DETAILED ACTION
The following is a Final Office Action. In response to Examiner’s communication of 5/9/25, Applicant, on 8/11/25, amended claims 1, 2, 4, 7, and 9-15, and cancelled claims 18 and 19. Claims 1-17 are pending in this application and have been rejected as indicated below.
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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
No Information Disclosure Statement has yet been filed. As such, No Information Disclosure Statement has been considered.
Response to Amendment
Applicant’s amendments are acknowledged.
The 35 USC 101 rejections of claims 1-17 are still applied in light of Applicant’s amendments and explanations.
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 1-17 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. Here, under considerations of the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claimed invention, Examiner finds that the Applicant invented a method and system for mitigating risk in a food supply chain. Examiner formulates an abstract idea analysis, following the framework described in the MPEP, as follows:
Step 1: The claims are directed to a statutory category, namely a "method" (claims 12-17) and "system" (claims 1-11).
Step 2A - Prong 1: The claims are found to recite limitations that set forth the abstract idea(s), namely, regarding claim 1:
maintain risk data regarding a plurality of entities involved in a plurality of food supply chains;
maintain food supply chain data regarding the plurality of food supply chains, each food supply chain associated with at least one client of a plurality of clients, wherein each food supply chain comprises a plurality of stages, each stage comprising at least one entity of the plurality of entities, wherein the plurality of stages comprises an ingredient supplier stage involving at least one ingredient supplier entity of a plurality of ingredient supplier entities of the plurality of entities, and a producer stage involving at least one producer entity of a plurality of producer entities of the plurality of entities”;
collecting… food producer regulatory data for a subset of the plurality of entities comprising the plurality of producer entities corresponding to the producer stage, wherein the food producer regulatory data comprises records associated with i) a plurality of inspections;
obtaining… site information identifying, for each respective producer entity of at least a portion of the plurality of producer entities, one or more sites of the respective producer entity
organizing… the food producer regulatory data as the risk data comprising a plurality of risk data records associated with each entity of the plurality of producer entities, wherein organizing comprises, for each respective producer entity of at least a portion of the plurality of producer entities, grouping a set of risk data records of the respective producer entity by site location of two or more sites of the one or more sites of the respective producer entity,
accessing… recall data comprising information regarding a plurality of recall events, each recall event related to a given product of a plurality of recalled products and a given ingredient set,
organizing, for storage … the recall data as a plurality of recall data records, wherein the organizing comprises for each respective producer entity of at least a portion of the plurality of producer entities associating one or more recall events with the respective producer entity, and imputing, based on the respective producer entity, a corresponding industry for the one or more recall events
for the plurality of recalled products, categorizing the recall data by product analyzing the recall data records to determine, for each respective recall reason of a set of recall reasons, at least one industry benchmark value associated with the respective recall reason, wherein each industry benchmark value of the at least one industry benchmark value represents a performance standard among the portion of the plurality of producer entities,
classifying, for each entity of the plurality of producer entities, respective risk data records to obtain sets of classification data by entity wherein the plurality of risk data records are classified according to a set of risk classifications, wherein the set of risk classifications comprises a recall classification and one or more of inspection outcomes, citation types, citation severities, or outbreak frequencies and when a given entity of the plurality of producer entities has two or more sites, the plurality of risk data records are classified according to the set of risk classifications by each site of the two or more sites;
analyzing the respective risk data records of at least one site of the one or more sites of at least a portion of the plurality of producer entities to determine, for each respective risk classification of the set of risk classifications, at least one standard value associated with the respective risk classification wherein each standard value of the at least one standard value represents an industry norm among the portion of the plurality of producer entities, and for the recall classification, the at least one standard value comprises the at least one industry benchmark value,
identifying, in view of a predetermined client of the plurality of clients, i) a set of producer entities of the plurality of producer entities, and ii) a set of ingredient supplier entities of the plurality of ingredient supplier entities corresponding to one or more food supply chains of the plurality of food supply chains associated with the predetermined client
analyzing, in view of the at least one standard value associated with each risk classification of the set of risk classifications, the sets of classification data associated with each respective producer entity of the set of producer entities to calculate at least one classification score, wherein each classification score represents relative performance of the respective producer entity in view of the portion of the plurality of producer entities,
preparing… [a] report presenting a comparison in risk outcome of the set of producer entities to at least one standard outcome defined based on the at least one standard value associated with each risk classification of the set of risk classifications and a deviation from industry benchmark of the set of producer entities across the set of recall reasons.
Independent claim 12 recites substantially similar claim language covering substantially similar topics.
Dependent claims 2-11, and 13-17 recite the same or similar abstract idea(s) as independent claims 1 and 12 with merely a further narrowing of the abstract idea(s) to particular data characterization and/or additional data analyses performed as part of the abstract idea.
The limitations in claims 1-17 above falling well-within the groupings of subject matter identified by the courts as being abstract concepts, specifically the claims are found to correspond to the category of:
"Certain methods of organizing human activity- fundamental economic principles or practices (including hedging, insurance, mitigating risk); commercial or legal interactions (including agreements in the form of contracts; legal obligations; advertising, marketing or sales activities or behaviors; business relations); managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people (including social activities, teaching, and following rules or instructions)" as the limitations identified above are directed to mitigating risk in a food supply chain and thus is a method of organizing human activity including at least commercial or business interactions or relations and/or a management of user personal behavior; and/or
"Mental processes - concepts performed in the human mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgement, opinion)" as the limitations identified above include mere data observations, evaluations, judgements, and/or opinions, e.g. including user observation and evaluation comprising mitigating risk in a food supply chain, which is capable of being performed mentally and/or using pen and paper.
Step 2A - Prong 2: Claims 1-17 are found to clearly be directed to the abstract idea identified above because the claims, as a whole, fail to integrate the claimed judicial exception into a practical application, specifically the claims recite the additional elements of:
" preparing, for presentation to a user at a remote computing device, an interactive report. " (claims 1, and 12) and providing additional information for display via the dashboard (claims 9, 10, 15, and 17), however the aforementioned elements directed to the receiving of user input/selection of data to view via a dashboard and displaying corresponding data via the dashboard merely amount to generic GUI elements of a general purpose computer used to "apply" the abstract idea (MPEP 2106.05(f)) and/or is merely an attempt at limiting the abstract idea of mitigating risk in a food supply chain to a particular field of use/technological environment of a GUI dashboard (MPEP 2106.05(h)) and therefore the GUI dashboard input and display of data fails to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application;
" A system for evaluating risk in a food supply chain, the system comprising: a non-transitory computer readable entity data store … a non-transitory computer readable client data store … software logic for executing on processing circuitry and/or hardware logic configured to perform operations comprising: / collecting, from a plurality of external computing systems via a network … organizing, for storage to a non-transitory computer readable data store …" (claim 1, and 12) however the aforementioned elements merely amount to generic components of a general purpose computer used to "apply" the abstract idea (MPEP 2106.0S(f)) and thus fails to integrate the recited abstract idea into a practical application, furthermore the high-level recitation of receiving data from a generic "data store" is at most an attempt to limit the abstract to a particular field of use (MPEP 2106.0S(h), e.g.: "For instance, a data gathering step that is limited to a particular data source (such as the Internet) or a particular type of data (such as power grid data or XML tags) could be considered to be both insignificant extra-solution activity and a field of use limitation. See, e.g., Ultramercial, 772 F.3d at 716, 112 USPQ2d at 1755 (limiting use of abstract idea to the Internet); Electric Power, 830 F.3d at 1354, 119 USPQ2d at 1742 (limiting application of abstract idea to power grid data); Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Erie lndem. Co., 850 F.3d 1315, 1328-29, 121 USPQ2d 1928, 1939 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (limiting use of abstract idea to use with XML tags).") and/or merely insignificant extra-solution activity (MPE 2106.05(g)) and thus further fails to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application;
" collecting, from a plurality of external computing systems via a network" (claims 1, 12, and 19), however the receiving of data from these various sources is merely insignificant extra-solution activity, e.g. data gathering, and/or merely an attempt at limiting the abstract idea to a particular field of use and thus fails to integrate the recited abstract idea into a practical application (e.g. MPEP 2106.0S(h): "Examiners should keep in mind that this consideration overlaps with other considerations, particularly insignificant extra-solution activity (see MPEP § 2106.05{g)). For instance a data gathering step that is limited to a particular data source (such as the Internet) or a particular type of data (such as power grid data or XML tags) could be considered to be both insignificant extra-solution activity and a field of use limitation. See, e.g., Ultramercial, 772 F.3d at 716, 112 USPQ2d at 1755 (limiting use of abstract idea to the Internet); Electric Power, 830 F.3d at 1354, 119 USPQ2d at 1742 (limiting application of abstract idea to power grid data); Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Erie lndem. Co., 850 F.3d 1315, 1328-29, 121 USPQ2d 1928, 1939 (Fed. Cir. 2017} (limiting use of abstract idea to use with XML tags).");
Step 2B: Claims 1-17 do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the additional elements as described above with respect to Step 2A Prong 2 merely amount to a general purpose computer that attempts to apply the abstract idea in a technological environment (MPEP 2106.0S(f)), including merely limiting the abstract idea to a particular field of use of analysis of information stored in a "data store" and using a GUI "interactive report", as explained above, and/or performs insignificant extra-solution activity, e.g. data gathering or output, (MPEP 2106.0S(g)), as identified above, which is further found under step 2B to be merely well-understood, routine, and conventional activities as evidenced by MPEP 2106.0S(d)(II) (describing conventional activities that include transmitting and receiving data over a network, electronic recordkeeping, storing and retrieving information from memory, electronically scanning or extracting data from a physical document, and a web browser's back and forward button functionality). Therefore, similarly the combination and arrangement of the above identified additional elements when analyzed under Step 2B also fails to necessitate a conclusion that the claims amount to significantly more than the abstract idea directed to mitigating risk in a food supply chain.
Claims 1-17 are accordingly rejected under 35 USC§ 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea(s)) without significantly more.
Note: The analysis above applies to all statutory categories of invention. As such, the presentment of any claim otherwise styled as a machine or manufacture, for example, would be subject to the same analysis
For further authority and guidance, see:
MPEP § 2106
https://www.uspto.gov/patents/laws/examination-policy/subject-matter-eligibility
Subject Matter Overcoming Prior Art
Claims 1-17 are found to be provisionally allowable. The claims would be found to be allowable if they overcame the 35 USC 101 rejection.
Reasons for Overcoming the Prior Art
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of provisionally allowable subject matter:
The following limitations of claim 1,
…
a non-transitory computer readable client data store configured to maintain food supply chain data regarding the plurality of food supply chains, each food supply chain associated with at least one client of a plurality of clients, wherein each food supply chain comprises a plurality of stages, each stage comprising at least one entity of the plurality of entities,
wherein the plurality of stages comprises an ingredient supplier stage involving at least one ingredient supplier entity of a plurality of ingredient supplier entities of the plurality of entities, and a producer stage involving at least one producer entity of a plurality of producer entities of the plurality of entities; and
…
collecting, from a plurality of external computing systems via a network, food producer regulatory data for a subset of the plurality of entities comprising the plurality of producer entities corresponding to the producer stage, wherein the food producer regulatory data comprises records associated with i) a plurality of inspections, and at least one of ii) a plurality of citations or iii) a plurality of noncompliance indications,
obtaining, from an external computing system, site information identifying, for each respective producer entity of at least a portion of the plurality of producer entities, one or more sites of the respective producer entity,
organizing, for storage to the non-transitory computer readable entity data store, the food producer regulatory data as the risk data comprising a plurality of risk data records associated with each entity of the plurality of producer entities, wherein organizing comprises,
for each respective producer entity of at least a portion of the plurality of producer entities, grouping a set of risk data records of the respective producer entity by site location of two or more sites of the one or more sites of the respective producer entity,
accessing, from one or more third party data sources, recall data comprising information regarding a plurality of recall events, each recall event related to a given product of a plurality of recalled products and a given ingredient set,
…
associating one or more recall events with the respective producer entity, and imputing, based on the respective producer entity, a corresponding industry for the one or more recall events, and for the plurality of recalled products, categorizing the recall data by product,
analyzing the recall data records to determine, for each respective recall reason of a set of recall reasons, at least one industry benchmark value associated with the respective recall reason, wherein each industry benchmark value of the at least one industry benchmark value represents a performance standard among the portion of the plurality of producer entities,
classifying, for each entity of the plurality of producer entities, respective risk data records to obtain sets of classification data by entity, wherein the plurality of risk data records are classified according to a set of risk classifications, wherein the set of risk classifications comprises a recall classification and one or more of inspection outcomes, citation types, citation severities, or outbreak frequencies, and when a given entity of the plurality of producer entities has two or more sites, the plurality of risk data records are classified according to the set of risk classifications by each site of the two or more sites,
analyzing the respective risk data records of at least one site of the one or more sites of at least a portion of the plurality of producer entities to determine, for each respective risk classification of the set of risk classifications, at least one standard value associated with the respective risk classification, wherein each standard value of the at least one standard value represents an industry norm among the portion of the plurality of producer entities, and for the recall classification, the at least one standard value comprises the at least one industry benchmark value,
identifying, in view of a predetermined client of the plurality of clients, i)a set of producer entities of the plurality of producer entities, and ii) a set of ingredient supplier entities of the plurality of ingredient supplier entities corresponding to one or more food supply chains of the plurality of food supply chains associated with the predetermined client,
analyzing, in view of the at least one standard value associated with each risk classification of the set of risk classifications, the sets of classification data associated with each respective producer entity of the set of producer entities to calculate at least one classification score, wherein each classification score represents relative performance of the respective producer entity in view of the portion of the plurality of producer entities,
…
in combination with the remainder of the claim limitations are neither taught nor suggested, singularly or in combination, by the prior art of record. Furthermore, neither the prior art, the nature of the problem, nor knowledge of a person having ordinary skill in the art provides for any predictable or reasonable rationale to combine prior art teachings. Independent claim 12, and dependent claims 2-11 and 13-17 are likewise provisionally allowable.
Any comments considered necessary by applicant must be submitted no later than the payment of the issue fee and, to avoid processing delays, should preferably accompany the issue fee. Such submissions should be clearly labeled “Comments on Statement of Reasons for Allowance.”
The closest prior art of record is described as follows:
Overcash et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication Number 2021/0311011) - The abstract provides for the following: A method for scoring an aspect of a sample of a food may include obtaining spectroscopic data indicating spectroscopic characteristics of the sample; identifying the food; identifying analytes associated with the aspect of the sample based on the identity of the food; and, for each of the identified analytes, obtaining a measurement model configured to estimate an amount of the analyte present in specimens of the food based on spectroscopic characteristics of the specimens, and using the measurement model to determine an amount of the analyte in the sample based on the spectroscopic data. The method may also include determining a score for the aspect of the sample based on (1) the determined amounts of the identified analytes and (2) reference amounts of the identified analytes and/or reference values of one or more analyte expressions that include combinations of at least two of the identified analytes.
Sholl al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication Number 2004/0083201) - The abstract provides for the following: The food safety system and method of the present invention provides a comprehensive consumer risk distribution model, which can be applied to any food item. Additionally, the present invention automatically evaluates consumer risk based on how much contaminated food is at each stage of the food distribution process according to the consumer risk distribution model, allowing for quick and accurate determinations as to the efficacy of a trace recall effort. A further element of the present invention provides expert analysis of data to detect and identify food events from sporadic information. Finally, the real time detection system provides early warning data in order to intercept isolated food contamination events before the contaminated food products reach the consuming public.
Crook (U.S. Patent Application Publication Number 2010/0299323) - The abstract provides for the following: The present invention relates to a method, system and apparatus for rating risk and in particular to a system for rating public health and safety risks, including monitoring and reviewing compliance with such risks, among Suppliers in goods and services industries. The invention has been developed primarily for use as a means for food providers and consumers to review standardized results of compliance testing and risk rating in goods and services industries such as the food supply industry and to assist consumers to make informed choices about Suppliers such as food Suppliers.
Stroman et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication Number 2008/0059534) - The abstract provides for the following: This invention relates to systems and methods for managing livestock, such as cattle, from conception to consumption. More particularly, this invention relates to systems and methods in which users, such as producers, feedlot managers, packers, buyers, sellers, and consumers, are brought together through shared information and improved communication. Users may access one or more applications, tools, and/or systems to increase the value of each animal, monitor and track each animal, and improve the efficiency of their operation.
Rosa Puertas et al. “Food Supply without Risk: Multicriteria Analysis of Institutional Conditions of Exporters.” – The abstract provides for the following: International trade in food knows no borders, hence the need for prevention systems to avoid the consumption of products that are harmful to health. This paper proposes the use of multicriteria risk prevention tools that consider the socioeconomic and institutional conditions of food exporters. We propose the use of three decision-making methods—Technique for Order Preference by Similarity to the Ideal Solution (TOPSIS), Elimination et Choix Traduisant la Realité (ELECTRE), and Cross-Efficiency (CE)—to establish a ranking of countries that export cereals to the European Union, based on structural criteria related to the detection of potential associated risks (notifications, food quality, corruption, environmental sustainability in agriculture, and logistics). In addition, the analysis examines whether the wealth and institutional capacity of supplier countries influence their position in the ranking. The research was carried out biannually over the period from 2012–2016, allowing an assessment to be made of the possible stability of the markets. The results reveal that suppliers’ rankings based exclusively on aspects related to food risk differ from importers’ actual choices determined by micro/macroeconomic features (price, production volume, and economic growth). The rankings obtained by the three proposed methods are not the same, but present certain similarities, with the ability to discern countries according to their level of food risk. The proposed methodology can be applied to support sourcing strategies. In the future, food safety considerations could have increased influence in importing decisions, which would involve further difficulties for low-income countries.
Salma Khoury-Fakhri (Australia Patent Publication Number AU 2020100138 A4) - The abstract provides for the following: A system of computing devices connected to the Internet for identifying risk, wherein at least one of the computing devices is adapted to carry out a method comprises the steps of: registering a product associated with at least one data set related to at least one of; an origin, a manufacturing material, a supplier, a purchaser, a storage location, a jurisdiction and a risk score, registering a supplier with the system, such that a supply network is generated by the system based on the product and the supplier; the supply network comprises at least one origin, in which a risk is determined at an origin; and wherein the system generates a control based on the risk origin.
Response to Argument
Applicant’s arguments filed 8/11/2025 have been fully considered but they are not fully persuasive.
Applicant argues that the amended claims transform data, offers technical benefits, and solves a specific technical problem. (See Applicant’s Remarks, 8/11/2025, pgs. 13-19). Examiner disagrees with Applicant’s assertions. As described above in the 35 USC 101 rejection, the claim recites an abstract idea that is analogous to organizing human activities and utilizes technology to facilitate implementation of the abstract ideas. Each of the steps set forth by the Examiner as abstract constitute actions that could be performed by a person and are written as directions to be performed (e.g. grouping inputting, calculating, comparing, etc.). The application of a machine learning process to these abstract concepts does not rise to the level of eligibility in and of itself. Additionally, the problems solved by applying the machine learning process are solely directed towards improving the abstract idea rather than the underlying technology. Examiner can not find any improvement to technology recited in the claims. The machine learning elements as claimed are recited at a high level of generality and merely use computer technology as a tool to apply the abstract idea.. (See e.g. MPEP 2106.05(f): (1) Whether the claim recites only the idea of a solution or outcome i.e., the claim fails to recite details of how a solution to a problem is accomplished. The recitation of claim limitations that attempt to cover any solution to an identified problem with no restriction on how the result is accomplished and no description of the mechanism for accomplishing the result, does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more because this type of recitation is equivalent to the words "apply it"). Additionally, other than an output of data there is no particular application of the technology recited by the claims. There is nothing in the claims that improves the underlying technology but instead the technology is present to facilitate implementation of the abstract ideas in a particular technological environment. Accordingly, the 35 USC 101 rejection has been maintained.
Conclusion
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 extension fee 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 date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MATTHEW H. DIVELBISS whose telephone number is (571) 270-0166. The fax phone number is 571-483-7110. The examiner can normally be reached on M-Th, 7:00 - 5:00. 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, Jerry O’Connor can be reached on (571) 272-6787.
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.
/M.H.D/Examiner, Art Unit 3624
/Jerry O'Connor/Supervisory Patent Examiner,Group Art Unit 3624