DETAILED ACTION
1. This Final Office Action is in response to Applicant’s Amendments filed 1/29/2026. Claims 1, 5, 6, 8, 12-15, and 19-23 are currently pending. Claims 21-23 have been newly added. The earliest effective filing date of the present application is 4/22/2022.
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
2. The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
3. 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.
4. Claims 1, 5-6, 8, 12-15, and 19-23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed a judicial exception (i.e., an abstract idea) without significantly more.
Step 1 – Statutory Categories
As indicated in the preamble of the claim, the examiner finds the claim is directed to a process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter. Claims 1, 5-6, 8, 12-14, and 21-22 are processes (methods) and Claims 15, 19-20, and 23 are machines (systems or devices).
Step 2A – Prong 1: was there a Judicial Exception Recited
Claim 1 recites the following abstract concepts that are found to include “abstract idea”:
Claim 1. A method for use in a computing device that is arranged to implement an order manager, the order manager including a quote engine, a division and routing engine, and a division optimizer, the method comprising:
receiving, by the order manager, a user input that specifies a new order for a product;
retrieving a static division rule for dividing the new order into portions, the static division rule being retrieved from a first database, the first database being configured t store a different respective static division rule for each of a plurality of products, the static division rule being retrieved from the first database as a result of performing a search of the first database base on an identifier of the product;
dividing, by the quote engine, the new order into order portions by executing the static division rule and assigning each of the order portions to a different respective supplier, the static division rule specifying a percentage division of the new order, the static division rule being agnostic with respect to supplier capacity;
using, by the division and routing engine, the division optimizer to digitally transform each of the order portions based on a capacity of the respective supplier to which the order portion is assigned; and
placing an order, by the division and routing engine, for any of the order portions from the order portion’s respective supplier, the order being placed by transmitting one or more messages to a computing system of the respective supplier, the one or more messages being transmitted over a communications network,
wherein digitally transforming, by the division optimizer, any given one of the order portions based on the capacity of the respective supplier to which the order portion is assigned includes identifying a first term that is associated with the given order portion, dividing the given order portion into a plurality of daily quantities that correspond to different respective days in the first term, identifying a respective daily capacity of the respective supplier for each of the days in the first term, and reducing any given one of the daily quantities that fails to meet a corresponding daily capacity of the respective supplier, and
wherein identifying the respective daily capacity of the respective supplier for any given one of the days in the first term includes: (i)executing a first process to calculate a first daily capacity based on historical records of past orders that are stored in a second database, (ii) executing a second process to calculate a second daily capacity based on availability of materials that is stored in a third database, and (iii) selecting the lower of the first daily capacity and the second daily capacity as the respective daily capacity.1
Claim 1 (similarly claims 8 and 15) is directed to a series of rules for dividing and adjusting an order among multiple original design manufacturers, which is a commercial/legal interaction and/or managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people (including social activities, teaching, and following rules or instructions); thus, grouped as a certain method of organizing human interactions and/or mathematical processes (calculations). Thus, the claim recites an abstract idea.
Step 2A – Prong 2: Can the Judicial Exception Recited be integrated into a practical application
Limitations that are indicative of integration into a practical application:
Improvements to the functioning of a computer, or to any other technology or technical field - see MPEP 2106.05(a)
Applying or using a judicial exception to effect a particular treatment or prophylaxis for a disease or medical condition – see Vanda Memo
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)
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) and Vanda Memo
Limitations that are not indicative of integration into a practical application:
Adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea - see MPEP 2106.05(f)
Adding insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception - see MPEP 2106.05(g)
Generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use – see MPEP 2106.05(h)
The judicial exception of claims 1, 8, and 15 are not integrated into a practical application because the computing device, order manager, quote engine, division and routing engine, division optimizer, databases, computing system, communications network memory and processor are merely generically recited computer elements that do not add a meaningful limitation to the abstract idea because they amount to simply the abstract idea on a generic computer. Accordingly, alone and in combination, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claims 1, 8, and 15 are directed to an abstract idea without a practical application.
Step 2B – Significantly More Analysis
Claims 1, 8, and 15 do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because, when considered separately and in combination, the computing device, order manager, quote engine, division and routing engine, division optimizer, database, computing system, communications network memory and processor amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. See [0022] and [0077] discussing the subcomponents of order manager and variety of engines as being part of the processor. The claims 1, 8, and 15 are directed to an abstract idea without significantly more and are therefore not patent eligible.
Dependent claims 5-6, 12-14, and 19-23 fail to provide additional elements that are sufficient to amount to a practical application or significantly more than the judicial exception of the claim from which they depend. Therefore claims 5-6, 12-14, and 19-23 are rejected for the same reasons as stated in the rejection from which they depend.
Allowable Subject Matter over Prior Art
5. The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
The reason for allowable subject matter of claims 1, 5, 6, 8, 12-15, and 19-23 in the instant application is because the prior art of record fails to teach the overall combination as claimed. Therefore, it would not have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the prior art to meet the combination above without unequivocal hindsight and one of ordinary skill would have no reason to do so. The nearest art, Harsha 2018/0005171, Allen 2011/0145030 and Wei 10,657,492, does not teach the wherein adjusting any given one of the order portions includes identifying a term that is associated with the given order portion, dividing the given order portion into a plurality of daily/fractional quantities that correspond to different respective days in/portions of the term, and reducing any given one of the daily/ fractional quantities that fails to meet a corresponding daily/fractional capacity of the respective supplier to which the given order portion is assigned especially in light of the specifications disclosure on ODM capacity restraints with temporal elements.
Upon further searching the examiner could not identify any prior art to teach these limitations. The prior art on record, alone or in combination, neither anticipates, reasonably teaches, not renders obvious the Applicant' s claimed invention.
Response to Arguments
6. Applicant's arguments filed 1/29/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues the claims are directed towards a practical application or significantly more based on the digital transformation of orders by a computer-based order management system. Examiner disagrees. No transformation is realized as data in and data out is not a transformation. Applying rules “static division” to process data is part of the abstract idea and not the additional elements. Further, making up names for suboperations of a processor does not impart “particularized process.” The claims recite an abstract idea performed by a generic processor. See [0022] and [0077] discussing the subcomponents of order manager and variety of engines as being part of the processor. Applicant points to implementations of an abstract idea on a generic computer at such a high level that it is mere “apply it.”
Applicant argues the use of multiple databases is non-conventional and non-generic. Examiner disagrees. Applicant’s claims do not raise above the apply it on a generic computer, see MPEP 2106.05, “e.g., a limitation indicating that a particular function such as creating and maintaining electronic records is performed by a computer, as discussed in Alice Corp., 573 U.S. at 225-26, 110 USPQ2d at 1984 (see MPEP § 2106.05(f)).” Having multiple database does not make the claim non-conventional and non-generic. Further, there is no improvement to the database and Examiner can not come up with a technical reason that a single database (as Applicant has not provided a technical reason that many databases improve over one database.) would not serve the same function.
MPEP §2106.05(f) states:
(2) Whether the claim invokes computers or other machinery merely as a tool to perform an existing process. Use of a computer or other machinery in its ordinary capacity for economic or other tasks (e.g., to receive, store, or transmit data) or simply adding a general purpose computer or computer components after the fact to an abstract idea (e.g., a fundamental economic practice or mathematical equation) does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more. See Affinity Labs v. DirecTV, 838 F.3d 1253, 1262, 120 USPQ2d 1201, 1207 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (cellular telephone); TLI Communications LLC v. AV Auto, LLC, 823 F.3d 607, 613, 118 USPQ2d 1744, 1748 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (computer server and telephone unit). Similarly, "claiming the improved speed or efficiency inherent with applying the abstract idea on a computer" does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide an inventive concept. Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Capital One Bank (USA), 792 F.3d 1363, 1367, 115 USPQ2d 1636, 1639 (Fed. Cir. 2015). In contrast, a claim that purports to improve computer capabilities or to improve an existing technology may integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more. McRO, Inc. v. Bandai Namco Games Am. Inc., 837 F.3d 1299, 1314-15, 120 USPQ2d 1091, 1101-02 (Fed. Cir. 2016); Enfish, LLC v. Microsoft Corp., 822 F.3d 1327, 1335-36, 118 USPQ2d 1684, 1688-89 (Fed. Cir. 2016). See MPEP §§ 2106.04(d)(1) and 2106.05(a) for a discussion of improvements to the functioning of a computer or to another technology or technical field.
Examiner maintains position.
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.
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. See Notice of References Cited, PTO form 892.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MICHAEL JARED WALKER whose telephone number is (303)297-4407. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday 9:00 AM -5:00 PM CT.
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, Fahd Obeid can be reached on (571)270-3324. 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.
/MICHAEL JARED WALKER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3627 Michael.walker@uspto.gov
1 Examiner notes claims 8 and 15 use the term “fractional capacity” instead of “daily capacity.” The data being evaluated as part of the abstract idea would not change eligibility.