DETAILED ACTION
This non-final office action is in response to Applicant’s request for continued examination and amendment filed September 2, 2025 and supplemental amendment filed January 15, 2026 filed in response to the Patent Trial and Appeals Board decision mailed April 15, 2025. Applicant’s September 2nd amendment amended independent claims 1, 10 and 11. Applicant’s January 15th amendment amended independent claims 1, 10 and 11. Currently Claims 1-11 are pending. Claims 1, 10 and 11 are the independent claims.
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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114 was filed in this application after a decision by the Patent Trial and Appeal Board, but before the filing of a Notice of Appeal to the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit or the commencement of a civil action. 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examination under 37 CFR 1.114 and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the appeal has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114 and prosecution in this application has been reopened pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant’s submission filed on September 2, 2025 been entered.
Response to Amendment
The 35 U.S.C. 101 rejection of claims 1-11 in the previous office action is maintained.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed January 15, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Specifically, Applicant argues that the claims are patent eligible under 35 U.S.C. 101 as the claims are not directed to an abstract idea (Remarks: Paragraph 2, Page 7), the claims are similar to Enfish (e.g. specific implementation of a solution to a problem in the software arts; solve a problem in the data science arts, allows for swift improvements in the operation of a supply chain; Remarks: Last Three Paragraphs, Page 7; Paragraphs 1-2, Page 8); the claims integrate abstract idea into practical application (e.g. improve a measure of order fulfillment of the supply chain - e.g. a proportion of customers whose orders are fulfilled on time; supply chain can be less vulnerable to changes; Remarks: Page 9); and the claims recite significantly more than the abstract idea (Remarks: Pages 10, 11).
It is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., order fulfillment, customer orders, swift improvements; Remarks: Second to Last Paragraph, Page 9) as part of their arguments are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
In response to Applicant’s argument that the claims are patent eligible under 35 U.S.C. 101 as the claims are not directed to an abstract idea, the examiner respectfully disagrees.
The pending claims are directed to the abstract idea of supply chain management/modeling. More specifically the claims recite a computer implemented method/system/computer storage medium storing instructions comprising repeatedly 1. selecting input settings for operating a supply chain based on a causal model which measures causal relationships between supply chain input settings and supply chain measure of success, 2. determining a measure of supply chain success, 3. adjusting the causal model, and 4. re-computing the causal model by computing overall impact measurement. More succinctly the claims recite a method for re-computing a causal model (i.e. recalculating a mathematical model – see Figures 1B (below), 6; mathematical concept – causal model captures maps causal relationships between supply chain input settings and supply chain measure of success).
PNG
media_image1.png
677
974
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Supply chain management/modeling is a fundamental economic practice that falls into the abstract idea subcategories of sales activities and/or commercial interactions, as well as being directed to a mental process capable of being performed by in the human mind via observation, evaluation, judgement and opinion.
More specifically supply chain management/modeling is a business problem, not a technical problem wherein Applicant’s disclosure and arguments make clear the focus of the invention is to achieve ‘improvements’ in a supply chain through ‘repeatedly’ adjusting supply chain input settings based on measures of success and recomputing a causal model (commonly referred to as statistical process control). Utilizing a mathematical model, even one whose settings are ‘repeatedly’ updated and recomputed based on ‘measures of success’, is merely an abstract idea directed to modeling/managing a supply chain.
While the claims may represent an improvement to the fundamental economic process of supply chain modeling/management, the claims in no way either claimed or disclosed provide a technical solution to a technical problem; improve any of the underlying technology (e.g. one or more computer processors, one or more processors, system, one or more computers, one or more storage devices) or improve another technical field (e.g supply chain management, order fulfillment and the like are not technical fields).
Additionally, the claims are directed to a mental processing practically capable of being performed in the human mind via observation, evaluation, judgement and opinion. Representative claim 1: The step of selecting a configuration of input settings for operating a supply chain may be performed in the human mind via evaluation and judgement. The step of determining a measure of success of the supply chain operated using the configuration of input settings is capable of being performed in the human mind via judgement and opinion. The step of adjusting the causal model based on the measure of success may be performed in the human mind via evaluation and judgement. The step of re-computing the causal model by computing overall impact measurements may be performed in the human mind via evaluation and judgement.
Other than the recitation of one or more computer processors, one or more processors, system, one or more computers, one or more storage devices nothing in the claimed steps precludes the step from practically being performed in the mind. The claims do not recite additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. The limitations directed to a one or more computer processors, one or more processors, system, one or more computers, one or more storage devices are each recited at a high level of generality and amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer. See MPEP 2106.05(f). Further the mere nominal recitation of a generic computer (each used for their well-understood, conventional and routine purpose) does not take the claim limitation out of the mental processes grouping.
The claims use “conventional or generic technology in a nascent but well-known environment” to implement the abstract idea of supply chain modeling/management. In re TLI Commc’ns LLC Pat. Litig., 823 F.3d 607, 612 (Fed. Cir. 2016). The recited technology are used as a “conduit for the abstract idea,” not to provide a technological solution to a specific technological problem. Id.; see also id. at 611–13 (holding claims reciting the use of a cellular telephone and a network server to classify an image and store the image based on its classification to be abstract because the patent did “not describe a new telephone, a new server, or a new physical combination of the two” and did not address “how to combine a camera with a cellular telephone, how to transmit images via a cellular network, or even how to append classification information to that data”).
Nothing in Applicant’s disclosures suggests that the Applicant intended to accomplish any of the steps recited in the claims through anything other than well understood technology used in a routine and conventional manner. Therefore, the claims lack an inventive concept. See also, e.g., Elec. Power Grp., 830 F.3d at 1355 (holding claims lacked inventive concept where “[n]othing in the claims, understood in light of the specification, requires anything other than off-the-shelf, conventional computer, network, and display technology for gathering, sending, and presenting the desired information”); Content Extraction, 776 F.3d at 1348 (holding claims lacked an inventive concept where the claims recited the use of “existing scanning and processing technology”).
Accordingly, the claims are not patent eligible under 35 U.S.C. 101 as being directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
In response to Applicant’s argument that the claims are patent eligible under 35 U.S.C. 101 as the claims are similar to Enfish, the examiner respectfully disagrees.
The claims of the patents at issue in Enfish describe the steps of configuring a computer memory in accordance with a self-referential table, in both method claims and system claims that invoke 35 U.S.C. § 112(t). The court asked whether the focus of the claims is on the specific asserted improvement in computer capabilities (i.e., the self-referential table for a computer database), or instead on a process that qualifies as an "abstract idea" for which computers are invoked merely as a tool. To make the determination of whether these claims are directed to an improvement in existing computer technology, the court looked to the teachings of the specification. Specifically, the court identified the specification's teachings that the claimed invention achieves other benefits over conventional databases, such as increased flexibility, faster search times, and smaller memory requirements.
The instant application, does not recite a database of any kind, and is a generic computer (one or more processors, one or more computers, etc.) as a generic tool for performing the generic computer functions of receiving and processing data (e.g. input settings, determining measure of success, etc.), wherein receiving and processing data recites a generic computer performing generic computer functions. The claims are similar to ideas found to be abstract, wherein upon examination of the claims as a whole and in terms of each claim’s limitations reveals that the claims are not directed to improving computer performance and do not recite any such benefit. The claims are directed to supply chain modeling/management and merely use a computer to improve the performance of a supply chain (i.e. improvement in the abstract idea itself).
With regards to Applicant’s argument that the claimed invention provides a specific implementation of a solution to a problem in the software arts and/or solve a problem in the data science arts, the examiner respectfully disagrees. Similar to the discussion in Uniloc USA, Inc. v. LG Electronics USA, Appeal No. 19-1835 (Fed. Cir. Apr. 30, 2020), where the Federal Circuit reaffirmed that software inventions are patentable in the U.S. with a bright-line statement: “Our precedent is clear that software can make patent-eligible improvements to computer technology, and related claims are eligible as long as they are directed to non-abstract improvements to the functionality of a computer or network platform itself.” the instant application merely applies the abstract idea (supply chain model) using a generic computer as a conduit/tool for the abstract idea and does not improve the functioning of a computer or computer networks, does not improve another technical field and does not provide a technical solution to a technical problem.
With regards to Applicant’s argument that the claimed invention allows for swift improvements in the operation of a supply chain, the examiner notes that this wished-for benefit of the claimed supply chain modeling system and method at best represents an improvement in the abstract idea itself – i.e. supply chain management/modeling and in no way provides (either disclosed or recited) an improvement in any of the underlying generic computers/processors or an improvement in another technical field (operating a supply chain is not a technical field).
With regards to Applicant’s argument that the claims represent an improvement over conventional supply chain systems (e.g. improved order fulfillment, swift improvements in operations - not actually claimed) as result of the claimed of supply chain planning method/system, the examiner respectfully disagrees. At best, this wished for improvement, is an improvement in the abstract idea itself.
Nowhere in Applicant’s specification does Applicant discuss or imply that the thrust of the invention, much alone a side-effect, is directed to improving the performance of the computer in sharp contrast to the court findings in the Enfish decision.
Accordingly, the claims are nothing like the claims in Enfish and therefore are not patent eligible under 35 U.S.C. 101.
In response to Applicant’s argument that the claims are patent eligible under 35 U.S.C. 101 as the claims the claims do not unduly monopolize/preempt the basic tools of scientific/technological work, the examiner respectfully disagrees.
The issue is whether the claims preempt the abstract idea of supply chain management/planning that is claimed. The abstract idea of the challenged claims is not only supply chain planning/management in general, but also the specific type of supply chain planning/management claimed in each claim. Furthermore, limiting an abstract idea to a specific field of use or adding token post-solution activity does not make an abstract idea patentable. Diehr, 450 U.S. at 191–92; Parker v. Flook, 437 U.S. 584, 590 (1978) (“[t]he notion that post-solution activity, no matter how conventional or obvious in itself, can transform an unpatentable principle into a patentable process exalts form over substance”).
The scope of the claimed invention clearly applies to any/all ‘supply chains’ (e.g. chemical processing to providing education materials via books/online websites) wherein the claims fail to recite any meets or bounds to the phrase ‘supply chain’. Further the claimed invention, particularly in independent claims 1, 10 and 11, fails to recited any meets or bounds to the selected ‘input settings’ upon which the supply chain is configured or any meets of bounds to the ‘measures of success’ or any meets or bounds directed to the ‘adjusting’ of the supply chain wherein the claims clearly read on any/all possible supply chains, input settings/configurations, measures of success and/or adjustments to ‘supply chains’.
The Supreme Court has described the concern driving the judicial exceptions as preemption, however, the courts do not use preemption as a stand-alone test for eligibility. Instead, questions of preemption are inherent in the two-part framework from Alice Corp. and Mayo (incorporated in the 2014 IEG as Steps 2A and 2B), and are resolved by using this framework to distinguish between preemptive claims, and “those that integrate the building blocks into something more…the latter pose no comparable risk of pre-emption, and therefore remain eligible”. It should be kept in mind, however, that while a preemptive claim may be ineligible, the absence of complete preemption does not guarantee that a claim is eligible.
In response to Applicant’s argument that the claims are patent eligible under 35 U.S.C. 101 as the claims integrate the abstract idea into a practical application, the examiner respectfully disagrees.
Initially examiner notes, that Applicant’s arguments related to the ‘practical application’ of the claimed invention are merely wished for results, specifically desired benefits/improvements to a supply chain (e.g. improvements to a measure of order fulfillment of the supply chain (on-time orders) and/or result in a less vulnerable supply chain to potential business benefits of the claimed invention). These argued wished for results/improvements to a supply chain (a business entity) do not represent in anyway improvements to the underlying technological elements, do not represent improvements in another technical field (supply chain operation, modeling, planning etc. are not technical fields) and does not provide a technical solution to a technical problem.
Further it is noted that none of the argued features are actually positively recited in the pending claims (e.g. no claim language related to order fulfillment, on-time orders, supply chain vulnerability, or the like).
The claims are directed to a well-known business practice – supply chain management/planning – in this case the repeatedly updating/recomputing input settings for a causal model (mathematical model) based on impact/measures of success. While the claims may represent an improvement to the business process of supply chain management/planning/modeling they in no way either claimed or disclosed represent a practical application.
Under MPEP § 2106.05, the claims are evaluated to determine if additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application (see Manual of Patent Examining Procedure ("MPEP") §§ 2106.05(a)-(c), (e)- (h)). A claim that integrates a judicial exception into a practical application applies, relies on, or uses the judicial exception in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on the judicial exception, such that the claim is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the judicial exception.
For example, limitations that are indicative of "integration into a practical application" include:
Improvements to the functioning of a computer, or to any other technology or technical field - see MPEP § 2106.05(a);
Applying the judicial exception with, or by use of, a particular machine - see MPEP § 2106.05(b);
Effecting a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing - see 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 - see MPEP § 2106.05(e).
In contrast, limitations that are not indicative of "integration into a practical application" include:
Adding the words "apply it" (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or merely include 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(±);
Adding insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception- see MPEP § 2106.05(g); and
Generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use - see MPEP 2106.05(h).
In view of the MPEP § 2106.05, one must consider whether there are additional elements set forth in the claims that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. The identified additional non-abstract elements recited in the independent claims are the generic one or more computer processors, one or more processors, system, one or more computers, one or more storage devices. These generic computer hardware merely performs generic computer functions of receiving and processing data and represent a purely conventional implementation of applicant’s supply chain planning in the general field of business management and do not represent significantly more than the abstract idea. See at least MPEP § 2106.05(a) ("Improvements to the Functioning of a Computer or to Any Other Technology or Technical Field").
These recited additional elements are merely generic computer components. The claims do present any other issues as set forth in the MPEP § 2106.05 regarding a determination of whether the additional generic elements integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. Rather, the claims merely use instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely use a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea.
The claims do not recite improvements to the functioning of a computer or any other technology field (MPEP 2106.05(a)), the claims do not apply or use the abstract idea to effect a particular treatment or prophylaxis for a disease or medical condition, the claims to do apply the abstract idea with a particular machine (MPEP 2106.05(b)), the claims do not effect a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing (e.g. data remains data even after processing; MPEP 2106.05(c)), the claims no not apply or use the abstract idea in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the user of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment (i.e. a generic computer) such that the claim as a whole is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the abstract idea (MPEP 2106.05(e)). The recited generic computing elements are no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Accordingly, this 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.
Thus, under Step 2A, Prong Two (MPEP §§ 2106.05(a)-(c) and (e)- (h)), the claims do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
There is a fundamental difference between computer functionality improvements, on the one hand, and uses of existing computers as tools to perform a particular task, on the other — a distinction that the Federal Circuit applied in Enfish, in rejecting a § 101 challenge at the first stage of the Mayo/Alice framework because the claims at issue focused on a specific type of data structure, i.e., a self-referential table, designed to improve the way a computer stores and retrieves data in memory, and not merely on asserted advances in uses to which existing computer capabilities could be put. See Enfish, 822 F.3d at 1335-36. Here the claims simply use a computer as a tool and nothing more.
For the reasons outlined above, that the claims recite a method of organizing human activity, i.e., an abstract idea, and that the additional element recited in the claim beyond the abstract idea (i.e., one or more computer processors, one or more processors, system, one or more computers, one or more storage devices) is no more than a generic computer component used as a tool to perform the recited abstract idea. As such, it does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. See Alice Corp., 573 U.S. at 223-24 (“[Wholly generic computer implementation is not generally the sort of ‘additional featur[e]’ that provides any ‘practical assurance that the process is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the [abstract idea] itself.’” (quoting Mayo, 566 U.S. at 77)).
Accordingly, the claims are directed to an abstract idea.
Step Two of the Mayo/Alice Framework (Step 2B)
Having determined under step one of the Mayo/Alice framework that the claims are directed to an abstract idea, we next consider under Step 2B of the Guidance, the second step of the Mayo/Alice framework, whether the claims include additional elements or a combination of elements that provides an “inventive concept,” i.e., whether an additional element or combination of elements adds specific limitations beyond the judicial exception that are not “well-understood, routine, conventional activity” in the field (which is indicative that an inventive concept is present) or simply appends well-understood, routine, conventional activities previously known to the industry to the judicial exception. See MPEP § 2106.05.
Under step two of the Mayo/Alice framework, the elements of each claim are considered both individually and “as an ordered combination” to determine whether the additional elements, i.e., the elements other than the abstract idea itself, “transform the nature of the claim” into a patent-eligible application. Alice Corp., 573 U.S. at 217 (citation omitted); see Mayo, 566 U.S. at 72-73 (requiring that “a process that focuses upon the use of a natural law also contain other elements or a combination of elements, sometimes referred to as an ‘inventive concept,’ sufficient to ensure that the patent in practice amounts to significantly more than a patent upon the natural law itself’ (emphasis added) (citation omitted)).
Here the only additional element recited in the claims beyond the abstract idea is a one or more computer processors, one or more processors, system, one or more computers, one or more storage devices” i.e., generic computer component. See Alice, 573 U.S. at 223 (“[T]he mere recitation of a generic computer cannot transform a patent-ineligible abstract idea into a patent-eligible invention.”). Applicant has not identified any additional elements recited in the claim that, individually or in combination, provides significantly more than the abstract idea.
Accordingly, the claims are not patent eligible under 35 U.S.C. 101.
In response to Applicant’s argument that the claims are patent eligible under 35 U.S.C. 101 as the claims recite significantly more than the abstract idea, the examiner respectfully disagrees.
As discussed in the Final office action mailed June 29, 2023, the examiner considered whether there are additional elements set for in the claims that recite significantly more than the abstract idea and/or integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Specifically, the examiner noted (see at least Pages 5, 6) that the identified additional non-abstract elements recited in the independent claims are the generic one or more computer processors, one or more processors, system, one or more computers, one or more storage devices). The generic computer hardware of independent claims 1, 10 and 11 merely performs generic computer functions of receiving and processing data and represent a purely conventional implementation of applicant’s supply chain management/planning in the general field of business management and do not represent significantly more than the abstract idea. See at least MPEP § 2106.05(a) ("Improvements to the Functioning of a Computer or to Any Other Technology or Technical Field").
The examiner notes that none of the claimed method steps directed to selecting, determining, adjusting or re-computing were identified as being routine, conventional or routine – only the system, computer and storage devices of claims 1, 10 and 11 have been identified as well-known, conventional and routine.
As admitted by Applicant, on at least Pages 43-45 of Applicants’ disclosure, the recited computer, system, storage devices and computer programs of independent claims 1, 10 and 11 refer to and encompass “all kinds of apparatus, devices and machines for processing data” (Specification: Second to Last Paragraph, Page 43) as well as “Computers suitable for execution of a computer program can be based on general or special purpose microprocessors of both or any other kind of central processing unit” (Specification: Last Paragraph, Page 44).
More specifically, the claims use “conventional or generic technology in a nascent but well-known environment” to implement the abstract idea of supply chain management. In re TLI Commc’ns LLC Pat. Litig., 823 F.3d 607, 612 (Fed. Cir. 2016). The recited technology (one or more computer processors, one or more processors, system, one or more computers, one or more storage devices), are used as a “conduit for the abstract idea,” not to provide a technological solution to a specific technological problem. Id.; see also id. at 611–13 (holding claims reciting the use of a cellular telephone and a network server to classify an image and store the image based on its classification to be abstract because the patent did “not describe a new telephone, a new server, or a new physical combination of the two” and did not address “how to combine a camera with a cellular telephone, how to transmit images via a cellular network, or even how to append classification information to that data”).
Nothing in Applicant’s disclosures suggests that the Applicant intended to accomplish any of the steps recited in independent claims 1, 10 and 11 through anything other than well understood technology used in a routine and conventional manner. Therefore, the claims lack an inventive concept. See also, e.g., Elec. Power Grp., 830 F.3d at 1355 (holding claims lacked inventive concept where “[n]othing in the claims, understood in light of the specification, requires anything other than off-the-shelf, conventional computer, network, and display technology for gathering, sending, and presenting the desired information”); Content Extraction, 776 F.3d at 1348 (holding claims lacked an inventive concept where the claims recited the use of “existing scanning and processing technology”).
Accordingly, the claims are directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
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 1-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more.
Regarding independent Claim 1, 10 and 11, the claims are directed to the abstract idea of supply chain management. This is a process (i.e. a series of steps) which (Statutory Category – Yes –process).
The claims recite a judicial exception, a method for organizing human activity, supply chain management (Judicial Exception – Yes – organizing human activity). Specifically, the claims are directed to repeatedly re-computing a causal model of a supply chain (mathematical model – Figures 1B, 6), wherein supply chain management is a fundamental economic practice that falls into the abstract idea subcategories of sales activities and/or commercial interactions. Further all of the steps of “repeatedly performing”, “selecting”, “determining”, “adjusting” and “re-computing” recite functions of the supply chain management are also directed to an abstract idea that falls into the abstract idea subcategories of sales activities and/or commercial interactions. The steps of determining the measure of success, adjusting the causal model and re-computing the causal model are also directed to an abstract idea because they are directed to mathematical concepts/operations. The intended purpose of independent claim 1, 10 and 11 appears to be to operate/manage a supply chain based on a repeatedly recomputed causal model that measures causal relationships between supply chain input settings and a supply chain measure of success. Accordingly, the claims recite an abstract idea – fundamental economic practice, specifically in the abstract idea subcategories of sales activities and/or commercial interactions. The exceptions are the additional limitations of generic computer elements: one or more computer processors, one or more processors, system, one or more computers, one or more storage devices
Accordingly, the claims recite an abstract idea under Step 2A, Prong One, we proceed to Step 2A, Prong Two. Considering whether the additional elements set forth in the claim integrate the abstract idea into a practical application, the previously identified non-abstract elements directed to generic computing components include: one or more computer processors, one or more processors, system, one or more computers, one or more storage devices. These generic computing components are merely used to receive and process data as described extensively in Applicant’s specification. Generic computers performing generic computer functions, alone, do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. Moreover, when viewed as a whole with such additional elements considered as an ordered combination, the claim modified by adding a generic computer would be nothing more than a purely conventional computerized implementation of applicant's supply chain management in the general field of business management and would not provide significantly more than the judicial exception itself. Note McRo, Inc. v. Bandai Namco Games America Inc. (837 F.3d 1299 (Fed. Cir. 2016)), guides: "[t]he abstract idea exception prevents patenting a result where 'it matters not by what process or machinery the result is accomplished."' 837 F.3d at 1312 (quoting O'Reilly v. Morse, 56 U.S. 62, 113 (1854)) (emphasis added). The claims are not directed to a particular machine nor do they recite a particular transformation (MPEP § 2106.05(b)).
Additionally, the claims do not recite any specific claim limitations that would provide a meaningful limitation beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment. Nor do the claims present any other issues as set forth in MPEP 2106.04 regarding a determination of whether the additional generic elements integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. Rather, the claims merely use instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely use a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea. Thus, under Step 2A, Prong Two (MPEP §§ 2106.05(a)-(c) and (e)- (h)), claims 1-11 do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. Regarding the use of the generic (known, conventional) recited " system, computers, storage devices/media storing instructions," the Supreme Court has held "the mere recitation of a generic computer cannot transform a patent-ineligible abstract idea into a patent-eligible invention." Alice, 573 U.S. 208, 223. Generic computers performing generic computer functions, alone, do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. The claims as a whole do not recite more than what was well-known, routine and conventional in the field (see MPEP § 2106.05(d)). In light of the foregoing that each of the claims, considered as a whole, is directed to a patent-ineligible abstract idea that is not integrated into a practical application and does not include an inventive concept.
Accordingly, the claims are not patent eligible under 35 U.S.C. 101.
Additionally, the claims recite a judicial exception, a mental processes, which can be performed in the human mind or via pen and paper (Judicial Exception – Yes – mental process).
The claimed steps of repeatedly performing, selecting a configuration of input settings, determining the measure of success, adjusting the causal model and re-computing the causal model all describe the abstract idea. These limitations as drafted are directed to a process that under its reasonable interpretation covers performance of the steps in the mind but for the recitation of the generic computer components. Other than the recitation of a one or more computer processors, one or more processors, system, one or more computers, one or more storage devices nothing in the claimed steps precludes the step from practically being performed in the mind. The claims do not recite additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. The mere nominal recitation of a generic processor/computer does not take the claim limitation out of the mental processes grouping. Thus, the claim recites a mental process. (Judicial Exception recited – Yes – mental process).
The claims do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. The generic one or more computer processors, one or more processors, system, one or more computers, one or more storage devices are recited at a high level of generality merely performs generic computer functions of receiving and processing data. The generic processor merely applies the abstract idea using generic computer components. The elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claims do not recite improvements to the functioning of a computer or any other technology field (MPEP 2106.05(a)), the claims do not apply or use the abstract idea to effect a particular treatment or prophylaxis for a disease or medical condition, the claims to do apply the abstract idea with a particular machine (MPEP 2106.05(b)), the claims do not effect a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing (e.g. data remains data even after processing; MPEP 2106.05(c)), the claims no not apply or use the abstract idea in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the user of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment (i.e. a generic computer) such that the claim as a whole is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the abstract idea (MPEP 2106.05(e)). The recited generic computing elements are no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Accordingly, this 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. (Integrated into a Practical Application – No).
As discussed above the additional elements in the claims amount to no more than a mere instruction to apply the abstract idea using generic computing components, wherein mere instructions to apply a judicial exception using generic computer components cannot integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide an inventive concept. For the steps that were considered extra-solution activity, this has been re-evaluated and determined to be well-understood, routine, conventional activity in the field. Applications specification does not provide any indication that the computer/processor is anything other than a generic, off-the-shelf computer component, and the Symantec, TLI, and OIP Techs. court decisions (MPEP 2106.05(d)(II)) indicate that mere collection or receipt of data over a network is a well‐understood, routine, and conventional function when it is claimed in a merely generic manner (as it is here). For these reasons, there is no inventive concept. The claim is ineligible (Provide Inventive Concept – No).
The claims are ineligible under 35 U.S.C. 101 as being directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Regarding dependent claims 2-9, the claims are directed to the abstract idea of supply chain management and merely further limit the abstract idea claimed in independent claims 1, 10 and 11.
Claim 2 further limits the abstract idea by selecting and adjusting on internal parameters/settings (a more detailed abstract idea remains an abstract idea). Claim 3 further limits the abstract idea by limiting the measures of success to at ONE or more of operating cost, manufacturing cost, transportation cost, distribution or a measure of order fulfillment (a more detailed abstract idea remains an abstract idea). Claim 4 further limits the abstract idea by limiting the input settings to ONE or more of manufacturing plant operational settings, inventory management operational settings, transportation settings OR one or more demand forecasting model parameters (a more detailed abstract idea remains an abstract idea). Claim 5 further limits the abstract idea by limiting the operational plant settings to ONE or more of types of products manufactured, quantity of products to be manufactured OR quantity or products to provide to warehouses (a more detailed abstract idea remains an abstract idea). Claim 6 further li mts the abstract idea by limiting the inventory settings to stock level to be maintained at distribution center/stock point (a more detailed abstract idea remains an abstract idea). Claim 7 further limits the abstract idea by limiting the transportation settings to ONE of a transportation model for warehouse replenishment or customer deliveries (a more detailed abstract idea remains an abstract idea). Claim 8 further limits the abstract idea by selecting and adjusting input settings based on causal model and predetermined set of external variables (a more detailed abstract idea remains an abstract idea). Claim 9 further limits the abstract idea by limiting the external variables to ONE of weather conditions, road conditions, time of year OR employee availability (a more detailed abstract idea remains an abstract idea).
None of the limitations considered as an ordered combination provide eligibility because taken as a whole the claims simply instruct the practitioner to apply the abstract idea to a generic computer.
Further regarding claims 1-11, Applicant’s specification discloses that the claimed elements directed to a one or more computer processors, one or more processors, system, one or more computers, one or more storage devices at best merely comprise generic computer hardware which is commercially available. More specifically Applicant’s claimed features directed to a system do not represent custom or specific computer hardware circuits, instead the terms merely refers to commercially available software and/or hardware. Thus, as to the system recited, "the system claims are no different from the method claims in substance. The method claims recite the abstract idea implemented on a generic computer; the system claims recite a handful of generic computer components configured to implement the same idea." See Alice Corp. Pry. Ltd., 134 S.Ct. at 2360.
Accordingly, the claims merely recite manipulating data utilizing generic computer hardware (e.g. computer, storage medium, etc.). Generic computers performing generic computer functions, alone, do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. Further the lack of detail of the claimed embodiment in Applicant’s disclosure is an indication that the claims are directed to an abstract idea and not a specific improvement to a machine.
Accordingly given the broadest reasonable interpretation and in light of the specification the claims are interpreted to include the process steps being performed by a human mind or via pen and paper. The claim limitations which recite a computer implemented method is at best recite generic, well-known hardware. However, the recited generic hardware simply performs generic computer function of storing, accessing, displaying or processing data. Generic computers performing generic, well known computer functions, alone, do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. Further the recited memories are part of every conventional general-purpose computer.
Applicant has not demonstrated that a special purpose machine/computer is required to carry out the claimed invention. A special purpose machine is now evaluated as part of the significantly more analysis established by the Alice decision and current 35 U.S.C. 101 guidelines. It involves/requires more than a machine only broadly applying the abstract idea and/or performing conventional functions.
Applicant’s specification discloses that the claimed elements directed to a (one or more computer processors, one or more processors, system, one or more computers, one or more storage devices) merely comprise generic computer hardware which is commercially available. More specifically Applicant’s claimed features directed to a system and components do not represent custom or specific computer hardware circuits, instead the term system merely refers to commercially available software and/or hardware. Thus, as to the system recited, "the system claims are no different from the method claims in substance. The method claims recite the abstract idea implemented on a generic computer; the system claims recite a handful of generic computer components configured to implement the same idea." See Alice Corp. Pry. Ltd., 134 S.Ct. at 2360.
Accordingly, the claims merely recite manipulating data utilizing generic computer hardware (e.g. computer, storage medium, etc.). Generic computers performing generic computer functions, alone, do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. Further the lack of detail of the claimed embodiment in Applicant’s disclosure is an indication that the claims are directed to an abstract idea and not a specific improvement to a machine.
Accordingly given the broadest reasonable interpretation and in light of the specification the claims are interpreted to include the process steps being performed by a human mind or via pen and paper. The claim limitations which recite a (system, computers, computer readable storage medium storing instructions or similar generic computer structures which at best recite generic, well-known hardware. However, the recited generic hardware simply performs generic computer function of storing, accessing, displaying or processing data. Generic computers performing generic, well known computer functions, alone, do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. Further the recited memories are part of every conventional general-purpose computer.
Accordingly, the claims are not patent eligible under 35 U.S.C. 101.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Evans, U.S. Patent No. 12147926, discloses a supply chain management and optimization system and method comprising selecting, adjusting, recomputing and optimizing supply chain control/input parameters based on a measure of supply chain success.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SCOTT L JARRETT whose telephone number is (571)272-7033. The examiner can normally be reached M-TH 6am-4:30PM.
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, Eric Beth Boswell can be reached at (571) 272-6737. 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.
SCOTT L. JARRETT
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 3625
/SCOTT L JARRETT/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3625