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 .
DETAILED ACTION
1. This Final Office action is in reply to the Applicant amendment filed on 25 November 2025.
2. Claims 1, 4, 11, 14, 19 have been amended. Claim 8 has been cancelled.
3. Claims 1, 2, 4, 6, 7, 9-12, 14, and 16-20 are currently pending and have been examined.
Response to Amendment
In the previous office action, Claims 1, 2, 4, 6-12, 14, 16-20 were rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter (abstract idea). Applicants have not amended now Claims 1, 2, 4, 6, 7, 9-12, 14, and 16-20 to provide statutory support and the rejection is maintained.
Applicant’s amendments necessitated the new grounds of rejection.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed 25 November 2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. In the remarks regarding the 35 USC § 101 rejection for Claims 1, 2, 4, 6, 7, 9-12, 14, and 16-20, Applicant argues that: (1) the claims are not directed to an abstract idea, and even if they were, they would amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. Examiner respectfully disagrees. Still commensurate to the two-part subject matter eligibility framework decision in the Federal court decision in Alice Corp. Pty. Ltd. V. CLS Bank International et al., (Alice), 2019 revised patent subject matter eligibility guidance (2019 PEG) and the October 2019 Update: Subject Matter Eligibility (“October 2019 Update), and the new “July 2024 Guidance Update on Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Examples, including on Artificial Intelligence”, and the Examiner details the maintained rejection under 35 U.S.C. 101 in the below rejection with further explanation. Applicant argues that as amended, Applicant states: “…the present claims are patent eligible at least at Step 2B since the elements of the independent claims embody improvements to the technical field of computerized enterprise resource planning (ERP) applications, by creating “source event templates” that may be used such that subsequent sourcing events generated based on a particular sourcing event template may automatically include all the sourcing event scenarios referenced by the template, thus reducing computing resources in supplier lifecycle management (SLM) operations.” (see Remarks/Arguments pages 9-11). However the Examiner respectfully disagrees. There are no additional elements or specific limitations specifically defining and supporting the “reducing computing resources…improvements…to reduce computing resources…efficiently generate”. Mere statements without specific and definable support in claims and the instant specification are insufficient for statutory support for the instant claims. Under Step 2B: as explained in MPEP § 2106.05, Claims 1, 2, 4, 6, 7, 9-12, 14, and 16-20 do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the additional elements when considered both individually and as an ordered combination do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea nor recites additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. The additional elements of “data processor; one memory storing instruction…when executed by the at least one data processor; device(s); engine; non-transitory computer-readable medium”, etc. are generically-recited computer-related elements that amount to a mere instruction to “apply it” (the abstract idea) on the computer-related elements (see MPEP § 2106.05 (f) – Mere Instructions to Apply an Exception). These additional elements in the claims are recited at a high level of generality and are merely limiting the field of use of the judicial exception (see MPEP §2106.05 (h) – Field of Use and Technological Environment). There is no indication that the combination of elements improves the function of a computer or improves any other technology. Furthermore, the dependent claims are merely directed to the particulars of the abstract idea and likewise do not add significantly more to the above-identified judicial exception. The limitations of the claims do not transform the abstract idea that they recite into patent-eligible subject matter because the claims simply instruct the practitioner to implement the abstract idea using generally-recited computer components, and furthermore do not amount to an improvement to a computer or any other technology, and thus are ineligible. Examiner interprets that the steps of the claimed invention both individually and as an ordered combination result in Mere Instructions to Apply a Judicial Exception (see MPEP §2106.05 (f)). These claims recite only the idea of a solution or outcome with no restriction on how the result is accomplished and no description of the mechanism used for accomplishing the result. Here, the claims utilize a computer or other machinery (e.g., see Applicants’ published Specification ¶' s3-5, 29-34) regarding using existing computer processors as well as program products comprising machine-readable media for carrying or having machine-executable instructions or data structures stored. “procurement system 100” in its ordinary capacity for performing tasks (e.g., to receive, analyze, transmit and display data) and/or use computer components after the fact to an abstract idea (e.g., a fundamental economic practice and certain methods of organization human activities) and does not provide significantly more. See Affinity Labs v. DirecTV, 838 F.3d 1253, 1262, 120 USPQ2d 1201, 1207 (Fed. Cir. 2016)). Software implementations are accomplished with standard programming techniques with logic to perform connection steps, processing steps, comparison steps and decisions steps. These claims are directed to being a commonplace business method being applied on a general-purpose computer (see Alice Corp. Pty, Ltd. V. CLS Bank Int' l, 134 S. Ct. 2347, 1357, 110 USPQ2d 1976, 1983 (2014)); Versata Dev. Group, Inc., v. SAP Am., Inc., 793 D.3d 1306, 1334, 115 USPQ2d 1681, 1701 (Fed. Cir. 2015)) and require the use of software such as via a server to tailor information and provide it to the user on a generic computer. Based on all these, Examiner finds that when viewed either individually or in combination, these additional claim element(s) do not provide meaningful limitation(s) that raise to the high standards of eligibility to transform the abstract idea(s) into a patent eligible application of the abstract idea(s) such that the claim(s) amounts to significantly more than the abstract idea(s) itself. In summary as indicated below through Steps 1-2B, the recitation of a computer to perform the claim limitations amount to no more than mere instruction to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Even when considered in combination, these additional elements represent mere instructions to implement an abstract idea or other exception on a computer and insignificant extra-solution activity, which do not provide an inventive concept. For at least these reasons, the rejection is maintained.
Applicant submits that: (2) Makhija et al. (Makhija) (US 2022/0027826) does not teach or suggest in amended and representative Claim 1: wherein prior to permitting access to the first sourcing event scenario at the scenario library, the controller handles the first request by 1) sending a token to an external authorization service to verify a first user of the first client device has permission to access the scenario library and 2) authenticating the first client device based on a tenant identifier associated with the first client device [see Remarks pages 11-14]. With regard to argument (2), the Examiner respectfully disagrees. As the claim scope has been changed in view of new added and further defined phrase limitations from cancelled dependent Claim 8, a new ground of rejection is introduced as rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Makhija et al. (Makhija) (US 2022/0027826) in view of Tran et al. (Tran) (US 2018/0264347) and the arguments are moot. It is noted that any citations to specific, pages, columns, paragraphs, lines, or figures in the prior art references and any interpretation of the reference should not be considered to be limiting in any way. A reference is relevant for all it contains and may be relied upon for all that it would have reasonably suggested to one having ordinary skill in the art. See MPEP 2123. The Examiner has a duty and responsibility to the public and to Applicant to interpret the claims as broadly as reasonably possible during prosecution. In re Prater, 415 F.2d 1 393, 1404-05, 162 USPQ 541, 550-51 (CCPA 1969).
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, 2, 4, 6, 7, 9-12, 14, and 16-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. §101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more. The claims as a whole recite certain grouping of an abstract idea and are analyzed in the following step process:
Step 1: Claims 1, 2, 4, 6, 7, 9-12, 14, and 16-20 are each focused to a statutory category of invention namely “system; method; non-transitory computer-readable medium” sets.
Step 2A: Prong One: Claims 1, 2, 4, 6-12, 14, 16-20 recite limitations that set forth the abstract idea(s), namely, the claims as a whole recite a series of steps (generating, modifying, running) performed by a "procurement engine" to create sourcing event scenarios and combinations of suppliers that encompass processing information by:
“at least one data processor; and at least one memory result in operations comprising:
“generating, by a procurement engine comprising at least one memory storing program instructions and at least one data processor configured to execute the program instructions, a first sourcing event scenario using a scenario library and based on a first request received from a first client device,
wherein the first sourcing event scenario comprises a possible combination of suppliers for a sourcing event, and wherein the scenario library is coupled to a controller dedicated to handling the first request using the scenario library, wherein the scenario library provides access to a plurality of sourcing event scenarios to a plurality of client devices comprising the first client device, and
wherein prior to permitting access to the first sourcing event scenario at the scenario library, the controller handles the first request by 1) sending a token to an external authorization service to verify a first user of the first client device has permission to access the scenario library and 2) authenticating the first client device based on a tenant identifier associated with the first client device;
storing the first sourcing event scenario as one of the plurality of sourcing event scenarios at the scenario library;
modifying a sourcing event template for generating the sourcing event, the sourcing event template comprising a plurality of pre-set line items including criteria associated with a sourcing event, and the modifying comprising adding a reference to the first sourcing event scenario to the sourcing event template;
generating the sourcing event using the modified sourcing event template and based on a second request from one of the plurality of client devices, wherein the generating comprises calling the controller coupled to the scenario library to access the first sourcing event scenario at the scenario library based on the reference, and running the first sourcing event scenario to generate the possible combination of suppliers for the sourcing event;
generating a second sourcing event template based on the sourcing event template, wherein the generating the second sourcing event template comprises: calling the controller of the scenario library to access the plurality of sourcing event scenarios at the scenario library and modifying the modified sourcing event template to include a second reference to a second sourcing event scenario of the plurality of sourcing event scenarios;
displaying, in response to the second request, the generated possible combination of suppliers for the sourcing event;
generating, for display at the first client device, a user interface comprising the plurality of sourcing event scenarios”
The claims as a whole in above bolded recite certain groupings under the categories:
(a) Certain methods of organizing human activity –marketing or sales activities or behaviors; business relations; managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people (including social activities, teaching, and following rules or instructions) - Fundamental Economic Principles or Practices: The claim describes a "procurement engine" for "sourcing events" and "suppliers; request…a possible combination of suppliers for a sourcing event; calling the controller of the scenario library to access the plurality of sourcing event scenarios at the scenario library and modifying the modified sourcing event template to include a second reference to a second sourcing event scenario of the plurality of sourcing event scenarios." This is directed to the commercial activity of managing business relationships and supply chain logistics, which is a recognized grouping under this category.
Commercial or Legal Interactions: The process of selecting a "combination of suppliers" and using "sourcing event templates" mirrors standard business relations and contractual interactions.
(b) Mental processes – concepts performed in the human mind –
Evaluation and Judgment: The core logic—identifying possible combinations of suppliers based on criteria and a scenario library—describes acts that can be performed in the human mind or with pen and paper (e.g., a procurement officer manually reviewing a list of vendors to find the best match). The inclusion of a "token," "authorization service," and "tenant identifier" does not remove the claim from this category at Prong 1, as these are viewed as generic computer implementations of the abstract concepts of verification and access control, i.e., “generating a first sourcing event scenario using a scenario library and based on a first request received from a first client device, wherein the first sourcing event scenario comprises a possible combination of suppliers for a sourcing event, and wherein the scenario library is coupled to a controller dedicated to handling the first request using the scenario library, and wherein the scenario library provides access to a plurality of sourcing event scenarios to a plurality of client devices comprising the first client device”.
See MPEP § 2106.04(a) II C. Hence, the claims are ineligible under Step 2A Prong one. Furthermore, the dependent claims are merely directed to the particulars of the abstract idea and likewise do not add significantly more to the above-identified judicial exception.
Prong Two: Claims 1, 2, 4, 6, 7, 9-12, 14, and 16-20: With regard to this step of the analysis (as explained in MPEP § 2106.04(d)), the judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. Therefore, the claims contain computer components/elements (data processor; one memory storing instruction…when executed by the at least one data processor; device(s); engine; non-transitory computer-readable medium, etc.) (e.g., see Applicants’ published Specification ¶' s 3-5, 29-34) that are cited at a high level of generality and are merely invoked as a tool to perform the abstract idea. Simply implementing an abstract idea on a computer is not a practical application of the abstract idea. It is notable that mere physicality or tangibility of an additional element or elements is not a relevant consideration in Step 2A Prong Two. As the Supreme Court explained in Alice Corp., mere physical or tangible implementation of an exception does not guarantee eligibility. Alice Corp. Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank Int’l, 573 U.S. 208, 224, 110 USPQ2d 1976, 1983-84 (2014) (“The fact that a computer ‘necessarily exist[s] in the physical, rather than purely conceptual, realm,’ is beside the point”). See also Genetic Technologies Ltd. v. Merial LLC, 818 F.3d 1369, 1377, 118 USPQ2d 1541, 1547 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (steps of DNA amplification and analysis are not “sufficient” to render claim 1 patent eligible merely because they are physical steps). Conversely, the presence of a non-physical or intangible additional element does not doom the claims, because tangibility is not necessary for eligibility under the Alice/Mayo test. Enfish, LLC v. Microsoft Corp., 822 F.3d 1327, 118 USPQ2d 1684 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (“that the improvement is not defined by reference to ‘physical’ components does not doom the claims”). See also McRO, Inc. v. Bandai Namco Games Am. Inc., 837 F.3d 1299, 1315, 120 USPQ2d 1091, 1102 (Fed. Cir. 2016), (holding that a process producing an intangible result (a sequence of synchronized, animated characters) was eligible because it improved an existing technological process). Furthermore, the dependent claims are merely directed to the particulars of the abstract idea and likewise do not add significantly more to the above-identified judicial exception. The limitations of the claims do not transform the abstract idea that they recite into patent-eligible subject matter because the claims simply instruct the practitioner to implement the abstract idea using generally-recited computer components, and furthermore do not amount to an improvement to a computer or any other technology, and thus are ineligible. See MPEP § 2106.05(f) (h).
Step 2B: As explained in MPEP § 2106.05, Claims 1, 2, 4, 6, 7, 9-12, 14, and 16-20 do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the additional elements when considered both individually and as an ordered combination do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea nor recites additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. The additional elements of “data processor; one memory storing instruction…when executed by the at least one data processor; device(s); engine; non-transitory computer-readable medium”, etc. are generically-recited computer-related elements that amount to a mere instruction to “apply it” (the abstract idea) on the computer-related elements (see MPEP § 2106.05 (f) – Mere Instructions to Apply an Exception). These additional elements in the claims are recited at a high level of generality and are merely limiting the field of use of the judicial exception (see MPEP §2106.05 (h) – Field of Use and Technological Environment). There is no indication that the combination of elements improves the function of a computer or improves any other technology. Furthermore, the dependent claims are merely directed to the particulars of the abstract idea and likewise do not add significantly more to the above-identified judicial exception. The limitations of the claims do not transform the abstract idea that they recite into patent-eligible subject matter because the claims simply instruct the practitioner to implement the abstract idea using generally-recited computer components, and furthermore do not amount to an improvement to a computer or any other technology, and thus are ineligible. Examiner interprets that the steps of the claimed invention both individually and as an ordered combination result in Mere Instructions to Apply a Judicial Exception (see MPEP §2106.05 (f)). These claims recite only the idea of a solution or outcome with no restriction on how the result is accomplished and no description of the mechanism used for accomplishing the result. Here, the claims utilize a computer or other machinery (e.g., see Applicants’ published Specification ¶' s3-5, 29-34) regarding using existing computer processors as well as program products comprising machine-readable media for carrying or having machine-executable instructions or data structures stored. “procurement system 100” in its ordinary capacity for performing tasks (e.g., to receive, analyze, transmit and display data) and/or use computer components after the fact to an abstract idea (e.g., a fundamental economic practice and certain methods of organization human activities) and does not provide significantly more. See Affinity Labs v. DirecTV, 838 F.3d 1253, 1262, 120 USPQ2d 1201, 1207 (Fed. Cir. 2016)). Software implementations are accomplished with standard programming techniques with logic to perform connection steps, processing steps, comparison steps and decisions steps. These claims are directed to being a commonplace business method being applied on a general-purpose computer (see Alice Corp. Pty, Ltd. V. CLS Bank Int' l, 134 S. Ct. 2347, 1357, 110 USPQ2d 1976, 1983 (2014)); Versata Dev. Group, Inc., v. SAP Am., Inc., 793 D.3d 1306, 1334, 115 USPQ2d 1681, 1701 (Fed. Cir. 2015)) and require the use of software such as via a server to tailor information and provide it to the user on a generic computer. Based on all these, Examiner finds that when viewed either individually or in combination, these additional claim element(s) do not provide meaningful limitation(s) that raise to the high standards of eligibility to transform the abstract idea(s) into a patent eligible application of the abstract idea(s) such that the claim(s) amounts to significantly more than the abstract idea(s) itself. Accordingly, Claims 1, 2, 4, 6, 7, 9-12, 14, and 16-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. §101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e. abstract idea exception) without significantly more.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Broadly recited Claims 1, 2, 4, 6, 7, 9-12, 14, and 16-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Makhija et al. (Makhija) (US 2022/0027826) in view of Tran et al. (Tran) (US 2018/0264347).
With regard to Claims 1, 11, 19, Makhija teaches a system/method/at least one data processor; and at least one memory/non-transitory computer-readable medium storing instructions, which when executed by at least one data processor, result in operations result in operations comprising (system 100) (see at least paragraphs 51-61):
generating, by a procurement engine comprising at least one memory storing program instructions and at least one data processor configured to execute the program instructions, (triggering a sourcing module to initiate at least one task based on a received demand from at least one data source, an AI engine coupled to a processor and configured for processing a plurality of historical data from a data lake based on one or more data models to generate code for a recommended strategy through prediction analysis, a data model database for storing one or more data models configured for generating the recommended strategy through prediction analysis and aggregated data patterns related to one or more object categories, and a controller encoded with instructions enabling the controller to function as a bot for injecting the data patterns into the recommended strategy for generating at least one object characteristic data set, wherein the processor is configured to process the object characteristic data set to identify one or more suppliers for executing the recommended strategy, wherein one or more recommended awarding scenario is encapsulated on the category workbench application user interface by the bot for selection) a first sourcing event scenario using a scenario library (receiving a demand from at least one data source, triggering a sourcing module through a category workbench user interface for initiating at least one task based on the received demand, processing by an AI engine coupled to a processor, a plurality of historical data from a data lake based on one or more data models to generate code for a recommended strategy through prediction analysis, injecting by an intelligent bot, aggregated data patterns related to one or more object categories into the recommended sourcing strategy for generating at least one object characteristic data set; data lake; knowledge database; object categories; object characteristic) and based on a first request received from a first client device,
wherein the first sourcing event scenario comprises a possible combination of suppliers for a sourcing event (the system and method of the present invention provides ability to overlay pieces of the structured data to arrive at actionable insights. Also, enables setup of automated ongoing sourcing and category management processes based on the nuanced category requirements. Like, automatic curation of a souring demand through a demand aggregation algorithm, identification of appropriate baseline through price benchmarking, down listing suppliers & launching the sourcing event, automatic screening of responses, auto-identifying best fit scenarios for the given event to recommend awarding decision and ongoing monitoring of supplier and contract related risk through the workbench. Further the system of the invention configures and receives alerts on a periodic basis to review progress and make modifications or course corrections which help the system identify patterns specific to the category and enhance the automation flow through machine learning systems), wherein the scenario library is coupled to a controller dedicated to handling the first request using the scenario library, wherein the scenario library provides access to a plurality of sourcing event scenarios to a plurality of client devices comprising the first client device (wherein the processor is configured to process the object characteristic data set to identify one or more suppliers for executing the recommended strategy, wherein one or more recommended awarding scenario is encapsulated on the category workbench application user interface by the bot for selection) (see at least paragraphs 10-17, 21, 66), and
storing the first sourcing event scenario as one of the plurality of sourcing event scenarios at the scenario library (a data model database for storing one or more data models configured for generating the recommended strategy through prediction analysis and aggregated data patterns related to one or more object categories, and a controller encoded with instructions enabling the controller to function as a bot for injecting the data patterns into the recommended strategy for generating at least one object characteristic data set, wherein the processor is configured to process the object characteristic data set to identify one or more suppliers for executing the recommended strategy, wherein one or more recommended awarding scenario is encapsulated on the category workbench application user interface by the bot for selection) (see at least paragraph 12);
modifying (sending, receiving, modifying or triggering processing of category-based sourcing data over a network 102) a sourcing event template (questionnaire; negotiation script; strategy; scenario) for generating the sourcing event, the sourcing event template comprising a plurality of pre-set line items and/or criteria for a sourcing event (The data script includes a set of queries processed by dynamically generated AI based processing logic. The data lake 105 further includes a plurality of registers 122 as part of the memory data store 105 for temporarily storing data from various databases to enable transfer of data by a processor between the databases as per the instructions of the AI engine 109 to create a strategy. Further, the data model database 118 is configured for storing a plurality of training data models required to fetch data attributes for creating a questionnaire based on sourcing request and identified strategy. The data lake 105 includes a graph database 123 configured for storing graphical data model where multiple criterion such as entity line of business and region of suppliers can also be used as additional filters to recommend the best possible list of suppliers. The data lake 105 includes a constraint database 124 configured for storing implicit and explicit constraints utilized for determining supplier score for recommending a supplier. The data lake also stores key performance indicator (KPI) information about suppliers based on information in the historical database 119 related to past contracts, execution and compliance with legal obligations under the contracts), and the modifying comprising adding a reference to the first sourcing event scenario to the sourcing event template (The method also includes the step of injecting by a bot, one or more impact parameters capable of modifying at least one of the actionable insights, the recommended strategy, the data patterns or the awarding scenario. Further, the method includes recommending a negotiation strategy through an auto-negotiator based on a negotiation script generated by the AI engine wherein the awarding scenario is encapsulated based on execution of the negotiation strategy) (see at least paragraphs 10, 51, 66, 89);
generating the sourcing event using the modified sourcing event template and based on a second request from one of the plurality of client devices (The method also includes the step of injecting by a bot, one or more impact parameters capable of modifying at least one of the actionable insights, the recommended strategy, the data patterns or the awarding scenario. Further, the method includes recommending a negotiation strategy through an auto-negotiator based on a negotiation script generated by the AI engine wherein the awarding scenario is encapsulated based on execution of the negotiation strategy), wherein the generating comprises (see at least paragraph 10):
calling a controller (bot; auto-negotiator) of the scenario library to access the first sourcing event scenario at the scenario library based on the reference (the method includes recommending a negotiation strategy through an auto-negotiator based on a negotiation script generated by the AI engine wherein the awarding scenario is encapsulated based on execution of the negotiation strategy) (see at least paragraphs 10-17, 141);
running the first sourcing event scenario to generate the possible combination of suppliers for the sourcing event (The system includes a category workbench application user interface configured for triggering a sourcing module to initiate at least one task based on a received demand from at least one data source, an AI engine coupled to a processor and configured for processing a plurality of historical data from a data lake based on one or more data models to generate code for a recommended strategy through prediction analysis, a data model database for storing one or more data models configured for generating the recommended strategy through prediction analysis and aggregated data patterns related to one or more object categories, and a controller encoded with instructions enabling the controller to function as a bot for injecting the data patterns into the recommended strategy for generating at least one object characteristic data set, wherein the processor is configured to process the object characteristic data set to identify one or more suppliers for executing the recommended strategy, wherein one or more recommended awarding scenario is encapsulated on the category workbench application user interface by the bot for selection) (see at least paragraphs 10-17);
generating a second sourcing event template (receiving a response to a questionnaire based on the object characteristic data set from one or more recommended suppliers for identifying the one or more suppliers. The questionnaire is generated by the AI engine configured to process a historical query knowledge database based on a plurality of parameters and the object characteristic data set. The method also includes the step of injecting by a bot, one or more impact parameters capable of modifying at least one of the actionable insights, the recommended strategy, the data patterns or the awarding scenario) based on the sourcing event template, wherein the generating the second sourcing event template comprises: calling the controller of the scenario library to access the plurality of sourcing event scenarios at the scenario library and modifying the modified sourcing event (automatic curation of a souring demand through a demand aggregation algorithm, identification of appropriate baseline through price benchmarking, down listing suppliers & launching the sourcing event, automatic screening of responses, auto-identifying best fit scenarios for the given event to recommend awarding decision and ongoing monitoring of supplier and contract related risk through the workbench. Further the system of the invention configures and receives alerts on a periodic basis to review progress and make modifications or course corrections which help the system identify patterns specific to the category and enhance the automation flow through machine learning systems) template to include a second reference to a second sourcing event scenario of the plurality of sourcing event scenarios (see at least paragraphs 10-17, 21, 66, 154);
displaying, in response to the second request, the generated possible combination of suppliers for the sourcing event (The system includes a category workbench application user interface configured for triggering a sourcing module to initiate at least one task based on a received demand from at least one data source, an AI engine coupled to a processor and configured for processing a plurality of historical data from a data lake based on one or more data models to generate code for a recommended strategy through prediction analysis, a data model database for storing one or more data models configured for generating the recommended strategy through prediction analysis and aggregated data patterns related to one or more object categories, and a controller encoded with instructions enabling the controller to function as a bot for injecting the data patterns into the recommended strategy for generating at least one object characteristic data set, wherein the processor is configured to process the object characteristic data set to identify one or more suppliers for executing the recommended strategy, wherein one or more recommended awarding scenario is encapsulated on the category workbench application user interface by the bot for selection) (see at least paragraphs 10-17, FIG.’s 3J-3K);
generating, for display at the first client device, a user interface comprising the plurality of sourcing event scenarios (FIG. 5C shows a category workbench application user interface with impact of certain parameters for executing sourcing operation in supply chain; The display interface may comprise appropriate circuitry for driving the display to present graphical and other information to an entity/user. The control interface may receive commands from a user/category manager and convert them for submission to the processor) (see at least paragraphs 10-17, 40, 61);
Makhija does not specifically teach wherein prior to permitting access to the first sourcing event scenario at the scenario library, the controller handles the first request by 1) sending a token to an external authorization service to verify a first user of the first client device has permission to access the scenario library and 2) authenticating the first client device based on a tenant identifier associated with the first client device. Tran teaches wherein prior to permitting access to the first sourcing event scenario (A Database Gatekeeper provides an off-chain, access interface to the trusted provider node's local database, governed by permissions stored on the blockchain. The Gatekeeper runs a server listening to query requests from clients on the network. A request contains a query string, as well as a reference to the blockchain PPR that warrants permissions to run it. The request is cryptographically signed by the issuer, allowing the gatekeeper to confirm identities) at the scenario library (blockchain; node’s local database; network ledgers), the controller handles the first request by 1) sending a token to an external authorization service to verify a first user of the first client device (IoT machines; IoT devices) has permission to access the scenario library (The IoT machines can negotiate contracts on their own (without human) and exchange items of value by presenting an open transaction on the associated funds in their respective wallets. Blockchain token ownership is immediately transferred to a new owner after authentication and verification, which are based on network ledgers within a peer-to-peer network, guaranteeing nearly instantaneous execution and settlement) and 2) authenticating the first client device based on a tenant identifier associated with the first client device (Blockchain token ownership is immediately transferred to a new owner after authentication and verification, which are based on network ledgers within a peer-to-peer network, guaranteeing nearly instantaneous execution and settlement) in analogous art of supply chains for the purposes of: “the transaction 303 includes the recipient's address 324 (e.g., a hash value based on the receiver's public key), the Blockchain token 309 (i.e., a patient ID 328 and personally identifiable information such as Social Security 326), past medical institution relationship information 331 (if any), and optional other information 310. The transaction 323 is digitally signed by the patient who is the sender's private key to create a digital signature 332 for verifying the sender's identity to the network nodes. The network nodes decrypt the digital signature 332, via the sender's previously exchanged public key, and compare the unencrypted information to the transaction 323. If they match, the sender's authenticity is verified and, after a proper chain of ownership is verified via the ledgers (as explained above), the receiver is recorded in the ledgers as the new Blockchain token 329 authorized owner of the medical information” (see at least paragraphs 123-128, 247, 281, 295).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to include the smart device as taught by Tran in the system of Makhija, since the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable.
With regard to Claims 2, 12, 20, Makhija teaches wherein the second request is received from a second client device of the plurality of client devices (see at least paragraphs 10-12, 61, 75).
With regard to Claims 3, 13, Makhija teaches: generating a second sourcing event template based on the sourcing event template, wherein the generating the second sourcing event template comprises: calling the controller of the scenario library to access the plurality of sourcing event scenarios at the scenario library (see at least paragraphs 10-17);
modifying the modified sourcing event template to include a second reference to a second sourcing event scenario of the plurality of sourcing event scenarios (see at least paragraphs 10-17).
With regard to Claims 4, 14, Makhija teaches wherein the first sourcing event scenario is stored in a first folder associated with a first user (see at least paragraphs 10-17, 66);
wherein the first sourcing scenario is accessible to a second user (see at least paragraphs 10-17).
With regard to Claims 6, 16, Makhija teaches wherein the user interface further comprises a first folder and a second folder each comprising a subset of the plurality of templates of sourcing event scenarios (see at least paragraphs 10-17, 66).
With regard to Claims 7, 17, Makhija teaches wherein the operations further comprise receiving, based on the displaying, feedback associated with awarding at least a portion of the sourcing event to at least one of the suppliers of the possible combination of suppliers (see at least paragraphs 10-17).
With regard to Claim 9, Makhija teaches wherein the controller coupled to the scenario library is configured to authenticate the first client device associated prior to permitting access to the first sourcing event scenario at the scenario library (see at least paragraphs 10-17, 71).
With regard to Claims 10, 18, Makhija teaches wherein the sourcing event comprises a plurality of line items and a plurality of terms associated with the plurality of line items, wherein the plurality of terms comprises at least one of a commodity, discount or a quantity (see at least paragraphs 79, 80, 92, 94, 106).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to Applicant's disclosure:
Hoffberg (US 8,874,477)
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, 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 THOMAS L MANSFIELD whose telephone number is (571)270-1904. The examiner can normally be reached M-Thurs, alt. Fri. (9-6).
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, Patricia Munson can be reached at (571) 270-5396. 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.
THOMAS L. MANSFIELD
Examiner
Art Unit 3623
/THOMAS L MANSFIELD/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3624