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 .
DETAILED ACTION
Status of Claims
The following is a Final Office Action in response to Applicant’s amendment received 12/03/2025.
In accordance with Applicant’s amendment, claims 1, 4-5, 7, 10, 13-14, 16, and 19 are amended and claims 2 and 11 are canceled. Claims 1, 3-10, and 12-19 are currently pending.
Response to Amendment
Applicant’s amendment necessitated the new ground of rejection set forth in this office action.
The 35 U.S.C. §112(b) rejection of claims 1-19 is withdrawn in response to applicant’s amendment, however a new ground of rejection is applied to claims 1 and 3-10 in the instant office action, which was necessitated by the amendment.
Response to Arguments
Response to §101 arguments: Applicant’s remarks (Remarks at pgs. 12-27) with respect to the §101 rejection of claims 1-19 have been considered, but are not persuasive.
In response to applicant’s argument that “the claims cannot be a mental process or an activity performed by a human,” applicant’s attention is directed to the Step 2A Prong One analysis of the §101 rejection below, which provides step-by-step analysis explaining why each step, but for the generic computing elements, set forth activities falling under the “certain methods of organizing human activity,” “mental processes,” or “mathematical concepts” abstract idea groupings. Applicant has not effectively rebutted these findings. Notably, applicant’s argument fails to discuss or specifically point out any supposed errors in the findings set forth in the Step 2A Prong One analysis that provides reasons why each of the specifically addressed limitations is interpreted as setting forth or describing activity falling under one or more of the abstract idea groupings.
In response to applicant’s reliance on real-time or periodic retraining and selection, multiple machine learning models, large volumes of data, thousands to millions of operations per model (Remarks at pg. 15) and optimizing thousands or millions of data points (Remarks at pg. 16), the Examiner emphasizes that the claims neither recite nor inherently require real-time or periodic retraining and selection, machine learning, large volumes of data, thousands to millions of operations per model, or optimizing thousands or millions of data points. Therefore, Applicant’s argument’s is unpersuasive because it relies on applying a much narrower interpretation than the claim language requires by seeking to import limitations from the specification, which is impermissible. See Superguide Corp. v. DirecTV Enterprises, Inc., 358 F.3d 870, 875, 69 USPQ2d 1865, 1868 (Fed. Cir. 2004). See also, CollegeNet, Inc. v. Apply Yourself Inc., 418 F.3d 1225, 1231 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (while the specification can be examined for proper context of a claim term, limitations from the specification will not be imported into the claims).
Under Step 2A Prong Two, applicant argues that the claimed subject matter is integrated into a practical appliation by arguing “particular elements” such as historical data, deriving cycle-time features, computing AUC-ROC, and producing probability outputs, which applicant alleges “are meaningful limitations that integrate this concept across various industries” (Remarks at pg. 19).
In response, the argument lacks merit for a number of reasons. In particular, applicant has not identified the additional elements that, individually or as an ordered combination, integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Notably, historical data, cycle-time features, AUC-ROC, and probability outputs encompass limitations falling under the abstract idea itself (as discussed below in the Step 2A Prong One analysis) and insignificant extra-solution activity (displaying…probability, i.e., output). Next, applicant has not shown that any of that any of the additional elements (i.e., predicting system, communication network, processor, memory, non-transitory computer readable medium, training module, and displaying, using visualization tool), individually or in combination, provide an improvement to the functioning of a computer or to any other technology or technical field, apply the abstract idea with a particular machine, or effect a transformation of a particular article to a different state or thing, or applies/uses the abstract idea in a meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment.
Lastly, under Step 2B, applicant argues that “the claimed system provides a technological improvement to the field of order workflow management,” suggesting an improvement “using advanced analytics and machine learning” (Remarks at pgs. 20-21). However, no technological improvement is reasonably considered as resulting from execution of the claimed invention. Even assuming that an improvement is achieved by the claims (which has not been shown), this would appear at most to be an improvement to a business operation and not to any technology. Furthermore, as noted above, the claims do not recite or require machine learning, nor do they require “advanced analytics” or at least such a concept implemented in a non-abstract manner.
In response to Applicant’s citation and reliance on the CAFC’s BASCOM decision (Remarks at pg. 21), the Examiner finds virtually no similarities between the fact pattern, the additional elements, the end result, or the eligibility rationale in BASCOM and the claims in this instance. In BASCOM, the Federal Circuit found that the claims amounted to a “non-conventional and non-generic arrangement” of the additional elements, including installation of a filtering tool at a specific location, remote from end-users, with customizable filtering features specific to each end user. However, Applicant’s claims do not include similar additional features or a non-conventional arrangement of the additional elements, instead relying on general purpose computing elements (predicting system, communication network, processor, memory, non-transitory computer readable medium, training module, and displaying, using visualization tool) and insignificant extra-solution activities (e.g., receiving, displaying), such that whether considered individually and as an ordered combination, these additional elements have not been found to yield an improvement to the generic computer, to machine learning, or any other technology. Therefore, Applicant’s reliance on the rationale set forth in the BASCOM decision is not persuasive.
Applicant further argues that “The claims recite specific technical improvements,” citing for example, the use of stage-wise cycle time data and historical order data to train and select predictive models, application of AUC-ROC metrics for model selection, risk classification and actionable visualization for stakeholders (Remarks at pg. 22). However, these are conclusory statements because the statements fail to identify the specific alleged technical improvement or provide reasons why/how the additional elements amount to an inventive concept by adding significantly more to the claims such as, for example:
i. Improvements to the functioning of a computer, e.g., a modification of conventional Internet hyperlink protocol to dynamically produce a dual-source hybrid webpage, as discussed in DDR Holdings, LLC v. Hotels.com, L.P., 773 F.3d 1245, 1258-59, 113 USPQ2d 1097, 1106-07 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (see MPEP § 2106.05(a));
ii. Improvements to any other technology or technical field, e.g., a modification of conventional rubber-molding processes to utilize a thermocouple inside the mold to constantly monitor the temperature and thus reduce under- and over-curing problems common in the art, as discussed in Diamond v. Diehr, 450 U.S. 175, 191-92, 209 USPQ 1, 10 (1981) (see MPEP § 2106.05(a));
iii. Applying the judicial exception with, or by use of, a particular machine, e.g., a Fourdrinier machine (which is understood in the art to have a specific structure comprising a headbox, a paper-making wire, and a series of rolls) that is arranged in a particular way to optimize the speed of the machine while maintaining quality of the formed paper web, as discussed in Eibel Process Co. v. Minn. & Ont. Paper Co., 261 U.S. 45, 64-65 (1923) (see MPEP § 2106.05(b));
iv. Effecting a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing, e.g., a process that transforms raw, uncured synthetic rubber into precision-molded synthetic rubber products, as discussed in Diehr, 450 U.S. at 184, 209 USPQ at 21 (see MPEP § 2106.05(c));
v. Adding a specific limitation other than what is well-understood, routine, conventional activity in the field, or adding unconventional steps that confine the claim to a particular useful application, e.g., a non-conventional and non-generic arrangement of various computer components for filtering Internet content, as discussed in BASCOM Global Internet v. AT&T Mobility LLC, 827 F.3d 1341, 1350-51, 119 USPQ2d 1236, 1243 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (see MPEP § 2106.05(d)); or
vi. Other meaningful limitations beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment, e.g., an immunization step that integrates an abstract idea of data comparison into a specific process of immunizing that lowers the risk that immunized patients will later develop chronic immune-mediated diseases, as discussed in Classen Immunotherapies Inc. v. Biogen IDEC, 659 F.3d 1057, 1066-68, 100 USPQ2d 1492, 1499-1502 (Fed. Cir. 2011) (see MPEP § 2106.05(e)).
Notably, stage-wise cycle time, the trained model, and the application of AUC-ROC, and risk classification fall within the scope of the abstract idea itself, and are not reasonably considered as additional elements yielding an inventive concept by adding significantly more to the claims, whereas the visualization merely involves insignificant extra-solution output activity, such as by using an interface of a generic computer to provide the output, which is insufficient for eligibility. See, e.g., Affinity Labs of Texas LLC v. DirecTV LLC, 838 F.3d 1253, 1257-1258 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (mere recitation of a GUI does not make a claim patent-eligible); Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Capital One Bank, 792 F.3d 1363, 1370 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (“the interactive interface limitation is a generic computer element”).
Lastly, in response to Applicant’s citation to Berkheimer and argument that “the combination of these and other elements of claim 1 recite a non-conventional computer implementation that amounts to significantly more than an abstract idea,” applicant’s argument lacks merit because neither §101 nor any controlling legal precedent requires a showing that every limitation or the combination of elements is well-understood, routine and conventional to support a §101 rejection. The Federal Circuit’s BSG Tech LLC v. Buyseasons Inc. decision (Aug. 15, 2018) plainly addressed this very argument, emphasizing that:
PNG
media_image1.png
311
532
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
238
505
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Therefore, Applicant’s suggestion that the entire claimed invention or elements falling under the scope of the abstract idea itself must be shown to be well-understood, routine and conventional to support a contention of patent ineligibility is not persuasive.
For the reasons above, Applicant’s arguments concerning the §101 rejection are not persuasive.
Response to §103 arguments: Applicant’s remarks (Remarks at pg. 28) with respect to the §103 rejection of claims 1-19 have been considered, but are moot in view of withdrawal of the §103 rejection.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claim 1 and 3-10 are 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 pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
Claims 1 and 3 each recite the limitation of “the one or more sources,”’ however this limitation lacks antecedent basis because neither claim 1 nor claim 3 introduce “one or more sources” prior to referring to “the one or more sources,” and it is unclear what “the one or more sources” is referring to. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 3-10 depend from claim 1 and fail to cure the deficiency noted above, and therefore claims 3-10 also inherit the indefiniteness of parent claim 1.
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, 3-10, and 12-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-patentable subject matter. The claims are directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Claims 1, 3-10, and 12-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. 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. The eligibility analysis in support of these findings is provided below, in accordance with the subject matter eligibility guidance set forth in MPEP 2106.
With respect to Step 1 of the eligibility inquiry (as explained in MPEP 2106.03), it is first noted that the claimed method (claims 1 and 3-9), system (claims 10 and 12-18), and non-transitory computer-readable medium (claim 19) are each directed to a potentially eligible category of subject matter (i.e., process, machine, and article of manufacture). Accordingly, claims 1, 3-10, and 12-19 satisfy Step 1 of the eligibility inquiry.
With respect to Step 2A Prong One of the eligibility inquiry (as explained in MPEP 2106.04), it is next noted that the claims recite an abstract idea that falls under the “Certain methods of organizing human activity” abstract idea grouping by reciting limitations for managing commercial interactions such as sales activities or behaviors (managing delays of customer orders) and steps that, but for the generic computer implementation (executed by a processing apparatus), could be implemented as “Mental Processes” (e.g., observation, evaluation, judgment, or opinion), and furthermore recites steps that may be implemented as mathematical calculations/equations, such that the claims also recite activities falling under the “Mathematical Concepts” abstract idea grouping. The limitations reciting the abstract idea, as set forth in independent claim 1 are identified in bold text below, whereas the additional elements are presented in plain text and are separately evaluated under Step 2A Prong Two and Step 2B:
receiving, by a predicting system via a communication network from the one or more sources, an order data associated with a plurality of stages of and order, wherein the order data comprises an order identifier (ID), customer data, location data, product data, agent data, vendor data, time delay associated with each of the plurality of stages of order, start and completion date related to each of the plurality of stages of order, historical order data, order cycle time of historical orders, and current order data (The “receiving” step describes activity for managing commercial interactions because the received data is directly related to sale activity related to customer order delays, and furthermore this step, but for the generic computer implementation by the “predicting system” (See Spec. at par. 22, noting generic computer embodiment of the system), could be implemented as mental activity such as by human evaluation, judgment, or opinion. In addition, the “receiving” step may be considered insignificant extra-solution data gathering activity, which is not enough to amount to a practical application (MPEP 2106.05(g)), and such extra-solution data gathering activity has also been recognized as well-understood, routine, and conventional, and thus insufficient to add significantly more to the abstract idea. See MPEP 2106.05(d) - Receiving or transmitting data over a network, e.g., using the Internet to gather data, Symantec, 838 F.3d at 1321, 120 USPQ2d at 1362 (utilizing an intermediary computer to forward information); TLI Communications LLC v. AV Auto. LLC, 823 F.3d 607, 610, 118 USPQ2d 1744, 1745 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (using a telephone for image transmission); OIP Techs., Inc., v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363, 115 USPQ2d 1090, 1093 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (sending messages over a network); buySAFE, Inc. v. Google, Inc., 765 F.3d 1350, 1355, 112 USPQ2d 1093, 1096 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (computer receives and sends information over a network));
determining, by the predicting system, a stage-wise cycle time of each of the plurality of previous stages of the order by processing the order data corresponding to each of the plurality of stages of the order (The “determining” step describes activity for managing commercial interactions because the determined cycle time of the order stages is directly tied to sale activity related to customer order delays, and furthermore this step, but for the generic computer implementation by the “predicting system” (See Spec. at par. 22, noting generic computer embodiment of the system), could be implemented as mental activity such as by human evaluation, judgment, or opinion);
training, by a training module in the predicting system, a plurality of models comprising at least one of: Logistic Regression, Decision Tree, Random Forest, and Adaptive Boosting models, using historical order data together with a summation of the determined stage-wise cycle time of each of the plurality of previous stages of the order (The “training” step describes activity for managing commercial interactions because the training of a plurality of model using historical data cycle time of the order stages is directly tied to sale activity related to customer order delays, and furthermore this step, but for the generic computer implementation by the module (See Spec. at par. 22, noting generic computer embodiment of the system), could be implemented as mental activity such as by human evaluation, judgment, or opinion, and furthermore the “training” of the models can be accomplished via mathematical equations/operations based on the mathematical techniques expressly recited in the claim as well as those noted in at least pars. 24 and 43 of the Specification. Notably, the “training” of the models is not recited or required to involve machine learning, artificial intelligence, or the like, particularly given the silence of the Specification regarding any ML, AI, neural network, etc., and given that training a model is not considered as involving or requiring machine learning, but instead model training can refer to traditional, non-learning-based modeling, such as fitting a predefined mathematical equation to data via regression, or building deterministic, rules-based systems, and including traditional, or manual, statistical, or, deterministic, modelling, techniques where the model's rules, or structure, are defined in advance, not derived by, or through, learning);
selecting, by the predicting system, a model from a plurality of models for one of a first order delay and a second order delay for each of the plurality of stages of the order based on order delay output accuracy of each of the plurality of models, (The “selecting…a model” step describes activity for managing commercial interactions because the model and model selection are directly tied to sale activity related to customer order delays, and furthermore this step, but for the generic computer implementation by the “predicting system” (See Spec. at par. 22, noting generic computer embodiment of the system), could be implemented as mental activity such as by human evaluation, judgment, or opinion), wherein the order delay output accuracy is measured using Area Under the Curve (AUC) of the Receiver Operator Curve (ROC), such that the model with best AUC-ROC is selected for predicting order delay (This feature describes activity for managing commercial interactions because the output accuracy of the order delay is directly tied to sale activity related to customer order delays, and furthermore this step, but for the generic computer implementation by the module (See Spec. at par. 22, noting generic computer embodiment of the system), could be implemented as mental activity such as by human evaluation, judgment, or opinion, and furthermore the AUC of the ROC measuring can, and arguably must, be accomplished entirely via mathematical calculations since this technique is understood as being implemented via graph based statistical calculation and plotting of mathematical values); and
predicting, by the predicting system, a probability for the order delay that comprises one of: the first order delay and the second order delay based on the selected model corresponding to the first order delay and the second order delay for each of the plurality of stages of the order (The “predicting” step describes activity for managing commercial interactions because the predicted probability of the order delay is directly tied to sale activity related to customer order delays, and furthermore this step, but for the generic computer implementation by the “predicting system” (See Spec. at par. 22, noting generic computer embodiment of the system), could be implemented as mental activity such as by human evaluation, judgment, or opinion); and
displaying, using visualization tool, a multi-dimensional view of order details, probability for one of the first order delay and the second order delay and associated risk (This step describes commercial interaction activity in relation to customer order delays, and furthermore this step, but for the generic computer/visualization tool implementation (See Spec. at par. 22, noting generic computer embodiment of the system), could be implemented as mental activity such as by human evaluation, judgment, or opinion), to facilitate the user to perform one or more actions to overcome the order delay (The phrase “…to facilitate the user to perform one or more actions to overcome the order delay” is a statement of intended result or usage of the displayed output and does not impose additional patentable weight on the “displaying” step nor otherwise add another step/limitation other than the desired result/usage).
Independent claims 10 and 19 recite limitations similar to the limitations discussed above and have been determined to recite the same abstract idea(s) as claim 1.
With respect to Step 2A Prong Two of the eligibility inquiry (as explained in MPEP 2106.04(d)), the judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. Independent claims 1/10/19 include additional elements directed to a predicting system, communication network, processor, memory communicatively coupled to the processor and storing processor-executable instructions, and non-transitory computer readable medium, training module in the predicting system, and displaying, using visualization tool. The additional elements have been evaluated, but fail to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they amount to using generic computing elements or instructions (software) to perform the abstract idea, similar to adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent), which merely serves to link the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment (generic network computing environment). See MPEP 2106.05(f) and 2106.05(h). Furthermore, even if the receiving and displaying are evaluated as additional elements, this activity at most amounts to insignificant extra-solution activity, which is not enough to amount to a practical application. See MPEP 2106.05(g). In addition, these limitations fail to provide an improvement to the functioning of a computer or to any other technology or technical field, fail to apply the exception with a particular machine, fail to apply the judicial exception to effect a particular treatment or prophylaxis for a disease or medical condition, fail to effect a transformation of a particular article to a different state or thing, and fail to apply/use the abstract idea in a meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment.
Accordingly, because the Step 2A Prong One and Prong Two analysis resulted in the conclusion that the claims are directed to an abstract idea, additional analysis under Step 2B of the eligibility inquiry must be conducted in order to determine whether any claim element or combination of elements amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
With respect to Step 2B of the eligibility inquiry (as explained in MPEP 2106.05), it has been determined that the claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception Independent claims 1/10/19 include additional elements directed to a predicting system, communication network, processor, memory communicatively coupled to the processor and storing processor-executable instructions, and non-transitory computer readable medium, training module in the predicting system, and displaying, using visualization tool. The additional elements have been evaluated, but fail to add significantly more to the claims because they amount to using generic computing elements or instructions/software to perform the abstract idea (See also, Spec. at par. [0022]: “laptop computer, a desktop computer, a Personal Computer (PC), a notebook, a smartphone, a tablet, and the like”), which is similar to adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent), which merely serves to link the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment (generic network computing environment) and does not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself. See, e.g., Alice Corp., 134 S. Ct. 2347, 110 USPQ2d 1976; Versata Dev. Group, Inc. v. SAP Am., Inc., 793 F.3d 1306, 1334, 115 USPQ2d 1681, 1701 (Fed. Cir. 2015)). Furthermore, even if the receiving and displaying are evaluated as additional elements, this activity at most amounts to insignificant extra-solution activity, and such extra-solution activities have been recognized as well-understood, routine, and conventional and thus insufficient to add significantly more to the abstract idea, as noted by the CAFC with respect to storing and retrieving information in memory, Versata Dev. Group, Inc. v. SAP Am., Inc., 793 F.3d 1306, 1334, 115 USPQ2d 1681, 1701 (Fed. Cir. 2015); OIP Techs., 788 F.3d at 1363, 115 USPQ2d at 1092-93. See also, Mayo, 566 U.S. at 79, 101 USPQ2d at 1968; OIP Techs., Inc. v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363, 115 USPQ2d 1090, 1092-93 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (presenting offers and gathering statistics amounted to mere data gathering). Furthermore, regarding the displaying, using visualization tool, this feature requires, at most, a graphical interface of a generic computer, which does not transform the abstract idea into eligible subject matter). See, e.g., Affinity Labs of Texas LLC v. DirecTV LLC, 838 F.3d 1253, 1257-1258 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (mere recitation of a GUI does not make a claim patent-eligible); Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Capital One Bank, 792 F.3d 1363, 1370 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (“the interactive interface limitation is a generic computer element”).
In addition, when taken as an ordered combination, the ordered combination adds nothing that is not already present as when the elements are taken individually. There is no indication that the combination of elements integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Their collective functions merely provide generic computer implementation. Therefore, when viewed as a whole, these additional claim elements do not provide meaningful limitations to transform the abstract idea into a practical application of the abstract idea or that, as an ordered combination, amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself.
Dependent claims 3-9 and 12-18 recite the same abstract idea as recited in the independent claims, and have been determined to recite further steps/details that also fall under the “Certain methods of organizing human activity” abstract idea grouping by reciting limitations for managing commercial interactions such as sales activities or behaviors (managing delays of customer orders) and that, but for the generic computer implementation, could be implemented as “Mental Processes” (e.g., observation, evaluation, judgment, or opinion). With respect to sources recited as including files and database, as recited in claims 3/12, the files and database are not required by the claims to be in any particular form/structure but are recited at a high level of generality, however even if interpreted as being computerized, these elements at most amount to using additional generic computing elements to perform the abstract idea, similar to adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent), which merely serves to link the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment (generic computing environment), which in insufficient to amount to a practical application or significantly more than the abstract idea. See MPEP 2106.05(f) and 2106.05(h). See, e.g., Alice Corp., 134 S. Ct. 2347, 110 USPQ2d 1976; Versata Dev. Group, Inc. v. SAP Am., Inc., 793 F.3d 1306, 1334, 115 USPQ2d 1681, 1701 (Fed. Cir. 2015).
The ordered combination of elements in the dependent claims (including the limitations inherited from the parent claim(s)) add nothing that is not already present as when the elements are taken individually. There is no indication that the combination of elements improves the functioning of a computer or improves any other technology. Their collective functions merely provide generic computer implementation. Accordingly, the subject matter encompassed by the dependent claims fails to amount to a practical application or significantly more than the abstract idea itself.
Allowable over the prior art
Claims 1, 3-10, and 12-19 are allowable over the prior art. These claims are not allowed, however, because claims 1, 3-10, and 12-19 stand rejected under 35 USC §101 and claims 1 and 3-10 also further stand rejected under §112(b), as discussed above.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
K. L. Keung et al., "A Machine Learning Predictive Model for Shipment Delay and Demand Forecasting for Warehouses and Sales Data," 2021 IEEE International Conference on Industrial Engineering and Engineering Management (IEEM), Singapore, Singapore, 2021, pp. 1010-1014: discloses features for predicting shipment delays, including evaluating the accuracy of various shipment delay classification approaches.
Y. Wang et al., "Delay Aware Dynamic Risk Assessment for Logistics Delivery," 2021 IEEE International Symposium on Systems Engineering (ISSE), Vienna, Austria, 2021, pp. 1-8: discloses techniques for assessing delay risk for logistics delivery.
Kesler et al. (US 2017/0060792): discloses features for predicting scheduling interruption data and evaluating delay risk.
Boldrin et al. (US 2016/0300171): discloses risk-based order management, including calculating delay probability (at least pars. 31-32).
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 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 of a general nature or relating to the status of this application or concerning this communication or earlier communications from the Examiner should be directed to Timothy A. Padot whose telephone number is 571.270.1252. The Examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday, 8:30 - 5:30. If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the Examiner’s supervisor, Brian Epstein can be reached at 571.270.5389. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571- 273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from Patent Center. Status information for published applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Patent Center for authorized users only. Should you have questions about access to Patent Center, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). 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) Form at https://www.uspto.gov/patents/uspto-automated- interview-request-air-form.
/TIMOTHY PADOT/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3625
01/29/2026