14, recite sharing report across firewalls. Claims 12-13 recites standardization tool at high level of generality. Claims 16-18, 20 recites a secured interface to user interface; the defined list provides security including limited authorized access based in defined list; interface comprising a single item view. These limitations do not include an improvement to another technology or technical field, an improvement to the functioning of the computer itself, or meaningful limitations beyond generally linking the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment. These limitations merely adds the words apply it (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception , or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea as discussed in MPEP 2106.05(f). The dependent claims do not integrate into a practical application. As such, the additional elements individually or in combination do not integrate the exception into a practical application, but rather, the recitation of any additional element amounts to merely reciting the words “apply it” (or equivalent) with the judicial exception, or merely includes instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea (See MPEP 2106.05(f)). The dependent claims also 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 elements of a computing system is merely being used to apply the abstract idea to a technological environment. These limitations do not include an improvement to another technology or technical field, an improvement to the functioning of the computer itself, or meaningful limitations beyond generally linking the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment. See MPEP 2106.05d. Thus, the claims do not add significantly more to an abstract idea. The claims are ineligible. Therefore, since there are no limitations in the claim that transform the exception into a patent eligible application such that the claim amounts to significantly more than the exception itself, the claims are rejected under 35 USC 101 as being directed to non-statutory subject matter. See (Alice Corporation Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank International, et al.).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 1/2/26 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
101 rejection – Applicant on pages 8-10 on remarks states claimed Dfx system addresses a technical problem/improvement associated with providing a secure Dfx system capable of tracing communication and interactions of users utilizing the Dfx system. Examiner has considered all arguments and respectfully disagrees. The Applicant’s specification may disclose alleged improvements to processor/technology, the specification merely recites the alleged improvements ([0055] The central location provided by the DfX dashboard and database improves the efficiency with which results can be compared from previous reviews, and learnings applied from previous reviews and previous product developments to the current product development and current reporting. ) with no further detail to how the claim set achieves such an improvement. 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. MPEP 2106.05(a) recites “If it is asserted that the invention improves upon conventional functioning of a computer, or upon conventional technology or technological processes, a technical explanation as to how to implement the invention should be present in the specification. That is, the disclosure must provide sufficient details such that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize the claimed invention as providing an improvement.” After the examiner has consulted the specification and determined that the disclosed invention improves technology, the claim must be evaluated to ensure the claim itself reflects the disclosed improvement in technology. Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Symantec Corp., 838 F.3d 1307, 1316, 120 USPQ2d 1353, 1359 (patent owner argued that the claimed email filtering system improved technology by shrinking the protection gap and mooting the volume problem, but the court disagreed because the claims themselves did not have any limitations that addressed these issues). That is, the claim must include the components or steps of the invention that provide the improvement described in the specification. Examiner notes neither specification nor claims recite how the improvement/processor efficiency is achieved. The instant claims are directed to an abstract idea, and does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. The additional elements recited in the instant claims are only to generic computing components that implement the abstract idea on a computing environment. As such, it can be interpreted that the instant claims only make the abstract idea more efficient, and there are not actual changes/improvements to any computing components. The claims are wholly directed to the abstract idea of facilitating sales operations. Furthermore, the computing system/processor is not a specialized computing device as it merely uses generic computing components ([0059] spec) that execute instructions to perform the abstract idea. Such a device may be programmed to perform any abstract idea, and is not a particular device.
Applicant on page 11, discusses Koninklijke KPN N. V. V. Gemalto M2M GMBH, 942 F.3d 1143, 1150 (Fed. Cir. 2019) (found eligible based on a recitation of a specific means or method that solve a problem in an existing technological process). The case cited is quite specific on a particular means of detecting errors and has no relevance to Instant claims. In instant claims, the judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the claim merely describes how to generally “apply” the concept of receiving information including third party design data, analyzing it, and providing feedback. In particular, the claims only recites the additional element – Dfx engine comprising non-transitory computer code; a third party software interface associated with the Dfx engine, database, an analytical tool communicative with the Dfx engine; a collaboration tool comprising a web based user interface user, contractor firewall, a dashboard. These additional elements are recited at a high-level of generality such that it amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. The limitation of a collaboration tool merely add the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea, as discussed in MPEP 2106.05(f). The claim limitations are merely invoked as a tool to perform instructions of the abstract idea in a particular technological environment and mere instructions to apply/automate an abstract idea to a particular technological environment and merely limiting the use of an abstract idea to a particular technological environment do not provide practical application for an abstract idea (MPEP 2106.05(f)&(h)). The claims do not include any details about how the “tracing” and “standardizing” are accomplished. See MPEP 2106.05(f).
Examiner maintains the 35 U.S.C 101 rejections because the claims do not recite limitations that are "significantly more" than the abstract idea because the claims do not recite an improvement to another technology or technical field, an improvement to the functioning of the computer itself, or meaningful limitations beyond generally linking the use of an abstract idea to a particular technological environment. See Alice Corporation Pty. Ltd. V. CLS Bank. It should be noted the limitations of the system claims are not claimed as being performed by a computer besides a nominal recitation of the method being "computer implemented" and reciting them as though they are performed by the generically recited physical computing device does not constitute an improvement to another technology or technical field. Further, Federal register/Vol. 79, No 241 issued on December 16, 2014 on page 74624 defines “significantly more” limitations that were found not to be enough to overcome 35 U.S.C. 101 such as “adding insignificant extra solution activity to the judicial exception e.g. mere data gathering in conjunction with a law of nature or abstract idea” and “simply appending well understood routine and conventional activities previously known to the industry, specified at a high level of generality, to the judicial exception e.g. a claim to an abstract idea requiring no more than a generic computer to perform generic computer functions that are well understood, routine and conventional activities previously known to industry”
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Chang (US 2014/0081442 A1) discloses product quality improvement feedback method
He (US 2013/0212552 A1) discloses requirement management method and apparatus.
Braithwaite et al. (US 10,061,299 B2) discloses implementing design for manufacturability checks
Schuler (US 2008/0306785 A1) discloses optimizing supply chain configurations.
Barbers (US 2015/0094996 A1) discloses design and execution of numerical experiments in composite simulation models
Hathaway (US 2012/0075322) discusses calculating the effects of the factors of interest against the process output of interest, developing a model including the significant factors of interest and respective estimated coefficients and omitting the insignificant factors of interest, generating a representation of the model
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SANGEETA BAHL whose telephone number is (571)270-7779. The examiner can normally be reached 7:30 - 4PM.
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, Jessica Lemieux can be reached on 571-270-3445. 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.
/SANGEETA BAHL/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3626