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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 1/20/2026 has been entered.
Response to Arguments
Argument:
PNG
media_image1.png
336
706
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Response:
Paragraph 55 is the correct paragraph number. Paragraph 53 is the equivalent paragraph in the PGPUB.
The issue is that applicant has not claimed a simple multi-chip module implementation. as 53/55 includes a special definition and makes various statements/claims that are not supported/described.
Argument:
PNG
media_image2.png
200
692
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Response:
There is still a problem with this approach because paragraph 55 includes a special definition “It should be noted that the term single semiconductor platform may also refer to multi-chip modules with increased connectivity which simulate on-chip modules with increased connectivity which simulate on-chip operation, and make substantial improvements over utilizing a conventional central processing unit (CPU) and bus implementation.” All claims do refer to “single semiconductor platform”.
Argument:
PNG
media_image3.png
98
650
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Response:
The examiner disagrees. Paragraph 55 doesn’t simply say multi-chip module. The modules are supposed to have increased connectivity which allows simulation of on-chip operation. That link does not describe that.
Argument:
PNG
media_image4.png
170
676
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Response:
The examiner disagrees. It is important to keep in mind that an improvement in the abstract idea itself (e.g. a recited fundamental economic concept) is not an improvement in technology. For example, in Trading Technologies Int’l v. IBG, 921 F.3d 1084, 1093-94, 2019 USPQ2d 138290 (Fed. Cir. 2019), the court determined that the claimed user interface simply provided a trader with more information to facilitate market trades, which improved the business process of market trading but did not improve computers or technology.
Argument:
PNG
media_image5.png
124
668
media_image5.png
Greyscale
Response:
Interaction between computer components to perform necessary data gathering is extra-solution activity that does not provide a practical application or significantly more. See MPEP 2106.05(g) and 2106.05(d).
Argument:
PNG
media_image6.png
330
654
media_image6.png
Greyscale
Response:
[53] lacks a clear description for kind of multi-chip module is implemented. The claims at best recite a high level computer-based implementation and the 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)
Argument:
Interaction between computer components to perform necessary data gathering is extra-solution activity that does not provide a practical application or significantly more. See MPEP 2106.05(g) and 2106.05(d).
Argument:
PNG
media_image7.png
248
634
media_image7.png
Greyscale
Response:
The examiner disagrees. Improved metric forecasting is an improvement in an abstract idea not a technical improvement.
The recited technological components perform routine computer functions such as executing calculations, gathering data from memories, transferring data to memories. 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)
Argument:
PNG
media_image8.png
276
616
media_image8.png
Greyscale
Response:
Training a machine learning model consists of performing calculations to optimize weights. This is math, not technological improvements.
Argument:
PNG
media_image9.png
254
654
media_image9.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image10.png
332
652
media_image10.png
Greyscale
Response:
The examiner disagrees. If it is asserted that the invention improves upon conventional functioning of a computer, or upon conventional technology or technological processes, a technical explanation as to how to implement the invention should be present in the specification. That is, the disclosure must provide sufficient details such that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize the claimed invention as providing an improvement. The specification need not explicitly set forth the improvement, but it must describe the invention such that the improvement would be apparent to one of ordinary skill in the art. It is unclear how using a plurality of memories is an improvement to the use of those memories. It is likewise unclear how memory utilization is improved and higher processing speed is obtained.
Regarding improved forecasts, it is important to keep in mind that an improvement in the abstract idea itself (e.g. a recited fundamental economic concept) is not an improvement in technology. For example, in Trading Technologies Int’l v. IBG, 921 F.3d 1084, 1093-94, 2019 USPQ2d 138290 (Fed. Cir. 2019), the court determined that the claimed user interface simply provided a trader with more information to facilitate market trades, which improved the business process of market trading but did not improve computers or technology.
Argument:
PNG
media_image11.png
266
684
media_image11.png
Greyscale
Response:
The examiner disagrees. If it is asserted that the invention improves upon conventional functioning of a computer, or upon conventional technology or technological processes, a technical explanation as to how to implement the invention should be present in the specification. That is, the disclosure must provide sufficient details such that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize the claimed invention as providing an improvement. The specification need not explicitly set forth the improvement, but it must describe the invention such that the improvement would be apparent to one of ordinary skill in the art. Here if there is any reduced processing time it would be due to algorithm with less requirements and not to any improvement to the functioning of a computer.
Argument:
PNG
media_image12.png
274
666
media_image12.png
Greyscale
Response:
Desjardins dealt with a specific problem in machine learning (catastrophic forgetting). Applicant’s claims address no analogous problem.
Argument:
PNG
media_image13.png
276
650
media_image13.png
Greyscale
Response:
The examiner disagrees. If it is asserted that the invention improves upon conventional functioning of a computer, or upon conventional technology or technological processes, a technical explanation as to how to implement the invention should be present in the specification. That is, the disclosure must provide sufficient details such that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize the claimed invention as providing an improvement. The specification need not explicitly set forth the improvement, but it must describe the invention such that the improvement would be apparent to one of ordinary skill in the art. Here if there is any reduced processing time it would be due to algorithm with less requirements and not to any improvement to the functioning of a computer.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 16-25 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. All claims contain the language “single semiconductor platform”. This is based on applicant’s paragraph 55, which states the “term single semiconductor platform may also refer to multi-chip modules with increased connectivity which simulate on-chip modules with increased connectivity which simulate on-chip operation term single semiconductor platform may also refer to multi-chip modules with increased connectivity which simulate on-chip modules with increased connectivity which simulate on-chip operation”. The examiner is interpreting this as a special definition. Paragraph 55 is based on boilerplate that has been used 1000+ times since the year 2000 (see US 20100123729 A1 and US-20200175392-A1 US-20190147884-A1 US-20180292825-A1 US-20150355996-A1 US-20150194157-A1 US-20140126275-A1 US-20130297631-A1 US-20130038702-A1 US-20120101871-A1 US-20110181720-A1 US-20090259827-A1). The language about multi-chip modules simulating on-chip modules on its face does not make sense. There is no explanation of what the on-chip modules are and what exactly is being simulated. It is also noted that the multi-chip modules are supposed to provide various improvements per [55], but the improvements are not described. Paragraph 55 also only refers “modules” in the context of the single semiconductor platform. It’s unclear from the language in the spec that all the other components of fig. 5 (RAM, secondary storage, processor, etc) are intended to be included in the single semiconductor platform.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claim 16-25 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention. All claims contain the language “performs like”. This is exemplary language and it is unclear exactly what scope is being claimed. See MPEP 2173.05(d). Also the “performs like” clause contradicts the special definition given in paragraph 55.
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 16-25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
All claims recite subject matter falling within one of the four categories of invention (step 1).
Claims 16-25 recite
16. (New) A computer system that estimates metric forecasts associated with a plurality of related entities including at least a primary entity and a secondary entity with more accuracy by training and applying a metric forecast entity relationship machine learning model, the computer system comprising:
a data communication network;
a primary entity metric device that generates a first primary entity metric forecast for a related entity;
a secondary entity metric device that generates a first secondary entity metric forecast for a related entity;
a tertiary entity metric device that generates a first tertiary entity metric forecast for a related entity;
a plurality of historical data storages, wherein each of the plurality of historical data storages correspond to historical data associated with a related entity for a respective entity metric device and each of the plurality of historical data storages includes historical and planned values of internal and external factor groups at different levels for each related entity, wherein each of the primary entity metric device, the secondary entity metric device, and the tertiary entity metric device interact with the plurality of historical data storages to generate respective the first primary entity metric forecast, the first second entity metric forecast and the first third entity metric forecast for a corresponding entity; and
a server comprising:
at least one memory;
a data receiving module that receives via the data communication network data indicating the first primary entity metric forecast and the first secondary entity metric forecast based on historical data of a forecast variable at different instances of time and also receives data values associated with corresponding ones of the applicable forecast rules or constraints;
a data storage;
a learning module that interacts with the data receiving module to access historical values of associated variable elements included in the first primary entity metric forecast and historical values of associated variable elements included in the first secondary entity metric forecast at the different instances of time to train the metric forecast entity relationship machine learning model to obtain the trained metric entity relationship machine learning model that accounts for a relationship between the first primary entity metric forecast and the first secondary entity metric forecast;
a constraints/rules module that interacts with the data storage while storing and/or retrieving data values associated with the forecast rules or constraints and with the learning module; and
an estimation module that calculates measurable values of each variable element included in the first primary entity forecast and the first secondary entity forecast based on the received values associated with each of the specific applicable forecast rules or constraints,
wherein the at least one memory, data receiving module, the learning module, the constraints/rules module, and the estimation module are provided in a multi-chip module on a single semiconductor platform that performs like an on-chip module in lieu of a CPU and bus implementation,
wherein the server is further configured to estimate metric forecasts associated with the plurality of related entities by training and applying the metric forecast entity relationship machine learning model by
interfacing with the primary entity metric device, the secondary entity metric device, and the tertiary entity metric device to obtain the first primary entity metric forecast, the first secondary entity metric forecast, and the first tertiary entity metric forecast respectively at different instances of time;
training the metric forecast entity relationship machine learning model based on a relationship between the first primary entity metric forecast, the first secondary entity metric forecast, and the first tertiary entity metric forecast to obtain the trained metric entity relationship machine learning model that accounts for the relationship between the first primary entity metric forecast, the first secondary entity metric forecast, and the first tertiary entity metric forecast; and
estimating a second primary entity metric forecast, a second secondary entity metric forecast, and a second tertiary entity metric forecast based on the trained metric forecast entity relationship machine learning model,
wherein the primary entity is a retailer and the secondary entity is a distributor.
17. (New) The system of claim 16, wherein the server is further configured to estimate metric forecasts associated with the plurality of related entities by training and applying the metric forecast entity relationship machine learning model by: applying at least one independent forecast rule or constraint on the first primary entity metric forecast, the first secondary entity metric forecast, and the first tertiary entity metric forecast to obtain a first primary entity metric forecast, a first secondary entity metric forecast, and a first tertiary entity metric forecast.
18. (New) The system of claim 17, wherein the applying at least one independent forecast rule or constraint further comprises: receiving values associated with the at least one independent forecast rule or constraint of the corresponding first primary entity, first secondary entity, and first tertiary entity of the plurality of related entities; and calculating the first primary entity metric forecast, the first secondary entity metric forecast, and the first tertiary entity metric forecast based on the values of the at least one independent forecast rule or constraint in obtaining the first primary entity metric forecast, the first secondary entity metric forecast, and the first tertiary entity metric forecast.
19. (New) The system of claim 16, wherein the trained metric entity relationship machine learning model indicates the specific ones of the forecast rules or constraints to use from the at least one independent forecast rule or constraint in performing the estimating, the dependency between the first primary entity metric forecast, the first secondary entity metric forecast, and the first tertiary entity metric forecast.
20. (New) The system of claim 16, wherein the estimating further comprises: receiving values associated with specific applicable ones of forecast rules or constraints; and calculating the first primary entity forecast, the first secondary entity forecast, andthe first tertiary entity forecast based on the received values.
21. (New) The system of claim 20, wherein the calculating is based on the dependency existing between the first primary entity forecast, the first secondary entity forecast, and the first tertiary entity forecast.
22. (New) A method of estimating metric forecasts associated with a plurality of related entities including at least a primary entity and a secondary entity with more accuracy by training and applying a metric forecast entity relationship machine learning model, the method comprising:
interfacing with a primary entity metric device and a secondary entity metric device to obtain a first primary entity metric forecast for a related entity and a first secondary entity metric forecast for a related entity respectively at different instances of time;
receiving at a data receiving module, via a data communication network, data indicating the first primary entity metric forecast and a first secondary entity metric forecast based on historical data of a forecast variable at different instances of time, the historical data stored in a plurality of historical data storages, wherein each of the plurality of historical data storages correspond to historical data associated with a related entity for a respective entity metric device and each of the plurality of historical data storages includes historical and planned values of internal and external factor groups at different levels for each related entity, wherein each of the primary entity metric device and the secondary metric device interact with the plurality of historical data storages to generate the first primary entity metric forecast and the second entity metric forecast for a corresponding entity;
through interaction between a learning module and a data receiving module, accessing historical values of associated variable elements included in the first primary entity metric forecast and historical values of associated variable elements included in the first secondary entity metric forecast at the different instances of time to train the metric forecast entity relationship machine learning model to obtain the trained metric entity relationship machine learning model that accounts for a relationship between the first primary entity metric forecast and the first secondary entity metric forecast;
using an estimation module, calculating measurable values of each variable element included in the first primary entity forecast and the first secondary entity forecast based on the received values associated with each of specific applicable forecast rules and constraints; and
estimating a second primary entity metric forecast and a second secondary entity metric forecast based on the trained metric forecast entity relationship machine learning model,
wherein the data receiving module, the estimation module, and the learning module are are provided in a multi-chip module on a semiconductor platform that performs like an on-chip module in lieu of a CPU and bus implementation, and
wherein the primary entity is a retailer and the secondary entity is a distributor.
23. (New) The method of claim 22, the method further comprising: applying at least one independent forecast rule or constraint on the first primary entity metric forecast and the first secondary entity metric forecast to obtain a first primary entity metric forecast and a first secondary entity metric forecast.
24. (New) The method of claim 23, the applying step further comprising: receiving values associated with the at least one independent forecast rule or constraint of the corresponding first primary entity and first secondary entity of the plurality of related entities; and calculating the first primary entity metric forecast and the first secondary entity metric forecast based on the values of the at least one independent forecast rule or constraint in obtaining the first primary entity metric forecast and the first secondary entity metric forecast.
25. (New) The method of claim 22, wherein the plurality of related entities comprises a first tertiary entity metric forecast based on historical data of a tertiary entity metric obtained from a tertiary entity metric device wherein: the obtaining comprises a first primary entity metric forecast, a first secondary entity metric forecast and a first tertiary entity metric forecast based on historical data of a primary entity metric obtained from the primary entity metric device, historical data of a secondary entity metric obtained from the secondary entity metric device, and historical data of a tertiary entity metric obtained from the tertiary entity metric device at different instances of time; the training a metric forecast entity relationship machine learning model is based on a relationship between the first primary entity metric forecast, the first secondary entity metric forecast and the first tertiary entity metric forecast to obtain a trained metric entity relationship machine learning model that accounts for the relationship between the first primary entity metric forecast, the first secondary entity metric forecast and the first tertiary entity metric forecast; and the estimating the second primary entity metric forecast, the second secondary entity metric forecast and the third secondary entity metric forecast is based on the trained metric entity relationship machine learning model.
All claims recite subject matter falling within one of the four categories of invention (step 1)
Regarding claims 16-25, the limitations as drafted, but for the recitations of underlined additional elements, recite a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, is a mathematical concept (i.e. a construct that processes provided data). That is, other than reciting the underlined limitations, nothing in the claim element precludes the step from practically being performed by manual calculation. Thus claims 16-25 recite an abstract idea (Step 2A_1).
The claims recite various hardware elements (referring to system, devices, machine learning model, server, server components, software modules. Multi-chip module) for performance of data processing. These elements are recited at a high-level of generality, such that they amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer components. Per MPEP 2106.05(f) the elements therefore do not provide a practical application or significantly more. Furthermore, see https://www.uspto.gov/sites/default/files/documents/2024-AI-SMEUpdateExamples47-49.pdf for guidance on why machine learning models are treated as “apply it” level computer implementations.
The claims recite various applications of transferring data using computer components. Per MPEP 2106.05(g) necessary data gathering is insignificant extra-solution activity that does not provide a practical application or significantly more. Furthermore, receiving/transmitting data is well-understood routine and conventional activity that therefore does not provide significantly more. See Symantec, 838 F.3d at 1321, 120 USPQ2d at 1362 (utilizing an intermediary computer to forward information); TLI Communications LLC v. AV Auto. LLC, 823 F.3d 607, 610, 118 USPQ2d 1744, 1745 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (using a telephone for image transmission); OIP Techs., Inc., v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363, 115 USPQ2d 1090, 1093 (Fed. Cir. 2015).
The claims are generally linked to multi-chip modules. Per MPEP 2106.05(h), generally linking claims to a technological environment does not provide a practical application or significantly more. SOM technology also does not provide significantly more because it is conventional (Griggs US 20170123038 A1 [53]).
Thus claims 16-25 are ineligible.
Prior art status
Claims 16-25 are considered to distinguish over the cited art. Examiner agrees with arguments in response dated 7/07/2025
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to NATHAN A MITCHELL whose telephone number is (571)270-3117. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9-5.
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, Ryan Zeender can be reached on 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.
/NATHAN A MITCHELL/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3627