DETAILED ACTION
This non-final office action is in response to Applicant’s amendment and request for continued examination filed October 30, 2025. Applicant’s October 30th amendment amended claims 1, 4, 9, 19 and canceled claims 2, 11, 17. Currently Claims 1, 3-10, 12-16, 18 and 19 are pending.
Claims 1, 9 and 19 are the independent claims.
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 October 30 2025 has been entered.
Response to Amendment
The 35 U.S.C. 101 rejection of claims 1, 3-10, 12-16, 18 and 19 in the previous office action is maintained.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed October 30, 2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Specifically, Applicant argues that the claims are patent eligible under 35 U.S.C. 101 as the claims solve a technical problem in the field of manufacturing (e.g. technical steps, technical actions (displaying, visualizing, enabling user input, etc.) that improve the manufacturing process; technical improvement in manufacturing; Specification: Paragraphs 45, 45, 63-66; Remarks: Pages 13, 14).
In response to Applicant’s argument that the claims are patent eligible under 35 U.S.C. 101 as the claims, provide a technical solution to a technical problem (e.g. integrate the abstract idea into a practical application), the examiner respectfully disagrees.
The claimed invention remains directed to an abstract idea of specifically directed to (a) organizing human activity – a fundamental economic practice - business metric prediction – as argued by applicant (outputting, to a user, predicted actual time delay risk based on manufacturing and external data; Remarks: Page 13); (b) a mental process which may be practically performed in the human mind using observation, evaluation, judgement and opinion; as well as (c) a mathematical operations/calculations (mathematical grouping of abstract ideas; e.g. applying a supervised machine learning algorithm to generate a model for learning risk factors and applying a machine learning algorithm to generate a retrained model for predicting the time delay risk).
The recited non-abstract elements technical components/elements, include the external data interface, process data interface, database, network, control circuit, and human machine interface (HMI) are merely generic computer elements performing generic computing functions of obtaining, processing and outputting data (Specification: Figure 8). The recited database, process data interface (software per se), human machine interface (software per se), external data interface (software per se), control circuit, network and nothing more than generic computer/computer technology performing well-known functions of obtaining, processing and outputting data, each recited at a high level of generality and amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer/computer technology. The recitation of the generic computer/technological elements, each used for their conventional and routine purpose, is at best equivalent to adding the words apply it to the judicial exception.
The additional limitations directed to obtaining online current process parameters and predicting, by the control circuit online… at best recite utilizing a computer network/internet to send/receive data which is well-known, conventional and routine. Nowhere in Applicant’s disclosure is the online (network/internet) utilized in an unconventional manner nor is the functioning of online approved in any way nor is online used to overcome a technical problem inherent in computers or computer networks. As such the recitation of the generic online element, used for its conventional and routine purpose, is at best equivalent to adding the words apply it to the judicial exception.
The steps directed to applying a supervised machine learning algorithm to generate a model for learning risk factors and applying a machine learning algorithm to generate a retrained model for predicting the time delay risk are directed to well-known economic practice (supply chain risk identification/prediction), a mental process which may be practically performed in the human mind using observation, evaluation, judgement and opinion as well as mathematical operations/calculations (e.g. risk prediction). The recited supervised machine learning and machine learning algorithms are used to generally apply the abstract idea without limiting how the supervised machine learning and machine learning algorithm’s function. The supervised machine learning and machine learning algorithms are described at a high level that it amounts to using a computer with generic supervised machine learning and machine learning algorithms to apply the abstract idea. These limitations only recite outcomes without any details as to how the outcomes are accomplished. The recitation of the supervised machine learning and machine learning algorithms is at best equivalent to adding the words apply it to the judicial exception. The recitation of the supervised machine learning algorithm and machine learning algorithm in the claims does not negate the mental nature of these limitations because the supervised machine learning and machine learning algorithms are merely used at a tool to perform an otherwise mental process.
That the method automatically repeats, at predetermined intervals, does not negate the mental nature of these limitations because a human is more than capable of repeating the method steps (discussed above) at predetermine intervals and iteratively/repeatedly performing mathematical calculations/operations, like the ones above, is old, well-known, conventional and routine. The claimed method steps are merely performed two or more times. The recite technological elements (process data interface, control circuit, etc.) are merely used at a tool to perform an otherwise mental process.
The steps of obtaining historical supplier data, obtaining process parameters, obtaining external data, obtaining online current process data, obtaining historical supplier data, obtaining process parameters, obtaining external data are directed to insignificant pre-solution data activity (i.e. data gathering). The steps directed to recording the generated model, outputting the generated output signal, outputting via the HMI elements to enable a user to initiate risk mitigation measures, visualizing via the HMI trends in a time series, providing via the HMI a risk-management tool and recording the generated retrained model a directed to insignificant post solution activity (i.e. data output). The obtaining, visualizing, providing, recording and outputting steps are considered extra-solution activity and amount to no more than mere data gathering and output recited at a high level of generality and amount to obtaining/outputting data over a network which is well-understood, routine and conventional activity. See MPEP 2106.05(d). Even upon reconsideration these limitations remain extra solution activities.
Even when considered in combination the additional elements (e.g. machine learning algorithms, database, etc.) represent mere instructions to apply an exception and insignificant extra-solution activity which cannot provide an inventive concept.
Accordingly, the claims are directed to an abstract idea without significantly more and does not provide an inventive concept and are not patent eligible under 35 U.S.C. 101.
At best Applicant’s invention improves the business process of predicting time delays of intermediate products and materials in a manufacturing process (i.e. the improvement is in the abstract idea itself) and at best represents a business solution to a business problem. As argued by Applicant the claims output, to a user, predicted actual time delay risk based on manufacturing and external data – this is a business problem and a wished-for benefit (i.e. improving the manufacturing process) of applying the abstract idea to a manufacturing process. Neither Applicant’s disclosure nor the claims are not directed to providing a technical solution to a technical problem inherent in computers or computer networks. Neither Applicant’s disclosure nor the claims provide/recite an improvement to another technical field (predicting shipping delays is not a technical field, manufacturing, particularly, at the high level of generality recited in the claims is not a technical field). The claims merely perform a series of methods steps to collect data, process data/perform mathematical operations, and output data to a human user wherein outputting a predicted time delay risk for the wished for benefit of mitigating effects of a shipment delay...in a manufacturing process. The human user may or may not view or otherwise act on the displayed data/signal (i.e. may or may not initiate a risk mitigation measure).
While the claims may represent an improvement to the business process of predicting shipping delays, they in no way either claimed or disclosed represent a practical application. The claims do not improve the underlying technological elements (e.g. database, process data interface (software per se), human machine interface, external data interface (software per se), control circuit, network, online, etc.). The claims do not improve supervised machine learning, machine learning algorithm nor do the claims improve data mining or text mining. The recited data mining, text mining, supervised machine learning model, training a plurality of models, and retraining, these steps are old, well-known, conventional and routine. The training, retraining and application of machine learning models is well-understood, conventional and routine mathematical/statistical models used for the purposes of predicting an actual time delay risk. Nothing in Applicant’s disclosure or claimed invention improves the recited machine learning models/algorithms or data mining or text mining. Nothing in Applicant’s disclosure or claimed invention suggests that the data mining nor supervised machine learning models are utilized in anything but their conventional and routine manner.
The claims do not recite a technical solution to a technical problem. The claims do not recite a solution to a problem inherent in computers or computer networks. The claims do not recite an improvement in the functioning of a computer. The claims do not recite an improvement in another technology or technical field.
Nothing in Applicant’s disclosures suggests that the Applicant intended to accomplish any of the steps recited in independent claims 1, 9 and 19 through anything other than well understood technology used in a routine and conventional manner. Therefore, the claims lack an inventive concept. See also, e.g., Elec. Power Grp., 830 F.3d at 1355 (holding claims lacked inventive concept where “[n]othing in the claims, understood in light of the specification, requires anything other than off-the-shelf, conventional computer, network, and display technology for gathering, sending, and presenting the desired information”); Content Extraction, 776 F.3d at 1348 (holding claims lacked an inventive concept where the claims recited the use of “existing scanning and processing technology”).
Under the 2019 Revised Guidance, the claims are evaluated to determine if additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application (see Manual of Patent Examining Procedure ("MPEP") §§ 2106.05(a)-(c), (e)- (h)). See 2019 Revised Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. at 51-52, 55. A claim that integrates a judicial exception into a practical application applies, relies on, or uses 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. See 2019 Revised Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. at 54.
For example, limitations that are indicative of "integration into a practical application" include:
Improvements to the functioning of a computer, or to any other technology or technical field - see MPEP § 2106.05(a);
Applying the judicial exception with, or by use of, a particular machine - see MPEP § 2106.05(b);
Effecting a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing - see MPEP § 2106.05(c); and
Applying or using the judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment, such that the claim as a whole is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception - see MPEP § 2106.05(e).
In contrast, limitations that are not indicative of "integration into a practical application" include:
Adding the words "apply it" (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or merely include instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea - see MPEP § 2106.05(±);
Adding insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception- see MPEP § 2106.05(g); and
Generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use - see MPEP 2106.05(h).
See 2019 Revised Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. at 54-55 ("Prong Two").
In view of the 2019 Revised Guidance, one must consider whether there are additional elements set forth in the claims that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. The identified additional non-abstract elements recited in the independent claims are the generic process data interface, external data interface, control circuit, database, network, supervised machine learning and machine learning algorithms. The generic computer hardware merely performs generic computer functions of obtaining, processing and outputting data and represent a purely conventional implementation of applicant’s shipment time delay prediction in the general field of business analytics and do not represent significantly more than the abstract idea. See at least MPEP § 2106.05(a) ("Improvements to the Functioning of a Computer or to Any Other Technology or Technical Field").
These recited additional elements are merely generic computer components. The claims do present any other issues as set forth in the 2019 Revised Guidance regarding a determination of whether the additional generic elements integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. See Revised Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. at 55. Rather, the claims merely use instructions to implement an abstract idea on a control circuit (computer), or merely use a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea.
The claims do not recite improvements to the functioning of a computer or any other technology field (MPEP 2106.05(a)), the claims do not apply or use the abstract idea to effect a particular treatment or prophylaxis for a disease or medical condition, the claims to do apply the abstract idea with a particular machine (MPEP 2106.05(b)), the claims do not effect a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing (e.g. data remains data even after processing; MPEP 2106.05(c)), the claims no not apply or use the abstract idea in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the user of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment (i.e. a generic computer) such that the claim as a whole is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the abstract idea (MPEP 2106.05(e)). The recited generic computing elements are no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Accordingly, this additional element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
Thus, under Step 2A, Prong Two (MPEP §§ 2106.05(a)-(c) and (e)- (h)), the claims do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
There is a fundamental difference between computer functionality improvements, on the one hand, and uses of existing computers as tools to perform a particular task, on the other — a distinction that the Federal Circuit applied in Enfish, in rejecting a § 101 challenge at the first stage of the Mayo/Alice framework because the claims at issue focused on a specific type of data structure, i.e., a self-referential table, designed to improve the way a computer stores and retrieves data in memory, and not merely on asserted advances in uses to which existing computer capabilities could be put. See Enfish, 822 F.3d at 1335-36. Here the claims simply use a computer as a tool and nothing more.
For the reasons outlined above, the claims a method of organizing human activity, i.e., an abstract idea, and that the additional element recited in the claim beyond the abstract idea (i.e., computer, display) is no more than a generic computer component used as a tool to perform the recited abstract idea. As such, it does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. See Alice Corp., 573 U.S. at 223-24 (“[Wholly generic computer implementation is not generally the sort of ‘additional featur[e]’ that provides any ‘practical assurance that the process is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the [abstract idea] itself.’” (quoting Mayo, 566 U.S. at 77)).
Accordingly, the claims are directed to an abstract idea.
Step Two of the Mayo/Alice Framework (2019 Revised Guidance, Step 2B)
Having determined under step one of the Mayo/Alice framework that the claims are directed to an abstract idea, we next consider under Step 2B of the Guidance, the second step of the Mayo/Alice framework, whether the claims include additional elements or a combination of elements that provides an “inventive concept,” i.e., whether an additional element or combination of elements adds specific limitations beyond the judicial exception that are not “well-understood, routine, conventional activity” in the field (which is indicative that an inventive concept is present) or simply appends well-understood, routine, conventional activities previously known to the industry to the judicial exception. 2019 Revised Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. at 56.
Under step two of the Mayo/Alice framework, the elements of each claim are considered both individually and “as an ordered combination” to determine whether the additional elements, i.e., the elements other than the abstract idea itself, “transform the nature of the claim” into a patent-eligible application. Alice Corp., 573 U.S. at 217 (citation omitted); see Mayo, 566 U.S. at 72-73 (requiring that “a process that focuses upon the use of a natural law also contain other elements or a combination of elements, sometimes referred to as an ‘inventive concept,’ sufficient to ensure that the patent in practice amounts to significantly more than a patent upon the natural law itself’ (emphasis added) (citation omitted)).
Here the only additional element recited in claims 1, 9 and 19 beyond the abstract idea are the database, process data interface (software per se), human machine interface, external data interface (software per se), control circuit, network,” i.e., generic computer components. See Alice, 573 U.S. at 223 (“[T]he mere recitation of a generic computer cannot transform a patent-ineligible abstract idea into a patent-eligible invention.”). Applicant has not identified any additional elements recited in the claim that, individually or in combination, provides significantly more than the abstract idea.
Accordingly, the claims are not patent eligible under 35 U.S.C. 101.
Examiner suggests Applicant review the recently posted 2024 Guidance Update on Patent Subject Matter Eligibility, Including on Artificial Intelligence (2024 AI SME Update) in the Federal Register on July 17, 2024 (https://www.federalregister.gov/public-inspection/2024-15377/guidance-2024-update-on-patent-subject-matter-eligibility-including-on-artificial-intelligence ) and specifically review the three new examples 47-49 announced by the 2024 AI SME Update which provide exemplary SME analyses under 35 U.S.C. 101 of hypothetical claims related to AI inventions (https://www.uspto.gov/sites/default/files/documents/2024-AI-SMEUpdateExamples47-49.pdf).
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, 3-10, 12-16, 18 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more.
Regarding independent Claims 1, 9 and 19, the claims are directed to the abstract idea of predicting shipping time delay risks. This is a process (i.e. a series of steps) which (Statutory Category – Yes –process).
The claims recite a judicial exception, a method for organizing human activity, predicting shipping time delay risks (Judicial Exception – Yes – organizing human activity). Specifically, the claims are directed to outputting to a user a predicted an actual time dela risk based on manufacturing and external data, wherein predicting shipping time delay risks is a fundamental economic practice. See 2019 Revised Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. at 52. Further all of the steps of “obtaining”, “obtaining”, “obtaining”, “applying”, “selecting”, “recording”, “obtaining”, “predicting”, “displaying”, “aggregating”, “outputting”, “generating”, “outputting”, “visualizing”, “providing”, “monitoring”, “obtaining”, “obtaining”, “obtaining”, “applying”, and “recording”, recite functions of the predicting shipping time delay risks are also directed to an abstract idea. The intended purpose of independent claims 1, 9 and 19 appears to be output, to a user, predicted actual time delay risk based on manufacturing and external data (mere data output).
Accordingly, the claims recite an abstract idea – fundamental economic practice. The exceptions are the user (who is a person) and additional limitations of generic computer elements: human machine interface, various data interfaces (external, process, etc. – software per se), control circuitry, database, network. Additional non-abstract elements include the supervised machine learning models/algorithm and machine learning algorithm.
Accordingly, the claims recite an abstract idea under Step 2A, Prong One, we proceed to Step 2A, Prong Two. Considering whether the additional elements set forth in the claim integrate the abstract idea into a practical application (See 2019 Revised Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. at 54-55), the previously identified non-abstract elements directed to generic computing components include: human machine interface, a user interface, various data interfaces (external, process, etc. – software per se), control circuitry, database and network. These generic computing components are merely used to obtain/receive, process and output data as described extensively in Applicant’s specification (Specification: Figure 8). Generic computers performing generic computer functions, alone, do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea.
As for the recited supervised machine learning models/algorithm and machine learning algorithm these algorithms are described at a high level such that it amounts to using a generic computer with generic supervised machine learning and machine learning algorithms to apply the abstract idea. The supervised machine learning and machine learning algorithms are used to generally apply the abstract idea without limiting how the supervised machine learning models/algorithm and machine learning algorithm function. The recitation of the supervised machine learning and machine learning algorithms is at best equivalent to adding the words apply it to the judicial exception. See 2019 Revised Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. at 52.
Moreover, when viewed as a whole with such additional elements considered as an ordered combination, the claim modified by adding a generic computer would be nothing more than a purely conventional computerized implementation of applicant's predicting shipping time delay risks in the general field of business management and would not provide significantly more than the judicial exception itself. Note McRo, Inc. v. Bandai Namco Games America Inc. (837 F.3d 1299 (Fed. Cir. 2016)), guides: "[t]he abstract idea exception prevents patenting a result where 'it matters not by what process or machinery the result is accomplished."' 837 F.3d at 1312 (quoting O'Reilly v. Morse, 56 U.S. 62, 113 (1854)) (emphasis added). The claims are not directed to a particular machine nor do they recite a particular transformation (MPEP § 2106.05(b)).
Additionally, the claims do not recite any specific claim limitations that would provide a meaningful limitation beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment. Nor do the claims present any other issues as set forth in the 2019 Revised Guidance regarding a determination of whether the additional generic elements integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. See Revised Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. at 55. Rather, the claims merely use instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely use a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea. Thus, under Step 2A, Prong Two (MPEP §§ 2106.05(a)-(c) and (e)- (h)), claims 1, 3-10, 12-16, 18 and 19 do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. Regarding the use of the generic (known, conventional) recited " human machine interface, a user interface, various data interfaces (external, process, etc.), control circuitry, database, network," the Supreme Court has held "the mere recitation of a generic computer cannot transform a patent-ineligible abstract idea into a patent-eligible invention." Alice, 573 U.S. 208, 223. Generic computers performing generic computer functions, alone, do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. The claims as a whole do not recite more than what was well-known, routine and conventional in the field (see MPEP § 2106.05(d)). In light of the foregoing and under the 2019 Revised Guidance, that each of the claims, considered as a whole, is directed to a patent-ineligible abstract idea that is not integrated into a practical application and does not include an inventive concept.
Accordingly, the claims are not patent eligible under 35 U.S.C. 101.
Additionally, the claims recite a judicial exception, a mental processes, which can be performed in the human mind or via pen and paper (Judicial Exception – Yes – mental process).
The claimed steps of applying a machine learning algorithm to generate a model for predicting time delay risk (Claims 1, 19), predicting, online and in real-time, an actual time delay risk (Claims 1, 9, 19), aggregating the predicted risk levels over a predetermined number of shipments/time (Claims 1, 9, 19), monitoring an error that the trained model makes (Claims 1, 9, 19) and applying a machine learning algorithm to generate a retrained model (Claims 1, 9, 19) all describe the abstract idea. These limitations as drafted are directed to a process that under its reasonable interpretation covers performance of the steps in the mind but for the recitation of the generic computer components. Other than the recitation of a human machine interface, a user interface, various data interfaces (external, process, etc.), control circuitry, database and network nothing in the claimed steps precludes the step from practically being performed in the mind.
That the method automatically repeats, at predetermined intervals, does not negate the mental nature of these limitations because a human is more than capable of repeating the method steps (discussed above) at predetermine intervals and iteratively/repeatedly performing mathematical calculations/operations, like the ones above, is old, well-known, conventional and routine. The claimed method steps are merely performed two or more times.
The claims do not recite additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the abstract idea because the step(s) of obtaining historical supplier data (Claims 1, 17, 19), obtaining process parameters (Claims 1, 9, 19), obtaining external data (Claims 1, 17, 19), obtaining online current process parameters (Claims 1, 9, 19), obtaining historical supplier data, obtaining process parameters, obtaining external data and recording the generated retrained model (Claims 1, 9, 19) are directed to insignificant pre-solution activity (i.e. data gathering). The steps of outputting elements configured to enable a user to initiate risk-mitigation measures, outputting the generated output signal, visualization trends in a time series of the predicted time delay risks, and providing a risk management tool for the manufacturing process are directed to insignificant post-solution activity. The mere nominal recitation of a generic computer/generic computer technology does not take the claim limitation out of the mental processes grouping. The recitation of the supervised machine learning algorithm and machine learning algorithm in the claims does not negate the mental nature of these limitations because the algorithms are merely used at a tool to perform an otherwise mental process.
Thus, the claim recites a mental process. (Judicial Exception recited – Yes – mental process).
The claims do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. The generic human machine interface, various data interfaces (external, process, etc.), control circuitry, database and network are recited at a high level of generality merely performs generic computer functions of obtaining, processing and outputting data. The generic computer/computer technology merely applies the abstract idea using generic computer components. The recitation of the supervised machine learning and machine learning algorithms is at best equivalent to adding the words apply it to the judicial exception.
The additional limitations directed to obtaining online current process parameters and predicting, by the control circuit online… at best recite utilizing a computer network/internet to send/receive data which is well-known, conventional and routine. Nowhere in Applicant’s disclosure is the online (network/internet) utilized in an unconventional manner nor is the functioning of online approved in any way nor is online used to overcome a technical problem inherent in computers or computer networks. As such the recitation of the generic online element, used for its conventional and routine purpose, is at best equivalent to adding the words apply it to the judicial exception. Online is merely a tool/conduit for the abstract idea.
These elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claims do not recite improvements to the functioning of a computer or any other technology field (MPEP 2106.05(a)), the claims do not apply or use the abstract idea to effect a particular treatment or prophylaxis for a disease or medical condition, the claims to do apply the abstract idea with a particular machine (MPEP 2106.05(b)), the claims do not effect a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing (e.g. data remains data even after processing; MPEP 2106.05(c)), the claims no not apply or use the abstract idea in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the user of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment (i.e. a generic computer) such that the claim as a whole is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the abstract idea (MPEP 2106.05(e)). The recited generic computing elements are no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component.
Accordingly, this additional element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. (Integrated into a Practical Application – No).
As discussed above the additional elements in the claims amount to no more than a mere instruction to apply the abstract idea using generic computing components, wherein mere instructions to apply an judicial exception using generic computer components cannot integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide an inventive concept. For the obtaining, recording and outputting steps that were considered extra-solution activity, this has been re-evaluated and determined to be well-understood, routine, conventional activity in the field. Applications specification does not provide any indication that the computer/processor is anything other than a generic, off-the-shelf computer component, and the Symantec, TLI, and OIP Techs. court decisions (MPEP 2106.05(d)(II)) indicate that mere collection or receipt of data over a network is a well‐understood, routine, and conventional function when it is claimed in a merely generic manner (as it is here). For these reasons, there is no inventive concept. The claim is ineligible (Provide Inventive Concept – No).
The claims are ineligible under 35 U.S.C. 101 as being directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Regarding dependent claims 3-8, 10, 12-16, and 18, the claims are directed to the abstract idea of predicting shipping time delay risks and merely further limit the abstract idea claimed in independent claims 1, 9 and 19.
Claim 3 further limits the abstract idea by limiting the historical supplier data to at least ONE of: process and external data for a past time OR process parameters of at least ONE of supplier ID or scheduled weekday target shipment OR number of planner shipments OR an order volume OR a planned production volume OR a production schedule change OR supplier agility OR part identifier OR number of trouble reports OR shipment delays statistic OR supplier information OR capacity system management data and external data is at least ONE of weather forecast OR occurrence of holiday or seasonal events OR occurrence of report, predicted or announced shortages OR occurrence or reported or announced strike or staffing shortages (a more detailed abstract idea remains an abstract idea). Claim 4 further limits the abstract idea by mapping the time delay to a risk level of use risk level as a target variable in apply the ML algorithm OR assigning a risk to the predict time delay (a more detailed abstract idea remains an abstract idea). Claim 5 further limits the abstract by predicting the time delay risk into the future (a more detailed abstract idea remains an abstract idea). Claim 6 further limits the abstract idea by generating the model and predicting based on SVM or at least ONE of random tree OR k-nearest neighbor OR neural network OR linear model OR SVM of Gaussian OR decision tree or ensemble (a more detailed abstract idea remains an abstract idea). Claim 7 further limits the abstract idea by receiving human input associated with at least ONE of historical supplier or process parameters (a more detailed abstract idea remains an abstract idea). Claim 8 further limits the abstract idea by receiving human input on at least ONE of model families OR hyper parameters OR parameter ranges OR error metric (a more detailed abstract idea remains an abstract idea). Claim 10 further limits the abstract idea by the time delay risk of at least ONE of seconds OR minutes OR hours OR days (a more detailed abstract idea remains an abstract idea). Claim 12 further limits the abstract idea by displaying the predict time delay OR risk level (a more detailed abstract idea remains an abstract idea). Claim 13 further limits the abstract idea by displaying supply shipments with a predict risk exceeding a threshold (a more detailed abstract idea remains an abstract idea). Claim 14 further limits the abstract idea by displaying at least ONE of supply shipments OR supplier OR supply sources OR part types OR manufactured products and locations with a predicted risk level exceeding a threshold (a more detailed abstract idea remains an abstract idea). Claim 15 further limits the abstract idea by aggregating the predicted risk levels OR predetermine supply shipments OR a predetermined time, displaying the aggregated risk levels (a more detailed abstract idea remains an abstract idea). Claim 16 further limits the abstract idea by setting the predetermined number of shipments OR time for aggregating risk levels (a more detailed abstract idea remains an abstract idea). Claim 18 further limits the abstract idea by monitoring an error made by the trained model and manually or automatically applying a machine learning to generate a retrained model (a more detailed abstract idea remains an abstract idea).
None of the limitations considered as an ordered combination provide eligibility because taken as a whole the claims simply instruct the practitioner to apply the abstract idea to a generic computer.
Further regarding claims 1, 3-10, 12-16, 18 and 19, Applicant’s specification discloses that the claimed elements directed to a human machine interface, a user interface, various data interfaces (external, process, etc.), control circuitry, and a database at best merely comprise generic computer hardware which is commercially available (Specification: Figure 8). More specifically Applicant’s claimed features directed to a system do not represent custom or specific computer hardware circuits, instead the terms merely refers to commercially available software and/or hardware. Thus, as to the system recited, "the system claims are no different from the method claims in substance. The method claims recite the abstract idea implemented on a generic computer; the system claims recite a handful of generic computer components configured to implement the same idea." See Alice Corp. Pry. Ltd., 134 S.Ct. at 2360.
Accordingly, the claims merely recite manipulating data utilizing generic computer hardware (e.g. database, network, control circuit, etc.). Generic computers performing generic computer functions, alone, do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. Further the lack of detail of the claimed embodiment in Applicant’s disclosure is an indication that the claims are directed to an abstract idea and not a specific improvement to a machine.
Accordingly given the broadest reasonable interpretation and in light of the specification the claims are interpreted to include the process steps being performed by a human mind or via pen and paper. The claim limitations which recite a computer implemented method is at best recite generic, well-known hardware. However, the recited generic hardware simply performs generic computer function of obtaining, recording, processing and outputting data. Generic computers performing generic, well known computer functions, alone, do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. Further the recited memories are part of every conventional general-purpose computer.
Applicant has not demonstrated that a special purpose machine/computer is required to carry out the claimed invention. A special purpose machine is now evaluated as part of the significantly more analysis established by the Alice decision and current 35 U.S.C. 101 guidelines. It involves/requires more than a machine only broadly applying the abstract idea and/or performing conventional functions.
Applicant’s specification discloses that the claimed elements directed to a system, processor, interface, component and memory merely comprise generic computer hardware which is commercially available (Specification: Figure 8). More specifically Applicant’s claimed features directed to a system and components do not represent custom or specific computer hardware circuits, instead the term system merely refers to commercially available software and/or hardware. Thus, as to the system recited, "the system claims are no different from the method claims in substance. The method claims recite the abstract idea implemented on a generic computer; the system claims recite a handful of generic computer components configured to implement the same idea." See Alice Corp. Pry. Ltd., 134 S.Ct. at 2360.
Accordingly, the claims are not patent eligible under 35 U.S.C. 101.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SCOTT L JARRETT whose telephone number is (571)272-7033. The examiner can normally be reached M-TH 6am-4:30PM.
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, Beth Boswell can be reached at (571) 272-6737. 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.
SCOTT L. JARRETT
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 3625
/SCOTT L JARRETT/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3625