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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed with respect to rejections under 35 USC 101 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant argues the claims set forth a solution for a technical problem. Taking method claim 1 for example, the entirety of the claim is implemented “by a computer”. Further, the specification does not describe any technical solution to a technical problem. The “improvements” analysis “determines whether the claim pertains to an improvement to the functioning of a computer or to another technology.” MPEP 2106.04(d)(1). In order “to be directed to a patent-eligible improvement to computer functionality, the claims must be directed to an improvement to the functionality of the computer or network platform itself.” Customedia Techs., LLC v. Dish Network Corp., 951 F.3d 1359, 1365 (Fed. Cir. 2020). The claim is directed to using a computer to perform observations and evaluations for generating a forecast related to commercial interactions between supply chain levels, not to improving computer functionality or another technology. The specification does not explicit describe any improvement to technology only a purported improved methodology of data gathering and analysis that considers a retailer supply chain. That feature, however, is an improvement to the abstract idea itself.
In response to Applicant’s comments regarding Prong Two of Step 2A, Examiner submits that the claimed abstract idea is merely performed “by a computer” and further the specification only describes the use of computing systems to perform the abstract idea and not any improvement to the computer to technology. Use of a computer or other machinery in its ordinary capacity for economic or other tasks (e.g., to receive, store, or transmit data) or simply adding a general purpose computer or computer components after the fact to an abstract idea (e.g., a fundamental economic practice or mathematical equation) does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more. See Affinity Labs v. DirecTV, 838 F.3d 1253, 1262, 120 USPQ2d 1201, 1207 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (cellular telephone); TLI Communications LLC v. AV Auto, LLC, 823 F.3d 607, 613, 118 USPQ2d 1744, 1748 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (computer server and telephone unit). Similarly, "claiming the improved speed or efficiency inherent with applying the abstract idea on a computer" does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide an inventive concept. Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Capital One Bank (USA), 792 F.3d 1363, 1367, 115 USPQ2d 1636, 1639 (Fed. Cir. 2015). MPEP 2106.05(f) 2
Regarding Step 2B, Examiner notes the analysis focuses on additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. From MPEP 2106.05, An inventive concept "cannot be furnished by the unpatentable law of nature (or natural phenomenon or abstract idea) itself." Genetic Techs. Ltd. v. Merial LLC, 818 F.3d 1369, 1376, 118 USPQ2d 1541, 1546 (Fed. Cir. 2016). See also Alice Corp., 573 U.S. at 21-18, 110 USPQ2d at 1981 (citing Mayo, 566 U.S. at 78, 101 USPQ2d at 1968 (after determining that a claim is directed to a judicial exception, "we then ask, ‘[w]hat else is there in the claims before us?") (emphasis added)); RecogniCorp, LLC v. Nintendo Co., 855 F.3d 1322, 1327, 122 USPQ2d 1377 (Fed. Cir. 2017). Here, the additional elements amount to using a computer as a tool to perform the abstract idea and taken alone or in combination do not present an inventive concept under Step 2B.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to rejections under 35 USC 102 and 35 USC 103 have been fully considered and are persuasive. The rejection in view of cited prior art have been withdrawn.
The objection to the specification is outstanding and has been reproduced for convenience.
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities: paragraph 0008 of the specification ends in the middle of a sentence and ending in a comma.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1-20 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. Specifically, claims 1 and 19 have been amendment to recite “the nodes are linked based upon three or more hierarchical levels in a supply chain…”. While examiner acknowledges the specification discloses various levels of the supply chain, there is no explicit description of the nodes being linked based on three or more hierarchical levels in a supply chain.
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.
Claim(s) 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention recites a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more. Claim(s) 1-20 is/are directed to a method, system, and computer program product. Thus, all the claims are within the four potentially eligible categories of invention (a process, a machine and an article of manufacture, respectively), satisfying Step 1 of the Subject Matter Eligibility (SME) test.
As per Prong One of Step 2A of the §101 eligibility analysis set forth in MPEP 2106, the Examiner notes that the claims recite generating a forecast based upon a plurality of supply nodes and an input parameter which is certain methods of organizing human activity as it related to commercial interactions.
But for the computer implementation in claim 1 and the system in claim 19, the claims recite data analysis steps to generate a forecast for a product. Specifically, the independent claims recite:
at least one input parameter associated with a first selected node of the nodes; and a request to generate a forecast for at least one output parameter based upon the input parameter; and generating,
This type of analysis is certain methods of organizing human activity as it relates to advertising/marketing, sales behaviors, etc. The nominal recitation of a computing system, one or more server computers and one or more memory devices having programs stored thereon for instructing server computers does not necessarily preclude the claim from reciting an abstract idea as evidenced by the analysis at Prong 2 of Step 2A.
Regarding Prong Two of Step 2A, a claim reciting an abstract idea must be analyzed to determine whether any additional elements in the claim integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. Limitations that are indicative of integration into a practical application include: Improvements to the functioning of a computer, or to any other technology or technical field, as discussed in MPEP 2106.05(a); Applying or using a judicial exception to effect a particular treatment or prophylaxis for disease or medical condition – see Vanda Memo; Applying the judicial exception with, or by use of, a particular machine, as discussed in MPEP 2106.05(b); Effecting a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing, as discussed in MPEP 2106.05(c); and Applying or using the judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment, such that the claim as a whole is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception, as discussed in MPEP 2106.05(e) and the Vanda Memo issued in June 2018.
In this case, the independent claims do not include limitations that meet the criteria listed above, thus the abstract idea is not integrated into a practical application. Independent claim 1 is implemented by a computing system which amounts to using a computer as a tool to perform the abstract idea. Independent claim 19 recites one or more server computers and one or more memory devices having one or more programs stored thereon for instructing server computers. In both claim 1 and claim 19, these limitations amount to using a computer as a tool to perform the abstract idea. There is no integration into a practical application.
The dependent claims recite additional abstract ideas and/or additional details of the abstract idea identified above and some recite additional elements that do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application.
Dependent claim 2 specifies the parameters of claim 1 are associated with at least one of the listed node types which part of the abstract idea identified in claim 1. There is no integration into a practical application.
Dependent claim 3 specifies the output parameters and the second selected node being upstream relative to the first selected node which is part of the abstract idea identified in claim 1. There is no integration into a practical application.
Dependent claim 4 recites details of the first and second selected nodes which is part of the abstract idea identified in claim 1. There is no integration into a practical application.
Dependent claims 5-13, 16, 17 each recites details of the input and output parameters and other features of the forecast generation which is part of the abstract idea identified in claim 1. None of claims 5-13, 16, 17 includes an additional element that integrates the abstract idea into a practical application.
Dependent claims 14-15 recites steps of processing proposed promotion parameter based on a permission level; and upon determining permission of approval, changing existing promotion plan; upon determining permission of proposing, sending proposed promotion parameters; or upon determining permission of promotion window change, updating only the time window of the existing promotion plan which are additional steps of the abstract idea identified in claim 1.
Claim 18 recites sending data to a client-side computer for presentation via a graphical user interface which amounts to using a computer as a tool to perform the abstract idea of claim 1 and does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application.
Dependent claim 20 recites the server computers include: one or more web servers and one or more working servers configured to receive parameters and generate the forecast for presentation via an app on a client-side computer. This amounts to using a computer as a tool to perform the abstract idea and only generally links the abstract idea to a technical environment. There is no integration into a practical application.
The claims do not include limitations beyond generally linking the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment. When considered individually and in combination, the system and software claim elements only contribute generic recitations of technical elements to the claims. It is readily apparent, for example, that the claim is not directed to any specific improvements of these elements. The invention is not directed to a technical improvement. When the claims are considered individually and as a whole, the additional elements noted above appear to merely apply the abstract concept to a technical environment in a very general sense.
Lastly and in accordance with Step 2B, the claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, and when considered individually and in combination, the additional elements amount to no more than mere instruction to apply the exception using generic computer component. Mere instruction to apply an exception using generic computer components cannot provide an inventive concept.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 1-20 are allowable over the prior art. None of the cited references taken alone or in combination disclose the output parameter is associated with at least one second selected node of the nodes, the at least one second selected node including two or more nodes respectively from at least two levels of the hierarchical levels different from a level of the hierarchical level that is associated with the first selected node.
As allowable subject matter has been indicated, applicant's reply must either comply with all formal requirements or specifically traverse each requirement not complied with. See 37 CFR 1.111(b) and MPEP § 707.07(a).
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.
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Cited prior art is listed in the PTO-892.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JOHNNA LOFTIS whose telephone number is (571)272-6736. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7:00am-3:30pm.
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, 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 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.
JOHNNA LOFTIS
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 3625
/JOHNNA R LOFTIS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3625
Prosecution Insights