DETAILED ACTION
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on October 22, 2025, has been entered.
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (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.
Response to Amendment
Applicant’s amendment and remarks filed October 22, 2025, are responsive to the office action mailed June 18, 2025. Claims 1, 3-5, 8-11, and 13-27, were previously pending and claims 1, 3-5, 8-11 and 13-27, have been amended. Claims 1, 3-5, 8-11, and 13-27, are therefore currently pending and considered in this office action.
Pertaining to rejection under 35 USC 112 in the previous office action
Claims 1, 3-5, 8-11, and 13-26, were rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention. The amendment has overcome this ground of rejection of these claims.
Pertaining to rejection under 35 USC 103 in the previous office action
Claims 1, 3-5, 10, and 13-27, were rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Morrill et al. (Paper No. 20230828; Pub. No. US 2002/0107718 A1) in view of Raman (Paper No. 20240615; Pub. No. US 2020/0118182 A1), claims 8-9 were rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Morrill et al. (Paper No. 20230828; Pub. No. US 2002/0107718 A1) in view of Raman (Paper No. 20240615; Pub. No. US 2020/0118182 A1) and further in view of Harvey et al. (Paper No. 20230828; Pub. No. US 2014/0122247 A1), and claim 11 was rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Morrill et al. (Paper No. 20230828; Pub. No. US 2002/0107718 A1) in view of Raman (Paper No. 20240615; Pub. No. US 2020/0118182 A1) and further in view of Cashman et al. (Paper No. 20230828; Patent No. US 10,223,681 B2). The amendment has overcome these rejections.
Response to Arguments
Pertaining to rejection under 35 USC 101 in the previous office action
Applicant's arguments filed October 22, 2025, have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Claims 1, 3-5, 8-11, and 13-27, are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Applicant argues “It is wholly unclear as to what subjective metrics are being suggested in the Office Action to make the assertion that the claims recite "minimal technical subject matter."” Remarks p.12. This statement does not appear in the detailed rationale for the rejection. It may have been stated in response to applicant’s argument. Examiner therefore notes that examiner’s response to argument is directed only to applicant’s argument that accompanies the responsive amendment. Examiner’s response (in cases where applicant’s remarks are not persuasive) is intended only to elucidate the reasons for the rejection in light of the issues raised by applicant in its argument. Examiner’s response is intended to aid in applicant’s understanding of the rejection based on the presumed misunderstandings evidenced by applicant’s argument. While examiner has considered the remarks it is important that applicant be aware that the detailed rationale in support of the ground of rejection appears in the office action underneath the heading identifying the ground of rejection. It provides the entire basis in law and fact supporting the rejection and explaining why the rejection is necessary. Applicant would therefore be better served responding directly to that rationale rather than engaging in a back and forth discussion of the more ephemeral matters temporarily appearing in various responses.
Applicant argues “the claim recites technical subject matter is apparent from the fact that the claims utilize a supply chain network server coupled to a user device over a network.” Ibid. Merely utilizing a server in communication with a user device is insufficient if the elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. This has not been claimed and the issue is discussed extensively in the detailed rejection.
Applicant argues that the claims do not recite an abstract idea because they “do not recite any interaction between persons or between a person and a computer”. Remarks p.13. Applicant provides no authority for the proposition that recitation of a person is required for this particular grouping of abstract idea, as noted
“the number of people involved in the activity is not dispositive as to whether a claim limitation falls within this grouping. Instead, the determination should be based on whether the activity itself falls within one of the sub-groupings. MPEP § 2104.04(a)(2)(11).” Ibid.
In any case both the provider and the user are persons or people. As noted in the rejection, applicant merely uses the user device as a stand-in for human participation. In this instance claiming a user interface without user interaction in an effort to support this argument may have also made it more difficult to establish the practical application that the interface and user device would otherwise be able to demonstrate.
Applicant argues that DDR holds
“a system for serving web pages that included a data store that included data for a plurality of first webpages that included visually perceptible elements and that included links to commerce objects associated with a buying opportunity provided by a third party merchant, would be patent eligible.” Remarks p.14.
Examiner’s position is that this is an abbreviated and inaccurate characterization of the legally operative facts determined in DDR, and that the DDR precedent does not apply to the presently claimed recitations. Also inaccurate is applicant’s statement that “improvements to the functioning of a computer or to any other technology or technical field must be identifiable as the subject matter appearing in the claims,” is somehow in conflict with the statement that
“"[t]he specification does not need to explicitly set forth the improvement, but it must describe the invention such that the improvement would be apparent to one of ordinary skill in the art. The claim itself does not need to explicitly recite the improvement described in the specification.” Ibid.
These are only boundaries defining what is minimally required. There is no conflict.
Applicant relies on a portion of their specification to identify a problem, but there is no indication how the problem is a technical one and how the claims are directed to a technical solution. Larger providers having access to more resources than local ones is a very old, non-technical problem for local providers. Examiner notes that the present claims almost entirely recite desired outcomes without indication how those outcomes are achieved. Applicant similarly offers a prosaic characterization of a claimed solution but the characterization is not clearly identifiable as the subject matter claimed and it is not evident that the argued solution is a technical one.
Pertaining to rejection under 35 USC 103 in the previous office action
Applicant’s arguments, see remarks filed October 22, 2025, with respect to the rejection of claims 1, 3-5, 10, and 13-27, under 35 U.S.C. 103, have been fully considered and are persuasive to the extent they rely on the amended language. It is noted that the argument directed to the limitation “causing the user interface to simultaneously display…,” only recites the claim language as it appeared prior to the amendment and it is therefore unpersuasive. The rejection of claims 1, 3-5, 10, and 13-27, under 35 U.S.C. 103 has been withdrawn.
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, 3-5, 8-11, and 13-27, are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
When considering subject matter eligibility under 35 U.S.C. 101, it must be determined whether the claim is directed to one of the four statutory categories of invention (i.e., process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter) (step 1). If the claim does fall within one of the statutory categories, it must then be determined whether the claim is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., law of nature, natural phenomenon, and abstract idea) (step 2A), and if so, it must additionally be determined whether the claim is a patent-eligible application of the exception (step 2B). Alice Corp. Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank Int'l, 134 S. Ct. 2347, 189 L. Ed. 2d 296, 2014 U.S. LEXIS 4303, 110 U.S.P.Q.2D (BNA) 1976, 82 U.S.L.W. 4508, 24 Fla. L. Weekly Fed. S 870, 2014 WL 2765283 (U.S. 2014); MPEP 2106.
Step 1:
In the instant case claims 1, 3-5, 8-11, and 13-27, are directed to processes. All claims are therefore within statutory categories. See MPEP 2106.03, Eligibility Step 1.
Step 2A, Prong 1:
These claims also recite, inter alia,
“receiving, at a supply chain network… via a user interface …at a user…, user data associated with a user-specific account, wherein the user interface is accessible via a network and viewable by a user …, and wherein the supply chain network … is configured to provide the user… secure access to certain data located within a database of the supply chain network … such that the certain data is viewable by approved or authorized users …; automatically linking, within the database, the user-specific account to provider data associated with at least one provider to generate a provider relationship between the user-specific account and the at least one provider based on user data associated with the user-specific account, the user data including a set of preferred provider criteria; receiving, on the supply chain network..., a user request identifying a first product or service and a second product or service via the user interface; receiving, on the supply chain network ..., a restriction command from the at least one provider, the restriction command being associated with the second product or service, the restriction command being automatically generated based on a prior selection by the at least one provider to be associated with a set of products or services; in response to the user request, the supply chain network… performing the steps of: automatically retrieving information about the first product or service; automatically generating and transmitting through the network to the user…, a first interface page, to be provided via the user interface, including the information about the first product or service, the first interface page comprising: first interface elements if the at least one provider is associated with the first product or service, and second interface elements if the at least one provider is not associated with the first product or service, wherein the first interface page is generated by retrieving stored identification information about two or more distinct sources for the first product or service, the two or more distinct sources consisting of i) a host that controls access to the supply chain network...; and ii) the at least one provider associated with the user-specific account based on the provider relationship; based on the restriction command, restricting access of the user-specific account to the second product or service to prevent acquisition of the second product or service from the host and the at least one provider; and causing the user interface to simultaneously display, proximate the identification information of the first product or service a) a first condition and a first interactable feature for acquisition of the first product or service preselected by the host of the supply chain network... if the first interface page includes information associated with the host, and b) a second condition and a second interactable feature for acquisition of the product or service preselected by the at least one provider associated with the user-specific account if the first interface page includes information associated with the at least one provider.” Claim 1.
A careful analysis of the above limitations, each on its own and all together combined, results in the conclusion that each on its own recites an abstract idea and in combination they all recite a more detailed abstract idea. The recited abstract idea falls within the grouping of abstract ideas described as certain methods of organizing human activity, for example commercial interactions (including advertising, marketing or sales activities or behaviors; business relations). See MPEP 2106.04(a), Eligibility Step 2A1. The claims must therefore be analyzed under the second prong of Eligibility Step 2A (MPEP 2106.04(d)).
Step 2A, Prong 2:
In order to address prong 2 (MPEP 2106.04(d), Step2A2) we identify whether there are any additional elements beyond the abstract ideas and determine whether those additional elements (if any) integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. MPEP 2106.04(d), Step2A2. The additional elements in the present claims are a supply chain network server and a user device with a display. These additional elements have been considered individually and in combination with the functions they perform, e.g., the “supply chain network server” generates an interface at a user device through which it displays data and receives data from a user. The server is also “configured to provide the user device secure access” to data on a database stored on the server. This recitation is purely descriptive of an imagined outcome and includes no affirmatively claimed step and so is innocuous. The user device does not appear in an affirmative functional or action step anywhere in the claim, but serves only as a node standing in for the user and receiving and transmitting data as such via the interface generated on the server. The server and user device (interface) altogether claim only generic data transmission steps throughout the claims, the data displayed on the interface based on its contents. Different data is presented based on provider product relationship choices, but it is only different data and no more. The claims ultimately recite display of a first and second “interactable feature for acquisition” of products preselected by providers (the host is also a provider), but no interaction, acquisition, or other actuation is claimed. In effect the most technical feature identified in the entire claim is a display element that a user can maybe click on or touch, or maybe not.
The additional elements and functions performed are broadly claimed and entirely generic computer operations that any computer would be expected to perform. The additional elements therefore do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application because the claims lack any recitation directed to such an integration or practical application. The substantive process is recited only by descriptions of abstract imagined intended results of steps without indicating any particular functional acts performed by any device or structural element to perform the steps or otherwise obtain the intended results. Essentially the server “applies it,” and the user device is present as a receiver and display for the server. The additional elements do not improve the functioning of any computer or other technology or technical field, they do not apply the judicial exception with or by use of a particular machine, they do not transform or reduce a particular article to a different state or thing, and they fail to apply or use the judicial exception beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment. See MPEP 2106.05.
The disclosure does not describe any improvements to the functioning of a computer or to any other technology or technical field. This improvement would further need to be identifiable as the subject matter appearing in the claims. An indication that the claimed invention provides an improvement can include a discussion in the specification that identifies technical improvements realized by the claim over the prior art. The disclosure must provide sufficient details such that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize the claimed invention as providing an improvement. MPEP 2106.05(a).
Claim limitations can integrate a judicial exception into a practical application by implementing the judicial exception with or using it in conjunction with a particular machine or manufacture that is integral to the claim. A general purpose computer that applies a judicial exception by use of generic computer functions does not qualify as a particular machine. Ultramercial, Inc. v. Hulu, LLC, (Fed. Cir. 2014); MPEP 2106.05(b),(f). There are no particular machines or manufactures identified in the present claims.
The claims do not affect the transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing. Changing to a different state or thing means more than simply using an article or changing the location of an article. A new or different function or use can be evidence that an article has been transformed. Purely mental processes in which data, thoughts, impressions, or human based actions are "changed" are not considered a transformation. MPEP 2106.05(c).
The claims do not apply or use the judicial exception in any other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment. As a result the claim as a whole appears to be a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception. MPEP 2106.05(e),(h).
The additional elements have not been found to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application.
Step 2B:
Although the additional element has not been found to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application the claims could still be eligible if they recite additional elements that amount to an inventive concept (“significantly more” than the judicial exception). MPEP 2106.05, Eligibility Step 2B.
The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the two additional elements of the claims are merely generic props supporting recited instructions to implement an abstract idea. MPEP 2106.05(f). Simply adding a general purpose computer or computer components after the fact to an abstract idea does not provide significantly more. Affinity Labs v. DirecTV, 838 F.3d 1253, 1262, 120 USPQ2d 1201, 1207 (Fed. Cir. 2016); OIP Techs., Inc. v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 2015 U.S. App. LEXIS 9721, 115 U.S.P.Q.2D (BNA) 1090 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (“relying on a computer to perform routine tasks more quickly or more accurately is insufficient to render a claim patent eligible.”); MPEP 2106.05(f)(2). Elements are recited at a high level of generality, merely implement abstract ideas, and fail to present a technical solution to a technical problem created by the use of any technology. Limitations that amount to merely suggesting a field of use or technological environment in which to apply a judicial exception do not amount to significantly more than the exception itself. See Ret. Capital Access Mgmt. Co. v. U.S. Bancorp, 611 Fed. Appx. 1007, 2015 U.S. App. LEXIS 14351 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (“It may be very clever; it may be very useful in a commercial context, but they are still abstract ideas,” said Circuit Judge Alan Lourie.). MPEP 2106.05(h).
No technical problem is indicated and the claims are not directed to a technical solution to such a problem. The method claimed is a nontechnical series of steps taken to practice an entrepreneurial activity. This conclusion is supported by applicant's disclosure, which elaborates upon the performance of the presently claimed method of organizing human activity while only identifying preexisting (prior art) computer equipment, without identifying any technical problem that arises within said equipment or technical solution to such a problem. It ultimately only describes the abstract idea while indicating the intention to “apply it.” An equivalent business plan could be implemented without a computer (though it might be more cumbersome), and in any case merely confining the abstract idea to a particular field is insufficient to render it eligible subject matter. The claimed invention is patent ineligible because the innovative aspect (if there is one) is an entrepreneurial rather than a technological one. Bilski v. Kappos, 130 S. Ct. 3218, 3245; 177 L. Ed. 2d 792, 822; 2010 U.S. LEXIS 5521, 73; 95 U.S.P.Q.20 (BNA) 1001 (2010) (citing Merges, Property Rights for Business Concepts and Patent System Reform, 14 Berkeley Tech. L. J. 577, 585 (1999)); Ultramercial, Inc. v. Hulu, LLC, 772 F.3d 709 (Fed. Cir. Nov. 14, 2014) (“A rule holding that claims are impermissibly abstract if they are directed to an entrepreneurial objective, such as methods for increasing revenue, minimizing economic risk, or structuring commercial transactions, rather than a technological one, would comport with the guidance provided in both Alice and Bilski.” Mayer, J, concurring).
Finally, the dependent claims do not add "significantly more" to establish eligibility because they merely recite additional abstract ideas that further describe the identification and manipulation of data used in implementing the abstract idea. A more detailed abstract idea is still abstract. PricePlay.com, Inc. v. AOL Adver., Inc., 627 Fed. Appx. 925, 2016 U.S. App. LEXIS 611, 2016 WL 80002 (Fed. Cir. Jan. 7, 2016) (in addressing a bundle of abstract ideas stacked together during oral argument, U.S. Circuit Judge Kimberly Moore said, "All of these ideas are abstract…. It’s like you want a patent because you combined two abstract ideas and say two is better than one."). Dependent claims 16 and 23 recite “wherein the user interface is coupled to a user device connected to the supply chain network server by one of a wide area network connection and a local area network connection,” and “a provider server,” respectively. The “provider server” in claim 23 is only another server that serves only as a prop, similar to the previously discussed “supply chain network server.” The user device of claim 16 is similarly recited only as a structural prop standing in for a user. It performs no claimed function.
All of the above leads to the conclusion that additional claim elements do not provide meaningful limitations to transform the claimed subject matter into significantly more than an abstract idea. MPEP 2106.05; Eligibility Step 2B. As a result the claims are rejected under 35 USC 101 as being directed to non-statutory subject matter because they recite an abstract idea without being directed to a practical application, and they do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. MPEP 2106.05, supra.
The preceding analysis applies to all statutory categories of invention. Accordingly, claims 1, 3-5, 8-11, and 13-27, are rejected as ineligible for patenting under 35 USC 101 based upon the same analysis.
Potentially Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1, 3-5, 8-11, and 13-27, would be allowable if rewritten or amended to overcome the rejection under 35 U.S.C. 101 set forth in this Office action.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of potentially allowable subject matter.
The independent claims recite inter alia
“A non-transitory computer-readable medium having instructions stored thereon, the instructions when executed by a processor cause the processor to perform a method of: receiving, at a supply chain network server, via a user interface generated by the supply chain network server at a user device, user data associated with a user-specific account, wherein the user interface is accessible via a network and viewable by a user on a display of the user device…; automatically linking, within the database, the user-specific account to provider data associated with at least one provider to generate a provider relationship between the user-specific account and the at least one provider based on user data associated with the user-specific account, the user data including a set of preferred provider criteria; … automatically generating and transmitting through the network to the user device, a first interface page, to be provided via the user interface, including the information about the first product or service, the first interface page comprising: first interface elements if the at least one provider is associated with the first product or service, and second interface elements if the at least one provider is not associated with the first product or service…, and causing the user interface to simultaneously display, proximate the identification information of the first product or service a) a first condition and a first interactable feature for acquisition of the first product or service preselected by the host of the supply chain network server if the first interface page includes information associated with the host, and b) a second condition and a second interactable feature for acquisition of the product or service preselected by the at least one provider associated with the user-specific account if the first interface page includes information associated with the at least one provider.” Claim 1.
The most closely applicable prior art has been previously introduced and distinguished by amendment and argument during the course of prosecution. These include the previously relied upon references noted above as well as previously cited references Cashman et al. (Paper No. 20230828; Patent No.: US 10,223,681 B2) and Harvey et al. (Paper No. 20230828; Pub. No.: US 2014/0122247 A1).
The most relevant non-patent literature found through available search methods are the previously cited Hugos (Paper No. 20230828; "Essentials of Supply Chain Management," 2018, John Wiley & Sons, Inc., Fourth Edition) and Anonymous (Paper No. 20240107; "PROVIDING ACCESS TO A PLURALITY OF SERVICE PROVIDERS UTILIZING A SINGLE INTERFACE," IP.com Prior Art Database Technical Disclosure, December 15, 2006) references.
None of these references, alone or in combination with each other or any other known references, teach, suggest, anticipate, disclose, nor otherwise fairly and reasonably render obvious the limitations identified above in combination as claimed and as recited above.
In light of the above and examiner’s overall review of the prior art it is examiner’s conclusion that the body of prior art currently known to the examiner does not alone or in combination disclose, anticipate, or otherwise fairly and reasonably render obvious the above noted features of the present independent claims. It should be noted that this conclusion is based on the presence of all claimed features as they operate in conjunction rather than solely on any one feature or isolated group of features.
The most relevant applicable and nonduplicative prior art having been previously introduced, addressed, and distinguished, by amendment and argument during the course of prosecution, it is examiner’s position that together with the above the record is clear with regard to the reasons for allowability of the claimed invention over the prior art.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ADAM LEVINE whose telephone number is (571)272-8122. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Thursday 9am-7:30pm.
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, Marissa Thein can be reached at 571.272.6764. 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.
/ADAM L LEVINE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3689 December 26, 2025