DETAILED ACTION
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 .
Status of the Application
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 10/21/2025 has been entered.
Status of Claims
Claims 1, 11, and 16 are currently amended.
Claims 1-20 are currently pending following this response.
New matter
No new matter has been added to the amended claims.
Response to Arguments - 35 USC § 101
The arguments have been fully considered, but they are not persuasive.
Regarding applicant’s arguments on pages 9-11
The examiner respectfully disagrees.
Applicant is directed to review Example 36 “Tracking Inventory” in the July 2015 Update Subject Matter Eligibility Examples 1-36. In Example 36 claims 1-3 recite respectively “(d) updating the inventory record with a physical location of each item of inventory in the warehouse to thereby manage the items of inventory.”, “(e) automatically updating the inventory record with the 3‐D coordinates of each item of inventory in the warehouse to thereby manage the items of inventory.”, and “(e) automatically updating the inventory record with the physical location of the item.”
The analysis of the claims concluded “updating the inventory record with the physical location of each item of inventory in the warehouse. That is, the claim describes the steps of managing inventory by creating an inventory record for each item of inventory comprising images of the item, adding classification data relating to the images to the inventory record, adding location data for each image to the inventory record, and updating the inventory record with the physical location of each item of inventory in the warehouse. The data collection, recognition, and storage concept described in the claim is similar to the data collection and management concepts that were held to be abstract ideas in Content Extraction, TLI Communications, and Electric Power Group. Although the claim enumerates the type of information (i.e., the images, classification data, and location data) that is acquired, stored and analyzed, the Federal Circuit has explained in Electric Power Group and Digitech that the mere selection and manipulation of particular information by itself does not make an abstract concept any less abstract. Further, the claim is not made any less abstract by the invocation of a programmed computer. Unlike Enfish, where the claims were focused on a specific improvement in how the computer functioned, the claim here merely uses the computer as a tool to perform the abstract concepts. Therefore, based on the similarity of the concept described in this claim to abstract ideas identified by the courts, claim 1 is directed to an abstract idea (Step 2A: Yes).”
Similarly, in the claims at issue, the real time updating of forecasting based on receiving additional or updated information does not make the abstract concept less abstract (Applicant’s arguments page 10 “automatically control tangible resources in response to continuously updated information”).
The additional elements, identified by the Examiner, such as “automatically”, “into an event platform that is network-connected and includes a logic engine”, , “by the logic engine”, “importing, filtering, and capturing”, “by the event platform”, “automatically in real-time utilizing the logic engine”, “devices” and “wherein the event platform includes at least a server and database storing the data, filtered data, additional data, and forecast”, “and wherein the event application communicates with the event platform”, “and an event interface of application accessible through the event platform to”, “or devices associated with the event”, “dynamically” are generic computer elements recited at a high level of generality and used to apply the abstract idea and nothing more. The recited additional elements do not integrate the claims into a practical application because as a whole, the additional elements do not improve any existing technology nor they improve the function of a computer.
Examiner would like to respectfully note that the current claims are distinguishable from DDR Holdings (Applicant’s arguments page 11), where the court found the claims to be patent eligible because they were rooted in computer technology. In DDR Holdings, the court found the claims to be patent eligible because the claims recite the solution of a hybrid webpage that co-displays the look and feel of the first website with the desired content from the second website. The court found such solution to be rooted in computer technology because there was no other way to accomplish such solution. The computer was an essential part of performing the solution. On the other hand, the current claims as they are currently presented, the computer components are not an essential part in accomplishing the business process described in the claims. Although the current claims recite functions performed by a computer system, such functions are merely reciting the receiving, processing and transmitting data over a network which has been found not to be significantly more limitations as stated above (please see July 2015 Update: Subject Matter Eligibility p.7).
Because the Examiner has determined that the judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application, the Examiner proceeds to Step 2B of the Eligibility Guidelines, which asks whether there is an inventive concept (Applicant’s arguments page 24). In making this Step 2B determination, the Examiner must consider whether there are specific limitations or elements recited in the claim “that are not well - understood, routine, conventional activity in the field, which is indicative that an inventive concept may be present” or whether the claim “simply appends well-understood, routine, conventional activities previously known to the industry, specified at a high level of generality, to the judicial exception, indicative that an inventive concept may not be present.” Eligibility Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. 56 (footnote omitted). The Examiner must also consider whether the combination of steps perform “in an unconventional way and therefore include an ‘inventive step,’ rendering the claim eligible at Step 2B” Id. In this part of the analysis, the Examiner considers “the elements of each claim both individually and ‘as an ordered combination’” to determine “whether the additional elements ‘transform the nature of the claim’ into a patent-eligible application.” Alice, 134 S. Ct. at 2354. As discussed above, there is no evidence in the record that the claimed steps allocating resources for an event is accomplished in a non-conventional way.
In Bascom (Applicant’s arguments page 12), the claims solved an internet centric problem of filtering internet content. The internet as computer technology as well as the computers are a necessary component of the claims. In other words, it is impossible to perform the claims without the use of the internet because no analog version of the problem existed prior to the internet.
On the other hand, the computing device in the present claims is not a necessary component to perform the abstract idea described in the claims. As it can be easily obvious to a skilled in the art, the present claims represent a process that can be done by a human analog that is merely linked to the computing device to solve the problem faced by vendor to allocate resources based on change forecasting. The removal of the computing device from the current claims and the use of pre-internet/pre-computer technology does not affect the performance of the abstract idea of " allocating services and resources for an event based on a forecast ".
Therefore, Bascom is distinguishable from the current claims because current claims are merely linking the combination of the conventional and routine computer components to the abstract idea in order to solve a business problem, while in Bascom, the abstract idea is necessarily rooted in the combination of the conventional and routine computer components.
The Examiner therefore concludes that the claims used generic, conventional, technology to implement the abstract idea of allocating services and resources for an event based on a forecast, and that there is no improvement to an “existing technology” in the present claims.
As a result, the present claims are not eligible under 101.
In conclusion, the Examiner maintains the rejections of the pending claims under 35 USC § 101 in the present office action.
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 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter. Specifically, claims 1-20 are directed to an abstract idea without additional elements to integrate the claims into a practical application or to amount to significantly more than the abstract idea.
Claims 1-20 are directed to a process, machine, or manufacture (Step 1), however the claims are directed to the abstract idea of allocating services and resources for an event based on a forecast.
With respect to Step 2A Prong One of the frameworks, claim 1 recites an abstract idea. Claim 1 includes limitations for “A method for allocating resources for an event, the method comprising: importing data from one or more external data sources into an event platform, wherein the data relates to historical data and real-time data associated with the event and forecast information associated with the event; filtering the data for relevance to the event to generate filtered data; capturing additional data regarding the event by the event platform any time before a date and time associated with the event, wherein the additional data is enabled to be captured from databases, servers, and services with the additional data regarding the event; generating a forecast for the event by logic of the event platform utilizing the filtered data and the additional data, wherein the forecast includes a range of forecasts from conservative to aggressive; updating the forecast in the event platform in response to the filtered data or the additional data being updated or changed; allocating services and resources for the event by the event platform in response to the forecast, wherein the logic dynamically allocates the services and resources to effect a tangible change in the forecast as a real-time response to the data being updated or changed, and wherein the resources include physical assets or products reserved particularly for the event; and communicating information regarding the services and resources forecast for the event through at least an alert authorized user, storing the data, filtered data, additional data, and forecast”
The limitations above recite an abstract idea under Step 2A Prong One. More particularly, the limitations above recite Mental Process because an ordinary person can gather historical and external data, filter data, and forecast resources for an event. As a result, claim 1 recites an abstract idea under Step 2A Prong One.
Claims 11 and 16 recite substantially similar limitations to those presented with respect to claim 1. As a result, claims 11 and 16 recite an abstract idea under Step 2A Prong One for the same reasons as stated above with respect to claim 1. Similarly, claims 2-10, 12-15, and 17-20 recite a Mental Process because the claimed elements describe a process for allocating services and resources for an event based on a forecast. As a result, claims 2-10, 12-15, and 17-20 recite an abstract idea under Step 2A Prong One.
With respect to Step 2A Prong Two of the framework, claim 1 does not include additional elements that integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Claim 1 includes additional elements that do not recite an abstract idea. The additional elements of claim 1 include “automatically”, “into an event platform that is network-connected and includes a logic engine”, , “by the logic engine”, “importing, filtering, and capturing”, “by the event platform”, “automatically in real-time utilizing the logic engine”, “devices” and “wherein the event platform includes at least a server and database storing the data, filtered data, additional data, and forecast”, “and wherein the event application communicates with the event platform”, “and an event interface of application accessible through the event platform to”, “or devices associated with the event”, “dynamically”. The steps of “importing, filtering, and capturing” do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because “importing, filtering, communicating, and capturing” are insignificant extra solution activity to the judicial exception and training a machine learning model is used to apply the abstract idea. When considered in view of the claim as a whole, the recited computer elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because the computer elements are generic computer elements that are merely used as a tool to perform the recited abstract idea. As a result, claim 1 does not include additional elements that integrate the abstract idea into a practical application under Step 2A Prong Two.
As noted above, claims 11 and 16 recite substantially similar limitations to those recited with respect to claim 1. Although claim 11 further recites “A system for managing events, the system comprising: a cloud server configured to interface with a website or applications installed on a plurality of electronic devices” and claim 16 further recites “A cloud server for managing forecasting for events comprising: a processor for executing a set of instructions; and a memory for storing the set of instructions”, when considered in view of the claim as a whole, the recited computer elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because the computer elements are generic computer elements that are merely used as a tool to perform the recited abstract idea. As a result, claims 11 and 16 do not include additional elements that integrate the abstract idea into a practical application under Step 2A Prong Two.
Claims 2-10, 12-15, and 17-20 include additional elements beyond those recited by independent claims 1, 11, and 16. The additional elements in the dependent claims include “registering a plurality of electronic devices” as in claims 3 and 13, “updating multiple devices or service providers” as in claim 10, and “the cloud server sends one or more alerts” as in claims 9, 12, and 17. When considered in view of the claims as a whole, the recited computer elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because the computer elements are generic computer elements that are merely used as a tool to perform the recited abstract idea, As a result, claims 2-10, 12-15, and 17-20 do not include additional elements that integrate the abstract idea into a practical application under Step 2A Prong Two.
With respect to Step 2B of the framework, claim 1 does not include additional elements amounting to significantly more than the abstract idea. As noted above, claim 1 includes additional elements that do not recite an abstract idea. The additional elements of claim 1 include “automatically”, “into an event platform that is network-connected and includes a logic engine”, , “by the logic engine”, “importing, filtering, and capturing”, “by the event platform”, “automatically in real-time utilizing the logic engine”, “devices” and “wherein the event platform includes at least a server and database storing the data, filtered data, additional data, and forecast”, “and wherein the event application communicates with the event platform”, “and an event interface of application accessible through the event platform to”, “or devices associated with the event”, “dynamically” do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea because “importing, filtering, and capturing” are well-understood, routine, and conventional computer function in view of MPEP 2106.05(d)(ll). The recited computer elements do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea because the computer elements are generic computer elements that are merely used as a tool to perform the recited abstract idea. As a result, claim 1 does not include additional elements that amount to significantly more than the abstract idea under Step 2B.
As noted above, claims 11 and 16 recite substantially similar limitations to those recited with respect to claim 1. Although claim 11 further recites “A system for managing events, the system comprising: a cloud server configured to interface with a website or applications installed on a plurality of electronic devices” and claim 16 further recites “A cloud server for managing forecasting for events comprising: a processor for executing a set of instructions; and a memory for storing the set of instructions”, the recited computer elements do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea because the computer elements are generic computer elements that are merely used as a tool to perform the recited abstract idea. Further, looking at the additional elements as an ordered combination adds nothing that is not already present when considering the additional elements individually. As a result, claims 11 and 16 do not include additional elements that amount to significantly more than the abstract idea under Step 2B.
Claims 2-10, 12-15, and 17-20 include additional elements beyond those recited by independent claims 1, 11, and 16. The additional elements in the dependent claims include “registering a plurality of electronic devices” as in claims 3 and 13, “updating multiple devices or service providers” as in claim 10, and “the cloud server sends one or more alerts” as in claims 9, 12, and 17. The recited computer elements do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea because the computer elements are generic computer elements that are merely used as a tool to perform the recited abstract idea. As a result, claims 2-10, 12-15, and 17-20 do not include additional elements that amount to significantly more than the abstract idea under Step 2B.
Therefore, the claims are directed to an abstract idea without additional elements amounting to significantly more than the abstract idea. Accordingly, claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 as being directed to non-statutory subject matter.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication from the examiner should be directed to Abdallah El-Hagehassan whose contact information is (571) 272-0819 and Abdallah.el-hagehassan@uspto.gov The examiner can normally be reached on Monday- Friday 8 am to 5 pm.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Rutao Wu can be reached on (571) 272-6045. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is (571) 273-3734.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the patent application information retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information of published applications may be obtained from either private PAIR or public PAIR. Status information of unpublished applications is available through private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have any questions on access to the private PAIR system, contact the electronic business center (EBC) at (866) 271-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO customer service representative or access to the automated information system, call (800) 786-9199 (in US or Canada) or (571) 272-1000.
/ABDALLAH A EL-HAGE HASSAN/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3623