DETAILED ACTION
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 .
Status of Claims
The following is an Office Action in response to the communication filed on 02/27/2026.
Claims 1,7, and 9-10 are amended.
Claims 1-14 are pending and have been examined.
Priority
This application is a National Phase of International Patent Application No. PCT/JP2021/030708, filed on August 23, 2021, which claims priority to Japanese Patent Application No. 2020 204710, filed on 12/10/2020. Examiner accepts the priority date of 12/10/2020.
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 1-14 are rejected under 35 USC 103 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception without significantly more. The claims recite an abstract idea. The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Under Step 1 of the Subject Matter Eligibility Test for Products and Processes, the claims must be directed to one of the four statutory categories (See MPEP 2106.03(II)). In the instant application, claims 1-8 and 11-13 are directed to a machine (i.e., an apparatus), claim 9 is directed to a process (i.e., a method), and claim 10 is directed to a manufacture (i.e., a non-transitory computer-readable medium). All the claims are directed to one of the four statutory categories (YES).
Under Step 2A of the Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Test (see MPEP 2106.04), it is determined whether the claims are directed to a judicially recognized exception. Step 2A is a two-prong inquiry.
Under Prong 1, it is determined whether the claim recites a judicial exception (See MPEP 2106.04). (YES). Taking Claim 1 as representative, the claim recites limitations that fall within the certain methods of organizing human activity grouping of abstract ideas, including:
A product management system comprising:
a first measurement apparatus disposed at a first site configured to acquire first characteristic data indicating multiple characteristics of a first product at a first date and time, the multiple characteristics including two or more of shape, size, color, surface pattern, damage and sugar concentration of the first product, the first measurement apparatus comprising a camera configured to capture a first image of the first product to measure one or more of the multiple characteristics of the first product;
a second measurement apparatus disposed at a second site configured to acquire second characteristic data indicating multiple characteristics of a second product at a second date and time, the multiple characteristics including two or more of shape, size, color, surface pattern, damage and sugar concentration of the second product, the second measurement apparatus comprising a camera configured to capture a second image of the second product to measure one or more of the multiple characteristics of the second product;
a product management apparatus configured to receive the first characteristic data acquired by the first measurement apparatus and the second characteristic data acquired by the second measurement apparatus, the product management apparatus comprising one or more processors and a memory comprising storing instructions that, when used by the one or more processors, cause the one or more processors to perform operations comprising:
acquiring and storing in the memory the first characteristic data acquired by the first measurement apparatus;
acquiring the second characteristic data acquired by the second measurement apparatus;
setting a priority to each of the multiple characteristics for each product type by adjusting parameters associated with each characteristic in a machine learning model, wherein the priority is set so as to prioritize a characteristic unlikely to change over a time elapsed between the first date and time and the second date and time, and not prioritize a characteristic likely to change over the time elapsed, among the multiple characteristics for each product type, wherein the characteristic unlikely to change and the characteristic likely to change can be set differently for each product type;
identifying a product type of the second product based on the second image of the second product and the second characteristic data for the second product; and
determining whether the first product and the second product are identical by executing the machine learning model to calculate a score indicating a level of matching between the first characteristic data and the second characteristic data based on the first characteristic data, the second characteristic data, a time elapsed since the first date and time until the second date and time, and the adjusted parameters corresponding to the identified product type.
Independent claims 9-10 recite similar limitations as claim 1.
Certain methods of organizing human activity include:
fundamental economic principles or practices (including hedging, insurance, and mitigating risk)
commercial or legal interactions (including agreements in the form of contracts; legal obligations; advertising, marketing or sales activities or behaviors; and business relations)
managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people (including social activities, teaching, and following rules or instructions)
The limitations, as emphasized above, recite the concept of product management using comparisons. These limitations, under their broadest reasonable interpretations, fall with the “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity” grouping of abstract ideas, enumerated in the MPEP because these limitations recite commercial or legal interactions (such as marketing or sales activities). Specifically, the claims recite storing characteristic data of a first product at a first date and time, acquiring second characteristic data of a second product at a second date and time, and determining whether the first and second products are identical based on the characteristic data. Applicant’s specification recites that the present invention is designed to communicate product information in order to increase consumer awareness of safety without requiring the usage of tags (see specification [0002-0007]) and further recites that the characteristic data may refer to color, size shape, surface pattern or damage, weight, sugar concentration, maturity grade, etc. (see specification [0031]). Similarly, the specification describes that the system/environment is a product distribution system 10, including a shipping site 12, an intermediate site 14, and a sales site 16 (i.e., a supply chain). In sum, the claims are directed towards product management using comparisons, which amounts to sales activity. Accordingly, independent claims 1 and 9-10, as a whole, are directed towards commercial or legal interactions and recite an abstract idea. The claims further fall within the Mental Processes category of abstract ideas. The process of storing information, retrieving information, and making a determination based on the information represent steps that can be performed within the human mind or by a human using a pen and paper. Concepts performed within the human mind (i.e., mental processes) can include observations, evaluations, judgements, and opinions. See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(II)(B) and MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(II)(C). In sum, the claims fall within the Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity and Mental Processes groupings of abstract ideas because the claims recite a commercial interaction and a mental process.
Under Prong 2, it is determined whether the claim recites additional elements that integrate the exception into a practical application of the exception. This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application (NO).
Independent claims 1 and 9-10 recite additional elements beyond the abstract idea, including:
a product management system
a first measurement apparatus
the first measurement apparatus comprising a camera configured to capture a first image
a second measurement apparatus
the second measurement apparatus comprising a camera configured to capture a second image
a product management apparatus, the product management apparatus comprising one or more processors and a memory comprising storing instructions that, when used by the one or more processors, cause the one or more processors to perform operations
the memory
one or more processors of a product management device based on instructions stored in a memory
a machine learning model
executing the machine learning model
a product management method executed by one or more processors of a product management device based on instructions stored in a memory
a non-transitory computer-readable medium storing instructions that, when used by the one or more processors of a product management device, cause the one or more processors to perform operations
The additional elements of claims 1, 9, and 10 are recited at a high level of generality (i.e. as generic computing hardware) in Applicant’s specification without meaningful detail regarding their structure, configuration, or function. As such, the additional elements amount to nothing more than mere instructions to implement or apply the abstract idea on a generic computing hardware (or, merely use a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea). Specifically, the additional elements of the various units are recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as generic computer components, e.g., a processor, that execute instructions) such that they amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Accordingly, these additional element do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claims are directed to an abstract idea.
Further, the additional elements do no more than generally link the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use (such as computers or computing networks). For example, the additional elements, while recited, only generally link the commercial interactions into a computer environment. Employing well-known computer functions to execute an abstract idea, even when limiting the use of the idea to one particular environment, does not integrate the exception into a practical application.
Additionally, the additional elements are insufficient to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because the claim fails to i) reflect an improvement in the functioning of a computer or an improvement to another technology or technical field, ii) apply the judicial exception with, or use the judicial exception in conjunction with, a particular machine or manufacture that is integral to the claim, iii) effect a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing, or iv) apply or use the judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment.
Accordingly, the judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application.
Under Step 2B, it is determined whether the claims recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. The claims of the present application do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception (NO).
As discussed above with respect to Prong Two of Step 2A, although additional computer related elements are recited, the claims merely invoke such additional elements as a tool to perform the abstract idea. See MPEP 2106.05(f). Moreover, the limitations of claims 1 and 9-10 are manual processes (e.g., storing information, acquiring information, and making a determination). The courts have indicated that mere automation of manual processes is not sufficient to show an improvement in computer functionality (see MPEP 2106.05(a)(I)). Furthermore, as discussed above with respect to Prong Two of Step 2A, claims 1 and 9-10 merely recite the additional elements in order to further define the field of use of the abstract idea, therein attempting to generally link the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment, such as the Internet or computing networks (see Ultrametrical, Inc. v. Hulu, LLC. (Fed. Cir. 2014); Bilski v. Kappos (2010); MPEP 2106.05(h)). Similar to Fair Warning v. Iatric Sys., claims 1, 9, and 10 specifying that the abstract idea of product management using comparisons is executed in a computer environment merely indicates a field of use in which to apply the abstract idea because this requirement merely limits the claim to the computer field, i.e., to execution on a generic computer.
Even when considered as an ordered combination, the additional elements do not add anything that is not already present when they are considered individually. In Alice Corp., the Court considered the additional elements “as an ordered combination,” and determined that “the computer components…‘[a]dd nothing…that is not already present when the steps are considered separately’ and simply recite intermediated settlement as performed by a generic computer.” Id. (citing Mayo, 566 U.S. at 79, 101 USPQ2d at 1972). Similarly, viewed as a whole, claims 1 and 9-10 simply convey the abstract idea itself facilitated by generic computing components. Therefore, under Step 2B of the Alice/Mayo test, there are no meaningful limitations in claims 1, 9, and 10 that transform the judicial exception into a patent eligible application such that the claim amounts to significantly more than the judicial exception itself.
Even considered as an ordered combination (as a whole), the additional elements do not add anything significantly more than when considered individually. Therefore, claims 1 and 9-10 do not provide an inventive concept and do not qualify as eligible subject matter.
Claims 2-8 and 11-14 are dependencies of claim 1. When analyzed, as a whole, the dependent claims are held to be patent-ineligible under 35 U.S.C. 101 because they are directed to the judicial exception, do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application, nor do they add “significantly more” to the judicial exception. More specifically, claims 2-8 and 11-14 further fall within the “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity” grouping of abstract ideas, enumerated in the MPEP, in that they further recite commercial or legal interactions, such as advertising, marketing, or sales activities or behaviors and managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people. The claims further fall within the Mental Processes category of abstract ideas, in that they recite steps that can be performed within the human mind or by a human using a pen and paper. Dependent claims 3-5 and 11-13 do not recite further additional elements but rather recite limitations that further define the abstract idea. Therefore, dependent claims 3-5 and 11-13 are not indicative of integration into a practical application and are not significantly more than the judicial exception.
Dependent claims 2, 6-8, and 14 further identify additional elements, such as:
a third measurement apparatus, the third measurement apparatus comprising one or more of a temperature sensor configured to measure the temperature of the environment, a humidity sensor configured to measure the humidity of the environment, a gas sensor configured to measure the gas concentration of the environment, and an acceleration sensor to measure the impact exerted to an product in the environment
a source of transmission
a machine learning model
Similar to discussion above the with respect to Prong Two of Step 2A, although additional computer-related elements are recited, the claims merely invoke such additional elements as a tool to perform the abstract idea. See MPEP 2106.05(f). As such, under Step 2A, dependent claims 2, 6-8, and 14 are “directed to” an abstract idea. Similar to the discussion above with respect to independent claims 1 and 9-10, dependent claims 2-8 and 11-13, analyzed individually and as an ordered combination, invoke such additional elements as a tool to perform the abstract idea and merely indicate a field of use in which to apply the abstract idea because this requirement merely limits the claims to the computer field, i.e., to execution on a generic computer, and therefore, do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself. See MPEP 2106.05(f)(2).
Accordingly, under the Alice/Mayo test, the Examiner concludes that there are no meaningful limitations in claims 1-14 that transform the judicial exception into a patent eligible application such that the claim amounts to significantly more than the judicial exception itself. The analysis above applies to all statutory categories of invention.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-14 would be allowable if rewritten or amended to overcome the rejection under 35 U.S.C. 101, set forth in this Office action.
Upon review of the evidence at hand, it is hereby concluded that the evidence obtained and made of record, alone or in combination, neither anticipates, reasonably teaches, nor renders obvious the below noted features of applicant’s invention as the noted features amount to more than a predictable use of elements in the prior art.
The most relevant prior art made of record includes previously cited Ishiyama (US 9,842,285 B2), hereinafter Ishiyama, previously cited Bohl et al. (US 20210053530 A1), hereinafter Bohl, previously cited McQueen et al. (US 6069696 A), hereinafter McQueen, and previously cited NPL Reference Jedermann et al (cited on PTO-892), initially cited in the Office action dated 12/18/2024.
Although individually the references teach concepts such acquiring data about products at multiple sites, setting a priority to products, product specific characteristics, and the data including multiple specific product characteristics, none of the references teach nor render obvious the specific data measurements at the first and second site, where product characteristics include two or more of shape, color, damage and sugar concentration, where priority is set based on whether a characteristic is likely to change over time and where the characteristics are product dependent.
Previously cited Ishiyama discloses a product management system (Ishiyama: Col. 7, line 55-Col. 8, line 5, Figs. 1, 4). Multiple users may shop using a single shopping cart shared between them (Ishiyama: Col. 1, Ln. 48-55). A camera may capture an image including at least a reference section common in every product and a predetermined collation area of the product determined in advance at a position relative to the reference section (Ishiyama: Col. 4, Ln. 55-60; Col. 6, Ln. 29-41). A computer collates the image feature of the collation area of the product to be collated with the image feature of the collation area of the registered product stored in a storage unit. As a result, if a matching point is found therebetween, the collation/retrieval unit determines that the product to be collated has already been registered. Here, collation of the image feature is performed in the following manner. For example, considering an end point, an intersection point, and corners of the line of the surface pattern as the feature points, an arrangement of the feature points are collated. If the number of arrangements of the feature points at the same position (i.e., in a range under a certain threshold) is equal to or more than a predetermined number, the collation/retrieval unit 6 considers as the same product. Such collation technology can employ the known fingerprint matching technology (Ishiyama: Col. 7, lines 10-26, Figs. 1, 4). Yet Ishiyama does not explicitly disclose all of the limitations pertaining to characteristics including two or more of shape, size, color, damage and sugar concentration; setting a priority, and the characteristics corresponding to the product type.
Previously cited Bohl teaches an image matching method (Bohl: [0006]). Bohl further teaches features that are less likely to change over time may be weighted more heavily towards determining the overlap between the document image and the confirmation image and features which are more likely to change over time may have less weight in determining overlap between the document image and the confirmation image (Bohl: [0072-0073]). However, Bohl does not explicitly teach all of the limitations regarding the measurements and determinations of identical products.
Previously cited McQueen teaches an object recognition system (McQueen: [abstract]). McQueen further teaches that methods of identifying produce may include using image recognition to identify characteristics such as color, shape, size and texture (McQueen: Col. 1, Ln. 48-52). McQueen further teaches a database of stored spectral response patterns and other product-specific characteristics (McQueen: Col. 2, Ln. 26-30). However, McQueen does not teach the limitations regarding the measurements and determinations of identical products.
Previously cited NPL Reference Jedermann teaches a method of monitoring products. Jedermann further teaches conditions for selected items including timestamps and current locations. Jedermann teaches that the products “tomatoes” contained within the same vehicles are monitored across 4 different timestamps and two different locations. Jedermann additionally teaches quality indicators such as sugar content and color. However, Jedermann does not teach all of the limitations regarding the measurements and determinations of identical products.
While these references arguably teach the claimed limitations using a piecemeal analysis, these references would only be combined and deemed obvious based on knowledge gleaned from the applicant's disclosure. Such a reconstruction is improper (i.e., hindsight reasoning). See In re McLaughlin, 443 F.2d 1392, 170 USPQ 209 (CCPA 1971). Accordingly, claims 1 and 9-10, taken as a whole, are indicated to be allowable over the cited prior art. The examiner emphasizes that it is the interrelationship of the limitations that renders these claims allowable over the prior art/additional art. Claims 2-8, and 11-14 depend from claim 1, and therefore the dependent claims are also indicated as containing allowable subject matter.
The examiner further emphasizes the claims as a whole and hereby asserts that the totality of the evidence fails to set forth, either explicitly or implicitly, an appropriate rationale for further modification of the evidence at hand to arrive at the claimed invention. The combination of features as claimed would not have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art as combining various references from the totality of the evidence to reach the combination of features as claimed would require a substantial reconstruction of the Applicant's claimed invention relying on improper hindsight bias.
It is thereby asserted by the examiner that, in light of the above and in further deliberation over all the evidence at hand, that the claims are allowable as the evidence at hand does not anticipate the claims and does not render obvious any further modification of the references to a person of ordinary skill in the art.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, filed 02/27/2026, have been fully considered.
35 U.S.C. § 101
Applicant argues the claims are eligible because “the claims are patent-eligible, as they are not directed to an abstract idea…Claim 1 does not recite commercial interactions” (Remarks pages 11-13). The examiner disagrees. Initially, the examiner notes that the claims additionally fall within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. With respect to Applicant’s assertion the claims are not directed to an abstract idea, the MPEP enumerates groupings of abstract ideas, thereby synthesizing the holdings of various court decisions to facilitate examination. See MPEP 2106.04. Among the enumerated groupings is the Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity grouping, which includes activity that falls within the enumerated sub-grouping of commercial or legal interactions, including subject matter relating to agreements in the form of contracts, legal obligations, advertising, marketing or sales activities or behaviors, and business relations. With respect to the claims, the examiner notes that the additional elements are not analyzed under Step 2A, Prong 1. The amendments further recite limitations such as determining a product is identical to another product. These amendments represent certain methods of organizing human activity. Applicant’s specification recites that the present invention is designed to communicate product information in order to increase consumer awareness of safety without requiring the usage of tags (see specification [0002-0007]) and further recites that the characteristic data may refer to color, size shape, surface pattern or damage, weight, sugar concentration, maturity grade, etc. (see specification [0031]). Similarly, the specification describes that the system/environment is a product distribution system 10, including a shipping site 12, an intermediate site 14, and a sales site 16 (i.e., a supply chain). In sum, the claims are directed towards product management using comparisons, which amounts to sales activity. Furthermore, with respect to Applicant’s assertion that the claim provides a technical improvement (page 12), see the response to remarks in the paragraphs below. Accordingly, these claims recite Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity.
Applicant argues the claims are integrated into a practical application because the claims represent “an improvement in the technical field of tracking products across multiple locations and multiple times” and “a technical improvement over computer systems that may struggle to identify a product with altered characteristics” (Remarks pages 13-15). The examiner disagrees. The MPEP provides guidance on how to evaluate whether claims recite an improvement in the functioning of a computer or an improvement to other technology or technical field. For example, the MPEP states “the specification should be evaluated to determine if the disclosure provides sufficient details such that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize the claimed invention as providing an improvement.” The MPEP further states that “[t]he specification need not 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,” and that, “conversely, if the specification explicitly sets forth an improvement but in a conclusory manner…the examiner should not determine the claim improves technology” (see MPEP 2106.04). That is, the claim includes the components or steps of the invention that provide the improvement described in the specification. Looking to the specification is a standard that the courts have employed when analyzing claims as it relates to improvements in technology. For example, in Enfish, the specification provided teaching that the claimed invention achieves benefits over conventional databases, such as increased flexibility, faster search times, and smaller memory requirements. Enfish LLC v. Microsoft Corp., 822 F.3d 1327, 1335-36 (Fed. Cir. 2016). Additionally, in Core Wireless the specification noted deficiencies in prior art interfaces relating to efficient functioning of the computer. Core Wireless Licensing v. LG Elecs. Inc., 880 F.3d 1356 (Fed Cir. 2018). With respect to McRO, the claimed improvement, as confirmed by the originally filed specification, was “…allowing computers to produce ‘accurate and realistic lip synchronization and facial expressions in animated characters…’” and it was “…the incorporation of the claimed rules, not the use of the computer, that “improved [the] existing technological process” by allowing the automation of further tasks”. McRO, Inc. v. Bandai Namco Games America Inc., 837 F.3d 1299, (Fed. Cir. 2016).
While the examiner acknowledges that improvements to the functioning of a computer or to any other technology or technical field may constitute integration into a practical application (see MPEP 2106.05(a)), the instant claims do not provide a technical improvement. Rather, the claims provide an improvement to the abstract idea of product management using comparisons. With respect to Applicant’s arguments regarding the improvement over prior technology that struggled to identify altered characteristics, the examiner notes that the claims do not reflect any sort of improvement to monitoring systems and merely include high level generic additional elements.
Although the claims include computer technology such as a product management system; a first measurement apparatus; the first measurement apparatus comprising a camera configured to capture a first image; a second measurement apparatus; the second measurement apparatus comprising a camera configured to capture a second image; a product management apparatus, the product management apparatus comprising one or more processors and a memory comprising storing instructions that, when used by the one or more processors, cause the one or more processors to perform operations; the memory; one or more processors of a product management device based on instructions stored in a memory; a machine learning model; executing the machine learning model; a product management method executed by one or more processors of a product management device based on instructions stored in a memory; and a non-transitory computer-readable medium storing instructions that, when used by the one or more processors of a product management device, cause the one or more processors to perform operations, such elements are merely peripherally incorporated in order to implement the abstract idea. Put another way, these additional elements are merely used to apply the abstract idea of product management using comparisons in a technological environment without effectuating any improvement or change to the functioning of the additional elements or other technology. This is unlike the improvements recognized by the courts in cases such as Enfish, Core Wireless, and McRO. Unlike precedential cases, neither the specification nor the claims of the instant invention identify such a specific improvement to computer capabilities. The instant claims are not directed to technological improvements but are directed to improving the product management using comparisons. The claimed process, while arguably resulting in a more efficient process for product management, is not providing any improvement to another technology or technical field as the claimed process is not, for example, improving the server and/or computer components that operate the system. Rather, the claimed process is utilizing data sets related to product management while still employing the same server and/or computer components used in conventional systems to improve product management using comparisons, e.g. a business method, and therefore is merely applying the abstract idea using generic computing components. As such, the claims are not eligible.
Applicant argues the claims are patent eligible because “[s]imilar to the claims at issue in Ex Parte Desjardins, the current claims represent a technical improvement related to modifying parameters of a machine learning model to improve the functioning of a computer” (Remarks pages 14-15). The examiner disagrees. In Ex Parte Desjardins, the claims reflected a specific improvement that addressed the technical problem of “catastrophic forgetting” in continual learning systems, while allowing artificial intelligence systems to variously optimize system performance, use less storage capacity and reduce system complexity. By contrast the learning system in the instant case is merely recited at a high level and does not provide any similar technical improvement to a technical problem specific to learning systems. Thus, there is no evidence, short of Attorney argument, that the claims provide a technical improvement to learning systems. Therefore, Desjardins is not analogous.
Applicant argues the claims provide significantly more because “[t]he present claims recite non-conventional features that were not well-understood, routine or conventional” and “represent an improvement over systems” (Remarks pages 15-16). The examiner disagrees. One consideration when determining whether a claim recites significantly more than a judicial exception in Step 2B is whether the additional elements amount to more than a recitation of the words "apply it" (or an equivalent) or are more than mere instructions to implement an abstract idea or other exception on a computer. Evaluation of this consideration includes evaluating 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. Cases have found that additional elements are more than "apply it" or are not "mere instructions" when the claim recites a technological solution to a technological problem. Applicant's claims provide no similar technological solution to a technological problem. Rather, the claims at issue only merely recite the abstract idea of product management using comparisons along with the requirement to perform it on a set of generic computer components. For example, Applicant's claims merely recite steps of product management using comparisons with generic computer components being recited in a generic manner. The specificity of the claims is directed toward the abstract idea of product management using comparisons and not toward any technology, and accordingly, is insufficient to provide significantly more. While additional elements are included within the claims, they are claimed in a generic manner and merely perform generic functions. Applicant’s disclosure does not articulate or suggest how these additional elements function, individually or in combination, in any manner other than using generic functionality. As such, the claims represent mere instructions to apply an abstract idea to a general purpose computer.
Conclusion
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 ANNA MAE MITROS whose telephone number is (571)272-3969. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday from 9:30-6.
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.
/ANNA MAE MITROS/Examiner, Art Unit 3689
Prosecution Insights