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 . The following is a Non-Final Office Action. Claims 1-2, 6-9, 13-16, and 19-28 are pending and rejected below.
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 02/24/26 has been entered.
Response to Amendment
Applicant’s amendments are acknowledged.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s argument suggests applying the machine learning models to the specific types of data in the claim can not be performed in the human mind, and that the machine learning models in the independent claims and Claim 21 are not generic computing elements performing generic computing functions.
Examiner responds applying models to the specific types of data can be performed in the human mind and relates to mental processes. The specific machine learning models in the independent claim and claim 21 generally links the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use under MPEP 2106.05(h).
Applicant argues, “Amended independent claim 1 reflects an improvement in the technical field of systems used for materials requirement planning” and cites a “cloud computing environment, and a virtual of physical server providing a cloud-based service, such as SaaS.”
Examiner responds these elements (ie cloud computing environment, a virtual of physical server providing a cloud-based service, such as SaaS) are recited broadly and/or in a conclusory manner; thus they are not sufficient to be a technological improvement. (See MPEP § 2106.04(d)(1), 2nd Paragraph. “...if the specification explicitly sets forth an improvement but only in a conclusory manner (i.e., a bare assertion of an improvement without the detail necessary to be apparent to a person of ordinary skill in the art), the examiner should not determine that the claim improves technology or a technical field.”).
Applicant argues additional elements were excluded in the findings as to whether they are well-understood, routine, and conventional activities.
Examiner responds see 101 rejection; the additional elements including the receiving a message from a client computer... and the application of each of the machine learning models, do not amount to "significantly more" than the abstract idea because they neither (1) recite any improvements to another technology or technical field; (2) recite any improvements to the functioning of the computer itself; (3) apply the judicial exception with, or by use of, a particular machine; (4) effect a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing; (5) add a specific limitation other than what is well-understood, routine and conventional in the field; (6) add unconventional steps that confine the claim to a particular useful application; nor (7) provide other meaningful limitations beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment.
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, 6-9, 13-16, and 19-28 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more.
Claims 1-2, 6-9, 13-16, and 19-28 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter. Specifically, Claims 1-2, 6-9, 13-16, and 19-28 are directed to an abstract idea without additional elements amounting to significantly more than the abstract idea.
Step 1 of the Alice/Mayo analysis is directed to determining whether or not the claims fall within a statutory class. Based on a facial reading of the claim elements, Claims 1-2, 6-9, 13-16, and 19-28 fall within a statutory class of process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter.
With respect to Step 2A Prong One of the framework, the claims recite an abstract idea. Claim 1, 8, and 15, when taken as a whole, includes limitations reciting functionality for computing a forecast and correcting the forecast for an outlier, including:
Analyze a material requirements forecast for a product
Determining a forecast quantity of the product by applying a first model...
Determining a forecast quantity of a plurality of different component items by applying a second model...
Determining by applying a third model to prior forecasts for the plurality of different component items, that the forecast quantity of a first component item of the plurality of different component items is an outlier anomaly;
Responsive to the determination that the forecast quantity of the first component item is an outlier anomaly:
Computing an outlier corrected forecast quantity for the first component item...
Correcting the forecast quantity of the first component item to be the computed outlier corrected forecast quantity for the first component item...
Responsive to a determination that the forecast quantity of a second component of the plurality of different component items is not an outlier anomaly:
Determining whether the forecast quantity of the second component item is an inlier anomaly;
Responsive to determining that the forecast quantity of the second component item is an inlier anomaly, correcting the forecast for the quantity of the second component item
Providing the corrected forecast quantity of the first component item and the corrected forecast quantity of the second component item
which is an abstract idea reasonably categorized as
Mental Processes – as each of the steps above can be performed in the human mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion).
Certain methods of organizing human activity –commercial or legal interactions (including agreements in the form of contracts; legal obligations; advertising, marketing or sales activities or behaviors; business relations).
Similarly, Claims 2, 6-7, 9, 13-14, 16, and 19-28 further recite operations that can be practically performed in the human mind and/or methods of organizing human activities and further narrow the abstract idea.
With respect to Step 2A Prong Two, the claims do not include additional elements that integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Claim 1, 8 and 15 includes various elements that are not directed to the abstract idea under Step 2A Prong One of the framework. These additional elements include computing devices in a cloud computing environment, non-transitory machine-readable medium configured to store instructions, processors, display. When considered in view of the claim as a whole, Examiner submits that the additional elements are not additional elements that integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because, these elements are generic computing elements performing generic computing functions and amount to mere instructions to apply the abstract idea on a computer under MPEP 2106.05(f).
The display fails to change the function of the display in a meaningful way that goes beyond a general link to display technology or beyond generic and routine display functions for displaying information. Because the claimed display functions are directed to the basic functions of display technology, the claims do not improve the functioning of the display and do not improve the technical field of visualization.
“Receiving a message from a client computer...” is mere data gathering/data exchange and insignificant extrasolution activities which do not provide a practical application to the abstract idea (See MPEP 2106.05(g)).
The application of each of the machine learning models generally link the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use under MPEP 2106.05(h).
As a result, Claims 1, 11, and 16 do not include additional elements that would integrate the abstract idea into a practical application under Step 2A Prong Two.
Similarly, Claims 2, 6-7, 9, 13-14, 16, 19-20, and 22-26 do not include any additional elements beyond those recited with respect to claim 1, 11, and 16. Examiner notes the Claim 21 machine learning models generally link the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use under MPEP 2106.05(h). As a result, Claims 2, 6-7, 9, 13-14, 16, and 19-28 do not include additional elements that would integrate the abstract idea into a practical application under Step 2A Prong Two for the same reasons as stated above with respect to claim 1, 11, and 16.
In Claim 21- the specific machine learning models generally link the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use under MPEP 2106.05(h).
In Claim 27 – providing an alert/warning may be considered mere data gathering/data exchange and insignificant extrasolution activities which do not provide a practical application to the abstract idea (See MPEP 2106.05(g)).
In Claim 28 – “wherein the message is received using an application programming interface (API)” is generally links the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use under MPEP 2106.05(h); In addition, “and wherein user secure access to the cloud computing environment is provided via a single sign-on through a gateway” is descriptive and the providing is occurring outside the claim.
With respect to Step 2B of the framework, the claims do not include additional elements amounting to significantly more than the abstract idea. As noted above, claim 1 includes various elements that are not directed to the abstract idea under Step 2A Prong One of the framework. These additional elements include computing devices in a cloud computing environment, non-transitory machine-readable medium configured to store instructions, processors, display. Examiner submits that the additional elements do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea because these elements are generic computing elements performing generic computing functions and amount to mere instructions to apply the abstract idea on a computer under MPEP 2106.05(f) and/or recite generic computer structure that serves to perform generic computer functions that are well-understood, routine, and conventional activities previously known to the pertinent industry.
The display fails to change the function of the display in a meaningful way that goes beyond a general link to display technology or beyond generic and routine display functions for displaying information, and does not amount to significantly more because based on case law in MPEP 2106.05(d) transmitting a display, even an updated display, is well-understood, routine and conventional activity.
“Receiving a message from a client computer...” are mere data gathering/data exchange and insignificant extrasolution activities which do not provide significantly more to the abstract idea (See MPEP 2106.05(g)); and these limitations are equivalent to receiving/transmitting data and are well-understood routine and conventional which do not provide significantly more to the abstract idea (See MPEP 2106.05(d)).
The application of the each of the machine learning models generally link the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use under MPEP 2106.05(h).
The claims do not amount to "significantly more" than the abstract idea because they neither (1) recite any improvements to another technology or technical field; (2) recite any improvements to the functioning of the computer itself; (3) apply the judicial exception with, or by use of, a particular machine; (4) effect a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing; (5) add a specific limitation other than what is well-understood, routine and conventional in the field; (6) add unconventional steps that confine the claim to a particular useful application; nor (7) provide other meaningful limitations beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment.
Further, looking at the additional elements as an ordered combination adds nothing that is not already present when looking at the additional elements individually. As a result, Claim 1, 11, and 16 do not include additional elements amounting to significantly more than the abstract idea under Step 2B.
As noted above, Claims 2, 6-7, 9, 13-14, 16, 19-20, and 22-26 do not include any additional elements beyond those recited with respect to claim 1, 11, and 16.
In Claim 21- the specific machine learning models generally link the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use under MPEP 2106.05(h).
In Claim 27 – providing an alert/warning may be considered mere data gathering/data exchange are mere data gathering/data exchange and insignificant extrasolution activities which do not provide significantly more to the abstract idea (See MPEP 2106.05(g)); and these limitations are equivalent to receiving/transmitting data and are well-understood routine and conventional which do not provide significantly more to the abstract idea (See MPEP 2106.05(d)).
In Claim 28 – “wherein the message is received using an application programming interface (API)” is generally linking the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use under MPEP 2106.05(h); In addition, “and wherein user secure access to the cloud computing environment is provided via a single sign-on through a gateway” is descriptive and the providing is occurring outside the claim.
As a result, Claims 2, 6-7, 9, 13-14, 16, and 19-28 do not include additional elements amounting to significantly more than the abstract idea under Step 2B for the same reasons as stated above with respect to claim 1, 11, and 16.
Accordingly, Claims 1-2, 6-9, 13-16, and 19-28 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 as being directed to non-statutory subject matter.
Prior Art Section
The independent claims would overcome prior art and would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the 101 rejection.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
PNG
media_image1.png
106
1310
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Scott Ross whose telephone number is (571) 270-1555. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday 8:00 AM - 5:00 PM E.S.T..
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, Rutao Wu, can be reached on (571) 272-6045. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). 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.
/Scott Ross/
Examiner - Art Unit 3623
/RUTAO WU/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3623