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 .
Status of Claims
This is in reply to communication filed on 12/26/2025.
Claims 1 and 12-13 have been amended.
Claim 14 has been canceled.
Claims 1-13 and 15 are currently pending and have been examined.
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 12/26/2025 has been entered.
Response to Argument
In response to Applicant Arguments /Remarks made in an amendment filled on 12/26/2025:
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101:
Applicant argument submitted under the title “Claim Rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 101” in pages 9-11, that:
“Claims 1-13 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 because the claimed invention is allegedly directed to non-statutory subject matter.
To expedite prosecution and without conceding the rejections, Applicant has amended independent claims, among others, to recite:
cause the display to display an initial view of the sub-network in a
simplified manner by omitting intermediate nodes not meeting the given
condition, including the plurality of companies of special interest in a mode
with which the plurality of companies of special interest is distinguishable and
the plurality of groups is distinguishable from one another; and
upon receiving a selection operation to select any company of special
interest as a selected company on the initial view, trigger a transition of the
display from the initial view to a detailed view by: (i) extracting a second sub- network consisting of minimum distance paths linking the company of special
interest in a group to which the selected company belongs and the company of interest; and (ii) causing' the display to render the extracted minimum distance paths of the second sub-network to reveal connection relationships previously
omitted in the initial view while maintaining the display of the selected
company,
(Emphasis added).
Applicant submits that the amended independent claims are patent eligible for the following reasons.
Step 2A Prong 1
The Amended Claims are not directed to an abstract idea but to a specific improvement in the functioning of a computer, specifically the capability of the GUI to handle complex datasets.
The Federal Circuit has held that claims directed to a specific manner of displaying a limited set of information to avoid screen clutter are patent eligible as an improvement in computer functionality. Core Wireless Licensing S.A.R.L. v. LG Electronics, Inc., 880 F.3d 1356 (Fed. Cir. 2018).
Here, the Specification describes the computer-specific problem that displaying a supply chain network with "thousands or more" nodes results in excessive complexity, making it difficult for users to recognize relationships on a display.
To solve this technical problem, the Amended Claims now recite a specific GUI configuration comprising:
Displaying an: "initial view" in a simplified manner by "omitting intermediate nodes" to avoid clutter (Paragraph [0183] of the corresponding PGPUB).; and
"Triggering a transition" to a detailed view upon a specific user selection to "render... minimum distance paths... to reveal connection relationships previously omitted" ([0196]).
This claimed specific ordered combination which is initially hiding relevant but cluttering data (intermediate nodes) and dynamically computing/rendering it only upon specific actuation, improves the efficiency of the display interface. Therefore, the claims are directed to a non- abstract computer improvement, similar to Core Wireless.
Step 2A Prong 2
Even if the claims were considered to recite an abstract idea, they integrate the idea into a practical application.
The amended claims do not merely invoke a computer as a tool to perform data analysis. Instead, they require a specific interaction where the user's selection on the simplified initial view directly triggers a change in the display configuration to reveal hidden paths. This constitutes a specific actuation causing a technical configuration change on the display device, moving beyond mere data gathering or organizing.
For the reasons stated above, the Applicant respectfully requests withdrawal of the rejection”.
Applicant's arguments have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
In response, the examiner respectfully disagrees and emphasizes that the claims expressly recite managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people (acquiring, receiving, performing, identifying, performing, extracting, acquiring, classify, displaying, receiving selection, extracting, displaying steps) which fall squarely within the “certain methods of organizing human activity” category, and a method and system of mental-process style data handling/presentation (receiving supply chain network information, processing the information, determining required results, presenting results) which fall squarely within the “mantal process” category. They also recite generic information processing steps (receive- analyze-display), which the Federal Circuit has repeatedly found abstract when claimed at a results-oriented level (Electric Power Group; Content Extraction).
Prong 2: Applicant asserts integration into a practical application based on “trigger a transition of the display from the initial view to a detailed view … causing the display to render the extracted minimum distance paths of the second sub-network to reveal connection relationships previously omitted in the initial view while maintaining the display of the selected company” Merely applying an abstract workflow on a computer, even in real time, does not integrate the exception absent a specific improvement to technology or computer functioning. The “ordered sequence” is a conventional pipeline (receive- analyze-display) and does not constitute an improvement to the underlying technology (contrast McRO, Enfish, Thales, Visual Memory).
Step 2B: Applicant argues the elements are “significantly more” because they “require a specific interaction where the user's selection on the simplified initial view directly triggers a change in the display configuration to reveal hidden paths” Without any claimed technical mechanism or unconventional arrangement, this is a result-oriented limitation implemented on conventional devices. Courts have rejected similar arguments where the claimed improvement is merely using standard components to process and present information (Alice; Electric Power Group; Yu v. Apple, 1 F.4th 1040 (Fed. Cir. 2021). Applicant has not pointed to claim language reciting non-conventional elements or provided evidence of non-conventionality as required under Berkheimer.
In sum, Applicant’s arguments do not persuasively show that the claims avoid reciting a judicial exception, integrate the exception into a practical application, or add significantly more.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1-13 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception without significantly more.
Step 1:
Claims 1-11 recite a system, which is directed to a machine.
Claim 12 and 15 recites a method, which is directed to a process.
Claim 13 recites a system, which is directed to a machine.
Therefore, each claim falls within one of the four statutory categories.
Step 2A, Prong 1 (Is a judicial exception recited?):
The independent claims 1, 12 and 13 recites the abstract idea of managing supply chain entities. This idea is described by the steps of:
acquire a supply chain network, in which a plurality of nodes are linked, based on open information including business relationship information, the plurality of nodes corresponding to a plurality of companies, the business relationship information being information associating a supply source company with a supply destination company for a product;
receive a selection operation of selecting any of the plurality of companies as a company of interest;
perform a process of extracting, from the supply chain network, a sub-network including either one or both of an upstream sub-network and a downstream sub-network, the upstream sub- network including an upstream company that supplies a product to the company of interest, the downstream sub-network including a downstream company that receives a product from the company of interest;
identify a company of special interest that meets a given condition in the sub-network; and
perform a process of presenting information about the company of special interest, wherein:
in the process of extracting, extract the sub-network by extracting a company that belongs to an industry sector group of a plurality of industry sectors;
acquire a centrality measure based on the sub-network;
classify a plurality of companies of special interest, which has the centrality measure greater than, or equal to, a predetermined threshold value, into a plurality of groups based on a value of the centrality measure and the industry sectors;
display an initial view of the sub-network in a simplified manner by omitting intermediate nodes not meeting the given condition, including the plurality of companies of special interest in a mode with which the plurality of companies of special interest is distinguishable and the plurality of groups is distinguishable from one another; and
upon receiving a selection operation to select any company of special interest as a selected company on the initial view,
(i) extracting a second sub-network consisting of minimum distance paths linking the company of special interest in a group to which the selected company belongs and the company of interest: and (ii) display the extracted minimum distance paths of the second sub-network to reveal connection relationships previously omitted in the initial view while maintaining the display of the selected company, and in the supply chain network, a number of the plurality of nodes is on an order of thousands or more.
These claims recite a certain method of organizing human activity. The claims recite to a certain method of organizing human activity as the disclosure is directed to managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people. The examiner finds the claims to simply recite a method of receiving supply chain network information, processing the information, determining required results, presenting results. The specification states that the invention recites provides, for example, an information processing system and an information processing method both for suitable analysis of a supply chain of a given company, see specification [0004]. This concept qualifies as managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people – certain methods of organizing human activity group of abstract idea. See 2106.04(a)(2)(II)(C).
The claims recite a mental process. Before computers one could mentally or a human using paper and pen to manage supply chain entities. The claims are merely directed to a method of receiving supply chain network information, processing the information, determining required results, presenting results. The Examiner find the recited claims to be similar to a claim to "collecting information, analyzing it, and displaying certain results of the collection and analysis," where the data analysis steps are recited at a high level of generality such that they could practically be performed in the human mind, Electric Power Group v. Alstom, S.A., 830 F.3d 1350, 1353-54, 119 USPQ2d 1739, 1741-42 (Fed. Cir. 2016), which the courts have also found to recite a mental process.
Step 2A, Prong 2 (Is the exception integrated into a practical application?):
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the claims satisfy the following criteria, which indicate that the claims do not integrate the abstract idea into practical application:
The claimed additional limitations are:
Claim 1: hardware processor, display, trigger a transition of the display,
Claim 12: display, trigger a transition of the display,
Claim 13: hardware processor, display, trigger a transition of the display,
The additional element is directed to using a generic computer to process information and perform the abstract idea. Therefore, the limitations merely amount to adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) to 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, as discussed in MPEP 2106.05(f).
Step 2B (Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more that the judicial exception?):
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
As for Step 2B analysis, knowing the consideration is overlapping with Step 2A, Prong 2. The Step 2B considerations have already been substantially addressed under Step 2A Prong 2, see Step 2A Prong 2 analysis above. As discussed above, the additional imitations amount to 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, as discussed in MPEP 2106.05(f).
In addition, the dependent claims recite:
Step 2A, Prong 1 (Is a judicial exception recited?):
Dependent claims 2-11 and 15 recitations further narrowing the abstract idea recited in the independent claims 1, 12 and 13 and therefore directed towards the same abstract idea.
Step 2A, Prong 2 and Step 2B:
The dependent claims 2-11 and 15 further narrow the abstract idea recited in the independent claims 1, 12 and 13 and are therefore directed towards the same abstract idea.
The dependent claims recite the following additional elements:
Claim 2- 8, and 10-11: hardware processor,
However, the examiner finds each of these additional elements to be directed to merely “apply it” or applying a generic technology to perform the recited abstract idea of managing supply chain entities, the recitation to the generic computer technology that is being used as a tool to execute the steps that define the abstract idea do not provide for integration at the 2nd prong and do not provide for significantly more at step 2B.
Therefore, the limitations on the invention of claims 1-13 and 15, when viewed individually and in ordered combination are directed to in-eligible subject matter.
Distinguished Over Prior Art
Examiner is in agreement with applicant’s amendments and arguments filed on 05/30/2025. The claims 1-13 and 15, in present form, have overcome the prior art rejections and the examiner has been unable to find the claimed limitations in the prior art. The prior art on record, alone or in combination, neither anticipates, reasonably teaches, nor renders obvious the applicant's claimed invention. Accordingly, the applicant needs to address the outstanding rejections above in order to issue an allowability notice. The reason to withdraw the 35 USC 103 rejection of claims 1-13 and 15 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. 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. Accordingly, the examiner recommends addressing the outstanding rejections above.
Conclusion
1. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to AVIA SALMAN whose telephone number is (313)446-4901. The examiner can normally be reached Monday thru Friday; 9:00 AM to 5:00 PM EST.
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 at (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.
/AVIA SALMAN/Primary Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3627