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. A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 10/15/2025 has been entered.
3. The following is a non-Final Office Action. In response to Examiner’s Final Action of 04/16/2025, Applicant amended Claims 1, 7, 8, 14 and 15; Claims 2-6, 9-13 and 16-20 are as originally or previously presented.
Claims 1-20 are pending in this application and have been rejected below.
Information Disclosure Statement
4. The information disclosure statement(s) (IDS) submitted on 10/15/2025 is/are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement(s) is/are being considered by the examiner.
Response to Amendment
5. Applicant’s amendments and arguments are acknowledged.
6. The prior 35 USC §101 rejection of Claims maintained despite Applicant's amendments and arguments.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
7. 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.
8. Claims 1-20 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because, although they are drawn to statutory categories of method (process), medium (manufacture) or system (machine), they are also directed to a judicial exception (an abstract idea) without significantly more.
9. At Step 2A Prong One of the subject matter eligibility analysis, Claim 1 recites A method for supply chain resiliency visualization, the method comprising: causing .. to be presented to a user .. a first .. geospatial map image showing a first geographical region associated with a first level of geographic granularity; receiving a first user input from the user .., the first user input indicating a target resource and a second geographical region associated with a second level of geographic granularity higher than the first level of geographic granularity; obtaining a public global resource flow dataset associated with the first level of geographic granularity and indicative of flows of the target resource within the first geographical region; generating a local resource flow dataset associated with the second level of geographic granularity and indicative of flows of the target resource within the second geographical region by statistically downscaling the global resource flow dataset, wherein statistically downscaling the global resource flow dataset comprises: identifying a regressor for the target resource; determining a disaggregation factor based on the regressor; and statistically downscaling the global resource flow dataset using the disaggregation factor determined based on the regressor; determining, based on the global resource flow dataset and the local resource flow dataset, a set of flow paths indicating flow of the target resource into the second geographical region, each flow path in the set of flow paths associated with a set of geospatial coordinates; determining a magnitude of flow of the target resource into the second geographical region associated with each flow path in the set of flow paths; providing the magnitude of flow of the target resource into the second geographical region associated with each flow path in the set of flow paths as input to an entropy-based economic diversity function; determining a resiliency level associated with the target resource with respect to the second geographical region based on an output of the entropy-based economic diversity function; determining a color for the set of flow paths based on the resiliency level; determining a width for each flow path in the set of flow paths based on a magnitude of flow of the target resource into the second geographical region associated with each flow path in the set of flow paths; generating a second .. image showing the second geographical region and the set of flow paths by replacing .. in the first .. geospatial map image in accordance with the color for the set of flow paths and the width for each flow path in the set of flow paths; and causing .. to display the second .. geospatial map image to the user ..; receiving a second user input ..; and adapting the second .. geospatial map image displayed, which is an abstract idea of Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity, including fundamental economic principles or practices (including hedging, insurance, mitigating risk), because deriving a resiliency level of a supply chain is a business activity for mitigating risk; it is also an abstract idea of Mental Processes - concepts performed in the human mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion), because generating a local resource flow dataset within a geographical region by statistically downscaling the global resource flow dataset, determining a color for a set of flow paths based on the resiliency level and determining a width for each flow path based on a magnitude of flow of the target resource is a process that, under broadest reasonable interpretation, can be performed in the mind, because it involves observation, evaluation, judgment or opinion. Claims 8 and 15 recite a similar abstract idea.
At Step 2A Prong Two of the analysis, the judicial exception (abstract idea) is not integrated into a practical application because the independent Claims, including additional elements such as computer-implemented, a user interface, a user device, interactive, via the user device based on an interaction between the user and the first interactive geospatial map image via the user interface, pixels, one or more processors, one or more non-transitory computer readable storage media, individually, and in combination, when viewed as a whole, are not an improvement to a computer or a technology, the claims do not apply the judicial exception with a particular machine, and the claims do not effect a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing. Generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use, as in the instant claims, is not indicative of integration into a practical application - see MPEP 2106.05(h); 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 using a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea, as in the instant claims, is also not indicative of integration into a practical application - see MPEP 2106.05(f).
At Step 2B of the analysis, the independent Claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception (abstract idea), because these additional elements such as those listed above, individually or in combination, do not recite anything that is beyond conventional and routine activity or use of computers (as evidenced by Figures 1A, 1B of the Drawings and paragraphs 36, 38, 39 of the Specification in the instant Application and court decisions such as buySAFE, Inc. v. Google, Inc., 765 F.3d 1350, 1355, 112 USPQ2d 1093, 1096 (Fed. Cir. 2014) discussed at 2106.05(d) of the MPEP), do not effect a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing, nor do they apply the judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular field of use or technological environment. 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 using a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea (see MPEP 2106.05(f)), or generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use (see MPEP 2106.05(h)), as in the instant claims, is not indicative of an inventive concept ("significantly more").
At Step 2A Prong One, dependent Claims 2-7, 9-14 and 16-20 incorporate (and therefore recite) the abstract idea noted in the independent claims and further recite extensions of that abstract idea.
At Step 2A Prong Two, dependent Claims 2-7, 9-14 and 16-20 do not include any additional elements beyond those included in the list above with respect to the independent Claims from which they depend. These dependent Claims therefore do not integrate the judicial exception (abstract idea) into a practical application for the same reasons as stated above at Step 2A Prong Two for the independent Claims.
At Step 2B, dependent Claims 2-7, 9-14 and 16-20 do not include any additional elements beyond those included in the list above with respect to the independent Claims from which they depend. These dependent Claims therefore do not recite anything that is sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception for the same reasons as stated above at Step 2B for the independent Claims.
Therefore, Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 as being directed to non-eligible subject matter. See Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank International, 573__ U.S. 2014.
Response to Arguments
10. Applicant's arguments filed 10/15/2025 have been fully considered but they are found not persuasive with regard to the 35 U.S.C. 101 rejection.
11. Applicant argues (at pp. 13-15) that “The combined order of specific rules recited in Applicant's claim 1 improves existing technological processes for supply chain visualization” by analogy with McRo.
Examiner respectfully disagrees. As explained in detail at paragraph 9 above in this office action, considering the claims as a whole, the additional elements (for example an interactive user interface) merely act as tools for implementing the abstract idea at Step 2A Prong Two and do not provide an inventive concept at Step 2B of the analysis; they are not an improvement to a computer or a technology (see MPEP 2106.05(a), 2106.05(f)), and the claims are therefore ineligible for patent under 35 U.S.C. 101.
As noted in the USPTO Memorandum issued on 2nd November 2016 relating to McRo: "An "improvement in computer-related technology" is not limited to improvements in the operation of a computer or a computer network per se, but may also be claimed as a set of "rules" (basically mathematical relationships) that improve computer-related technology by allowing computer performance of a function not previously performable by a computer". Unlike McRo, the novelty in the instant claims lies in the combination of steps in the abstract idea, not in an improvement to the technology that allows “computer performance of a function not previously performable by a computer”.
Conclusion
12. The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant’s disclosure.
Fugitt et al. (US Patent Publication 20070245238 A1) describes a method and system for displaying a timeline and overlays with the linked visualizations.
Borgerson et al. (US Patent Publication 20180060808 A1) describes a system for acquisition, analysis, inference and presentation of global commodity flow data.
13. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SARJIT S BAINS whose telephone number is (571)270-0317. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9:30am-6:00pm.
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, Wu Rutao 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 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.
/SARJIT S BAINS/Examiner, Art Unit 3623 /RUTAO WU/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3623