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 .
Response to Arguments
PNG
media_image1.png
154
758
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Response:
These are not advantages. This is only a description of what is claimed.
Argument:
PNG
media_image2.png
256
686
media_image2.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image3.png
276
684
media_image3.png
Greyscale
The examiner did not say the claims recited a mental process. The examiner said they recited a method of organizing human activity.
Argument:
PNG
media_image4.png
292
704
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Response:
The examiner disagrees.
It is important to note that a general purpose computer that applies a judicial exception, such as an abstract idea, by use of conventional computer functions does not qualify as a particular machine. Ultramercial, Inc. v. Hulu, LLC, 772 F.3d 709, 716-17, 112 USPQ2d 1750, 1755-56 (Fed. Cir. 2014). See also TLI Communications LLC v. AV Automotive LLC, 823 F.3d 607, 613, 118 USPQ2d 1744, 1748 (Fed. Cir. 2016)
Integral use of a machine to achieve performance of a method may integrate the recited judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more, in contrast to where the machine is merely an object on which the method operates, which does not integrate the exception into a practical application or provide significantly more. See CyberSource v. Retail Decisions, 654 F.3d 1366, 1370, 99 USPQ2d 1690, 1694 (Fed. Cir. 2011)
Use of a machine that contributes only nominally or insignificantly to the execution of the claimed method (e.g., in a data gathering step or in a field-of-use limitation) would not integrate a judicial exception or provide significantly more. See Bilski, 561 U.S. at 610, 95 USPQ2d at 1009 (citing Parker v. Flook, 437 U.S. 584, 590, 198 USPQ 193, 197 (1978)), and CyberSource v. Retail Decisions, 654 F.3d 1366, 1370, 99 USPQ2d 1690 (Fed. Cir. 2011)
Argument:
PNG
media_image5.png
344
710
media_image5.png
Greyscale
Response:
The examiner disagrees. Use of a computer or other machinery in its ordinary capacity for economic or other tasks (e.g., to receive, store, or transmit data) or simply adding a general purpose computer or computer components after the fact to an abstract idea (e.g., a fundamental economic practice or mathematical equation) does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more. See Affinity Labs v. DirecTV, 838 F.3d 1253, 1262, 120 USPQ2d 1201, 1207 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (cellular telephone); TLI Communications LLC v. AV Auto, LLC, 823 F.3d 607, 613, 118 USPQ2d 1744, 1748 (Fed. Cir. 2016)
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 22-36 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. The amendments add a step of transmitting a signal to control a sensor to stop production. The remarks say support for this is in paragraph 54. The examiner is not able to find anything in said paragraph that is as detailed as the claim is.
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 22-36 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Exemplary claims 27-31 recite:
27. (New) A system for providing automated supply chain management comprising: a plant network comprising a plurality of refineries, a drilling site, and a warehouse, wherein the plant network comprises a plurality of devices for acquiring inventory consumption data of the plant network, wherein inventory consumption data comprising historical inventory data, technical evaluation processing time data, emergency purchase requisitions data, and overdue staged material data; and a processor that is configured to provide automated supply chain management by performing, for the plant network, the steps of: obtaining, via the plurality of devices, inventory consumption data regarding the plant network; calculating a plurality of supply chain metrics based, at least in part, on the obtained inventory consumption data; determining a predicted aged inventory metric by applying a linear regression machine learning model to the calculated supply chain metrics; assigning an individual weighted score to the predicted aged inventory metric; and automatically performing a remedial action, in response to the individual weighted score at a first refinery in the plant network exceeding an alarm level, wherein performing the remedial action comprises transmitting the predicted aged inventory metric to a second refinery in the plant network.; and a plant manager comprising an industrial server in communication with the processor and the plant network;a corporate network interconnected with the plant network via a wide area network and the plant manager, the corporate network comprising a corporate device located at a corporate office configured to provide accessibility to the plant network via a network server; anda network interface controller in the corporate network configured to control a sensor at the first refinery to stop production.
28. (New) The system of The system of wherein performing the remedial action comprises automatically recalculating the calculated plurality of supply chain metrics at the first refinery.
29. (New) The system of The system of wherein performing the remedial action comprises automatically purchasing and taking possession of inventory at the second refinery based on the predicted aged inventory metric and a matching open order.
30. (New) The system of claim 27, further comprising: wherein determining the predicted aged inventory metric comprises determining a plurality of predicted aged inventory; assigning the individual weighted score for each of the plurality of predicted aged inventory; and calculating an aggregate metric by summing the individual weighted scores of a plurality of predicted aged inventory metrics.
31. (New) The system of claim 30, wherein inventory consumption data comprises canceled purchases.
Claims 27-31 (and also 22-26 and 32-36) recite subject matter falling within one of the four categories of invention.
But for the recitation of the plant network comprising refineries, drilling site, warehouses and devices, processor, machine learning model, “automatically” (implying automated implementation” plant manager, corporate network, wide area network, corporate device, network server, network interface controller, sensor, claims 27-31 recite steps for evaluating inventory and facilitating redistribution throughout a supply chain. The courts have used the phrases “fundamental economic practices” or “fundamental economic principles” to describe concepts relating to the economy and commerce. Clearly allocation of inventory to locations is a fundamental aspect of any commercial endeavor.
Thus claims 27-31 recite a fundamental economic practice/principle and as such recite a certain method of organizing human activity. See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2).
The additional are recited at a high degree of generality such that they amount to mere instructions to implement the abstract idea, which per MPEP 2106.05(f) means that they do not provide a practical application or significantly more. Use of a computer or other machinery in its ordinary capacity for economic or other tasks (e.g., to receive, store, or transmit data) or simply adding a general purpose computer or computer components after the fact to an abstract idea (e.g., a fundamental economic practice or mathematical equation) does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more. See Affinity Labs v. DirecTV, 838 F.3d 1253, 1262, 120 USPQ2d 1201, 1207 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (cellular telephone); TLI Communications LLC v. AV Auto, LLC, 823 F.3d 607, 613, 118 USPQ2d 1744, 1748 (Fed. Cir. 2016). Additional elements are used in their ordinary capacity. See also the July 2024 guidance regarding machine learning (https://www.uspto.gov/sites/default/files/documents/2024-AI-SMEUpdateExamples47-49.pdf)
Furthermore, the incorporation of the plant manager, corporate network and network interface controller is an attempt to add jargon-y technology to an otherwise unrelated process.
MPEP 2106.05(g) states that when determining whether an additional element is insignificant extra-solution activity, examiners may consider the following:
(1) Whether the extra-solution limitation is well known.
(2) Whether the limitation is significant (i.e. it imposes meaningful limits on the claim such that it is not nominally or tangentially related to the invention).
The plant manager, corporate network and network interface controller are largely unrelated to the rest of the claim. Furthermore, Godwin (US 20130144404 A1) discloses a conventional control network paragraph 3 with an equivalent architecture. For these reasons the computer network components are considered extra-solution activity.
Thus claims 27-31 are ineligible.
Claims 22-26 and 32-36 contain similar limitations to claims 27-31 and are considered ineligible for the same reasons.
Claim Status
Claims 22-36 are considered to distinguish over the cited art.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Burris (US 20220383340 A1) discloses inventory and performance monitoring in a supply chain. Rorro (US 20220207480 A1) discloses aggregated supply chain management interfaces. Kim (US 10956865 B1) discloses an inventory rebalancing system. Wu (US 20200320467 A1) discloses inventory redistribution optimization in a retail environment. Smith (US 20180218312 A1) discloses a system that provides inventory rebalancing.
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to NATHAN A MITCHELL whose telephone number is (571)270-3117. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9-5.
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, Ryan Zeender can be reached on 571-272-6790. 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.
/NATHAN A MITCHELL/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3627