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 Claims
This Office Action is in response to Applicant’s reply dated 3/20/2023, claims 1, 8, and 15 have been amended and are being examined in this response.
Response to Arguments
In regards to the 101 arguments:
Applicant’s arguments regarding the 101 rejection have been considered but are not found to be persuasive.
Applicant argues that the claims are not directed towards a judicial exception due to machine-machine interactions and determining an updated status of an item are not mental processes or methods of organizing human activity. The Examiner disagrees. As in the claims, determining anomalous activity (bad data, incorrect data etc), adjusting received data, determine a prediction value etc are all activities a human could easily perform but for the context of processors executing those abstract ideas. Further applicant argues triggering the automatic network communication is also not possible for the human mind, the Examiner disagrees again as placing an order in response to input is very much a thing humans do, this step is merely automating that process using a processor and a network.
Applicant further argues that the claims provide for a practical application of the before identified abstract idea as it improves a prediction model by removing bad data before it is used for training the prediction model. The Examiner can find no mention of training prediction models in the claims, further the additional elements of “network interface, processor, display” amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component, insignificant extra-solution activity, and linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use. Mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component, insignificant extra-solution activity, and linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use, cannot provide an inventive concept. Further, the background and specification does not provide any indication that the “network interface, processor, display, and item request device” is anything other than a generic, off-the-shelf computer components. For these reasons, there is no inventive concept.
Further, the Applicant argues that the claims provide for an improvement to the functioning of the system itself. The Examiner disagrees, the specification does not make mention of improving the functioning of the additional elements, merely states that by not using bad data, mistakes can be avoided, this is not the same as an improvement to the functioning of the computer itself argument such as an improvement to the speed of a processor or the functioning of a database etc.
Applicant argues that the claims are similar to those in Example 40 claim 1, which improved the functioning of the additional element of the network itself, unlike the instant claims which does not improve the functioning of the additional elements of a processor, network, display.
Applicant argues that the claims are similar to those found in Example 46, the Examiner thinks the claims are more similar to those found in claim 1 of Example 46 found to be not eligible, where the claims provided for collecting of data, analyzing the data and automatically displaying the results. In the instant claims the step of adjusting event data or automatically populating a data field does not correlate to automatically controlling a gate for animal herding in claim 3 or the automatically dispensing a specific amount of food as in claim 2 which were found eligible.
Applicant further argues that the claims provide for a non-generic, non-conventional arrangement of parts. The Examiner disagrees, the arrangement of processors a display and a network provided for by the claims do not constitute a non-generic arrangement of parts.
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 1-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., an abstract idea) without “significantly more.” Claims 1-21 are directed to certain methods of organizing human activity which is considered an abstract idea. Further, the claim(s) as a whole, when examined on a limitation-by-limitation basis and in ordered combination do not include an inventive concept.
Step 1 – Statutory Categories
In regard to claims 1-21 as indicated in the preamble of the claims, the examiner finds the claims are directed to a process, machine, or article of manufacture.
Step 2A – Prong One - Abstract Idea Analysis
Representative independent claim 1 recites the following abstract concepts, in italics below, which are found to include an “abstract idea”:
A system, comprising:
at each of a plurality of locations, an item tracking subsystem configured to detect item removal events at the location of the plurality of locations;
a data prediction subsystem comprising:
a network interface configured to receive event data based on the item removal events detected at the plurality of locations, the event data indicating amounts of items removed from each of the plurality of locations over a previous period of time; and
a first processor communicatively coupled to the network interface, the first processor configured to:
detect an anomalous activity with respect to the received event data, wherein the anomalous activity corresponds to an unexpected amount of item removal events that is greater than an expected amount of removal events according to a recent trend in the event data for the item; in response to detecting the anomalous activity, adjust the received event data by reducing the unexpected amount of item removal events according to the recent trend in the event data;
determine a number of concurrent days during the previous period of time without detected item removal events for a first item at a first location, wherein, during the concurrent number of days, the first item at the first location has a not-empty status indicating that the first item is believed to be present at the first location;
determine an anticipated item removal amount per day for the first item at the first location over the previous period of time, the anticipated item removal amount indicating an expected amount of removal events for the first item per day;
determine an event probability based at least in part on the number of concurrent days without detected item removal events for the first item at the first location and the anticipated item removal amount per day, wherein the event probability corresponds to a likelihood that the first item is present at the first location during at least a portion of the concurrent days without detected item removal events;
determine that the event probability is less than a threshold value;
after determining that the event probability is less than the threshold value, determine an updated status for the first item at the first location, wherein the updated status is an empty status indicating that the first item is not believed to be present at the first location; and
determine, based at least in part on the updated status for the first item at the first location, a prediction value corresponding to a recommended amount of the first item to request for a future time; and
an item request device associated with the first location, the item request device comprising a second processor configured to: receive the prediction value; and
automatically populate the prediction value into a field of an interface on a display; and in response to receiving the prediction value and the prediction value being automatically populated on the field of the interface, automatically initiate a network communication to provide a request for an amount of the first item based at least in part on the prediction value.
The claim features in italics above as drafted, under its broadest reasonable interpretation are certain methods of organizing human activity (fundamental economic practices and managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people) performed by generic computer components. That is, other than reciting “ network interface, processor, display, and item request device”, nothing in the claim element precludes the step from practically being a method of organized human activity. For example, but for the “network interface, processor, display, and item request device”, the above italicized limitations in the context of this claim encompasses certain methods of organizing human activity. If the claim limitations, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people and fundamental economic practices, but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “certain methods of organizing human activity” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
Step 2A – Prong Two - Abstract Idea Analysis
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim only recites 4 additional elements – “network interface, processor, display, and item request device”. They are recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as a generic processor performing generic computer functions) such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component (MPEP 2106.05(f)), data gathering, which is a form of insignificant extra-solution activity (MPEP 2106.05(g)), and linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use (MPEP 2106.05(h)). Accordingly, these additional 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 claim is directed to an abstract idea.
Step 2B - Significantly More Analysis
The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to
significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements of “network interface, processor, display, and item request device” amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component, insignificant extra-solution activity, and linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use. Mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component, insignificant extra-solution activity, and linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use, cannot provide an inventive concept. Further, the background and specification does not provide any indication that the “network interface, processor, display, and item request device” is anything other than a generic, off-the-shelf computer components. For these reasons, there is no inventive concept.
Prior Art considered Relevant to Applicants disclosure not relied upon
US 2021/0241210 A1 to Esrubilsky
US 2016/0232461 A1 to Popescu
US 2019/0051024 A1 to Ho
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 JOSEPH M MUTSCHLER whose telephone number is (313)446-6603. The examiner can normally be reached 0600-1430.
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, Florian Zeender can be reached at (571)272-6790. 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.
/JOSEPH M MUTSCHLER/Examiner, Art Unit 3627
/FLORIAN M ZEENDER/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3627