DETAILED ACTION
Introduction
This Final Office Action is in response to amendments and remarks filed on November 24, 2025, for the application with serial number 18/077,182.
Claims 1, 9, 10, 18, and 19 are amended.
Claims 1-19 are pending.
Response to Remarks/Amendments
35 USC §101 Rejections
The Applicant traverses the rejection of the claims as being directed to an ineligible abstract idea, contending that the present claims recite steps for drawing curves and displaying the curves that render the claims eligible. See Remarks p. 16. Again, as in previous Office Actions, the Examiner reiterates that the step of drawing curves is part of the abstract idea. A human being using pen and paper could draw curves as recited in the claims. However, a general purpose computer is recited for implementation. The scale, speed, and complexity of the process is not apparent from the recitations of the claims. Moreover, the use of a computer to automate a manual process does not provide a practical application. See MPEP §2106.05(a)[I]{iii}. The use of a computer to perform repetitive calculations is well-understood, routine, and conventional. See MPEP §2106.05(d)[II]{ii}. Contrary to the Applicant’s assertions, the steps of the claims are not rooted in computer technology. A human being can create a mathematical model and draw curves of the modeling data, as recited, using pen and paper. The recited process in the claims provides a business solution to a business problem.
The Applicant additionally contends that the present claims recite subject matter that is similar or analogous to the claims from McRO. See Remarks p. 17. The Examiner respectfully disagrees. The claims from McRO recite a process that provides a tool for lip-syncing of digital video. In contrast, the present claims recite steps for business modeling and model evaluation. Simply reporting that accuracy (or error) is increasing or decreasing does not provide a solution that is rooted in computer technology. No apparent improvement to the performance of a computer as a machine is recited in the claims. The claims and Figures (see Figs. 3-5) do not support the Applicant’s assertions that the subject matter represents an improvement in graphical user interface technology.
The rejection of the claims for lack of subject matter eligibility is maintained.
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.
The Manual of Patent Examining Procedure (MPEP) provides detailed rules for determining subject matter eligibility for claims in §2106. Those rules provide a basis for the analysis and finding of ineligibility that follows.
Claims 1-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101. The claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter because the claimed invention recites a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more. Although claims(s) 1-19 are all directed to one of the four statutory categories of invention, the claims are directed to generating a signal indicative of performance of a predictive model (as evidenced by exemplary independent claim 1; “generating a performance diagnostic signal for the predictive model”), an abstract idea. Certain methods of organizing human activity are ineligible abstract ideas, including managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people. Additionally, note that mathematical concepts, such as formulas and equations, are abstract ideas. See MPEP §2106.04(a). The limitations of exemplary claim 1 include: “calculating a shipment predictive value;” “calculating a change ratio scale;” “calculating an average value of a plurality of past change ratio scales;” “determining whether actual shipment data . . . is within a predictive shipment range;” “calculating a miss rate;” “drawing a first curve . . . based on a plurality of miss rates;” “drawing a second curve . . . based on a plurality of average values of the past change ratio scales;” “superimposing the first curve and the second curve in time order . . . an obtaining an optimal reference point;” and “generating a performance diagnostic signal for [a] predictive model.” The steps are all steps for managing personal behavior and/or making mathematical calculations that, when considered alone and in combination, are part of the abstract idea of generating a signal indicative of performance of a predictive model. The dependent claims further recite steps for managing personal behavior and making calculations that are part of the abstract idea of generating a signal indicative of performance of a predictive model. These claim elements, when considered alone and in combination, are considered to be abstract ideas because they are directed to a method of organizing human activity which includes using time series data of shipment information to model inventory based on demand; and evaluating the error and/or stability of the model.
Under step 2A of the subject matter eligibility analysis, a claim that recites a judicial exception must be evaluated to determine whether the claim provides a practical application of the judicial exception. Additional elements of the independent claims amount to generic computer hardware that does not provide a practical application (a processor and interface in independent claim 1; an apparatus with a storage device, processor, and interface in independent claim 10; and a computer readable medium in independent claim 19). See MPEP §2106.04(d)[I]. The claims do not recite an improvement to another technology or technical field, nor do they recite an improvement to the functioning of the computer itself. See MPEP §2106.05(a). The claims require no more than a generic computer (a processor and interface in independent claim 1; an apparatus with a storage device, processor, and interface in independent claim 10; and a computer readable medium in independent claim 19) to implement the abstract idea, which does not amount to significantly more than an abstract idea. See MPEP §2106.05(f). Because the claims only recite use of a generic computer, they do not apply the judicial exception with a particular machine. See MPEP §2106.05(b). For these reasons, the claims do not provide a practical application of the abstract idea, nor do they amount to significantly more than an abstract idea under step 2B of the subject matter eligibility analysis. Using a generic computer to implement an abstract idea does not provide an inventive concept. Therefore, the claims recite ineligible subject matter under 35 USC §101.
Conclusion
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 RICHARD N SCHEUNEMANN whose telephone number is (571)270-7947. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9am-5pm 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, 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.
/RICHARD N SCHEUNEMANN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3624