DETAILED ACTION
Status of Claims
The following is a Final office action in response to the communications received on May 26, 2026.
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claims 1, 3, 10, 14, 21 and 26 have been amended.
Claims 9, 11 and 17 have been canceled.
Claim 29 has been added.
Claims 1-8, 10, 12-16 and 18-29 are currently pending and have been examined.
Response to Amendments
Applicant amendments to claims 1, 3, 10, 14, 21 and 26 are acknowledged.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments regarding 101 rejections have been considered, but not found persuasive. Applicant argues:
Claimed operations cannot be performed in the human mind or with paper and pencil.
Examiner’s Response: Not being able to perform something manually or in the human mind is not enough to confer eligibility or show an improvement to the computer or the technology. The computer components are recited at a high level of generality as a tool to implement the abstract idea. Merely using general computer components to replace or automate human work is not enough to confer eligibility. Moreover, claims can recite a mental process even if they are claimed as being performed on a computer. The Supreme Court recognized this in Benson, determining that a mathematical algorithm for converting binary coded decimal to pure binary within a computer’s shift register was an abstract idea. The Court concluded that the algorithm could be performed purely mentally even though the claimed procedures "can be carried out in existing computers long in use, no new machinery being necessary." 409 U.S at 67, 175 USPQ at 675. See also Mortgage Grader, 811 F.3d at 1324, 117 USPQ2d at 1699 (concluding that concept of "anonymous loan shopping" recited in a computer system claim is an abstract idea because it could be "performed by humans without a computer"). See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III).
The specific claimed architecture constitutes a technical improvement to the functioning of the computing system itself.
Examiner’s Response: It is important to keep in mind that an improvement in the abstract idea itself is not an improvement in technology. For example, in Trading Technologies Int’l v. IBG, 921 F.3d 1084, 1093-94, 2019 USPQ2d 138290 (Fed. Cir. 2019), the court determined that the claimed user interface simply provided a trader with more information to facilitate market trades, which improved the business process of market trading but did not improve computers or technology. To show that the involvement of a computer assists in improving the technology, the claims must recite the details regarding how a computer aids the method, the extent to which the computer aids the method, or the significance of a computer to the performance of the method. Merely adding generic computer components to perform a method is not sufficient. Thus, the claims must include more than mere instructions to perform the method on a generic component or machinery to qualify as an improvement to an existing technology. See MPEP § 2106.05(f) for more information about mere instructions to apply an exception.
The dependent claims recite specific technical functionality that constitute significantly more.
Examiner’s Response: The dependent claims are directed to limitations which serve to limit the components, the processing steps and the information used, but the computer components are recited at high level of generality as a tool to implement the abstract idea. There are no improvements to technology or any new technology involved. Incorporating computer elements from dependent claims may recite a specific combination of computer components interactions and functions that when considered as a whole and as an ordered combination of elements may represent significantly more than an abstract idea.
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 1-8, 10, 12-16 and 18-29 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., an abstract idea) without “significantly more.”
Regarding Claims 1, 21 and 26, the claims describe a system and methods for monitoring consumer behavior on products for intelligent decision making which is a mental process (observation/evaluation) and a method of organizing a human activity (commercial interaction comprising rules and instructions). The limitations on generating product level data, transmitting the data and utilizing the data for decision making could be all performed in the human mind and/or with the help of paper and pencil. These claim limitations are directed to the abstract idea of collection, analysis and generation of information. The limitations on updating information fall under the mental process of handling information. Other than reciting general computer elements nothing in the claim precludes the steps for being performed in the human mind and/or the help of paper and pencil. All the steps of “generate”, “transmit” and “utilizing information for decision making” recite functions directed to commercial interactions. The limitations on encoding data and user interfaces are well known general computer functions. The limitations regarding an RPA system are recited at high level of generality. Creating a virtual representation of a physical thing is simply applying a general computer as a tool to monitor information. Claims involving computers to merely automate tasks historically performed by humans or to organize business data, are not significantly more than an abstract idea. This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. The computers are recited at a high-level of generality such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components. 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. Generic computer components performing generic computer functions alone, do not amount to significantly more that an abstract idea. Simply implementing the abstract idea on a generic computer environment is not a practical application of the abstract idea and does not take the claims out of the mental process and method of organizing a human activity grouping. Moreover, when viewed as a whole with such additional elements considered as an ordered combination, the claims modified by adding generic computer components would be nothing more than a purely conventional computerized implementation of applicant's customers analytics in the general field of business management and would not provide significantly more than the judicial exception itself. The claims are directed to an abstract idea.
The claims do not include additional elements that even in combination are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above, with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional element of using computers to perform the generating, transmitting, receiving, encoding, updating and utilizing steps amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components. Mere instructions to apply an exception using generic computer components cannot provide an inventive concept. There are no improvements to technology or any new technology involved. The claims are not patent eligible.
Regarding dependent claims 2-8, 10, 12-16, 18-20, 22-25 and 27-29, these claims are directed to limitations reciting generating a proximity display, using edge computation and intelligence, using blockchain and smart contracts which serve to limit the components, the processing steps and the information used. These limitations recite using generic computers for performing calculations related to commercial interactions. There are no improvements to technology or any new technology involved.
Therefore, the limitations on the invention, when viewed individually and in ordered combination are directed to in-eligible subject matter.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-8, 10, 12-16 and 18-29 are allowable over prior art and would be allowed if 101 rejections are overcome. Best prior art found on Roemerman (US 2020/0364387 A1) discloses an operations and maintenance system that employs digital twins for industrial objects. Putcha (2017/0213185A1) on the other hand, discloses a centralized server-side consumable item re-ordering system that monitors household appliances to estimate consumption (customer behavior/product data) and trigger reorders. However, the limitations regarding the specific digital twin architecture including real-time behavioral modeling across a distributed consumer digital product network using product type, user type or process type digital twins integrated with a product level data structure in combination with the other limitations on independent claims 1, 21 and 26 are novel and non-obvious over the prior art of record.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any extension fee 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 date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DENISSE Y ORTIZ ROMAN whose telephone number is (571)270-5506. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday 9-7.
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 A 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.
/DENISSE Y ORTIZ ROMAN/Examiner, Art Unit 3627 /ARIEL J YU/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3627
Prosecution Insights