Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application is being examined under the pre-AIA first to invent provisions.
DETAILED ACTION
This final Office action is in response to applicant’s communication received on December 31, 2025, wherein claims 21-40 are currently pending. Note: The application was under appeal after the final Office action and the examiner’s final rejection (dated 06/30/2023) and examiner’s answer (dated 02/23/2024) was affirmed by the PTAB on April 10, 2025. The PTAB also provided a detailed reasoning on examiner’s affirmed final rejection (see PTAB decision dated 04/10/2023). Additionally, the parent application 13/911,021 was abandoned after PTAB decision affirming the examiner (where the PTAB also provides a detailed reasoning).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed have been fully considered but they are geared towards the newly amended claims with newly added limitations. The newly added limitations and the newly amended claims are considered for the first time in the rejection below.
35 USC §101 discussion:
Frist note that PTAB reasoning dated April 10, 2025 is still fully applicable to the current claims and Applicant is also pointed to PTAB’s decision affirming the examiner. Applicant’s remarks/arguments have been considered; however examiner respectfully disagrees. Applicant’s newly added limitations to the amended claims are not enough to overcome the §101 rejection.
The key concepts amended with newly added limitations are “price data…price-change transactions for up to a predefined target number of unchanged prices of products within a pricing cycle, the predefined target number of unchanged prices of products representing a price-change threshold based at least in part on resources for relabeling the products…adding the number of unchanged prices for the current best value solutions of each of the plurality of product networks; comparing a current total number of unchanged prices across the plurality of product networks to the predefined target number of unchanged prices that reflects the price-change threshold; determining that the current total number of unchanged prices is less than the predefined target number of unchanged prices, indicating that a number of price changes would exceeds the price-change threshold based on determining that the current total number of unchanged prices is less than the predefined target number of unchanged prices, replacing the current best value solution with a next best value solution, wherein replacing the current best value solution is performed without enumerating all possible combinations of price-optimized solutions across the plurality of product networks, by iteratively selecting a next best price-optimized solution based on a best price-change ratio and updating the current total number of unchanged prices until the predefined target number of unchanged prices is satisfied; iteratively determining that the number of unchanged prices for a next best value solutions is below the number of price changes that would exceed the price-change threshold… in response to iteratively determining that the number of unchanged prices for the next current best value solutions is below the number of price changes that would exceed the price- change threshold…outputting information associated with the next current best value solutions to the retail database” – and these newly amended concepts with newly added limitations as seen are geared towards accessing and obtaining abstract information and then using this abstract information for data/information analysis and manipulation (including comparing information and heavily using mathematical concepts). It can be seen that the resulting abstract information/data (which heavily includes mathematical results) from the abstract steps in the analysis and manipulation of abstract information is then used for decision-making in the retail setting (next best value). The database (where abstract information can be added/stored and retrieved – e.g. “accessing a retail database that stores price data for point-of-sale systems at the one or more locations, and that is configured to accept price-change transactions for up to a predefined target number of unchanged prices of products within a pricing cycle…updating database”) used is general-purpose/generic database which is used in an “apply-it” fashion in the claims. The point-of-sale system/equipment and other technical/computing elements is also stated as general-purpose/generic technical/computing elements/devices/etc. Applicant’s amendments do not show any improvements in any technology or in any technical environment – only the abstract idea is shown to be effected and improved. The CAFC has stated that it is not enough, however, to merely improve abstract processes by invoking a computer merely as a tool.. Customedia Techs., LLC v. Dish Network Corp., 951 F.3d 1359, 1364 (Fed. Cir. 2020). The focus of the claims is simply to use computers and a familiar network as a tool to perform abstract processes involving simple information exchange. Carrying out abstract processes involving information exchange is an abstract idea. See, e.g., BSG, 899 F.3d at 1286; SAP America, 898 F.3d at 1167-68; Affinity Labs of Tex., LLC v. DIRECTV, LLC, 838 F.3d 1253, 1261-62 (Fed. Cir. 2016). And use of standard computers and networks to carry out those functions—more speedily, more efficiently, more reliably—does not make the claims any less directed to that abstract idea. See Alice Corp., 573 U.S. at 222-25; Customedia, 951 F.3d at 1364; Trading Techs. Int'l, Inc. v. IBG LLC, 921 F.3d 1084, 1092-93 (Fed. Cir. 2019); SAP America, 898 F.3d at 1167; Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Symantec Corp., 838 F.3d 1307, 1314 (Fed. Cir. 2016);
As stated before, the Applicant is using obtained abstract information (e.g. product information, pricing information and solutions, and mathematical solutions, selecting values (mathematical values – price, monetary, etc.,)), analyzing/manipulating the abstract information (e.g. adding number, comparing to determined thresholds, etc.,) to make abstract determinations by comparing information and application of mathematical concepts, and providing this information for decision making and/or further abstract analysis. The entire concept is towards the fundamental economic practice of retail sales with supply and demand in a sales setting. The information used is known type of abstract information. The mathematical concepts used for solutions and modelling are also known and clearly abstract in nature. Considering the claims as a whole, the claims are directed to an abstract idea. The claims are not directed to a specific improvement in computer functionality but, instead, to the use of generic/general-purpose computers/computing/technical elements/components/devices/etc., (for example, computer-implemented, networks, generic processing/processors, database, point-of-sale systems, transmitting using generic/general-purpose communication devices/components over generic/general-purpose network, displays, etc., (in Independent claim 21 and its dependent claims 22-27); computing devices, processors, memories, networks, databases, point-of-sale systems, transmitting using generic/general-purpose communication devices/components, displays, etc., (in independent claim 28 and its dependent claims 29-34); and non-transitory computer-readable storage medium, processors, computing system, networks, databases, point-of-sale systems, transmitting using generic/general-purpose communication devices/components, displays, etc., (independent claim 35 and its dependent claims 36-40)) as tools. As stated in the previous Office action and in the rejection below, the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The independent claims and dependent claims recite accessing and obtaining data (significantly the data is mathematical in nature and some data is abstract in nature), data analysis and manipulation to determine more data (data/information received is used in mathematical concepts/calculations and also used to compare information, etc.,), and providing/displaying this determined data. The claimed concepts is an abstract concept in the fundamental economic practice of supply-demand and sales of products and in a practice of demand modelling (mostly using mathematics). These claims are directed towards gathering/collecting data, using the data for analysis, and manipulating/refining/etc., the data to generate more data; and further geared towards mathematical relationships (as discussed in the claims and the specification). The idea presented the claims is an abstract concept the abstraction further similar to Versata Development Group, Inc. v. SAP America, Inc., 793 F.3d 1306, 115 U.S.P.Q.2d 1681 (Fed. Cir. 2015), TLI Communications LLC v. AV Automotive LLC, (Fed Cir. May 17, 2016), OIP Technologies, Inc. v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 115 U.S.P.Q.2d 1090 (Fed. Cir. 2015), Content Extraction and Transmission LLC v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., 776 F.3d 1343, 113 U.S.P.Q.2d 1354 (Fed. Cir. 2014), and Digitech Image Techs., LLC v Electronics for Imaging, Inc., 758 F.3d 1344, 111 U.S.P.Q.2d 1717 (Fed. Cir. 2014) all of whose claims were held ineligible. The claimed invention also represents using mathematical algorithms/relationships to aggregate/generate data from combining datasets (See 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance – Federal Register, Vol. 84, Vol. 4, January 07, 2019). As stated before, if a claims limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers the performance of the limitation as fundamental economic principles or practices (including hedging, insurance, mitigating risk); commercial or legal interactions (including agreements in the form of contracts; legal obligations; advertising, marketing or sales activities or behaviors; business relations); managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people (including scheduling, social activities, teaching, and following rules or instructions), then it falls within the “organizing human activities” grouping of abstract ideas. (See 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance – Federal Register, Vol. 84, Vol. 4, January 07, 2019, pages 50-57). If a claims limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers the performance of the limitation as mathematical relationships, mathematical formulas or equations, mathematical calculations then it falls within the Mathematical concepts grouping of abstract ideas. (See 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance – Federal Register, Vol. 84, Vol. 4, January 07, 2019, pages 50-57). Accordingly, since Applicant's claims fall under both organizing human activities grouping and mathematical concepts grouping, the claims recite an abstract idea.
Additionally, the claims as a whole does not integrate the recited judicial exception into a practical application. It should be noted that a “claim that integrates a judicial exception into a practical application will apply, rely on, or use 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.” Memorandum (2019 Subject Matter Guidance), Section 111(A)(2). The U.S. Supreme Court has described “the concern that drives this exclusionary principle [i.e., the exclusion of abstract ideas from patent eligible subject matter] as one of pre-emption.” Alice, 573 U.S. at 216. However, characterizing preemption as a driving concern for patent eligibility is not the same as characterizing preemption as the sole test for patent eligibility. As the courts have explained, “[t]he Supreme Court has made clear that the principle of preemption is the basis for the judicial exceptions to patentability,” and “[f]or this reason, questions on preemption are inherent in and resolved by the § 101 analysis.” Ariosa Diagnostics, Inc. v. Sequenom, Inc., 788 F.3d 1371, 1379 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (citing Alice, 573 U.S. at 216). Further, Appellant’s claims are different from those claims that the Courts have found to be patent eligible by virtue of reciting technological improvements to a computer system. See, e.g., DDR Holdings, 773 F.3d at 1249, 1257 (holding that claims reciting computer processor for serving “composite web page” were patent eligible because “the claimed solution is necessarily rooted in computer technology in order to overcome a problem specifically arising in the realm of computer networks”); Visual Memory LLC v. NVIDIA Corp., 867 F.3d 1253, 1259 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (holding that claims directed to “an improved computer memory system” having many benefits were patent eligible). In McRO1, the Federal Circuit concluded that the claim, when considered as a whole, was directed to a “technological improvement over the existing, manual 3-D animation techniques” through the “use [of] limited rules . . . specifically designed to achieve an improved technological result in conventional industry practice.” McRO, 837 F.3d at 1316 (McRO, Inc. v. Bandai Namco Games Am. Inc., 837 F.3d 1299, 1303 (Fed. Cir. 2016)). Specifically, the Federal Circuit found that the claimed rules allowed computers to produce accurate and realistic lip synchronization and facial expressions in animated characters that previously could only be produced by human animators; and the rules were limiting because they defined morph weight sets as a function of phoneme sub-sequences. McRO, 837 F.3d at 1313. The present situation is not like the one in McRO where computers had been unable to make certain subjective determinations, e.g., regarding morph weight and phoneme timings, which could only be made prior to the claimed invention by human animators. The Background section of one of the patents at issue in McRO, Rosenfeld (US Patent 6,307,576 B1; issued Oct. 23, 2001), includes a description of the admitted prior art method and the shortcomings associated with that prior method. See McRO, 837 F.3d at 1303-06. There is no comparable discussion in Appellant’s Specification or elsewhere of record. Further, as the Federal Circuit has explained, a “claim for a new abstract idea is still an abstract idea.” Synopsis, Inc. v. Mentor Graphics Corp., 839 F.3d 1138, 1151 (Fed. Cir. 2016). Even assuming the technique claimed was “[groundbreaking, innovative, or even brilliant,” that would not be enough for the claimed abstract idea to be patent eligible. See Ass ’n for Molecular Pathology v. Myriad Genetics, Inc., 569 U.S. 576, 591 (2013).
The independent claims and dependent claims further utilize, for example, computer-implemented, networks, generic processing/processors, database, point-of-sale systems, transmitting using generic/general-purpose communication devices/components over generic/general-purpose network, displays, etc., (in Independent claim 21 and its dependent claims 22-27); computing devices, processors, memories, networks, databases, point-of-sale systems, transmitting using generic/general-purpose communication devices/components, displays, etc., (in independent claim 28 and its dependent claims 29-34); and non-transitory computer-readable storage medium, processors, computing system, networks, databases, point-of-sale systems, transmitting using generic/general-purpose communication devices/components, displays, etc., (independent claim 35 and its dependent claims 36-40) (generic/general-purpose computer/computing/technical elements/components/devices/etc.,) and other generic/general-purpose computing components/elements without any improvement to the functioning of the devices themselves. See also Enflsh, LLC v. Microsoft Corp., 822 F.3d 1327, 1335-36 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (“[W]e find it relevant to ask whether the claims are directed to an improvement to computer functionality versus being directed to an abstract idea ... 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.”). The claims do not recite an additional element or elements that reflect an improvement in the functioning of a computer, or an improvement to other technology or technical field. See Alice, 573 U.S. at 222 (“In holding that the process was patent ineligible, we rejected the argument that ‘implement[ing] a principle in some specific fashion’ will ‘automatically fal[l] within the patentable subject matter of § 101.”’ (Alterations in original) (quoting Parker v. Flook, 437 U.S. 584, 593 (1978))). To be a patent-eligible improvement to computer functionality, the courts have required the claims to be directed to an improvement in the functionality of the computer or network platform itself. In Ancora Techs. Inc. v. HTC America, Inc., for example, the CAFC held that claims directed to storing a verification structure in computer memory were directed to a non-abstract improvement in computer functionality because they improved computer security. 908 F.3d 1343, 1347–49 (Fed. Cir. 2018). The CAFC determined the claims addressed the “vulnerability of license authorization software to hacking” and were thus “directed to a solution to a computer-functionality problem.” Id. at 1349. Likewise, in Finjan, Inc. v. Blue Coat System, Inc., the CAFC held that claims to a “behavior-based virus scan” provided greater computer security and were thus directed to a patent eligible improvement in computer functionality. 879 F.3d 1299, 1304–06 (Fed. Cir. 2018). In Data Engine Techs. LLC v. Google LLC, the CAFC held patent eligible claims reciting “a specific method for navigating through three-dimensional electronic spreadsheets” because the claimed invention “improv[ed] computers’ functionality as a tool able to instantly access all parts of complex three-dimensional electronic spreadsheets.” 906 F.3d 999, 1007–08 (Fed. Cir. 2018); see also Core Wireless Licensing S.A.R.L. v. LG Elecs., Inc., 880 F.3d 1356, 1359–63 (Fed. Cir. 2018) (holding patent eligible claims reciting an improved user interface for electronic devices that improved the efficiency of the electronic device, particularly those with small screens”). And in SRI Int’l, Inc. v. Cisco Sys. Inc., the CAFC held patent eligible claims directed to an improved method of network security “using network monitors to detect suspicious network activity…generating reports of that suspicious activity, and integrating those reports using hierarchical monitors.” 930 F.3d 1295, 1303 (Fed. Cir. 2019). The CAFC concluded that the “focus of the claims was on the specific asserted improvement in computer capabilities,” namely “providing a network defense system that monitors network traffic in real-time to automatically detect large-scale attacks.” Id. at 1303–04. The CAFC has consistently stated that it is not enough, however, to merely improve a fundamental practice or abstract process by invoking a computer merely as a tool. For example, in Affinity Labs. of Texas, LLC v. DIRECTV, LLC, the CAFC held that claims to a method of providing out-of-region access to regional broadcasts were directed to an abstract idea. 838 F.3d 1253, 1258 (Fed. Cir. 2016). The CAFC determined the claims were not a patent-eligible improvement in computer functionality because they simply used cellular telephones “as tools in the aid of a process focused on an abstract idea.” Id. at 1262; see also In re TLI Commc’ns LLC Patent Litig., 823 F.3d 607, 611 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (holding ineligible claims reciting concrete physical components merely as “a generic environment in which to carry out the abstract idea of classifying and storing digital images in an organized manner”). Likewise, in Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Capital One Bank (USA), the CAFC held that claims reciting a system for providing web pages tailored to an individual user were directed to an abstract idea. 792 F.3d 1363, 1369–70 (Fed. Cir. 2015). The CAFC held that “claiming the improved speed or efficiency inherent with applying the abstract idea on a computer” was insufficient to render the claims patent eligible as an improvement to computer functionality. Id. at 1367, 1370; see also Ultramercial, Inc. v. Hulu, LLC, 772 F.3d 709, 715–16 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (holding that displaying an advertisement in exchange for access to copyrighted material is an abstract idea). And in SAP Am., Inc. v. InvestPic, LLC, the CAFC held patent ineligible claims directed to “selecting certain information, analyzing it using mathematical techniques, and reporting or displaying the results of the analysis.” 898 F.3d 1161, 1167–68 (Fed. Cir. 2018). The CAFC determined the claims were focused not on a physical-realm improvement to computers as tools but rather an improvement in wholly abstract ideas. Id. at 1168. The CAFC has also held that improving a user’s experience while using a computer application is not, without more, sufficient to render the claims directed to an improvement in computer functionality. For example, in Trading Techs. I, the CAFC held patent ineligible claims directed to a computer-based method for facilitating the placement of a trader’s order. Trading Techs. Int’l, Inc. v. IBG LLC, 921 F.3d 1084, 1092–93 (Fed. Cir. 2019) (Trading Techs. I). Although the claimed display purportedly “assist[ed] traders in processing information more quickly,” the CAFC held that this purported improvement in user experience did not “improve the functioning of the computer, make it operate more efficiently, or solve any technological problem.” Id.; see also Trading Techs. Int’l, Inc. v. IBG LLC, 921 F.3d 1378, 1381, 1384–85 (Fed. Cir. 2019) (Trading Techs. II) (holding that claims “focused on providing information to traders in a way that helps them process information more quickly” did not constitute a patent-eligible improvement to computer functionality). Also to note is that, “software can make non-abstract improvements to computer technology just as hardware improvements can.” Enfish, 822 F.3d at 1335. But to be directed to a patent-eligible improvement to computer functionality, the claims must be directed to an improvement to the functionality of the computer or network platform itself. See, e.g., id. 1336–39; DDR Holdings, LLC v. Hotels.com, L.P., 773 F.3d 1245, 1257–59 (Fed. Cir. 2014). Thus, this inquiry “often turns on whether the claims focus on ‘the specific asserted improvement in computer capabilities…or, in-stead, on a process that qualifies as an “abstract idea” for which computers are invoked merely as a tool.’” Finjan, 879 F.3d at 1303 (quoting Enfish, 822 F.3d at 1335–36). Against this background, Applicant’s claims are not directed to a practical application and are not patent eligible. Also see the rejection below. Accordingly, the claims do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. See Memorandum, Section 111(A)(2) (Prong Two: If the Claim Recites a Judicial Exception, Evaluate Whether the Judicial Exception Is Integrated Into a Practical Application).
Furthermore, under step 2B, the recitations of the core inventive steps in the independent claims and dependent claims amount to little more than reciting that the generic/general-purpose computer/computing/technical elements/components/etc., (for example, computer-implemented, networks, generic processing/processors, database, point-of-sale systems, transmitting using generic/general-purpose communication devices/components over generic/general-purpose network, displays, etc., (in Independent claim 21 and its dependent claims 22-27); computing devices, processors, memories, networks, databases, point-of-sale systems, transmitting using generic/general-purpose communication devices/components, displays, etc., (in independent claim 28 and its dependent claims 29-34); and non-transitory computer-readable storage medium, processors, computing system, networks, databases, point-of-sale systems, transmitting using generic/general-purpose communication devices/components, displays, etc., (independent claim 35 and its dependent claims 36-40)) applies (“apply it” fashion) the abstract idea. These activities as claimed by the Applicant are all well-known and routine tasks in the field of art – as can been seen in the specification of Applicant's application (for example, see Applicant’s specification at, for example, ¶¶ 0029-0031 [general-purpose/generic computer/processors and computing components], 0121-0126 [general-purpose/generic computers and computing components/devices]) and/or the specification of the below cited art (and art cited in PTO-892) and/or also as noted in the court cases in §2106.05 in the MPEP. As stated in the most recent guidelines provided by the office, “Simply appending well-understood routines and conventional activities previously known to the industry, specifies a high level of generality…” (2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance - Federal Register, Vol. 84, Vol. 4, January 07, 2019, pages 50-57). The elements in combination (or alone) do not provide any material drawn to something significantly more than the claimed method of organizing these known activities. The claims require no more than a generic computer to perform generic computer functions. Additionally, as stated above, the claims discuss obtaining data/information, organizing the data/information, accessing organized data/information, data analysis and manipulation to determine more data, and providing/displaying this determined data. The claimed invention uses mathematical steps to analyze and determine further data. The steps further merely employ mathematical relationships to manipulate existing information (mathematical values and comparisons, threshold determinations, etc.,) to generate additional information. The elements included in the claimed invention could, under broadest reasonable interpretation, be performed without a machine. Applicant is directed to the following references: Digitech Image., LLC v. Electronics for Imaging, Inc.(U.S. Patent No. 6,128,415); and (2) 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance - Federal Register, Vol. 84, Vol. 4, January 07, 2019, pages 50-57, Gottschalk v. Benson. The focus of the claims is on gathering/collecting data, using the data for analysis, and manipulating/refining/etc., the data to generate more data (in the fundamental economic activity of multiple business and industries – which compare information over time period and thresholds); and further geared towards mathematical relationships (as discussed in the claims, the specification, and figures). Information as such is intangible. See Microsoft Corp. v. AT & T Corp., 550 U.S. 437, 451 n.12 (2007); Bayer AG v. Housey Pharm., Inc., 340 F.3d 1367, 1372 (Fed. Cir. 2003). The Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (CAFC) have also treated analyzing information by steps people go through in their minds, or by mathematical algorithms as essentially mental processes within the abstract-idea category. See, e.g., TLI Commc’ns, 823 F.3d at 613; Digitech, 758 F.3d at 1351; Bancorp Servs., L.L.C. v. Sun Life Assurance Co. of Canada (U.S.), 687 F.3d 1266, 1278 (Fed. Cir. 2012); CyberSource Corp. v. Retail Decisions, Inc., 654 F.3d 1366, 1372 (Fed. Cir. 2011); SiRF Tech., Inc. v. Int’l Trade Comm’n, 601 F.3d 1319, 1333 (Fed. Cir. 2010). Here, the claims are clearly focused on the combination of those abstract-idea processes. They are therefore directed to an abstract idea. Abstract ideas are excluded from patent eligibility based on a concern that monopolization of the basic tools of scientific and technological work might impede innovation more than it would promote it. The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. It should be noted the limitations of the current claims are performed by the generically recited computers and computing components. The elements included in the claimed invention could, under broadest reasonable interpretation, be performed without a machine. Applicant is directed to the following references: (1) 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance - Federal Register, Vol. 84, Vol. 4, January 07, 2019, pages 50-57, Digitech Image., LLC v. Electronics for Imaging, Inc.(U.S. Patent No. 6,128,415); and (2) 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance - Federal Register, Vol. 84, Vol. 4, January 07, 2019, pages 50-57, Gottschalk v. Benson. The claims do not recite an improvement to another technology or technical field, an improvement to the functioning of the computer itself, or meaningful limitations beyond generally linking the use of an abstract idea to a particular technological environment. The core limitations require no more than a generic/general-purpose computers and/or generic/general-purpose computing components to perform generic computer functions (as discussed above). see Alice Corp., 134 S. Ct. at 2360 and buySAFE, Inc. v. Google, Inc. 754 F.3d 1350, 1355 (and also please refer to “July 2015 Update: Subject Matter Eligibility, page 7” for a listing of computer functions found by the courts to be well-understood, routine and conventional and the 2019 Subject Matter Guidance Federal Register, Vol. 84, Vol. 4, January 07, 2019). It should be noted the limitations of the current claims are performed by the generically recited computers and computing components. Limiting the claims to the particular environment of supply and demand in a product sales setting (and inventory) using generic/general-purpose computers and/or generic/general-purpose computing components is, without more, insufficient to transform them into patent-eligible applications of the abstract idea at their core. See Alice, 134 S. Ct. at 2358; Mayo, 132 S. Ct. at 1294; Bilski v. Kappos, 561 U.S. 593, 610–11 (2010); Diamond v. Diehr, 450 U.S. 175, 191 (1981); buySAFE, Inc. v. Google, Inc., 765 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2014). Simply requiring the selection and manipulation of information—to provide a “humanly comprehensible” amount of information useful for users, by itself does not transform the otherwise-abstract processes of information collection and analysis. See Electric Power Group v Alstom S.A. (Fed Cir, 2015-1778, 8/1/2016). The claims recite using known and/or generic computing devices and software. For the role of a computer in a computer implemented invention to be deemed meaningful in the context of this analysis, it must involve more than performance of "well-understood, routine, [and] conventional activities previously known to the industry." Alice, at 2359 (quoting Mayo, 132 S. Ct. at 1294 (internal quotation marks and brackets omitted)). Further, "the mere recitation of a generic computer cannot transform a patent ineligible abstract idea into a patent-eligible invention." Alice, at 2358. None of the hardware offers a meaningful limitation beyond generally linking the system to a particular technological environment, that is, implementation via computers. The claims at issue here do not require an arguably inventive device or technique for displaying information, unlike the claims at issue in DDR Holdings, LLC v. Hotels.com, L.P., 773 F.3d 1245, 1257 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (at JMOL stage finding inventive concept in modification of conventional mechanics behind website display to produce dual-source integrated hybrid display). Nor do the claims here require an arguably inventive distribution of functionality within a network, thus distinguishing the claims at issue from those in Bascom, 2016 WL 3514158, at *6 (at pleading stage finding sufficient inventive concept in “the installation of a filtering tool at a specific location, remote from the end users, with customizable filtering features specific to each end user”). The claims do not include any requirement for performing the claimed functions by use of anything but entirely conventional, generic technology. See Electric Power Group v Alstom S.A. (Fed Cir, 2015-1778, 8/1/2016). The claims therefore do not state an arguably inventive concept in the realm of application of the information-based abstract ideas. None of the hardware offers a meaningful limitation beyond generally linking the system to a particular technological environment, that is, implementation via computers. Viewed as a whole, the claims do not purport to improve the functioning of the computer itself, or to improve any other technology or technical field. Use of unspecified, generic computers and computing components/devices/etc., does not transform an abstract idea into a patent-eligible invention. Thus, the claim does not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself. See Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank Int'l, 110 USPQ2d 1976 (U.S. 2014). The dependent claims further define the independent claims and merely narrow the described abstract idea, but not adding significantly more than the abstract idea (the entire reasoning above applies to dependent claims as well (as examiner has repeatedly discussed the claims as a whole) and the dependent claims remain rejected for the reason presented above and also the reasons in the rejection below).
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 21-40 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter.
Note that the above discussion for §101 under Response to Arguments section is also incorporated in this rejection. Also note that the PTAB decision (explanation provided by the PTAB) affirming the examiner (dated 04/10/2025) is also applicable to Applicant’s current claims and is incorporated in this rejection
Regarding Step 1 (MPEP 2106.03) of the subject matter eligibility test per MPEP 2106.03, Claims 21-27 are directed to a method (i.e., process), claims 35-40 are directed to non-transitory computer readable medium (i.e. product or article of manufacture), and claims 28-34 are directed to a device (i.e. machine). Accordingly, all claims are directed to one of the four statutory categories of invention.
(Under Step 2) The claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
(Under Step 2A, Prong 1 (MPEP 2106.04)) The independent claims (21, 28, 35) and dependent claims (22-27, 29-34, 36-40) recite obtaining information/data (where the information itself is abstract in nature (non-technical)), data analysis and manipulation (including using significant mathematical concepts; using the data mathematically to recommend prices and come up with optimal solutions (calculating through mathematical concepts/equations/formulae/algorithms/models)) to determine more information/data (determining performance rating based on gathered data/information), and providing/displaying this determined data. The claimed invention further uses mathematical steps to analyze and determine further data. The limitations of independent claims (21, 28, 35) and dependent claims (22-27, 29-34, 36-40), under the broadest reasonable interpretation, covers methods of organizing human activity (fundamental economic activities (in retail sales and inventory management) and commercial interactions (including marketing or sales activities or behaviors; business relations)) and mathematical concepts (see discussion above and also see Applicant’s specification showing the mathematical concepts behind the claimed limitations; e.g. generating the mathematical demand model and using the model to determine quantities (mathematical step); dependent claims further clearly claim mathematical steps). If a claims limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers the performance of the limitation as fundamental economic principles or practices (including hedging, insurance, mitigating risk); commercial or legal interactions (including agreements in the form of contracts; legal obligations; advertising, marketing or sales activities or behaviors; business relations); managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people (including scheduling, social activities, teaching, and following rules or instructions), then it falls within the “organizing human activities” grouping of abstract ideas. (MPEP 2106.04; and also see 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance – Federal Register, Vol. 84, Vol. 4, January 07, 2019, pages 50-57). If a claims limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers the performance of the limitation as mathematical relationships, mathematical formulas or equations, mathematical calculations then it falls within the Mathematical concepts grouping of abstract ideas. (MPEP 2106.04; and also see 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance - Federal Register, Vol. 84, Vol. 4, January 07, 2019, pages 50-57). Accordingly, since Applicant's claims fall under organizing human activities grouping and mathematical concepts grouping, the claims recite an abstract idea.
(Under Step 2A, prong 2 (MPEP 2106.04(d))) This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because but for the recitation of generic/general-purpose computers and/or computing elements/components/devices/etc., (for example, computer-implemented, networks, generic processing/processors, database, point-of-sale systems, transmitting using generic/general-purpose communication devices/components over generic/general-purpose network, displays, etc., (in Independent claim 21 and its dependent claims 22-27); computing devices, processors, memories, networks, databases, point-of-sale systems, transmitting using generic/general-purpose communication devices/components, displays, etc., (in independent claim 28 and its dependent claims 29-34); and non-transitory computer-readable storage medium, processors, computing system, networks, databases, point-of-sale systems, transmitting using generic/general-purpose communication devices/components, displays, etc., (independent claim 35 and its dependent claims 36-40)) in the context of the independent claims (21, 28, 35) and dependent claims (22-27, 29-34, 36-40), the claims encompass the above discussed abstract idea (in the Step 2A, Prong 1 discussion above). As shown above, the claims and specification recite generic components which are recited at a high level of generality performing generic computer functions. (MPEP 2106.04; and also see 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance – Federal Register, Vol. 84, Vol. 4, January 07, 2019, page 53-55). The limitations with generic/general-purpose computers and/or computing elements/components/devices/etc., are no more than mere instructions to apply the judicial exception (the above abstract idea) in an apply-it fashion using generic/general-purpose computers, processors, and/or computer components/elements/ devices, etc. The CAFC has stated that it is not enough, however, to merely improve abstract processes by invoking a computer merely as a tool.. Customedia Techs., LLC v. Dish Network Corp., 951 F.3d 1359, 1364 (Fed. Cir. 2020). The focus of the claims (independent and dependent) is simply to use computers and a familiar network as a tool to perform abstract processes involving simple information exchange. Carrying out abstract processes involving information exchange is an abstract idea. See, e.g., BSG, 899 F.3d at 1286; SAP America, 898 F.3d at 1167-68; Affinity Labs of Tex., LLC v. DIRECTV, LLC, 838 F.3d 1253, 1261-62 (Fed. Cir. 2016). And use of standard computers and networks to carry out those functions—more speedily, more efficiently, more reliably—does not make the claims any less directed to that abstract idea. See Alice Corp., 573 U.S. at 222-25; Customedia, 951 F.3d at 1364; Trading Techs. Int'l, Inc. v. IBG LLC, 921 F.3d 1084, 1092-93 (Fed. Cir. 2019); SAP America, 898 F.3d at 1167; Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Symantec Corp., 838 F.3d 1307, 1314 (Fed. Cir. 2016); Electric Power Grp., LLC v. Alstom S.A., 830 F.3d 1350, 1353, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2016); Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Capital One Bank (USA), 792 F.3d 1363, 1367, 1370 (Fed. Cir. 2015); buySAFE, Inc. v. Google, Inc., 765 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2014). Accordingly, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea in to a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea – i.e. they are just post-solution/extra-solution activities.
(Under Step 2B (MPEP 2106.05)) The independent claims (21, 28, 35) and dependent claims (22-27, 29-34, 36-40) do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the claims do not recite an improvement to another technology or technical field, an improvement to the functioning of the computer itself, or meaningful limitations beyond generally linking the use of an abstract idea to a particular technological environment. The independent and dependent claims recite using known and/or generic/general-purpose computers and/or computing elements/components/devices/etc., (for example, computer-implemented, networks, generic processing/processors, database, point-of-sale systems, transmitting using generic/general-purpose communication devices/components over generic/general-purpose network, displays, etc., (in Independent claim 21 and its dependent claims 22-27); computing devices, processors, memories, networks, databases, point-of-sale systems, transmitting using generic/general-purpose communication devices/components, displays, etc., (in independent claim 28 and its dependent claims 29-34); and non-transitory computer-readable storage medium, processors, computing system, networks, databases, point-of-sale systems, transmitting using generic/general-purpose communication devices/components, displays, etc., (independent claim 35 and its dependent claims 36-40)). For the role of a computer in a computer implemented invention to be deemed meaningful in the context of this analysis, it must involve more than performance of "well-understood, routine, [and] conventional activities previously known to the industry." Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank Int'l, 110 USPQ2d 1976 (U.S. 2014), at 2359 (quoting Mayo, 132 S. Ct. at 1294 (internal quotation marks and brackets omitted)). These activities as claimed by the Applicant are all well-known and routine tasks in the field of art – as can been seen in the specification of Applicant' s application (for example, see Applicant' s specification at, for example, see Applicant’s specification at, for example, ¶¶ 0029-0031 [general-purpose/generic computers/processors/etc., and generic/general-purpose computing components/devices/etc.,], 0121-0126 [general-purpose/generic computers/processors/etc., and generic/general-purpose computing components/devices/etc.,]) and/or the specification of the below cited art (used in the rejection below and on the PTO-892) and/or also as noted in the court cases in §2106.05 in the MPEP. Further, "the mere recitation of a generic computer cannot transform a patent ineligible abstract idea into a patent-eligible invention." Alice, at 2358. None of the hardware offers a meaningful limitation beyond generally linking the system to a particular technological environment, that is, implementation via computers. Adding generic computer components to perform generic functions that are well‐understood, routine and conventional, such as gathering data, performing calculations, and outputting a result would not transform the claim into eligible subject matter. Abstract ideas are excluded from patent eligibility based on a concern that monopolization of the basic tools of scientific and technological work might impede innovation more than it would promote it. The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the claims require no more than a generic computer to perform generic computer functions. The additional element(s) or combination of elements in the claim(s) other than the abstract idea per se amount(s) to no more than: (i) mere instructions to implement the idea on a computer, and/or (ii) recitation of generic computer structure that serves to perform generic computer functions that are well-understood, routine, and conventional activities previously known to the pertinent industry. Applicant is directed to the following citations and references: Digitech Image., LLC v. Electronics for Imaging, Inc.(U.S. Patent No. 6,128,415); and (2) Federal register/Vol. 79, No 241 issued on December 16, 2014, page 74629, column 2, Gottschalk v. Benson. Viewed as a whole, the claims do not purport to improve the functioning of the computer itself, or to improve any other technology or technical field. Use of an unspecified, generic computer does not transform an abstract idea into a patent-eligible invention. Thus, the claim does not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself. See Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank Int'l, 110 USPQ2d 1976 (U.S. 2014).
The dependent claims (22-27, 29-34, 36-40) further define the independent claims and merely narrow the described abstract idea, but not adding significantly more than the abstract idea. The above rejection includes and details the discussion of dependent claims and the above rejection applies to all the dependent claim limitations. In summary, the dependent claims further state using obtained data/information (where the information itself is abstract in nature), data analysis/manipulation to determine more data/information (e.g. heavily using mathematical concepts, comparing information, etc.,), possibly obtaining more abstract information/data, and providing this determined data/information for further analysis and decision making. The claimed invention further uses mathematical steps to analyze and determine further data (calculations and models used in the dependent claims are all methodical). These claims are directed towards organizing human activity (fundamental economic activities (in retail sales and inventory management) and commercial interactions (including marketing or sales activities or behaviors; business relations)) and mathematical concepts (see discussion above and also see Applicant’s specification showing the mathematical concepts behind the claimed limitations; e.g. generating the mathematical demand model and using the model to determine quantities (mathematical step); dependent claims further clearly claim mathematical steps). This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the claims and specification recite generic components ((for example, computer-implemented, networks, generic processing/processors, database, point-of-sale systems, transmitting using generic/general-purpose communication devices/components over generic/general-purpose network, displays, etc., (in Independent claim 21 and its dependent claims 22-27); computing devices, processors, memories, networks, databases, point-of-sale systems, transmitting using generic/general-purpose communication devices/components, displays, etc., (in independent claim 28 and its dependent claims 29-34); and non-transitory computer-readable storage medium, processors, computing system, networks, databases, point-of-sale systems, transmitting using generic/general-purpose communication devices/components, displays, etc., (independent claim 35 and its dependent claims 36-40))) which are recited at a high level of generality performing generic/general-purpose computer/computing functions. (MPEP 2106.04 and also see 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance – Federal Register, Vol. 84, Vol. 4, January 07, 2019, page 53-55). The dependent claims also merely recites post-solution/extra-solution activities (with generic/general-purpose computers and/or computing components/devices/etc.,). The additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea in to a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea – i.e. they are just post-solution/extra-solution activities. The dependent claims merely use the same general technological environment and instructions to implement the abstract idea without adding any new additional elements. Also, the dependent claims also do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the juridical exception because the additional elements either individually or in combination are merely an extension of the abstract idea itself. See details in the detailed discussion above.
Claims not rejected under prior but still remain rejected under §101
The claims are not rejected under prior art (as in parent application 13/911,021). However, the claims remain rejected under §101 as discusses above. Therefore, the claim are not allowable.
As per independent claims 21, 28, and 35 the prior art of record most closely resembling Applicant' s claimed invention are May et al., (US 2011/0004506), Eglen et al., (US 2010/0241492), and Walser et al., (US 2006/0161504).
May provides for transforming transactional data into a forecast and confidence interval for controlling a commerce system involves moving goods between members of a commerce system, and recording transaction data related to movement of goods between the members of the commerce system. The transaction data includes price, product, time, and promotion. The model parameters are estimated based on the transactional data using a demand model to generate a forecast of demand for the goods based on a proposed price or promotion. A confidence interval of the certainty associated with the forecast of demand for the goods is determined based on the proposed price or promotion. The forecast of demand for the goods and confidence interval is provided to the commerce system to control the movement of goods based on the forecast of demand for the goods and confidence interval.
Eglen illustrates dynamically adjusting prices of items using a processor based upon the cross-price effects on demand of associated items based upon offering the associated items at different prices during different time periods.
Walser discloses generating a price schedule involves generating a graph (50) having paths that include states (52) with values (54, 56, 58). The graph (50) is generated by determining the values (56, 58) of a successor state (52) from the values (56, 58) of a predecessor state (52). An optimal path is selected, and a price schedule is determined from the optimal path. Computing an elasticity curve involves having a demand model, values for demand model, and filter sets that restrict the values. Elasticity curves are determined by filtering the values using filter sets, and calculating the elasticity curve using the demand model. An best-fitting elasticity curve is selected. Adjusting a demand forecast value (56) includes estimating an inventory and a demand at a number of locations (24). An expected number of unrealized sales at each location (24) is calculated. An sales forecast value (56) is determined according to the expected number.
However, May, Eglen, and Walser (individually and/or in combination) fail to teach or suggest the limitations of independent claims as a whole and specifically fail to recite “in response to identifying the at least one time period with zero-unit data, generating a plurality of product-location combinations from the set of products and the one or more locations; calculating a plurality of coefficients for a model for the product-location combinations; generating the model from the plurality of coefficients, wherein the model is unaffected by the aggregated zero-unit and out-of-stock data; determining quantities, by applying the model, for the set of products in the one or more locations, without regard to future zero-unit data and future out-of-stock events…obtaining, in response to generating the model, a plurality of product networks, each of the plurality of product networks having a price-optimized solution set; selecting, for each of a plurality of product networks, a current best value solution from the corresponding price-optimized solution set based on monetary value, the current best value solution having a number of unchanged prices…adding the number of unchanged prices for the current best value solutions of each of the plurality of product networks; comparing a current total number of unchanged prices across the plurality of product networks to the predefined target number of unchanged prices that reflects the price-change threshold; determining that the current total number of unchanged prices is less than the predefined target number of unchanged prices, indicating that a number of price changes would exceed the price-change threshold…replacing the current best value solution with a next best value solution, wherein replacing the current best value solution is performed without enumerating all possible combinations of price-optimized solutions across the plurality of product networks, by iteratively selecting a next best price-optimized solution based on a best price-change ratio and updating the current total number of unchanged prices until the predefined target number of unchanged prices is satisfied…in response to iteratively determining that the number of unchanged proves for the next current best value solutions is below the threshold number of price changes, outputting information associated with the selected best value solutions.” Additionally, the specific ordered combination of the claim elements in the independent claims cannot be found in the prior art (including art cited in PTO-892) and can only be found in Applicant' s Specification. Any combination of the cited references and/or additional references to teach all of the claim elements would not be obvious and would result in impermissible hindsight reconstruction. The prior art of record (including art cite on PTO-892) does not teach or suggest (the reference individually or in combination) Applicant' s current independent claims as a whole (it is the entire claimed concept described by the limitations collectively coming together that is not rejected under prior art (the core concept is shown in the claim as a whole — limitations organized in the specific form and coming together collectively to form the concept)).
As per the dependent claims, these claims depend on the independent claims above and incorporate the limitations thereof, and are therefore not rejected under prior art for at least the same rationale as applied to the independent claims above, and incorporated herein.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record on the PTO-892 and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. For example, some of the pertinent prior art is as follows:
Chen et al., (US 2007/0061210): Discussing predicting out-of-stock occurrences and for assigning root causes to out-of-stock occurrences are described. In one implementation, inventory data and point of sale data are collected. An expected lost sales value is determined. A true demand is determined based on the point-of-sale data and the expected lost sales value. A probability of an out-of-stock occurrence is determined based on the inventory data. In another implementation, an out-of-stock occurrence is identified. The out-of-stock occurrence is classified, and one or more root causes are assigned to the out-of-stock occurrence.
Ouimet et al., (US 2005/0234718): Discusses a non-stationary time series model using a likelihood function as a function of input data, base demand parameters, and time dependent parameter. The likelihood function may represent any statistical distribution. The likelihood function uses a prior probability distribution to provide information external to the input data and is used to control the model. In one embodiment the prior is a function of adjacent time periods of the demand profile. The base demand parameters and time dependent parameter are solved using a multi-diagonal band matrix. The solution of base demand parameters and time dependent parameter involves making estimates thereof in an iterative manner until the base demand parameters and time dependent parameter each converge. A non-stationary time series model is provided from an expression using the solution of the base demand parameters and time dependent parameter. The non-stationary time series model provides a demand forecast as a function of time.
Furman et al., (US 2008/0294484): Provides an optimization system for transportation scheduling and inventory management of a bulk product from supply locations to demand locations is provided. The system has a mathematical model containing mathematical programming equations. In one embodiment, the objective function of the mathematical model is to minimize a cost basis of the product transported. The system also has a database system for data input that interfaces with the mathematical model. The last component of the system is a mathematical optimization solver that solves the equations provided by the mathematical model after the mathematical model receives data from the database system. As a result, the optimization system provides optimized or simulated results for the input data.
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 GURKANWALJIT SINGH whose telephone number is (571)270-5392. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:30-5:30.
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, Brian Epstein can be reached at 571-270-5389. 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.
/GURKANWALJIT SINGH/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3625