DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Disposition of Claims
Claims 1-9, 12, 19, and 20 are pending in the instant application. Claims 1-12 and 19-20 have been elected by Applicant, without traverse. Claims 13-18 are withdrawn herein. No claims have been added. Claims 10-11 have been cancelled. Claims 1-6, 8, 9, 12 19, and 20 have been amended. The rejection of the pending claims is hereby made final.
Response to Remarks
101
Regarding the rejection of the pending claims under 35 USC 101, as stated in the prior Office Action, the examiner has considered Applicant’s arguments and amendments, but does not find them to be persuasive. If it is asserted that the invention improves upon conventional functioning of a computer, or upon conventional technology or technological processes, a technical explanation as to how to implement the invention should be present in the specification. That is, the disclosure must provide sufficient details such that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize the claimed invention as providing an improvement (see at least MPEP 2106.05(a) Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Symantec Corp., 838 F.3d 1307, 1316, 120 USPQ2d 1353, 1359 (Fed. Cir. 2016). The improvement can be provided by one or more additional elements. See the discussion of Diamond v. Diehr, 450 U.S. 175, 187 and 191-92, 209 USPQ 1, 10 (1981)) in subsection II, below. In addition, the improvement can be provided by the additional element(s) in combination with the recited judicial exception. See MPEP § 2106.04(d) (discussing Finjan, Inc. v. Blue Coat Sys., Inc., 879 F.3d 1299, 1303-04, 125 USPQ2d 1282, 1285-87 (Fed. Cir. 2018)). Thus, it is important for examiners to analyze the claim as a whole when determining whether the claim provides an improvement to the functioning of computers or an improvement to other technology or technical field.
Examples that the courts have indicated may show an improvement in computer-functionality:
i. A modification of conventional Internet hyperlink protocol to dynamically produce a dual-source hybrid webpage, DDR Holdings, 773 F.3d at 1258-59, 113 USPQ2d at 1106-07;
ii. Inventive distribution of functionality within a network to filter Internet content, BASCOM Global Internet v. AT&T Mobility LLC, 827 F.3d 1341, 1350-51, 119 USPQ2d 1236, 1243 (Fed. Cir. 2016);
iii. A method of rendering a halftone digital image, Research Corp. Techs. v. Microsoft Corp., 627 F.3d 859, 868-69, 97 USPQ2d 1274, 1380 (Fed. Cir. 2010);
iv. A distributed network architecture operating in an unconventional fashion to reduce network congestion while generating networking accounting data records, Amdocs (Israel), Ltd. v. Openet Telecom, Inc., 841 F.3d 1288, 1300-01, 120 USPQ2d 1527, 1536-37 (Fed. Cir. 2016);
v. A memory system having programmable operational characteristics that are configurable based on the type of processor, which can be used with different types of processors without a tradeoff in processor performance, Visual Memory, LLC v. NVIDIA Corp., 867 F.3d 1253, 1259-60, 123 USPQ2d 1712, 1717 (Fed. Cir. 2017);
vi. Technical details as to how to transmit images over a cellular network or append classification information to digital image data, TLI Communications LLC v. AV Auto. LLC, 823 F.3d 607, 614-15, 118 USPQ2d 1744, 1749-50 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (holding the claims ineligible because they fail to provide requisite technical details necessary to carry out the function);
vii. Particular structure of a server that stores organized digital images, TLI Communications, 823 F.3d at 612, 118 USPQ2d at 1747 (finding the use of a generic server insufficient to add inventive concepts to an abstract idea);
PNG
media_image1.png
27
30
media_image1.png
Greyscale
viii. A particular way of programming or designing software to create menus, Apple, Inc. v. Ameranth, Inc., 842 F.3d 1229, 1241, 120 USPQ2d 1844, 1854 (Fed. Cir. 2016);
ix. A method that generates a security profile that identifies both hostile and potentially hostile operations, and can protect the user against both previously unknown viruses and "obfuscated code," which is an improvement over traditional virus scanning. Finjan Inc. v. Blue Coat Systems, 879 F.3d 1299, 1304, 125 USPQ2d 1282, 1286 (Fed. Cir. 2018);
x. An improved user interface for electronic devices that displays an application summary of unlaunched applications, where the particular data in the summary is selectable by a user to launch the respective application. Core Wireless Licensing S.A.R.L., v. LG Electronics, Inc., 880 F.3d 1356, 1362-63, 125 USPQ2d 1436, 1440-41 (Fed. Cir. 2018);
xi. Specific interface and implementation for navigating complex three-dimensional spreadsheets using techniques unique to computers; Data Engine Techs., LLC v. Google LLC, 906 F.3d 999, 1009, 128 USPQ2d 1381, 1387 (Fed. Cir. 2018); and
xii. A specific method of restricting software operation within a license, Ancora Tech., Inc. v. HTC America, Inc., 908 F.3d 1343, 1345-46, 128 USPQ2d 1565, 1567 (Fed. Cir. 2018).
PNG
media_image1.png
27
30
media_image1.png
Greyscale
It is important to note that in order for a method claim to improve computer functionality, the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claim must be limited to computer implementation. That is, a claim whose entire scope can be performed mentally, cannot be said to improve computer technology. Synopsys, Inc. v. Mentor Graphics Corp., 839 F.3d 1138, 120 USPQ2d 1473 (Fed. Cir. 2016). As currently recited, the pending claims recite providing a notification to a user responsive to changes in a database, which can be performed mentally, in conjunction with a generic computing device and common computer elements. . For at least the reasoning provided above, the rejection of the pending claims under 35 USC 101 is hereby maintained and made final.
103
Applicant’s arguments and amendments have been considered by the examiner and have been addressed in the new grounds of rejection presented below.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1-9, 12, 19, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (an abstract idea) without significantly more.
Under 2106.03 Eligibility step 1, it must be considered whether the claims are directed to one of the four statutory classes of invention. In the instant case, claims 1-9 and 12 are directed to a method, and claims 19-20 are directed towards a system for logistics support for lifecycle management, each of which falls within one of the four statutory categories of inventions (process/apparatus). Accordingly, the claims will be further analyzed under 2106.04 Eligibility step 2A:
Under 2106.04 Eligibility step 2A, it must be considered whether the claims are “directed to” a judicial exception by referring to the groupings of subject matter. 2106.04, certain methods of organizing human activity include fundamental economic principles or practices (including hedging, insurance, mitigating risk); commercial or legal interactions (including agreements in the form of contracts; legal obligations; advertising, marketing or sales activities or behaviors; business relations); managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people (including social activities, teaching, and following rules or instructions).
Regarding representative independent claim 1, the claim sets forth a method for logistics support for lifecycle management, in the following limitations:
integrating article data from a Product Lifecycle Management System associated with the article into a Logistic Product Database;
generating a Common Source Database (CSDB) for the article based upon the article data in the Logistics Product Database;
accessing a plurality of Bills of Materials (BOMs) associated with the article;
detecting a change of article data in at least a first BOM relative to a second BOM from the plurality of Bills of Materials;
determining one or more changes to be made to the Logistics Product Database responsive to detecting a change of article data;
initiating the determined one or more changes in the Logistics Product Database responsive to detecting a change of article data;
detecting the changes to the Logistics Product Database by the Common Source Database; and
providing notification from the Common Source Database responsive to the detected changes to the Logistics Product Database associated with the detected change of article data relative to at least the first and second Bills of Materials.
The above-recited limitations set forth an arrangement to enable a user to modify updated BOM after detecting a change, and storing it in a database. This arrangement amounts to certain methods of organizing human activity associated with sales activities and commercial interactions. Such concepts have been considered ineligible certain methods of organizing human activity by the Courts (See 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance).
Under 2106.04 Eligibility step 2A (prong 2), the next step in the eligibility analysis looks at whether the abstract idea is integrated into a practical application. This requires an additional element or combination of additional elements in the claims to apply, rely on, or use the judicial exception in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on the judicial exception, such that the claim is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception.
In this instance, the claims recite the additional elements such as:
At least one processing unit (claim 19)
However, these elements do not amount to an improvement in the functioning of a computer or any other technology or technical field, apply the judicial exception with, or by use of, a particular machine, or apply or use 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.
In addition, the recitations above are recited at a high level of generality and also do not amount to an improvement in the functioning of a computer or any other technology or technical field, apply the judicial exception with, or by use of, a particular machine, or apply or use 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.
Independent claim 19 and dependent claims 2-9, 12, and 20 also fail to recite elements which amount to an improvement in the functioning of a computer or any other technology or technical field, apply the judicial exception with, or by use of, a particular machine, or apply or use 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. For example, independent claims and dependent claims are directed to the abstract idea itself and do not amount to an integration according to any one of the considerations above.
Step 2B is the next step in the eligibility analyses and evaluates whether the claims recite additional elements that amount to an inventive concept (i.e., “significantly more”) than the recited judicial exception. According to Office procedure, revised Step 2A overlaps with Step 2B, and thus, many of the considerations need not be re-evaluated in Step 2B because the answer will be the same.
In Step 2A, several additional elements were identified as additional limitations:
At least one processing unit (claim 19)
These additional limitations, including the limitations in the independent claims and dependent claims, do not amount to an inventive concept because they were already analyzed under Step 2A and did not amount to a practical application of the abstract idea.
For these reasons, the claims are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101. Appropriate correction and/or clarification is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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.
Claims 1-9, 12, and 19-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Coccia (US 2023/0072264) in view of Courtney et al (US 2020/0134163) and further in view of An et al (US 2006/0173728).
Regarding claim 1, the prior art discloses a computer implemented method for updating data in a Common Source Database for an article responsive to determining a change of data in a BOM for the article (see at least paragraph [0006] to Coccia), comprising: integrating article data from a Product Lifecycle Management System associated with the article into a Logistic Product Database (see at least paragraph [0020] to Coccia,; generating a Common Source Database (CSDB) for the article based upon the article data in the Logistics Product Database (see at least paragraph [0021] to Coccia); accessing a plurality of Bills of Materials (BOMs) associated with the article; detecting a change of article data in at least a first BOM relative to a second BOM from the plurality of Bills of Materials (see at least paragraph [0006] to Coccia); determining one or more changes to be made to the Logistics Product Database responsive to detecting a change of article data (see at least paragraph [0007] to Coccia); initiating the determined one or more changes in the Logistics Product Database responsive to detecting a change of article data (see at least paragraph [0007] to Coccia); detecting the changes to the Logistics Product Database by the Common Source Database (see at least paragraph [0008] to Coccia).
Coccia does not appear to explicitly disclose providing notification from the Common Source Database responsive to the detected changes to the Logistics Product Database associated with the detected change of article data relative to at least the first and second Bills of Materials.
However, Courtney et al discloses a system and method for monitoring device components using distributed ledger, further comprising providing notification from the Common Source Database responsive to the detected changes to the Logistics Product Database associated with the detected change of article data relative to at least the first and second Bills of Materials (see at least paragraph [0042] to Courtney et al).
The applied prior art, in combination, does not appear to explicitly disclose wherein the Logistic Product Database includes data related to one or more of: logistics design requirements, reliability and maintainability, system safety, maintenance engineering, support and test equipment, training and training devices, manpower and skills, facilities, transportation, supply support, and parts packaging associated with the article (see at least paragraphs [0023]-[0027] to An et al, wherein the adaptive Product Configuration Model would obtain the existing product data at step 310. These data could be supplied either manually or electronically by the various company organizations such as manufacturing 303, logistics/provisioning 302, and marketing/sales 301. These data provided by these sources can be but are not limited to: [0024] 1. engineering specifications for each existing product offered by the company, [0025] 2. logistics parts and provisioning databases, [0026] 3. financial data such as sales projections, margin targets, revenue predictions and marketing goals, production costs, distribution costs, etc., and [0027] 4. customer demand and market trends data. These data can be provided in the form of an inventory statement and product configuration rules as well as sales plans and build plans. Product configuration rules would include but not be limited to those technical and manufacturing restrictions that define how various components can be assembled to form various product configurations. For example, the power consumption requirements of a specific component could limit the types of assemblies in which a component could be configured and would thus be included as one of the product configuration rules).
However, the applied prior art reference An et al discloses an adaptive product configuration model system and method, further disclosing the limitations as cited above.
The examiner recognizes that obviousness may be established by combining or modifying the teachings of the prior art to produce the claimed invention where there is some teaching, suggestion, or motivation to do so found either in the references themselves or in the knowledge generally available to one of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Fine, 837 F.2d 1071, 5 USPQ2d 1596 (Fed. Cir. 1988), In re Jones, 958 F.2d 347, 21 USPQ2d 1941 (Fed. Cir. 1992), and KSR International Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007). The examiner submits that the combination of the teaching of the system and method for certification, validation, and correlation of bills of materials in a software supply chain, as disclosed by Coccia and the system and method for monitoring device components using distributed ledger as taught by Courtney et al, further in view of the adaptive product configuration model, as taught by An et al, in order to enable the system to automatically determine changes within BOM and update associated databases, could have been readily and easily implemented, with a reasonable expectation of success. As such, the aforementioned combination is found to be obvious to try, given the state of the art at the time of filing.
Regarding claim 2, the prior art discloses the computer implemented method as recited in claim 1, further including providing notification to a user of the determined one or more changes to be made to the Logistic Product database responsive to detecting a change of article data, wherein the initiated changes to the Logistic Product Database are confirmed by the user receiving the notification (see at least paragraph [0041] to Courtney et al).
Regarding claim 3, the prior art discloses the computer implemented method as recited in claim 2, wherein notification is provided to the Common Source Database indicating a change to the Logistic Product Database responsive to changes made to the Logistic Product Database that is responsive to detecting a change of article data (see at least paragraph [0021] to Coccia).
Regarding claim 4, the prior art discloses the computer implemented method as recited in claim 1, wherein at least the first and second Bills of Materials are modeled by forming a respective blockchain (see at least paragraphs [0006]-[0007] to Coccia).
Regarding claim 5, the prior art discloses the computer implemented method as recited in claim 4, wherein detecting a change of article data includes determining a difference of hash values regarding an aspect of the article when comparing the first and second Bills of Materials (see at least paragraph [0030] to Courtney et al).
Regarding claim 6, the prior art discloses the computer implemented method as recited in claim 1, wherein a BOM associated with the article includes one or more of a plurality of assemblies and piece parts(see at least paragraph [0024] to Courtney et al).
Regarding claim 7, the prior art discloses the computer implemented method as recited in claim 6, wherein the article is an article of manufacture (see at least paragraph [0024] to Courtney et al).
Regarding claim 8, the prior art discloses the computer implemented method as recited in claim 7, wherein the first BOM is older relative to the second BOM see at least paragraph [0006] to Coccia).
Regarding claim 9, the prior art discloses the computer implemented method as recited in claim 8, wherein an engineering change to the article is captured by the article data in the second BOM (see at least paragraph [0006] to Coccia).
Regarding claim 12, the prior art discloses the computer method as recited in claim 1, wherein the Product Lifecycle Management System is associated with the handling of the article as it moves through one or more of the following article stages: development and introduction, growth, maturity/stability, production and decline (see at least paragraph [0018] to Courtney et al, wherein the distributed ledger 102 documents various transactions involving configuration of the storage device 110 upon its manufacture and at various other stages during the use of the storage device 110).
Claims 19-20 each contain recitations substantially similar to those addressed above and, therefore, are likewise rejected.
Conclusion
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 nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
The examiner has considered all references listed on the Notice of References Cited, PTO-892.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to TALIA F CRAWLEY whose telephone number is (571)270-5397. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday thru Thursday; 8:30 AM-4:30 PM EST.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Fahd A Obeid can be reached on 571-270-3324. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/TALIA F CRAWLEY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3627
Prosecution Insights