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
The following Final Office action is in response to Applicant’s supplemental claim amendments received on 11/05/2025 with amendments to the claims provided on 07/21/2025.
Priority
Application 17/376,663 is a 371 of PCT/IB2020/50569 with Foreign Priority to IN201921003219 filed 01/25/2019.
Status of Claims
Claims 1-2, 7, 9-11, 16, and 18-19 have been cancelled.
Claims 3, 6, 8, 12, 15 and 17 have been amended.
Claims 20-22 have been added.
Claims 3-8, 12-15, 17 and 20-22 are currently pending and have been examined.
Claim Objections
Claims 20-22 are objected to because of the following informalities: The training step recites the phrase “behavior of the one or more, ” which is missing a noun to which the behavior is referring to. Later in the step “the behavior of the subsystems” is recited. It appears that the phrase was not meant to be included. Appropriate correction is required.
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 3-8, 12-15, 17 and 20-22 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 applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Independent claims 20-22 recite “functions of subsystems”, “the subsystems”, “subsequent subsystems”, “tracking subsystems” “subsystems” again after the word “track” without antecedent basis to which subsystems, “a particular subsystem”, and “the subsystems” of the supply network in the modifying step . The claims are unclear because of the antecedent basis issues caused by the various uses and wording of “subsystem” and “subsystems in the claims. It is unclear which subsystems are being referred to at each point in the claim. Claims 3 and 12 recite “a hierarchy of subsystems having a plurality of subsystems arranged in a fractal pattern” which appears to be different subsystems than in the independent claims. The dependent claims are also rejected based on their dependencies. Appropriate correction is required.
Independent claims 20-22 recite similar clarity issues surrounding the antecedent basis of the words “solution” and “solutions”. The monitoring step recites “followed by analyzing the simulated exogenous model to provide solutions.” Then the step of “providing, by the exogenous model, a plurality of candidate analytical solutions…”. Then ”identifying, from amongst the plurality of candidate analytical solutions, a solution to the event condition in a global context of the supply network inferring that the solution arrived…” Then “performing what-if analysis over the exogenous model to arrive at the solution.” If we recap, first solutions are provided, then a solution is identified, followed by being inferred and finally arrived at by performing what-if analysis. The scope of the claim us unclear because it is not clear how the solutions or even if those solutions are connected or separate. Appropriate correction is required.
The scope of the independent claims is unclear relating to “simulating” and “simulated”. First, the claim recites “simulating, by the exogenous model, the supply network” Here it is the supply network that is simulated by the exogenous model. The monitoring step recites “analyzing the simulated exogenous model to provide solutions”. Here it is the model that is simulated. Finally, the providing step recites “providing, by the exogenous model, a plurality of candidate analytical solutions corresponding to an event condition associated with the supply network based on the simulation”. The scope of the claim is unclear because of the inconsistency of the terms simulating and simulation. Appropriate correction is required.
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 3-8, 12-15, 17 and 20-22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more based on the guidance provided in the Office’s 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance (hereinafter “2019 PEG”) (See Federal Register Vol. 84, No. 4, January 7, 2019) and MPEP 2106.
Step 1 of the subject matter eligibility test entails considering whether the claimed subject matter falls within the four categories of statutory subject matter (i.e., process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter). In Applicant’s case, the pending claims pass Step 1.
However, for Step 2A Prong One of the subject matter eligibility test, independent claim 1 for example recites an abstract idea of managing a supply network. The limitations that describe an abstract idea from exemplary claim 20 are indicated in bold below:
A processor implemented method for managing dynamically adaptive supply network, comprising: training an exogenous model with data of domain knowledge of the supply network pertaining to a configuration, internal properties, functions of subsystems, events to be handled by the subsystems, a composition structure of units to interact with subsequent subsystems participating to perform a task, behavior of the one or more, and parametric properties influencing the goals and the behavior of the subsystems: simulating, by the exogenous model, the supply network in an analytical modeling language using at least data populated from the supply network through a sensory data processing framework and communicating real-time condition of the supply network in addition to the training data associated with modeling of exogenous model, wherein the exogenous model presents an outside-in perspective; automatically populating the exogenous model with data from cyber physical reality using the sensory data processing framework corresponding to an industrial internet of things (IoT) application or smart space environment having a plurality of sensors associated with a plurality of assets of the supply network; tracking subsystems and assets of the supply network by the sensory data processing framework with metadata attributes associated with a sensor including a static property, a sensor based dynamic property, a lookup-based property, wherein the sensors embodied in IoT based devices are adapted for sensing and observation of various parameters in the smart space environment enabling to perform analytics on the parameters to alert end-users about consequence of changes in state, wherein the sensors are part of a mobile device, deployed to observe and track location of a physical object, observe weather conditions to monitor natural calamities, observe traffic on a road to enable traffic shaping and vehicle surveillance systems, wherein the sensory data processing framework track subsystems and assets via metadata attributes and converted into digital form by sensors embodied therein, and each of said attributes is associated with a corresponding sensor for continuous monitoring, wherein the industrial IoT application covers location based tracking of assets, remote management of assets, preventive or predictive maintenance, monitoring perturbations in the supply network by enabling the supply network with the sensory data processing framework, followed by analyzing the simulated exogenous model to provide solutions to the perturbations in the supply network; identifying ramifications and/or recommendations for changes to be made in the supply network; implementing the ramifications and/or recommendations concerning changes by an endogenous model that replicates a software system and control functions of the supply network, wherein the endogenous model presents an inside-out perspective of the supply network, wherein the supply network refers to vehicle manufacturing plant at varied locations, the cyber physical reality includes physical machines, software systems controlling the physical machines, software systems providing coordination support, production schedules, past history in terms of problems and remedies, and communications including machine-to-machine, software-to-machine, machine-to- software, software-to-software, wherein the vehicle manufacturing plant expanded into the supply network in which a node denotes a work-shade and an edge denotes a channel for transporting produced goods, wherein the work-shade is expanded into the supply network where a node denotes a physical machine used for manufacturing and an edge denotes a conveyor belt connecting two machines; providing, by the exogenous model, a plurality of candidate analytical solutions corresponding to an event condition associated with the supply network based on the simulation, via the one or more hardware processors, wherein the event condition comprises the perturbation in the supply network and a new opportunity necessitating modifications to the supply network; identifying, from amongst the plurality of candidate analytical solutions, a solution to the event condition in a global context of the supply network inferring that the solution arrived by considering vulnerability of the supply network to problems arising out of the event condition at a particular subsystem, and geographically distributed nature of the supply network that introduce time delays; modifying the supply network by implementing the solution in the supply network encompassing reconfiguration of software systems configured to operate the subsystems of the supply network; observing the supply network using the sensory data processing framework and detecting presence of an irregularity in the supply network; populating the exogenous model with data from the supply network using the sensory data processing framework; performing what-if analysis over the exogenous model to arrive at the solution. and populating the endogenous model with data from the supply network and establishes equivalence between the exogenous model and the endogenous model through testing; modifying the supply network as directed by the endogenous model; and continuously observing the supply network continuously in absence of an irregularity.
The limitations indicated above from exemplary claim 20 and the similar limitations of claims 21-22 fall under the abstract idea subject matter grouping of certain methods of organizing human activity per the sub-grouping regarding fundamental economic principles or practices based on the claim describing the managing of a supply network. For example, prior to computers, engineers and analysts had to manage and optimize supply chains effectively, a problem not specifically rooted in computer technology. The limitations also fall under the abstract idea subject matter grouping of mental processes. If a claim under its broadest reasonable interpretation covers performance in the mind or with aid of pen and paper but for the recitation of generic computer elements, then it is still in the mental processes category. The claimed steps of simulating, identifying, transforming and modifying encompass concepts that can be performed in the human mind including through observation, evaluation, judgment and opinion or with aid of pen and paper. For example, a person can perform “simulating, by an exogenous model, the supply network using at least a data populated from the supply network”. With respect to a model of the supply network presenting an outside-in perspective, a person can mentally devise and create through aid of pen and paper a representation of physical objects or aspects about the physical objects from observations and evaluation of received data. As an example, Applicant’s Figs. 1A and 1B can be considered models of a supply network that a person can draft. A person can also through observations and evaluation and aid of pen and paper, use the created model of the supply network and provide analytical solutions that correspond to an event condition associated with the supply network, thereby “simulating, by the exogenous model, the supply network”. The claim does not limit how the populating is done nor how the simulating is performed other than by a processor which is recited as generic computer element. The plain meaning of simulating or simulation encompasses mimicking, pretending or copying something. Therefore, a person can through observations, evaluation, judgment and aid of pen and paper use a model representing a supply network and mimic or pretend certain aspects of the supply network and arrive at candidate analytical solutions based on received information about the supply network and an event condition associated with the supply network. The claim does not put limits on the candidate analytical solutions that exclude a person from analyzing a problem and deciding on possible solutions based on a model or representation of physical objects or aspects about the physical objects and information received about the physical objects or related aspects. A person can also mentally decide using evaluation and judgment what analytical solution from the candidates is satisfiable and ‘good enough if not the best’ and through further evaluation apply the ‘good enough if not the best’ satisfiable solution to another model, thus modifying another model (i.e., an endogenous model). The claim does not limit how the modified endogenous model is transformed to an updated endogenous model to exclude a person from achieving such modified model. A person can also mentally decide, using observation, evaluation and judgment, on how to modify a supply network or reconfigure systems by implementing the satisfiable solution based on the updated endogenous model to control the supply network. For example, the end result of “to control the supply network and encompass reconfiguration of multiple software systems” could equate to a person providing an instruction to another person to adjust a plan, policy, rule, setting or design thereby controlling the supply network. Notably, these steps can be performed through mental processes or with aid of pen and paper as the recited computer elements are generically recited and do not specify how particular functionality is achieved other than by one or more hardware processors. The conclusion is also consistent with ineligible claim 2 of Example 47 of the USPTO’s July 2024 Subject Matter Eligibility. Examples in which steps describing training an artificial neural network and detecting and analyzing anomalies using the trained artificial neural network did not preclude the claim from reciting an abstract idea and in which the detecting and analyzing steps fell within the mental processes grouping of abstract ideas. It is noted that neither applicant’s claims or specification recite training an artificial neural network or machine learning. Therefore, the steps in Applicant’s claim 20 and the similar limitation of claims 21-22 describing modeling, simulating, analyzing (including inferring and considering vulnerability and geographically distributed nature of the supply network), transforming and modifying by a generic computer element similarly fall within mental processes. The recitation of the one or more hardware processors and other additional elements addressed below do not preclude the claim from reciting an abstract idea. For example, with the telephone unit and server in the TLI Communications decision, the court noted that even though a claim may recite concrete, tangible components, these components do not exclude the claim from the reach of the abstract-idea inquiry (See TLI Communications LLC v. AV Automotive, LLC No. 15-1372 (Fed. Cir. May 17, 2016)).
For Step 2A Prong Two of the subject matter eligibility test, the abstract idea is not integrated into a practical application. The additional elements of “one or more hardware processors”, using “an analytical modeling language” (specifically for simulating), and an unspecified type of training, an “IoT application” with associated sensors and devices to implement the abstract idea are recited at a high-level of generality such that they amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computers or merely using computers as a tool to perform an abstract idea. See MPEP 2106.05(f) regarding mere instructions to implement on a computer and merely using a computer as a tool. These additional elements do not go beyond generally linking the abstract idea to a particular technological environment, i.e., execution on a computer, and do not reflect a particular improvement in simulation technology. See MPEP 2106.05(h) regarding generally linking the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use. Similarly, the following additional elements as amended describing and giving context to the technological environment to which the abstract idea applies and what the recited model and supply network represent further link the abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use:
“…using the sensory data processing framework corresponding to an industrial internet of things (IoT) application or smart space environment having a plurality of sensors associated with a plurality of assets of the supply network”;
“wherein the sensors embodied in IoT based devices are adapted for sensing and observation of various parameters in the smart space environment enabling to perform analytics on the parameters to alert end-users about consequence of changes in state,”
“wherein the sensors are part of a mobile device, deployed to observe and track location of a physical object, observe weather conditions to monitor natural calamities, observe traffic on a road to enable traffic shaping and vehicle surveillance systems,”
“wherein the sensory data processing framework track subsystems and assets via metadata attributes and converted into digital form by sensors embodied therein, and each of said attributes is associated with a corresponding sensor for continuous monitoring,”
“wherein the industrial IoT application ranges from location based tracking of assets, remote management of assets, preventive or predictive maintenance,”
“an endogenous model that replicates a software system and control functions of the supply network,”
“wherein the supply network refers to vehicle manufacturing plant at varied locations, the cyber physical reality includes physical machines, software systems controlling the physical machines, software systems providing coordination support, production schedules, past history in terms of problems and remedies, and communications including machine-to-machine, software-to-machine, machine-to- software, software-to-software, wherein the vehicle manufacturing plant expanded into the supply network in which a node denotes a work-shade and an edge denotes a channel for transporting produced goods,”
“wherein the event condition comprises the perturbation in the supply network and a new opportunity necessitating modifications to the supply network;”
“encompassing reconfiguration of software systems configured to operate the subsystems of the supply network”
“using the sensory data processing framework and detecting presence of an irregularity in the supply network;”
Use of the one or more hardware processors and analytical modeling language recited in the claim at such a high level of generality as well as the newly amended additional elements describing and giving context to the technological environment to which the abstract idea applies and what the recited model and supply network represent does not reflect an improvement in the functioning of a computer or an improvement to other technology or technical field. For example, the claim does not limit how the populating of the model of data from the sensory data processing framework is performed nor how the simulating is performed other than by a processor which is recited as generic computer element to perform a generic function of receiving data over a network. Further, the claims do not reflect and the specification does not indicate a specific improvement in sensor technology. Similarly, the claims do not specify how the recited providing, identifying, transforming and modifying steps are achieved other than by one or more hardware processors. Rather, the claim conveys the idea of a solution or outcome without specifying how based on MPEP 2106.05(f). For example, the step of “providing, by the exogenous model, a plurality of candidate analytical solutions corresponding to an event condition associated with the supply network based on the simulation, via the one or more hardware processors” does not place any limits on how this is achieved or what processes are performed. A limitation indicating that a particular function is performed by a computer without specifying how is an indication the abstract idea has not been integrated (see MPEP 2106.05(f) and footnote 30 of the 2019 PEG with respect to limitation in Alice regarding creating and maintaining electronic records without specifying how) and amounts to mere instructions to implement an abstract idea of identifying a satisfiable solution using a generic computer. Thus, this does not integration of an abstract idea into a practical application. As explained in the Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Capital One Bank, 792 F.3d at 1371-72 (Fed. Cir. 2015) decision (citing Alice, 134 S. Ct. at 2359), “[s]teps that do nothing more than spell out what it means to ‘apply it on a computer’ cannot confer patent-eligibility.” Thus, the generic computer elements relied upon to implement the abstract idea and those relied upon for context of the technological environment associated with the abstract idea as well as what the recited models and supply network represent or mimic do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. Also, the additional element of “a sensory data processing framework” (including “wherein the exogenous model… is automatically populated with data from cyber physical reality using the sensory data processing framework”) as the source of data for the simulation is interpreted as representing mere data gathering and insignificant pre-solution activity based on the 2019 PEG and MPEP 2106.05(g) regarding limitations about data gathering. For example, the claim does not limit how such populating occurs from the supply network through the sensory data processing framework to the exogenous model and therefore amounts to receiving data over a network at a high level of generality. The 2019 PEG guidance and MPEP 2106.05(g) reference a limitation from CyberSource and indicate that mere data gathering or obtaining of information so that the information can be analyzed in order to make a determination can be considered insignificant extra-solution activity. Here, Applicant’s data populating aligns with this reference to CyberSource because the limitation also serves the purpose of obtaining data for analysis. Also, see SAP America v InvestPic (Fed. Cir. 2018) and MPEP 2106.05(g) regarding insignificance of selecting a particular data source or type of data to be manipulated with respect to mere data gathering. Further, the description of the sensory data processing framework as amended in the claim does not appear to recite a particular new technology or improvement in sensor technology or related technology or technical field but rather conveys invoking sensors in their ordinary known capacity to provide data. Also, the limitation in the “modifying” step of “and encompass reconfiguration of multiple software systems configured to operate the subsystems of the supply network, via the one or more hardware processors” as well as the step of “to control the supply network” does not place any limits on how this is achieved or what processes are performed such that control occurs and reconfiguration occurs beyond just “by a computer” which is not a meaningful limitation based on MPEP 2106.05(f). This nominal attempt to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application with unspecified “reconfiguration” and “control” amounts to insignificant post-solution activity. This is in contrast to the way the additional elements in Diamond v. Diehr served to show integration with controlling of operation of the rubber molding press. See MPEP 2106.05(g) regarding insignificant post-solution activity that is incidental and token post-solution components and additions in MPEP 2106.05(h). When considering the claim as a whole and how the additional elements individually and in combination are used, the additional elements do not reflect integration of the abstract idea into a practical application.
Regarding Step 2B, the claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above, with respect to a practical application, the additional elements amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components, merely using computers as a tool to perform an abstract idea, generally linking to a field of use or particular technological environment and insignificant extra-solution activity. Applicant’s originally filed specification (see Figs. 2, 3 and [034], [036] implemented in a variety of computing systems; [046] various categories of sensors; [047] Herein, it will be pertinent to note that said sensors may be suitable for multi-vendor generic sensor device management, data capture and observation processing) supports this conclusion with its disclosure of general purpose computers to perform the abstract idea. For the data populating considered insignificant extra-solution activity in Step 2A Prong Two, this has been reevaluated in Step 2B and determined to be well-understood, routine and conventional based on various court decisions such as Symantec, OIP Techs., and buySAFE (see MPEP 2106.05(d)(II)) which convey that mere receiving or transmitting of data over a network is a well-understood, routine and conventional function. This similarly applies to the “encompass reconfiguration” step which is interpreted as sending a notification or instruction. When considering the claim as a whole and how the additional elements individually and in combination are used, the additional elements do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself.
The dependent claims include the limitations of the independent claim and therefore recite the same abstract idea. Accordingly, the analysis and rationale discussed above regarding the independent claim and abstract idea also apply to the dependent claims. Also, the dependent claims further limit the abstract idea to a more narrow abstract idea by including: the satisfiable solution for a localized context of the supply network does not lead to undesirable ramifications across the supply network (claim 6), the event condition comprises at least one of a perturbation in the supply network and a new opportunity necessitating modifications to the supply network (claim 7), and validating the satisfiable solution against the undesirable ramifications across the supply network (claim 8). Such narrowing creates a more narrow abstract idea but does not transform the abstract idea into patent-eligible subject matter. Also, the validating and modifying are not limited by the claims as to how such steps are performed and amounts to applying an abstract idea using a generic computer. Additional elements in the dependent claims also generally link the abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use e.g., the supply network comprises a hierarchy of subsystems in the supply network are arranged in a fractal pattern (claim 3). Additional elements recited in the dependent claims also include generic processing components/functionality recited at a high-level of generality e.g., analytical modeling language is built on an actor model of computation for specifying the exogenous model (claim 4) and the analytical modeling language supports the fractal pattern of the supply network (claim 5). These additional elements do not impose any meaningful limits to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application nor do they provide for an inventive concept.
Claims 21, 12-17 (directed to a system) and claim 22 (directed to non-transitory machine readable information storage medium) recite limitations similar to those recited in the method claims addressed above and therefore the same analysis above also applies.
Applicant’s claims are not patent-eligible.
Potentially Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 3-8, 12-15, 17 and 20-22 are potentially allowable if the rejection of the claims under 35 U.S.C. 101 is overcome and the rejections under 35 USC 112(b) are addressed.
Response to Amendments/Remarks
Applicant’s remarks received on 07/21/2025 regarding the rejection of the claims under 35 U.S.C. 101 are not directed to the newly amended features of the independent claims of the supplemental amendment submitted on 11/05/2025 and as such a response is herein provided and the rejection is updated below to address the newly amended features at a high level because many of the argued features are not in the current version of the claims.
Applicant for example argues that the subject matter claimed in independent claims 1, 10 and 19 as amended integrates a judicial exception into a practical application. The prior independent claims have been cancelled. However, the newly added independent claims 20-22 do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application as soon in the rejection above.
With respect to a particular machine, examiner disagrees that unspecified mobile devices with unspecified sensors associated with unspecified assets of a supply network, in which the sensors are invoked for their known capabilities of detecting events and collecting or providing data about them, amount to a particular machine. The claimed sensory data processing framework amounts to limiting the abstract idea to a particular technology environment (see MPEP 2106.05(h)) and also amounts to mere data gathering (see MPEP 2106.05(g) and SAP America v. InvestPic (Fed. Cir. 2018) regarding insignificance of selecting a particular data source or type of data to be manipulated with respect to mere data gathering). Such data gathering is also well-understood, routine and conventional (see MPEP 2106.05(d)(II) with respect to transmitting and receiving data over a network). Further, the description of the sensory data processing framework as amended in the claim does not appear to recite a particular new technology or improvement in sensor technology or related technology or technical field but rather conveys invoking sensors in their ordinary known capacity to collect or provide data. With respect to a particular machine, Examiner disagrees that generally applying the abstract idea to a field of use of an unspecified vehicle manufacturing plant, which is not recited in the claims but rather “vehicle manufacturing plant” is, amounts to implementing with a particular machine (see MPEP 2106.05(h) regarding generally linking the abstract idea to a particular field of use or technological environment). Further, the limitation “wherein the supply network refers to vehicle manufacturing plant at varied locations, the cyber physical reality includes physical machines, software systems controlling the physical machines, software systems providing coordination support, production schedules, past history in terms of problems and remedies, and communications including machine-to-machine, software-to-machine, machine-to- software, software-to-software, wherein the vehicle manufacturing plant expanded into the supply network in which a node denotes a work-shade and an edge denotes a channel for transporting produced goods” is descriptive of the data being modeled. The type of data being modeled does not make the model less abstract.
With regard to Applicants argument that the claims are not directed to a mental process, Examiner disagrees. The limitations also fall under the abstract idea subject matter grouping of mental processes. If a claim under its broadest reasonable interpretation covers performance in the mind or with aid of pen and paper but for the recitation of generic computer elements, then it is still in the mental processes category. The claimed steps of simulating, identifying, transforming and modifying encompass concepts that can be performed in the human mind including through observation, evaluation, judgment and opinion or with aid of pen and paper. For example, a person can perform “simulating, by an exogenous model, the supply network using at least a data populated from the supply network”. With respect to a model of the supply network presenting an outside-in perspective, a person can mentally devise and create through aid of pen and paper a representation of physical objects or aspects about the physical objects from observations and evaluation of received data. As an example, Applicant’s Figs. 1A and 1B can be considered models of a supply network that a person can draft. A person can also through observations and evaluation and aid of pen and paper, use the created model of the supply network and provide analytical solutions that correspond to an event condition associated with the supply network, thereby “simulating, by the exogenous model, the supply network”. The claim does not limit how the populating is done nor how the simulating is performed other than by a processor which is recited as generic computer element. The plain meaning of simulating or simulation encompasses mimicking, pretending or copying something. Therefore, a person can through observations, evaluation, judgment and aid of pen and paper use a model representing a supply network and mimic or pretend certain aspects of the supply network and arrive at candidate analytical solutions based on received information about the supply network and an event condition associated with the supply network. The claim does not put limits on the candidate analytical solutions that exclude a person from analyzing a problem and deciding on possible solutions based on a model or representation of physical objects or aspects about the physical objects and information received about the physical objects or related aspects. A person can also mentally decide using evaluation and judgment what analytical solution from the candidates is satisfiable and satisfiable solution to another model, thus modifying another model (i.e., an endogenous model). The claim does not limit how the modified endogenous model is transformed to an updated endogenous model to exclude a person from achieving such modified model. A person can also mentally decide, using observation, evaluation and judgment, on how to modify a supply network or reconfigure systems by implementing the satisfiable solution based on the updated endogenous model to control the supply network. For example, the end result of “to control the supply network and encompass reconfiguration of multiple software systems” could equate to a person providing an instruction to another person to adjust a plan, policy, rule, setting or design thereby controlling the supply network. Notably, these steps can be performed through mental processes or with aid of pen and paper as the recited computer elements are generically recited and do not specify how particular functionality is achieved other than by one or more hardware processors. The conclusion is also consistent with ineligible claim 2 of Example 47 of the USPTO’s July 2024 Subject Matter Eligibility. Examples in which steps describing training an artificial neural network and detecting and analyzing anomalies using the trained artificial neural network did not preclude the claim from reciting an abstract idea and in which the detecting and analyzing steps fell within the mental processes grouping of abstract ideas. It is noted that neither applicant’s claims or specification recite training an artificial neural network or machine learning. Therefore, the steps in Applicant’s claim 20 and the similar limitation of claims 21-22 describing modeling, simulating, analyzing (including inferring and considering vulnerability and geographically distributed nature of the supply network), transforming and modifying by a generic computer element similarly fall within mental processes. The recitation of the one or more hardware processors and other additional elements addressed below do not preclude the claim from reciting an abstract idea. For example, with the telephone unit and server in the TLI Communications decision, the court noted that even though a claim may recite concrete, tangible components, these components do not exclude the claim from the reach of the abstract-idea inquiry (See TLI Communications LLC v. AV Automotive, LLC No. 15-1372 (Fed. Cir. May 17, 2016)).
Examiner notes that applicant do not argue that the claims do not recite a method of organizing human activity. It is noted in the rejection above and the non-final rejection the rejection mailed on 06/11/2025 stated that the claims also fall into the abstract idea subject matter grouping of certain methods of organizing human activity per the sub-grouping regarding fundamental economic principles or practices based on the claim describing the managing of a supply network.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to PATRICIA H MUNSON whose telephone number is (571)270-5396. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th 7:30am-5:30pm.
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, Tariq Hafiz can be reached at 571-272-5350. 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.
/PATRICIA H MUNSON/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3624