DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
[1] The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Notice to Applicant
[2] This communication is in response to the amendment filed 28 November 2025. Claim 18 has been cancelled. Claims 1-17, 19, and 20 have been amended. Claims 1-17, 19, and 20 are pending.
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.
[3] Claims 1-20 (now claims 1-17, 19, and 20 as presented by amendment) is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter, specifically an abstract idea without significantly more.
The following analysis is based on the framework for determining patent subject matter eligibility under 35 U.S.C. 101 established in the decisions of the Supreme Court in Mayo Collaborative Services v. Prometheus Labs., Incorporated and Alice Corporation Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank International, et al. (See MPEP 2106 subsection III and 2106.03-2106.05). Claim(s) 1-17, 19, and 20 as a whole is/are determined to be directed to an abstract idea. The rationale for this determination is explained below:
Abstract ideas are excluded from patent eligibility based on a concern that monopolization of the basic tools of scientific and technological work might serve to impede, rather than promote, innovation. Still, inventions that integrate the building blocks of human ingenuity into something more by applying the abstract idea in a meaningful way are patent eligible (See MPEP 2106.04).
Consistent with the findings of the Supreme Court in Mayo Collaborative Services v. Prometheus Labs., Incorporated and Alice Corporation Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank International, et al. ineligible abstract ideas are defined in groups, namely: (1) Mathematical Concepts (e.g., mathematical relationships, mathematical formulas or equations, and mathematical calculations; (2) Mental Processes (e.g., concepts performed or performable in the human mind including observations, evaluations, judgements, or opinions); and (3) Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity. Groupings of Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity include three sub-categories within the group, namely: (1) fundamental economic principles or practices; (2) commercial or legal interactions (e.g., agreements in the form of contracts, legal obligations, advertising, marketing or sales activities or behaviors, and business relations); (3) managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people (e.g., social activities, teaching, and following rules or instructions) (See MPEP 2106.04(a).
Eligibility Step 1: Four Categories of Statutory Subject Matter (See MPEP 2106.03): Independent claims 1 and 19 are directed to a system and a method, respectively, and are reasonably understood to be properly directed to one of the four recognized statutory classes of invention designated by 35 U.S.C. 101; namely, a process or method, a machine or apparatus, an article of manufacture, or a composition of matter. While the claims, generally, are directed to recognized statutory classes of invention, each of method/process, system/apparatus claims, and computer-readable media/articles of manufacture are subject to additional analysis as defined by the Courts to determine whether the particularly claimed subject matter is patent-eligible with respect to these further requirements. In the case of the instant application, each of claims 1 and 19 are determined to be directed to ineligible subject matter based on the following analysis/guidance:
Eligibility Step 2A prong 1: (See MPEP 2106.04): In reference to claim 1, the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter because the claim(s) as a whole, considering all claim elements both individually and in combination, do/does not amount to significantly more than an abstract idea. The claim(s) is/are directed to the abstract idea of evaluating, determining, and directing actions related to supply logistics associated with an emergency incident/pandemic, which is reasonably considered to be method of Organizing Human Activity. In particular, the general subject matter to which the claims are directed applies an operational model to supply inventories and transportation logistics to direct and control dispatching of medical supplies in response to a pandemic, which is an ineligible concept of Organizing Human Activity, namely: commercial interactions (e.g., business relations including the supply and delivery of medical supplies); and managing interactions between people (e.g., following instructions to control the delivery of supplies among clinics and suppliers).
In support of Examiner’s conclusion, Examiner respectfully directs Applicant’s attention to the claim limitations of representative claim 19. In particular, claim 19 includes:
“…providing a supply and logistics operational model defining pandemic response actions based on the selected subset of modules…”, “…control pandemic response actions…”, and “…presenting…one or more actions to guide a user in pandemic response actions according to the generated operational model…”
Considered as an ordered combination, the steps/functions of claim 19 are reasonably considered to be representative of the inventive concept and are further reasonably understood to be series of actions or activities directed to a general process of evaluating, determining, and directing actions related to supply logistics associated with an emergency incident/pandemic, which is an ineligible concept of Organizing Human Activity, namely: commercial interactions (e.g., business relations including the supply and delivery of medical supplies); and managing interactions between people (e.g., following instructions to control the delivery of supplies among clinics and suppliers) (See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)).
Further limitations are directed to ineligible processes/functions which are performable by Human Mental Processing and/or or by a human using pen and paper (See CyberSource Corp v. Retail Decisions, Inc., 654 F.3d 1366, 1373 (Fed. Cir. 2011).
The courts have previously identified subject matter limited to the implementation of steps/processes performable by Human Mental Processing and/or by a human using pen and paper to be ineligible abstract ideas (See CyberSource Corp v. Retail Decisions, Inc., 654 F.3d 1366, 1373 (Fed. Cir. 2011). Lastly, if a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for a recitation of generic computer components, then the claim is still to be grouped as a mental process unless the limitation cannot practically be performed in the human mind (See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)).
With respect to functions/steps limited to processes performable by Human Mental Processing and/or by a human using pen and paper, representative claim 19 recites:
“…implementing the generated model…to control pandemic response actions…”
Respectfully, absent further clarification of the processing steps executed by the recited “processing unit”, “modules”, “computing apparatus” or “automated model”, one of ordinary skill in the art would readily be relied upon to select functions required for a supply plan and implement the defined supply plan in response to a specified set of needs and requirements associated with a medical emergency response using pen and paper. By extension, given said model/plan, one of ordinary skill would be capable of determining which actions to take in response to particular emergency-related event by employing by the human mental processing (See CyberSource Corp v. Retail Decisions, Inc., 654 F.3d 1366, 1373 (Fed. Cir. 2011) (“a method that can be performed by human thought alone is merely an abstract idea and is not patent eligible under 35 U.S.C 101).
As presented by amendment, the technical elements identified in claim 19 include: “processing unit”, “customization console” “computing apparatus”, “operational model”, and “user interface”. System claims 1-18 further recite: “memory unit” “ordering interface”, “analytics engine” “communications link”, “remote device” “inventory database”, “dashboard” “command interface” “data capture devices”, “data repository API interface”, “customization console” and associated “modules”. These technical elements and the recited functions constitute technical features which have been considered at each step of Examiner’s analysis but are determined to constitute generic computing structures executing generic computing functions previously identified by the courts, as further analyzed under Step 2A prong 2 and Step 2B below.
Eligibility Step 2A prong 2: (See MPEP 2106.04(d)): Under step 2A prong two, Examiners are to consider additional elements recited in the claim beyond the judicial exception and evaluate whether those additional elements integrate the exception into a practical application. Further, to be considered a recitation of an element which integrates the judicial exception into a practical application, the additional elements must apply, rely on, or use the judicial exception in a manner that imposes meaningful limits on the judicial exception, such that the claim is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception.
As presented by amendment, additional elements of claim 19 that potentially integrate the claimed ineligible subject matter into a practical application of the claimed subject matter include: “processing unit”, “customization console”, “user interface”, “computing apparatus”, “operational model”, and “user interface”. System claims 1-18 further recite: “memory unit” “ordering interface”, “analytics engine” “communications link”, “remote device” “inventory database”, “dashboard” “command interface” “data capture devices”, “data repository API interface”, “customization console” and associated “modules”. With respect to these potential additional elements:
(1) The “computing apparatus”, “processing unit”, and “memory unit” are identified as executing the model in an unspecified, general manner to perform each of the recited steps/functions.
(2) The “operational model” and “analytics engine” are identified as being executed by the “computing apparatus” and/or “processing unit” in an unspecified, general manner to perform each of the recited steps/functions.
(3) The “user interface”, “ordering interface”, “command interface”, “dashboard”, “customization console” and associated “modules”, and “data repository API interface” are identified as displaying actions and information associated with the pandemic response options, accessing stored inventory and tracking data, and enabling messaging and transmission of information via a network to direct actions and activities.
(4) The “communications link”, “remote device”, and “data capture devices” are identified as transmitting tracking data and messages among devices via a network.
(5) The “inventory database” is identified as storing an inventory of pandemic goods.
(6) As presented by amendment, the claimed processing unit is identified as providing the “…customisation console on the user interface…”. The customization console is further identified as “…presenting a plurality of selectable predefined modules, each module corresponding to a component of a supply and logistics operational model…” and “…receiving customization inputs via the customisation console, wherein the customisation inputs comprise a selection of a subset of the plurality of selectable predefined modules…”. The processing unit is further identified as “…generating the model based on the selected subset of modules. The actions presented on the user interface are further identified as being according to the generated model.
With respect to the elements added by amendment, absent further clarification of any functions performed by the recited “processing unit”, “customization console”, “user interface”, or “modules”, the recited functions are reasonably understood to constitute a generic display of supply and logistics functions/modules that are displayed to a user for the purpose of deciding which functions may be relevant to a given supply and logistics scenario. Accordingly, the recited functions are reasonably understood to be limited or performable using a generic display of information and applying human mental processing to decide and choose functions deemed relevant to a particular supply scenario.
With respect to the above noted functions attributable to the identified additional elements, MPEP 2106.05 stipulates that: 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); and/or Generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use – see MPEP 2106.05(h) serve as indications that the use of the technology recited does not indicate integration into a practical application of the judicial exception.
Each of the above noted limitations states a result (e.g., steps/activities available for a supply model are displayed and selected, a model is provided/generated based on the selected activities, actions are presented, inventories are accessed, supplies are dispatched/transported, a model/plan is implemented etc.) as associated with a respective “processing unit”, “memory unit”, “console”, “modules”, “ordering interface”, “analytics engine” “communications link”, “remote device” “inventory database”, “dashboard” “command interface” “data capture devices”, “data repository API interface”. Beyond the general statement that recited technical elements are associated with or facilitate the (1) organization of actions/functions for a supply model and implementation of the model; (2) presentation of data, information, or actions; (3) accessing of stored inventory information; and (4) gathering data the limitations provide no further clarification with respect to the functions performed by the ““computing apparatus”, “operational model”, and “user interface(s)” in producing the claimed result. A recitation of “by a processor” or “by a computing apparatus”, absent clarification of particular processing steps executed by the underlying technology to produce the result are reasonably understood to be an equivalent of “apply it”. The identified functions performed by the recited technology are limited to: (1) receiving and sending data via a computer network (e.g., placing and receiving orders for goods, communicating commands to dispatch or deliver goods, transmitting data for presentation); (2) storing and retrieving information and data from a generic computer memory (e.g., inventory and tracking data); (3) displaying specified information on a generic computer display; and (4) performing repetitive calculations and/or mental observations using the obtaining information/data (e.g., implementing a defined model) (See MPEP 2106.05(f)).
Accordingly, claim 19 is reasonably understood to be conducting standard, and formally manually performed process of evaluating, determining, and directing actions related to supply logistics associated with an emergency incident/pandemic using the generic devices as tools to perform the abstract idea. The identified functions of the recited additional elements reasonably constitute a general linking of the abstract idea to a generic technological environment. The claimed evaluating, determining, and directing actions related to supply logistics associated with an emergency incident/pandemic benefit from the inherent efficiencies gained by data transmission, data storage, and information display capacities of generic computing devices, but fails to present an additional element(s) which practical integrates the judicial exception into a practical application of the judicial exception.
Eligibility Step 2B: (See MPEP 2106.05): Analysis under step 2B is further subject to the Revised Examination Procedure responsive to the Subject Matter Eligibility Decision in Berkheimer v. HP, Inc. issued by the United States Patent and Trademark Office (19 April 2018). Examiner respectfully submits that the recited uses of the underlying computer technology constitute well-known, routine, and conventional uses of generic computers operating in a network environment. In support of Examiner’s conclusion that the recited functions/role of the computer as presented in the present form of the claims constitutes known and conventional uses of generic computing technology, Examiner provides the following:
In reference to the Specification as originally filed, Examiner notes pages 13-16. In the noted disclosure, the Specification provides listings of generic computing systems, e.g., a general computing platform including exemplary servers, network configurations and various processor configuration which are identified as capable and interchangeable for performing the disclosed processes. The disclosure does not identify any particular modifications to the underlying hardware elements required to perform the inventive methods and functions. Accordingly, it is reasonably understood that this disclosure indicates that the hardware elements and network configurations suitable for performing the inventive methods are limited to commercially available systems at the time of the invention. Absent further clarification, it is reasonably understood that any modifications/improvements to the underlying technology attributable to the inventive method/system are limited to improvements realized by the disclosed computer-executable routines and the associated processes performed.
While the above noted disclosure serves to provide sufficient explanation of technical elements required to perform the inventive method using available computing technology, the disclosure does not appear to identify any particular modifications or inventive configurations of the underlying hardware elements required to perform the inventive methods and functions. Accordingly, it is reasonably understood that the disclosure indicates that the hardware elements and network configurations suitable for performing the inventive methods are limited to commercially available systems at the time of the invention. Further, absent further clarification, it is reasonably understood that any modifications/improvements to the underlying technology attributable to the inventive method/system are limited to improvements realized by the disclosed computer-executable routines and the associated processes performed.
The claims specify that the above identified generic computing structures and associated functions/routines include:
(1) The “computing apparatus”, “processing unit”, and “memory unit” are identified as executing the model in an unspecified, general manner to perform each of the recited steps/functions.
(2) The “operational model” and “analytics engine” are identified as being executed by the “computing apparatus” and/or “processing unit” in an unspecified, general manner to perform each of the recited steps/functions.
(3) The “user interface”, “ordering interface”, “command interface”, “dashboard”, “customization console” and associated “modules”, and “data repository API interface” are identified as displaying actions and information associated with the pandemic response options, accessing stored inventory and tracking data, and enabling messaging and transmission of information via a network to direct actions and activities.
(4) The “communications link”, “remote device”, and “data capture devices” are identified as transmitting tracking data and messages among devices via a network.
(5) The “inventory database” is identified as storing an inventory of pandemic goods.
(6) As presented by amendment, the claimed processing unit is identified as providing the “…customisation console on the user interface…”. The customization console is further identified as “…presenting a plurality of selectable predefined modules, each module corresponding to a component of a supply and logistics operational model…” and “…receiving customization inputs via the customisation console, wherein the customisation inputs comprise a selection of a subset of the plurality of selectable predefined modules…”. The processing unit is further identified as “…generating the model based on the selected subset of modules. The actions presented on the user interface are further identified as being according to the generated model.
With respect to the elements added by amendment, absent further clarification of any functions performed by the recited “processing unit”, “customization console”, “user interface”, or “modules”, the recited functions are reasonably understood to constitute a generic display of supply and logistics functions/modules that are displayed to a user for the purpose of deciding which functions may be relevant to a given supply and logistics scenario. Accordingly, the recited functions are reasonably understood to be limited or performable using a generic display of information and applying human mental processing to decide and choose functions deemed relevant to a particular supply scenario.
While Examiner acknowledges that the noted limitations are computer-implemented, Examiner respectfully submits that, in aggregate (e.g., “as a whole”) they do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea/ineligible subject matter to which the claimed invention is primarily directed.
While utilizing a computer, the claimed invention is not rooted in computer technology nor does it improve the performance of the underlying computer technology. The computer-implemented features of the claimed invention noted above are reasonably limited to: (1) receiving and sending data via a computer network (e.g., placing and receiving orders for goods, communicating commands to dispatch or deliver goods, transmitting data for presentation); (2) storing and retrieving information and data from a generic computer memory (e.g., inventory and tracking data); (3) displaying specified information on a generic computer display (e.g., actions/models of a supply model and actions to be performed) and (4) performing repetitive calculations and/or mental observations using the obtaining information/data (e.g., selecting activities/functions for a supply model and implementing a defined model).
The above listed computer-implemented functions are distinguished from the generic data storage, retrieval, transmission, and data manipulation/processing capacities of the generic systems identified in the Specification solely by the recited identification of particular data elements that are of utility to a user performing the specific method of evaluating, determining, and directing actions related to supply logistics associated with an emergency incident/pandemic. In summary, the computer of the instant invention is facilitating non-technical aims, i.e., evaluating, determining, and directing actions related to supply logistics associated with an emergency incident/pandemic, because it has been programmed to store, retrieve, and transmit specific data elements and/or instructions that is/are of utility to the user. The non-technical functions of evaluating, determining, and directing actions related to supply logistics associated with an emergency incident/pandemic benefit from the use of computer technology, but fail to improve the underlying technology.
In support, the courts have previously found that utilization of a computer to receive or transmit data and communications over a network and/or employing generic computer memory and processor capacities store and retrieve information from a computer memory are insufficient computer-implemented functions to establish that an otherwise unpatentable judicial exception (e.g. abstract idea) is patent eligible. With respect to the determinations of the Courts regarding using a computer for sending and receiving data or information over a computer network and storing and retrieving information from computer memory, see at least: receiving or transmitting data over a network, e.g., using the Internet to gather data, Symantec, 838 F.3d at 1321, 120 USPQ2d at 1362; sending messages over a network OIP Techs., Inc., v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363, 115 USPQ2d 1090, 1093 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (sending messages over a network); receiving and sending information over a network buySAFE, Inc. v. Google, Inc., 765 F.3d 1350, 1355, 112 USPQ2d 1093, 1096 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (computer receives and sends information over a network); storing and retrieving information in memory, Versata Dev. Group, Inc. v. SAP Am., Inc., 793 F.3d 1306, 1334, 115 USPQ2d 1681, 1701 (Fed. Cir. 2015); OIP Techs., 788 F.3d at 1363, 115 USPQ2d at 1092-93 and see performing repetitive calculations, Flook, 437 U.S. at 594, 198 USPQ2d at 199; and Bancorp Services v. Sun Life, 687 F.3d 1266, 1278, 103 USPQ2d 1425, 1433 (Fed. Cir. 2012) with respect to the performance of repetitive calculations does not impose meaningful limits on the scope of the claims.
Independent claim 1 is directed to an apparatus/system for performing the method steps are rejected for substantially the same reasons, in that the generically recited computer components in the apparatus/system and computer readable media claims add nothing of substance to the underlying abstract idea.
Dependent claims 2-17 and 20, when analyzed as a whole are held to be ineligible subject matter and are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the additional recited limitation(s) fail(s) to establish that the claimed invention is not directed to an abstract idea.
For further guidance and authority, see Alice Corporation Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank International, et al. 573 U.S.____ (2014)) (See MPEP 2106).
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.
[4] Claim(s) 1-20 (now claims 1-17, 19, and 20 as presented by amendment) is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gupta et al. (United States Patent Application Publication No. 2020/0294680 hereinafter ‘Gupta’) in view of Wohlstadter et al. (United States Patent Application Publication No. 2021/0407692 hereinafter ‘Wohlstadter’) and further in view of Katz et al. (United States Patent Application Publication No. 2020/0135005 hereinafter ‘Katz’).
With respect to (currently amended) claim 1, Gupta discloses a supply and logistics modelling system for pandemic response comprising: a computing apparatus comprising a processing unit and a memory unit, the processing unit arranged in communication with the memory unit, a user interface operatively coupled to the processing unit (Gupta et al.; paragraphs [0041] [0089] [0098]; See at least processor, memory, interface/display, and response engine/analytic engine), the user interface configured to receive inputs from a user and present information to the user (Gupta et al.; paragraphs [0072]-[0076] [0096] [0098]; See at least inputs including patient data and resource data. See interface and query of data via the interface), the processing unit providing supply and logistics operational model defining pandemic response actions (Gupta et al.; paragraphs [0070] [0072-[0076]; See at least model outputs and associated triggering of resource allocations/procurement), the user interface presenting one or more actions to guide a user in pandemic response actions, and wherein the model is an automated model (Gupta et al.; paragraphs [0044] [0048] [0075]-[0076] [0098] Figs 3 and 4; See at least interface and model outputs including triggering resource allocations to specified locations).
With respect to presenting response actions on the interface, while Gupta discloses an interface and display to view model outputs including a map interface which is identified as a tool to assist in allocating available resources to hot spot regions/locations (i.e., information to direct actions displayed on an interface), Gupta fails to state that response actions are displayed on the interface.
However, as evidenced by Wohlstadter, it is well-known in the art to provide a central control interface/system utilizing presenting subsets of modules to enable the user to implement functions including tracking lab samples and results, allocating supplies and materials including shipping materials to designated locations as determined by an analytical model (Wohlstadter et al.; paragraphs [0047] [0069] [0086] [0114]; See at least mission control subsystem and graphical interfaces. See further functions including tracking samples and results and allocation of resources including tasks of routing and shipping supplies, e.g., response actions displayed on the interface). Therefore, Gupta in view of Wohlstadter render obvious at least the user interface presenting one or more actions to guide a user in pandemic response actions, and wherein the model is an automated model.
Claim 1 has been amended to further include: “…the processing unit configured to generate a customisation console on the user interface, the customisation console presenting a plurality of selectable predefined modules, each module corresponding to a component of a supply and logistics operational model…” and “…the processing unit configured to receive customisation inputs via the customisation console, wherein the customisation inputs comprise a selection of a subset of the plurality of selectable predefined modules…”.
Claim 1 has been further amended to that the previously recited model provision of the supply and logistics model and guidance of user actions is “…based on the selected subset of modules…” and the actions are “…according to the generated operational model…”.
With respect to these elements, while Gupta discloses a predictive model including a map interface and display to view model outputs including a map interface which is identified as a tool to assist in allocating available resources to hot spot regions/locations (i.e., information to direct actions displayed on an interface), Gupta fails to state that model and associated functions provided via the interface include customizable components or modules displayed on the interface.
While Wohlstadter disclose a mission control subsystem which includes a dashboard and functional modules for implementing surveillance and response functions (Wohlstadter et al.; paragraphs [0047] [0086]-[0087] [0103]; See at least functional modules presented on the interface as a function of user inputs and selections), Wohlstadter fails to specify that a response model is generated and implements based on selections of modules.
However, as evidenced by Katz, it is well-known in the emergency response field to provide a digital interactive environment including function modules or building block presented within a console from which modules/blocks can be selected to define an emergency response flow (Katz et al.; paragraphs [0015] [0070]-[0072] [0097] [0119]-[0124] [0142]; See at least emergency console and selectable functional modules and building block to define a customized emergency response flow/functions. See further selection of modules and blocks to define emergency flow as a logic/decision tree).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to have modified the map interface and associated information to direct user actions including resource allocations to designated locations as taught by Gupta by further including presenting available supply tracking and allocation actions in the form of user selectable/customizable software modules presented on a centralized control interface as taught by Wohlstadter. The instant invention is directed to a system and method of modelling and implementing a response to a pandemic. As Gupta disclose the use of a map interface and associated information to direct user actions including resource allocations to designated locations in the context of a system and method for modelling and implementing a response to a pandemic and Wohlstadter similarly discloses the utility presenting available supply tracking and allocation actions in the form of user selectable/customizable software modules presented on a centralized control interface in the context of a system and method for modelling and implementing a response to a pandemic, the teachings are reasonably considered to have been derived from analogous references and applied in the manner disclosed by the respective references. Accordingly, one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make the noted combination/modification as rationalized by combining prior art elements accordingly to known methods to yield the predictable results of improving global bio-surveillance and response solutions by providing a centralized infrastructure from which to rapidly identify emerging biological threats and coordinate more rapid and effective responses for governments, companies, and institutions tasked with ramping up responses to potentially crippling global pandemics (Wohlstadter et al.; paragraph [0004].
Regarding the combination that further includes Katz, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to have modified the map interface and associated information to direct user actions including resource allocations to designated locations as taught by Gupta by further including selectable/customizable modules/building blocks presented on a centralized control interface enabling generation of a specified emergency response flow and associated decision/logic tree as taught by Katz. The instant invention is directed to a system and method of modelling and implementing a response to a pandemic. As Gupta disclose the use of a map interface and associated information to direct user actions including resource allocations to designated locations in the context of a system and method for modelling and implementing a response to a pandemic and Katz similarly discloses the utility of selectable/customizable modules/building blocks presented on a centralized control interface enabling generation of a specified emergency response flow and associated decision/logic tree in the context of a system and method for modelling and implementing a response to a pandemic, the teachings are reasonably considered to have been derived from analogous references and applied in the manner disclosed by the respective references. Accordingly, one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make the noted combination/modification as rationalized by combining prior art elements accordingly to known methods to yield the predictable results of improving the efficiency of an emergency flow by enabling a user to customize flows and functions thereby providing an adaptive response flow and minimizing redundant of superfluous functions that are not relevant to a particular set of circumstances.
With respect to 2, while Gupta discloses a predictive model including a map interface and display to view model outputs including a map interface which is identified as a tool to assist in allocating available resources to hot spot regions/locations (i.e., information to direct actions displayed on an interface), Gupta fails to state that model and associated functions provided via the interface include customizable components or modules displayed on the interface.
However, as evidenced by Wohlstadter, it is well-known in the art to enable users to selectively access or customize functions provided via a central response interface to implement specified functions such as monitoring and tracking inventory supplies and shipping (Wohlstadter et al.; paragraphs [0047] [0086]-[0087] [0103]; See at least functional modules presented on the interface as a function of user inputs and selections). Wohlstadter discloses at least a supply and logistics modelling system for pandemic response wherein the model or parts of the model are customisable by a user, the user interface configured to receive customisation inputs, and the processing unit configured to update the model or parts of the model according to the customisation inputs, wherein the custom model providing custom pandemic response actions (Wohlstadter et al.; paragraphs [0047] [0086]-[0087] [0103]; See at least functional modules presented on the interface as a function of user inputs and selections).
Regarding claim 2 and the combination that includes Wohlstadter, the conclusions of obviousness and rationale to modify as established for claim 1 above are applicable to claim 2 and are hereby incorporated by reference.
With respect to claim 3, while Gupta discloses an interface and display to view model outputs including a map interface which is identified as a tool to assist in allocating available resources to hot spot regions/locations (i.e., information to direct actions displayed on an interface), Gupta fails to state that response actions are displayed on the interface.
However, Wohlstadter discloses, a supply and logistics modelling system wherein the pandemic response actions correspond to actions required to distribute pandemic goods to one or more operational sites and/or providing one or more public members at the one or more operational sites with the pandemic goods. (Wohlstadter et al.; paragraphs [0047] [0069] [0086] [0114]; See at least mission control subsystem and graphical interfaces. See further functions including tracking samples and results and allocation of resources including tasks of routing and shipping supplies, e.g., response actions displayed on the interface).
Regarding claim 3 and the combination that includes Wohlstadter, the conclusions of obviousness and rationale to modify as established for claim 1 above are applicable to claim 3 and are hereby incorporated by reference.
With respect to claim 4, while Gupta discloses a predictive model including a map interface and display to view model outputs including a map interface which is identified as a tool to assist in allocating available resources to hot spot regions/locations (i.e., information to direct actions displayed on an interface), Gupta fails to state that model and associated functions provided via the interface include customizable components or modules displayed on the interface.
However, Wohlstadter discloses a supply and logistics modelling system wherein the system comprising a plurality of components defining the operation model, the components comprising: an ordering interface presented on the user interface, the ordering interface configured to receive orders for pandemic goods from one or more users, a dispatch controller configured to control dispatch and distribution of the pandemic goods, a site operation module configured to track one or more operational tasks associated with one or more sites providing a pandemic goods, an analytics engine configured to generate data related to the pandemic response actions (Wohlstadter et al.; paragraphs [0087] [0094] [0098] [0113]; See at least analytics, inventory module, ordering and order tracking module, and site monitoring by load balancing module).
Regarding claim 4 and the combination that includes Wohlstadter, the conclusions of obviousness and rationale to modify as established for claim 1 above are applicable to claim 4 and are hereby incorporated by reference.
With respect to claim 5, Gupta discloses a system wherein the user interface is configured to present the data related to pandemic response actions (Gupta et al.; paragraphs [0044] [0048] [0075]-[0076] [0098] Figs 3 and 4; See at least interface and model outputs including triggering resource allocations to specified locations).
With respect to claim 6, Gupta discloses a system wherein the analytics engine is configured to generate data related to at least one of: the ordering of pandemic goods, or dispatch and distribution of pandemic goods, or operational tasks (Gupta et al.; paragraphs [0044] [0048] [0075]-[0076] [0098] Figs 3 and 4; See at least interface and model outputs including triggering resource allocations to specified locations).
With respect to claim 7, Gupta discloses a system further comprising: a communications link operatively coupled to the processing unit, the communications link configured to transmit data or one or other messages to a remote device or remote system (Gupta et al.; paragraphs [0034] [0041] [0057]; See at least devices and communications).
With respect to claim 8, while Gupta discloses a predictive model including a map interface and display to view model outputs including a map interface which is identified as a tool to assist in allocating available resources to hot spot regions/locations (i.e., information to direct actions displayed on an interface), Gupta fails to state that model and associated functions provided via the interface include customizable components or modules displayed on the interface.
However, Wohlstadter discloses a system wherein the ordering interface comprising: a web ordering interface presented on the user interface to receive orders for pandemic goods from one or more users, an inventory database storing current inventory levels of pandemic goods, a resource planning module configured to assess orders and allocate pandemic goods to the one or more users based on the amount of inventory in the inventory database and the order amount (Wohlstadter et al.; paragraphs [0087] [0094] [0098] [0113]; See at least analytics, inventory module, ordering and order tracking module, and site monitoring by load balancing module).
Regarding claim 8 and the combination that includes Wohlstadter, the conclusions of obviousness and rationale to modify as established for claim 1 above are applicable to claim 8 and are hereby incorporated by reference.
With respect to claims 9-12, while Gupta discloses inventory monitoring and directed resource procurement and allocation functions via an interface display, Gupta fails to state that a specified management module is engaged to inventory monitoring, ordering functions, and routing or transportation planning. While Gupta discloses an interface display, Gupta fails to specify that a dashboard is used to monitor site-specific functions including ordering and reporting.
With respect to claim 9, Wohlstadter discloses a system wherein the ordering interface further comprising: a program management module configured to assess the amount of pandemic goods available in the inventory, determine one or more order parameters and assign the amount of pandemic goods that can be provided to each user that has placed an order (Wohlstadter et al.; paragraphs [0080] [0095] [0113]; See at least inventory an ordering functions by site/location).
With respect to claim 10, Wohlstadter discloses a system wherein the dispatch controller comprises: a transport planning engine configured to calculate transportation routes to the users and payload details, a transport interface configured to communicate, via the communications link, to the various transport providers the transportation routes and payload details (Wohlstadter et al.; paragraphs [0086] [0100]; See at least shipping and routing of orders).
With respect to claim 11, Wohlstadter discloses a system wherein the site operation module defines a standardised process for each site for provision of pandemic goods, the site operation module further comprising a dashboard system for tracking pandemic good stock, issuance of pandemic goods and wastage (Wohlstadter et al.; paragraphs [0047] [0086] [0107]; See at least dashboard and monitoring or orders and provisioning of materials to sites).
With respect to claim 12, Wohlstadter discloses a system wherein the dashboard is presented on the user interface and/or the dashboard is presented on a remote user interface associated with the site operator (Wohlstadter et al.; paragraphs [0047] [0086] [0107]; See at least dashboard and monitoring or orders and provisioning of materials to sites).
Regarding claims 9-12 and the combination that includes Wohlstadter, the conclusions of obviousness and rationale to modify as established for claim 1 above are applicable to claims 9-12 and are hereby incorporated by reference.
With respect to 13, Gupta fails to disclose that the interface includes functions to transmit data to governing entities.
However, Wohlstadter discloses a central command interface configured to link to one or more governing entities, and the central command interface configured to transmit the data from the analytics engine to the governing entities (Wohlstadter et al.; paragraphs [0071] [0077] [0082]; See at least data sharing with regulatory agencies).
Regarding claim 13 and the combination that includes Wohlstadter, the conclusions of obviousness and rationale to modify as established for claim 1 above are applicable to claim 13 and are hereby incorporated by reference.
With respect to claim 14 and 15, while Gupta discloses data collcction devices, Gupta fails to disclose that the data collection communicates tracking data.
With respect to claim 14, Wohlstadter discloses a system wherein the system further comprising: one or more data capture devices configured to generate tracking data related to provision and receipt of pandemic goods to the public members, wherein the data capture devices are hardware devices, the data capture devices configured to communicate with the system via the communications link in the system, the system receiving the tracking data, storing the tracking data and processing the tracking data (Wohlstadter et al.; paragraphs [0086] [0099]-[0100]; See at least data and test result tracking by site/location).
With respect to claim 15, Wohlstadter discloses a system wherein the analytics engine is configured to process the tracking data and generate additional metrics (Wohlstadter et al.; paragraphs [0086] [0099]-[0100]; See at least data and test result tracking by site/location).
Regarding claims 14-15 and the combination that includes Wohlstadter, the conclusions of obviousness and rationale to modify as established for claim 1 above are applicable to claims 14-15 and are hereby incorporated by reference.
With respect to claim 16, Gupta discloses a system wherein the system further comprising: a data repository storing the data from the analytics engine, a data repository API interface configured to allow one or more remote parties to remotely access the data in the data repository to assess performance of the model in provision of pandemic goods (Gupta et al.; paragraphs [0081]-[0084] [0098]; See at least model analytics/outputs accessible via an API).
With respect to (currently amended) claim 17, as noted above, Gupta fails to disclose selectable modeuls defining a plan and further fails to disclos a decision tree structure for the operational model.
However, Katz discloses a modelling system wherein the plurality of selectable predefined modules are presented within the customization console in a decision tree structure comprising mandatory modules and optional modules (Katz et al.; paragraphs [0097] [0119]-[0124] [0142]; See at least emergency console and selectable functional modules and building block to define a customized emergency response flow/functions. See further selection of modules and blocks to define emergency flow as a logic/decision tree).
Claim 18 is cancelled.
Regarding claims 17 and the combination that includes Katz, the conclusions of obviousness and rationale to modify as established for claims 17 above are applicable to claim 1 and are hereby incorporated by reference.
Claims 19-20 substantially repeat the subject matter addressed above with respect to claims 1-17 as directed to performed method/process. With respect to these elements, Gupta discloses performance of the method/process steps employing the enabling systems and executable instructions. Accordingly, claims 19-20 are rejected under the applied teachings, conclusions obviousness, and rationale to modify as discussed above with respect to claims 1-17.
Response to Remarks/Amendment
[5] Applicant's remarks filed 28 November 2025 have been fully considered and are addressed as follows:
[i] Applicant’s remarks in response to previous rejection(s) of claim(s) 1-20 (now claims 1-17, 19, and 20 as presented by amendment) under 35 U.S.C. 101 as being directed to non-statutory subject matter as set forth in the previous Office Action mailed 27 August 2025 are reasonably considered to have been fully addressed in the context of the revised rejection of the claims presented above responsive to the amendments to the subject claims and in consideration of the framework for determining patent subject matter eligibility under 35 U.S.C. 101 established in the decisions of the Supreme Court in Mayo Collaborative Services v. Prometheus Labs., Incorporated and Alice Corporation Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank International, et al. (See MPEP 2106 subsection III and 2106.03-2106.05).
[ii] Applicant’s remarks directed to previous rejection(s) of claim(s) 1-20 (now claims 1-17, 19, and 20 as presented by amendment) under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable as set forth in the previous Office Action mailed 27 August 2025 have been fully considered and are moot in light of newly added grounds of rejection responsive to the amendments to the subject claims. See revised rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 presented above.
Conclusion
[6] 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.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ROBERT D RINES whose telephone number is (571)272-5585. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9am - 5pm.
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, Beth V Boswell can be reached at 571-272-6737. 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.
/ROBERT D RINES/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3625