DETAILED ACTION
Status of the Application
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 10/17/2025 has been entered.
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 .
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 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
This action is a Non-Final Action on the merits in response to the application filed on 10/17/2025.
Claims 1 and 4-8 have been amended.
Claims 1-8 remain pending in this application.
Response to Amendment
Applicant’s amendments are acknowledged.
The 35 U.S.C. 101 rejections of claims 1-8 in the previous office action have been 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.
Step 1: This part of the eligibility analysis evaluates whether the claim falls within any statutory category. See MPEP 2106.03. The claim recites at least one step or act, including applying an algorithm to a dataset. Thus, the claim is to a process, which is one of the statutory categories of invention. (Step 1: YES).
Step 2A, Prong One: This part of the eligibility analysis evaluates whether the claim recites a judicial exception. As explained in MPEP 2106.04, subsection II, a claim “recites” a judicial exception when the judicial exception is “set forth” or “described” in the claim.
The broadest reasonable interpretation of steps of
predicting profitability of livestock, inputting information by the user, inputting a committed number of animals in the livestock operation, inputting prices by user, calculate the morality percentage, remove the morality percentage, predicting a feed and non-feed cost, determine a profitability distribution, calculate a confidence interval, displaying the distribution of expected profitability is that these steps fall within the commercial interactions such as sales activities and business relations (See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2), subsection II). Additionally, as claimed calculate the morality percentage, remove the morality percentage, determine a profitability distribution, calculate a confidence interval also describe concepts relating to mathematical concepts (including mathematical formulas or equations) because the claims are directed to managing livestock data by calculating and determining a profitability distribution that uses mathematical relationships as disclosed in the both the claims and the specification which cover concepts mathematical concepts and certain methods of organizing human activity (See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2), subsection I and subsection II).
Regarding steps of predicting profitability of livestock, inputting information by the user, inputting a committed number of animals in the livestock operation, inputting prices by user, calculate the morality percentage, remove the morality percentage, predicting a feed and non-feed cost, determine a profitability distribution, calculate a confidence interval, displaying the distribution of expected profitability, the claim does not impose any limits on how the data is outputted or require any particular components that are used to output the data. (Step 2A, Prong One: YES).
Step 2A, Prong Two: This part of the eligibility analysis evaluates whether the claim as a whole integrates the recited judicial exception into a practical application of the exception or whether the claim is “directed to” the judicial exception. This evaluation is performed by (1) identifying whether there are any additional elements recited in the claim beyond the judicial exception, and (2) evaluating those additional elements individually and in combination to determine whether the claim as a whole integrates the exception into a practical application. See MPEP 2106.04(d). The claim recites the additional elements of software. The claims recite the steps are performed by the software.
The limitations of predicting profitability of livestock, inputting information by the user, inputting a committed number of animals in the livestock operation, inputting prices by user, calculate the morality percentage, remove the morality percentage, predicting a feed and non-feed cost, determine a profitability distribution, calculate a confidence interval, displaying the distribution of expected profitability are mere data gathering and output recited at a high level of generality, and thus are insignificant extra-solution activity. See MPEP 2106.05(g) (“whether the limitation is significant”). In addition, all uses of the recited judicial exceptions require such data gathering and output, and, as such, these limitations do not impose any meaningful limits on the claim. These limitations amount to necessary data gathering and outputting. See MPEP 2106.05.
Further, the limitations are recited as being performed by software. The software are recited at a high level of generality. In limitation (a), the software is used as a tool to perform the generic computer function of receiving data. See MPEP 2106.05(f). The software is used to perform an abstract idea, as discussed above in Step 2A, Prong One, such that it amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer. See MPEP 2106.05(f).
Even when viewed in combination, these additional elements do not integrate the recited judicial exception into a practical application (Step 2A, Prong Two: NO), and the claim is directed to the judicial exception. (Step 2A: YES).
Step 2B: This part of the eligibility analysis evaluates whether the claim as a whole amounts to significantly more than the recited exception i.e., whether any additional element, or combination of additional elements, adds an inventive concept to the claim. See MPEP 2106.05. As explained with respect to Step 2A, Prong Two, the additional elements are the software. The additional elements were found to be insignificant extra-solution activity in Step 2A, Prong Two, because they were determined to be insignificant limitations as necessary data gathering and outputting. However, a conclusion that an additional element is insignificant extra solution activity in Step 2A, Prong Two should be re-evaluated in Step 2B. See MPEP 2106.05, subsection I.A. At Step 2B, the evaluation of the insignificant extra-solution activity consideration takes into account whether or not the extra-solution activity is well understood, routine, and conventional in the field. See MPEP 2106.05(g). As discussed in Step 2A, Prong Two above, the recitations of predicting profitability of livestock, inputting information by the user, inputting a committed number of animals in the livestock operation, inputting prices by user, calculate the morality percentage, remove the morality percentage, predicting a feed and non-feed cost, determine a profitability distribution, calculate a confidence interval, displaying the distribution of expected profitability are recited at a high level of generality. These elements amount to transmitting data and are well understood, routine, conventional activity. See MPEP 2106.05(d), subsection II. 10 As discussed in Step 2A, Prong Two above, the recitation of a processor to perform limitations amounts to no more than mere instructions 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. (Step 2B: NO).
The Examiner would like to point the Applicant, to the Affinity Labs v. DirecTV, “where the court relied on the specification’s failure to provide details regarding the manner in which the invention accomplished the alleged improvement when holding the climbed methods of delivering broadcast content to cellphones ineligible”
The specification must provide sufficient details such that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize the claimed invention as pertaining to an improvement in technology. As such the specification could identify a technical problem and explain how the specification provides a technical solution.
Dependent claims 2-8 are not directed to any additional claim elements. Rather, these claims offer further descriptive limitations of elements found in the independent claims. In this case, the claims are rejected for the same reasons at step 2a, prong one; step 2a, prong 2; and step 2b. Thus, the claim is not patent eligible.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed 10/17/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant’s arguments will be addressed hereinbelow in the order in which they appear in the response filed 10/17/2025.
Regarding the 35 U.S.C. 101 rejection, at pg. 8-13 Applicant argues with respect to claims at issue are not directed to an abstract idea
In response to the 35 USC § 101 claim rejection argument, the Examiner respectfully disagrees. The Examiner did consider each claim and every limitation both individually and as a whole, since the grounds of rejection clearly indicates that an abstract idea has been identified from elements recited in the claims. Using the two-part analysis, the Office has determined there are no elements, in the claim sufficient enough to ensure that the claims amounts to significantly more than the abstract idea itself. As recited, the claims are directed towards:
inputting information about a plurality of animals in the livestock operation;
the information comprising a type of plurality of animals in the livestock and a starting number of the plurality of animals in the livestock operation inputting a committed number of the plurality of animals in the livestock operation;
the committed number comprising a second number of the plurality of animals to be sold;
inputting live futures prices of the committed number of plurality of animals by the user;
the live future prices comprising current market value of type of animal;
wherein the current market value comprises at least one of a market value of a live animal and a market value of at least a portion of a carcass of the type of animal;
inputting historical price discoveries by user;
the historical price discoveries comprises a contract price and a historical price;
determining a morality coefficient to calculate an expected morality percentage of the committed number of the plurality of animals;
removing the morality percentage of the committed number of the plurality of animals;
predicting a feed cost and a non-feed cost for the committed number of a plurality of animals.
implementing a stochastic simulation to model a production performance of the animals combined with the live futures prices and the historical price discoveries;
determining a profitability distribution based on the production performance, the feed cost and the non-feed cost;
calculating a confidence interval of the expected profitability distribution; and
displaying the distribution of expected profitability in a visual format;
wherein the distribution comprises the confidence interval.
The claim(s) does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the computer as recited is a generic computer component that performs functions.
Examiner finds the claim recite concepts which are now described in the 2019 PEG as certain methods of organizing human activity. In particular the claims recites limitations for managing livestock data , which constitutes methods related to commercial interactions such as sales activities and business relations which are still considered an abstract idea under the 2019 PEG. The software is comprised of generic computer elements to perform an existing business process. Examiner finds the claims recite mere instructions to implement the abstract idea on a computer and uses the computer as a tool to perform the abstract idea without reciting any improvements to a technology, technological process or computer-related technology.
Regarding, the steps at pg. 12 that Applicant points to as practical application are merely narrowing the abstract idea to a particular technological environment, which has been found to be ineffective to render an abstract idea eligible. Furthermore, the Examiner respectfully disagrees because the steps and arguments at pg. 12:
“the claims are patent eligible because they integrated into a practical application. For example, claim 1 recites "determining a morality coefficient by the software system to calculate an expected morality percentage of the committed number of the plurality of animals; removing by the software system the morality percentage of the committed number of the plurality of animals; predicting by the software system a feed cost and a non-feed cost for the committed number of a plurality of animals; implementing a stochastic simulation by the software system to model a production performance of the animals combined with the live futures prices and the historical price discoveries; determining a profitability distribution by the software system based on the production performance, the feed cost and the non-feed cost; calculating a confidence interval of the expected profitability distribution by the software system; and displaying the distribution of expected profitability in a visual format by the software system to the user; wherein the distribution comprises the confidence interval". Claims 4, 5, and 8 have been similarly amended. This is a practical application as it not only determines profitability of a livestock operation allows a user to enter live future prices of the livestock, how many livestock are to be sold and how any unsold livestock affect profitability.”
seems to describe a “particular way” of implementing the managing livestock data, include determining profitability are part of the abstract idea. The Applicant is basically relying on the system software as integrating the abstract idea into a practical application but those system software aren't really utilized in any particular manner, and the specification does not indicate how the system software, is executed or applied, which indicates the lack of particularity in the application to the technological environment. Furthermore, the argument “allows a user to enter live future prices of the livestock,” the Applicant is admitting that the application is directed to improving the user’s experience and not the system software or any type of computer or structure.
The following citations are a strong indicator that the technical application is NOT particular, and furthermore the claim invention does not “improves the functioning of a computer or improves another technology or technical field.” or “an improvement to another technology or technical field (e.g., 0012, Historical values for the ingredient costs are based on the feed cost inputted by the user. The starting number of animals in the production group is calculated based on user-supplied values. Once the starting number of animals is determined, a model is used to calculate a starting physical weight for each animal based on the average starting weight and variance supplied by the user.;
0014, Historical values for the live animal prices are based on the historical values for the contract blends submitted by the user at step 110.
0017, At step 160 the results may be exported and saved by the user.). As such the claims are clear steps for managing livestock data performed by user, i.e. “providing information about a plurality of animals in the livestock operation to the software system by the user”.
Additionally, the Examiner would like to point the Applicant to the 2019 PEG, in which implementing services on behalf of a provider will fall under. The 2019 PEG which states:
Adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea - see MPEP 2106.05(f).
Adding insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception - see MPEP 2106.05(g)
Generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use – see MPEP 2106.05(h)
At pg. 11, Applicant argues that claims are similar to Data Engine.
In response, Examiner respectfully disagrees. Examiner notes Data Engine Techs was found eligible not only because the claims are directed/recites a technical solution and improvement in computer spreadsheet functionality for navigating through three-dimensional electronic spreadsheets. Examiner finds the advancements disclosed in Data Engine Techs. are not comparable the present claims. Examiner finds the present claims are similar to concepts identified as abstract outlined in the 35 U.S.C. 101 rejection. Examiner respectfully reminds Applicant, software used to apply a judicial exception, by use of instruction executed by a user, has not been found by the courts to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application; see MPEP 2106.05(f). Additionally, Examiner finds the managing livestock data that include determining profitability, by the use of software by a user based on analyzed user data does not improve a technology, technological field or computer-related technology. Examiner finds the managing livestock data by the use of software by a user is considered an insignificant post-solution activity of delivering data; see MPEP 2106.05(g). For at least these reasons the claims remain rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 as being directed to non-statutory subject matter.
At pg. 12, Applicant argues that claims are similar to Trading Technologies.
In response, Examiner respectfully disagrees. In the instant case the examiner asserts that the fact pattern in Trading Technologies does not uniquely match the fact pattern in the instant case. For example, In Trading Technologies "The court distinguished this system from the routine or conventional use of computers or the Internet, and concluded that the specific structure and concordant functionality of the graphical user interface are removed from abstract ideas, as compared to conventional computer implementations of known procedures. Thus the court held that the criteria of Alice Step 2 were also met."
The instant claims are not drawn to a particular and non-conventional arrangement of elements of a graphical user interface. As such, the examiner asserts that the fact patterns of the instant case and Trading Technologies are different.
Additionally, please refer above to the 35 U.S.C. 101 rejection for further explanation and rationale, as a revised 101 rejection is now presented
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Schlachtenhaufen et al., W.O. Pub. WO2001089285, (discussing the analyzing and processing of livestock in an economic environment).
Lawrence et al., Lessons Learned from the Canadian Cattle Industry: National Animal Identification and The Mad Cow,
https://ageconsearch.umn.edu/record/18686/files/bp030007.pdf, MATRIC Research Paper 03-MRP 7, 2003 (discussing the livestock management).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to UCHE BYRD whose telephone number is (571)272-3113. The examiner can normally be reached Mon.-Fri..
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.
/UCHE BYRD/Examiner, Art Unit 3624