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
This action is in reply to the arguments/remarks filed on 6 November 2025.
Claims 1-4, 6-7, and 18-20 have been amended.
Claims 12-17 have been withdrawn.
Claims 1-11 and 18-20 are currently pending and have been examined.
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 6 November 2025 has been entered.
Claim Objections
Claim 2, 3, 5, 7, and 9-11 is objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 2, line 8 recites “the transport the transport”. This appears to be a typographical error of “the transport”.
Claims 3, 5, 7, and 9-11 inherit the deficiencies of claim 2. Therefore, claims 3, 5, 7, and 9-11 are objected to for the same reasons as claim 2.
Appropriate correction is required.
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 1-11 and 18-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., an abstract idea) without significantly more.
Step 1: Claims 1-11 is/are drawn to a system (i.e., a machine) and claims 18-20 is/are drawn to a non-transitory machine-readable storage medium (i.e., a manufacture). As such, claims 1-11 and 18-20 is/are drawn to one of the statutory categories of invention (Step 1: YES).
Step 2A - Prong One: In prong one of step 2A, the claim(s) is/are analyzed to evaluate whether it/they recite(s) a judicial exception.
Representative Claim 1:
storing node information for a plurality of nodes of a supply chain graph, the supply chain graph being a directed graph where each of the nodes represent a location or transport in a supply chain and edges between two nodes represent transfers of items from one node to another node, each node representing a location being assigned a location code and representing a transport being assigned a transport code, each edge being stored as a transfer record, the transfer record including a location code or transport code for the node that items were transferred from and a location code or a transport code for the node that items were transferred to;
receiving first product information for a plurality of product units, the first product information including a tracking code for each product unit and a location or transport code for each product unit indicating the node in the supply chain where the product unit is located;
receiving product transfer information indicating a plurality of transfers of product units between the nodes in the supply chain;
in response to receiving the product transfer information, automatically generating a plurality of transfer records, the plurality of transfer records including a transfer record for each of the transfers indicated by the product transfer information, each transfer record including a first location or transport code indicating a first node in the supply chain being transferred from, a second location or transport code indication a second node in the supply chain being transferred to, and a list of tracking codes for the product units being transferred from the first node to the second node;
storing the plurality of transfer records along with the plurality of nodes to generate the supply chain graph;
receiving a request for tracking information for a product unit a client;
accessing the transfer records with reference to a tracking code associated with the product unit to retrieve the tracking information associated with the request; and
returning the tracking information.
As noted by the claim limitations above, the independent claimed invention discusses tracking a product in a supply chain. This is considered to be an abstract idea because it is managing a personal behavior of tracking a product which falls within the category of “certain methods of organizing human activity.”
See MPEP 2106.
As such, the Examiner concludes that claim 1 recites an abstract idea (Step 2A – Prong One: YES).
Step 2A - Prong Two: This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, claim 1 recites the following additional element(s): a processor, memory in communication with the processor, the memory comprising executable instructions that, when executed by the processor alone or in combination with other processors, cause the supply chain tracking system to perform functions, a database using a tracking management component of the supply chain tracking system, a tracking application of a client device, and a network. This/these additional elements individually or in combination do not integrate the exception into a practical application because they merely use a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea (see MPEP 2106.05(f)). Accordingly, these additional element(s) do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. Claim 1 is directed to an abstract idea.
The Examiner has therefore determined that the additional elements, or combination of additional elements, do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Accordingly, the claim(s) is/are directed to an abstract idea (Step 2A – Prong two: NO).
Step 2B: Claim 1 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, the additional element(s) merely use a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea, which does not render a claim as being significantly more than the judicial exception (see MPEP 2106.05(f)). Accordingly, claim 1 is ineligible.
The Examiner has therefore determined that no additional element, or combination of additional claims elements is/are sufficient to ensure the claim(s) amount to significantly more than the abstract idea identified above (Step 2B: NO).
Therefore, claim 1 is not eligible subject matter under 35 USC 101.
Dependent claim(s) 2-3, 5-8, and 10 merely further limit the abstract idea and do not recite any additional elements beyond those already recited in claim 1. Therefor claim(s) 2-3, 5-8, and 10 are ineligible.
Dependent claim(s) 4, 9, and 11 further recite(s) the additional element(s): a code reader of a client device (claim 4) and a display device (claim 9 and 11). This/these additional element(s) alone or in ordered combination does no more than merely use a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea (see MPEP 2106.05(f)), which does not integrate the claim(s) into a practical application nor does it render a claim as being significantly more than the abstract idea. Accordingly, claim(s) 4, 9, and 11 is/are ineligible.
Claim 18 is parallel in nature to claim 1. Claim 18 recites an abstract idea similar in nature to claim 1. Furthermore, claim 18 recites the following additional elements: a non-transitory computer readable medium on which are stored instructions, a programmable device, a database using a tracking management component of the supply chain tracking system, a tracking application of a first client device, a network, and a second client device. These additional elements do no more than merely use a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea (see MPEP 2106.05(f)), which does not integrate the claim into a practical application nor does it render a claim as being significantly more than the abstract idea.
Dependent claim(s) 19-20 merely further limit the abstract idea and do not recite any additional elements beyond those already recited in claim 18. Therefor claim(s) 19-20 are ineligible.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim(s) 1-11 and 18-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bolene (US 9576264 B2) in view of Phaniraj (US 20210287149 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Bolene teaches a supply chain tracking system comprising:
a processor; (Col. 2, ll. 45 “processor 112”) and
a memory in communication with the processor, the memory comprising executable instructions that, when executed by the processor alone or in combination with other processors, (Col. 2, ll. 41-46 “he memory 114 […] storing computer-readable instructions stored thereon that can be executed by the processor 112 to perform the methods of the present disclosure.”) cause the supply chain tracking system to perform functions of:
storing node information for a plurality of nodes of a supply chain graph in a database using a tracking management component of the supply chain tracking system, a location or transport in a supply chain a(Col. 5, ll. 1-13 “The relationship between sellable units and their various aggregations can be stored in the external data repository.” Col. 7, ll. 7-8 “FIG. 2 depicts different partners in an exemplary supply chain (manufacturers, wholesalers, pharmacies, etc.)”; Col. 5, ll. 43-56 “Commissioning events can be published to the external data repository, with each event containing […] a business location (GLN)”; Col. 25, ll. 11-20 “The following is a non-exclusive, exemplary list of data that may be provided in a report provided by various embodiments: [….] Event/Transaction Identifier; […] Event Location(s)”; Fig. 2 shows locations as nodes; Examiner notes the event identifier is synonymous with the transport code and the GLN is synonymous with the location code.)
receiving first product information for a plurality of product units at the tracking management component via a network, the first product information including a tracking code for each product unit and a location or transport code for each product unit indicating the node in the supply chain where the product unit is located; (Col. 3, ll. 20-47 “The EPC may be attached to the product's packaging, […] a device 130 that includes a handheld scanner (e.g., a barcode scanner and/or RFID reader) for reading such information and communicating it to the computer system 110, database 140, or other system. Such scanners may communicate with the computer system 110 or other device through […] a computer network connection”; Col. 5, ll. 43-51 “Commissioning events can be published to the external data repository, with each event containing an identifier (such as a serial number) for the commissioned item or container. The commissioning event may include […] a business location (GLN)”; Fig. 1; Fig. 17 shows the pharmacy receiving commissioning tracking information including a tracking code for each product (i.e. child product numbers for each of the 3 units) and the location (i.e., the commissioning SGLN number which applies to all 3 units))
receiving product transfer information indicating a plurality of transfers of product units between the nodes in the supply chain at the tracking management component via the network; (Col. 11, ll. 51-62 “the system receives a shipping event from an entity in the supply chain […] For each EPC listed within the shipping event”; Col. 12, ll. 54-65 “the system receives a receiving event from an entity in the supply chain”; Col. 4, ll. 4-23 “systems and components operating with, or as part of, various embodiments may communicate with each other via a network”; Fig. 17 shows a report with a transfer of an item (sscc 011222.000000994) between locations with two different SGLNs; Examiner notes the shipping event/receiving event represents the transfer of products between locations (i.e. nodes))
in response to receiving the product transfer information, automatically generating a plurality of transfer records in the database, the plurality of transfer records including a transfer record for each of the transfers indicated by the product transfer information, each transfer record including a first location or transport code indicating a first node in the supply chain being transferred from, a second location or transport code indicating a second node in the supply chain being transferred to, and a list of tracking codes for the product units being transferred from the first node to the second node; (Col. 17, ll. 13-18 “If a shipping event matches a receiving event, then create an EventLink for them. A match occurs in response to the events referencing the same EPC, the shipping event's shipTo identifier is owned by the same organization as the receiving event's bizLocation identifier”; Fig. 17 shows a shipping record with the child product numbers (i.e. list of tracking codes for the product units and a ship from location (SGLN 0111222.00002.0). The receiving record shows the location the receiving location code. It also includes a transaction number.))
receiving a request for tracking information for a product unit from a tracking application of a client device at the tracking management component via the network; (Col. 15, ll. 17-28 “The event sequence for an EPC may be constructed and assessed under a variety of different scenarios. Two such scenarios include a read (where a user or system requests some type of report) […] a user receives the latest information in response to requesting a report”; Col. 4, ll. 4-23 “Any of the components in FIG. 1, as well as other systems and components operating with, or as part of, various embodiments may communicate with each other via a network”; Fig. 1)
accessing the transfer records with reference to a tracking code associated with the product unit to retrieve the tracking information associated with the request; (Col. 14, ll. 52-Col. 15, ll. 3 “For a target EPC, identify events directly associated with the EPC (810). […] Generate a list of events (optionally sorted in time order), which captures everything that happened to the item identified by the target EPC (850).”; Fig. 8) and
returning the tracking information to the tracking application. (Col. 15, ll. 17-28 “The event sequence for an EPC may be constructed and assessed under a variety of different scenarios. Two such scenarios include a read (where a user or system requests some type of report) […] a user receives the latest information in response to requesting a report”)
Bolene does not teach:
the supply chain graph being a directed graph where each of the nodes represents a location or transport in a supply chain and edges between two nodes represent transfers of items from one node to another node, each node representing a location being assigned a location code and representing a transport being assigned a transport code, each edge being stored as a transfer record in the database, the transfer record including a location code or a transport code for the node that items were transferred from and a location code or a transport code for the node that items were transferred to;
storing the plurality of transfer records in the database along with the plurality of nodes to generate the supply chain graph.
However, Phaniraj teaches:
the supply chain graph being a directed graph where edges between two nodes represent transfers of items from one node to another node, each edge being stored as a transfer record in the database; (Paragraph [0044] “The flow map 318 includes an upstream segment that indicates that the Chicago facility is supplied ‘Widget XY’ from an upstream facility in Europe. Flow map 318 further includes a first-order downstream segment indicating that the Chicago facility supplies ‘Widget XY’ to a downstream facility in Columbia, Missouri, and a second-order downstream segment indicating that the Columbia facility supplies ‘Widget XY’ to a downstream facility in Minneapolis, Minnesota. Each of these facilities in the flow path is represented on the map by visual markers 320a-d overlaid at locations on the map that correspond to their geographic locations in the real world. Arrows showing the direction of flow of the item connect the facilities on flow map 318.”; Paragraph [0029] “The central system 102 manages records for each facility item in the supply chain. For instance, as further shown in table 106, central system 102 maintains metadata for each facility item such as values of one or more supply chain metrics, e.g., actual inventory levels, OTIF, […] delivery projections,”; Paragraph [0038] “Actionable data that is made accessible to client computing systems 116a-n, […] can be stored in volatile and/or non-volatile memory in one or more data structures (e.g., databases)”; el. 318 of Fig. 3D; Examiner notes a record would comprises all data in el. 106 of Fig. 1 that relates to Item ID #A. Therefore, el. 106 of Fig. 1 identifies the movement of item A from facility 1 to facility 2.)
This operation of Phaniraj is applicable to the system of Bolene as they both share characteristics and capabilities, namely, they are directed to tracking items in a supply chain. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to have modified the supply chain graph of Bolene be a directed graph where edges between two nodes represent transfers of items from one node to another node, each edge being stored as a transfer record in the database as taught by Phaniraj. One of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention would have been motivated to modify Bolene in order to allow users to quickly and efficiently access relevant data to gather desired insights (see paragraph [0001] of Phaniraj).
storing the plurality of transfer records in the database along with the plurality of nodes to generate the supply chain graph. (Paragraph [0036] “in table 106, central system 102 maintains metadata for each facility item”; Paragraph [0038] “individual ones of client computing systems 116a-n and users of these individual ones of client computing systems 116a-n may request aggregation of metadata […] Actionable data […] can be stored in […] one or more data structures (e.g., databases)”; Paragraph [0067] “the respective client computing system 116 may receive an indication (e.g. via user input or via indirect communication means) that the user has selected a flow-map control (e.g., product flow button 314c) (208). In response to detecting this selection of the flow-map control, one or more flow paths for the facility item are determined (208) and a product flow view for the selected facility item is rendered for display to the end user (210).”)
This operation of Phaniraj is applicable to the system of Bolene as they both share characteristics and capabilities, namely, they are directed to tracking items in a supply chain. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to have modified the system of Bolene to store the plurality of transfer records in the database along with the plurality of nodes to generate the supply chain graph as taught by Phaniraj. One of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention would have been motivated to modify Bolene in order to allow users to quickly and efficiently access relevant data to gather desired insights (see paragraph [0001] of Phaniraj).
Regarding claim 2, Bolene in view of Phaniraj teaches the supply chain tracking system of claim 1,
Bolene further teaches wherein the functions further comprise:
receiving second product information via the network, the second product information indicating that the plurality of product units have been aggregated to form a first aggregation and including a tracking code associated with the first aggregation, the second product information further indicating that first aggregation has been loaded onto a transport and including a transport code for the transport corresponding to a third node in the supply chain; (Col. 19, ll. 59-60 “a data repository server may be configured to push recall events to parties in the supply chain”; Col. 6, ll. 32-36 “’…aggregation events’ that describe relationships between items having EPCs. For example, an aggregation event may include adding six bottles of aspirin (each with its own EPC) into a shipping container (also with its own EPC)”; Col. 25, ll. 11-20 “The following is a non-exclusive, exemplary list of data that may be provided in a report provided by various embodiments: [….] Event/Transaction Identifier; […] Event Location(s)”; Fig. 17 shows shipping information and aggregation information. The shipping information shows the aggregated package (sscc 0111222.0000000994) is in transit.) and
storing a transfer record in the database indicating a transfer of the first aggregation from the second node to the third node (Col. 17, ll. 13-18 “If a shipping event matches a receiving event, then create an EventLink for them. A match occurs in response to the events referencing the same EPC, the shipping event's shipTo identifier is owned by the same organization as the receiving event's bizLocation identifier”; “’…aggregation events’ that describe relationships between items having EPCs. For example, an aggregation event may include adding six bottles of aspirin (each with its own EPC) into a shipping container (also with its own EPC)”; Col. 5, ll. 4-6 “Various embodiments can track products at any level of aggregation (including products packaged inside multiple levels of nested containers)”Fig. 16 and 17 show a second set of shipping (second shipping event in fig. 17) and receiving events (Fig. 16) representing the transfer of the item from the distributor (SGLN 0222333… in Fig. 17) to the retailer (SGLN 0111222… in Fig. 16).)
Bolene does not teach:
storing a transfer record in the database indicating a transfer of the first aggregation from the second node to the third node, the second record corresponding to an edge in the supply chain graph connecting the second node and the third node.
However, Phaniraj teaches:
the second record corresponding to an edge in the supply chain graph connecting the second node and the third node. (Paragraph [0029] “As shown in table 106, data processing and aggregation data processing and aggregation 108 may consolidate information received from individual facilities into a merged data set that includes records for each “facility item” in the supply chain.”; Paragraph [0044] “Arrows showing the direction of flow of the item connect the facilities on the map 318”; el. 106 of Fig. 1, and el. 318 of Fig. 3D)
The motivation for making this modification to the teachings of Bolene is the same as that set forth above, in the rejection of claim 1.
Regarding claim 3, Bolene in view of Phaniraj teaches the supply chain tracking system of claim 2.
Bolene further teaches wherein the functions further comprise:
receiving third product information via the network, the third product information indicating that the plurality of product units have been disaggregated from the first aggregation at a fourth node in the supply chain; (Col. 19, ll. 59-60 “a data repository server may be configured to push recall events to parties in the supply chain”; Col. 6, ll. 62-67 “A ‘disaggregation event’ may include removing some of the items (e.g., bottles of aspirin) from a container.”; Fig. 16 shows that the disaggregation happens at the pharmacy/retailer (SGLN 0333444 of Fig. 16) and not the Manufacturer or distributor) and
storing a transfer record in the database indicating a transfer of the plurality of product units from the third node to the fourth node. (Col. 17, ll. 13-18 “If a shipping event matches a receiving event, then create an EventLink for them. A match occurs in response to the events referencing the same EPC, the shipping event's shipTo identifier is owned by the same organization as the receiving event's bizLocation identifier”; Fig. 16 and 17 show a second set of shipping (second shipping event in fig. 17) and receiving events (Fig. 16) representing the transfer of the item from the distributor (SGLN 0222333… in Fig. 17) to the retailer (SGLN 0111222… in Fig. 16). The first tracking code is visible in Fig. 16 in the disaggregation event (SGTIN 0111222.999888.411))
Regarding claim 4, Bolene in view of Phaniraj teaches the supply chain tracking system of claim 1.
Bolene further teaches:
the first product information is generated by scanning the tracking code for each of the plurality of product units with a code reader of a client device. (Col. 3, ll. 30-33 “a device 130 that includes a handheld scanner (e.g., a barcode scanner and/or RFID reader) for reading such information [EPC code] and communicating it to the computer system 110, database 140, or other system”)
Regarding claim 5, Bolene in view of Phaniraj teaches the supply chain tracking system of claim 2.
Bolene further teaches:
the first aggregation corresponds to a pallet, (Col. 6, ll. 51-53 “Various embodiments can track products at various possible levels of aggregation including: […] pallet”)
Regarding claim 6, Bolene in view of Phaniraj teaches the supply chain tracking system of claim 1.
Bolene further teaches:
the first node corresponds to a source node for the plurality of product units, (Col. 5, ll. 32-34 “For example, a manufacturer trading partner in a supply chain may generate and/or publish “commissioning” events as an initiating event for a sellable item”; Fig. 17 shows that the commissioning event happens at the manufacturer. (SGLN code is for the manufacturer)) and
the node information includes source information for the source node, the source information indicating at least one quality metric for the plurality of product units. (Col. 9, lines 7-9 “If there is more than one commissioning event, the system sets the child EPC state to a condition reflecting error”)
Regarding claim 7, Bolene in view of Phaniraj teaches the supply chain tracking system of claim 2.
Bolene further teaches:
wherein the first aggregation is a volume of a bulk commodity. (Col. 6, ll. 32-39 “an aggregation event may include adding six bottles of aspirin”)
Regarding claim 8, Bolene in view of Phaniraj teaches the supply chain tracking system of claim 1,
Bolene does not teach:
wherein the supply chain graph is generated utilizing group-by aggregation queries on records in the database.
However, Phaniraj teaches:
wherein the supply chain graph is generated utilizing group-by aggregation queries on records in the database. (Paragraph [0029] “individual client computing systems 116a-n and users of the client computing systems 116a-n may request aggregation of metadata for additional groups of facility items”)
The motivation for making this modification to the teachings of Bolene is the same as that set forth above, in the rejection of claim 1.
Regarding claim 9, Bolene in view of Phaniraj teaches the supply chain tracking system of claim 2.
Bolene does not teach:
generating a visualization of the supply chain graph based on the plurality of nodes and at least the edges connecting the nodes, and
displaying the visualization of the supply chain graph on a display device.
However, Phaniraj teaches:
generating a visualization of the supply chain graph based on the plurality of nodes and at least the edges connecting the nodes, (Paragraph [0044] “Each of these facilities in the flow path is represented on the map by visual markers 320a-d overlaid at locations on the map that correspond to their geographic locations in the real world. Arrows showing the direction of flow of the item connect the facilities on the map 318.”) and
displaying the visualization of the supply chain graph on a display device. (Paragraph [0043] “a product flow view for the selected facility item is rendered for display to the end user (210).”; “step 210” of Fig. 2)
The motivation for making this modification to the teachings of Bolene is the same as that set forth above, in the rejection of claim 1.
Regarding claim 10, Bolene in view of Phaniraj teaches the supply chain tracking system of claim 9.
Bolene does not teaches wherein a visualization includes:
a map of a geographic region associated with the plurality of nodes of the supply chain,
pin icons pointing to locations on the map where the plurality of nodes of the supply chain are physically located.
However, Phaniraj teaches wherein a visualization includes:
a map of a geographic region associated with the plurality of nodes of the supply chain, pin icons pointing to locations on the map where the plurality of nodes of the supply chain are physically located. (Paragraph [0044] “Each of these facilities in the flow path is represented on the map by visual markers 320a-d overlaid at locations on the map that correspond to their geographic locations in the real world.”)
The motivation for making this modification to the teachings of Bolene is the same as that set forth above, in the rejection of claim 1.
Regarding claim 11, Bolene in view of Phaniraj teaches the supply chain tracking system of claim 10.
Bolene does not teach:
wherein user interaction with a pin icon causes information to be displayed on a display screen pertaining to the location pointed to by the pin icon.
However, Phaniraj teaches:
wherein user interaction with a pin icon causes information to be displayed on a display screen pertaining to a location pointed to by the pin icon. (Paragraph [0044] “When the user hovers a pointer over and/or clicks on a visual marker for a particular facility on the flow map 318 to select that marker, focus can be automatically applied to the facility (and facility item) represented by the marker, a pop-up window can be displayed at or near the marker showing certain details about the facility or facility item represented by the marker, and/or the trends view can be rendered for the facility item represented by the marker.”)
The motivation for making this modification to the teachings of Bolene is the same as that set forth above, in the rejection of claim 1.
Claim(s) 18-20 is/are directed to a non-transitory computer readable medium. Claim(s) 18-20 recite limitations parallel in nature as those addressed above for claim(s) 1-3, which are directed towards a system. Claim(s) 18-20 is/are therefore rejected for the same reasons as set above for claim(s) 1-3, respectively. Claims 18-20 further recite “a non-transitory computer readable medium on which are stored instructions that, when executed cause a programmable device to perform functions” (see Col. 2, ll. 41-50 “non-transitory computer-readable medium” of Bolene).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments, see Page(s) 10-11, filed 6 November 2025, with respect to the 35 USC § 101 rejection(s) of claim(s) 1-11 and 18-20 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant argues 1) the Examiner did not provide a proper 101 rejection and the Examiner did not address the Applicant’s 101 arguments in the final office action, and 2) the claims are integrated into a practical application. The Examiner respectfully disagrees.
Regarding argument 1, the Applicant argues the Examiner did not provide a proper 101 rejection. MPEP 2106.07(a) recites:
A subject matter eligibility rejection under Step 2 should provide an explanation for each part of the Step 2 analysis:
• For Step 2A Prong One, the rejection should identify the judicial exception by referring to what is recited (i.e., set forth or described) in the claim and explain why it is considered an exception. For example, if the claim is directed to an abstract idea, the rejection should identify the abstract idea as it is recited (i.e., set forth or described) in the claim and explain why it is an abstract idea. Similarly, if the claim is directed to a law of nature or a natural phenomenon, the rejection should identify the law of nature or natural phenomenon as it is recited (i.e., set forth or described) in the claim and explain using a reasoned rationale why it is considered a law of nature or natural phenomenon.
• For Step 2A Prong Two, the rejection should identify any additional elements (specifically point to claim features/limitations/steps) recited in the claim beyond the identified judicial exception; and evaluate the integration of the judicial exception into a practical application by explaining that 1) there are no additional elements in the claim; or 2) the claim as a whole, looking at the additional elements individually and in combination, does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application using the considerations set forth in MPEP §§ 2106.04(d), 2106.05(a)- (c) and (e)- (h). Examiners should give weight to all of the claimed additional elements in Prong Two, even if those elements represent well-understood, routine, conventional activity.
• For Step 2B, the rejection should explain why the additional elements, taken individually and in combination, do not result in the claim, as a whole, amounting to significantly more than the identified judicial exception. For instance, when the examiner has concluded that certain claim elements recite well understood, routine, conventional activities in the relevant field, the examiner must expressly support the rejection in writing with one of the four options specified in Subsection III.
Referring to step 2A, prong one, in the prior and current office action the Examiner clearly identified the abstract idea. For example, in the above 103 section, the Examiner recites:
Representative Claim 1:
storing node information for a plurality of nodes of a supply chain graph, the supply chain graph being a directed graph where each of the nodes represent a location or transport in a supply chain and edges between two nodes represent transfers of items from one node to another node, each node representing a location being assigned a location code and representing a transport being assigned a transport code, each edge being stored as a record, the transfer record including a location code or transport code for the node that items were transferred from and a location code or a transport code for the node that items were transferred to;
receiving first product information for a plurality of product units, the first product information including a tracking code for each product unit and a location or transport code for each product unit indicating the node in the supply chain where the product unit is located;
receiving product transfer information indicating a plurality of transfers of product units between the nodes in the supply chain;
in response to receiving the product transfer information, automatically generating a plurality of transfer records, the plurality of transfer records including a transfer record for each of the transfers indicated by the product transfer information, each transfer record including a first location or transport code indicating a first node in the supply chain being transferred from, a second location or transport code indication a second node in the supply chain being transferred to, and a list of tracking codes for the product units being transferred from the first node to the second node;
storing the plurality of transfer records along with the plurality of nodes to generate the supply chain graph;
receiving a request for tracking information for a product unit a client;
accessing the transfer records with reference to a tracking code associated with the product unit to retrieve the tracking information associated with the request; and
returning the tracking information.
This citation points out which specific parts of the representative claim is an abstract idea. The Examiner then explains “this is considered to be an abstract idea because it is managing a personal behavior of tracking a product which falls within the category of ‘certain methods of organizing human activity.’” That is the explanation for why the citation provided is an abstract idea because it is pointing out which specific subcategory of abstract idea applies to the claims. Therefore, the Examiner provided all required analysis for step 2A, prong 1 (see MPEP 2106.07(a)).
Referring to step 2B, the Examiner provided a proper rejection because the Examiner cited to the specific additional elements listed in under the analysis of step 2A, prong 2. The Examiner supported the analysis by reciting “the additional element(s) merely use a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea, which does not render a claim as being significantly more than the judicial exception” (see MPEP 2106.05(f)). This was the rationale for the rejection. MPEP 2106.05(f) was also referenced and explained in step 2A, prong 2. Therefore, the Examiner provided all required analysis for step 2B (see MPEP 2106.07(a)).
The Applicant further argues that the Examiner did not address the Applicant’s argument against the 35 U.S.C. 101 rejection provided in the final. However, the Examiner respectfully disagrees. On pages 19-21 of the Final Rejection filed 6 August 2025, the Examiner responded to all arguments provided the Applicant’s response. The response to arguments was not a copy of the original rejection.
Therefore, the Examiner maintains that a proper prima face case of ineligibility was provided.
Regarding argument 2, the Applicant argues the claims are integrated into a practical application because the claims were amended to include limitations directed to generating the supply chain graph, receiving a request for tracking information from a tracking application, and accessing the transfer records to retrieve the requested information and returning the information to the tracking application. The Examiner respectfully disagrees. “A claim reciting a judicial exception is not directed to the judicial exception if it also recites additional element(s) demonstrating that the claim as a whole integrates the exception into a practical application” (see MPEP 2106.04(d)(2)). USPTO guidance uses the term ‘‘additional elements’’ to refer to claim features, limitations, and/or steps that are recited in the claim beyond the identified judicial exception. As explained in the above 101 rejection, generating the supply chain graph, receiving a request for tracking information, accessing the transfer records to retrieve the requested information, and returning the information is an abstract idea. Therefore, those limitations cannot integrate the claim into a practical application on their own. The “tracking application” is the additional element. However, as described in step 2A, prong 2 of the above 101 rejection, the tracking application merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea, which does not integrate the claim into a practical application. MPEP 2106.05(f) recites:
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). In contrast, a claim that purports to improve computer capabilities or to improve an existing technology may integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more. McRO, Inc. v. Bandai Namco Games Am. Inc., 837 F.3d 1299, 1314-15, 120 USPQ2d 1091, 1101-02 (Fed. Cir. 2016); Enfish, LLC v. Microsoft Corp., 822 F.3d 1327, 1335-36, 118 USPQ2d 1684, 1688-89 (Fed. Cir. 2016). See MPEP §§ 2106.04(d)(1) and 2106.05(a) for a discussion of improvements to the functioning of a computer or to another technology or technical field.
Paragraph [0028] of the instant specification recites:
The tracking application 216 includes a user interface component 218 which is displayed on a display device of the client device and includes various user interface controls for receiving user input via a user input device, such as a mouse, keyboard, pen, touchscreen, and the like, and displaying information related to the tracking system 202. Client device 204 includes or works with a code reader, such as a barcode scanner, AR code scanner, RFID scanner, and/or the like. Tracking application 216 includes a code reader component 220 that enables code reader 224 to be accessed and controlled to read product and location into the tracking application.
The tracking application is described at a high level in paragraph [0028] of the instant specification and is considered a computer being used in its ordinary capacity. A computer being used in its ordinary capacity does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application.
The Applicant further argues that the claim:
“solves problems associated with previously known tracking systems and as a result improves product tracking technology. For example […] the tracking system ‘enables deterministic tracking of products as well probabilistic tracking of bulk products, such as grains and similar products. Another feature such tracking enables is the ability to carry forward descriptors, such as grain type information, sustainability certifications, quality metrics, stagewise growth, harvest, storage and transport conditions, and other data that is made available by the various entities in the supply chain.’”
The tracking of products and management of data is a method of organizing human activity idea because it is managing a personal behavior of tracking a product which falls within the category of ‘certain methods of organizing human activity’. A human can track a product by performing the steps of storing node information…, receiving first product information…, receiving product transfer information…, generating a plurality of transfer records…, storing the plurality of transfer records…, receiving a request for tracking information…, accessing the transfer records…, and returning the tracking information as recited by the representative claim 1 in step 2A prong 1 of the above 101 rejection in the same way a tracking application would. Since the tracking does not go beyond the identified judicial exception, the improvement is not considered to be technical in nature. Therefore the invention is an improvement to the abstract idea and not to a specific technical problem/system. The Examiner maintains the claims are not integrated into a practical application.
Applicant's arguments, see Page(s) 12-16, filed 6 November 2025, with respect to the 35 USC § 103 rejection(s) of claim(s) 1-12 and 18-20 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant argues the cited prior art does not teach the claims as amended. The Examiner respectfully disagrees.
The Applicant argues there is no disclosure or suggestion in Bolene or Phaniraj of storing transfer records as edges for a supply chain graph with the transfer records including a code for the node being transferred from, a code for the node being transferred to, and codes for the items being transferred. In response to applicant's arguments against the references individually, one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986).
Fig. 17 of Bolene:
PNG
media_image1.png
831
559
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Fig. 17 of Bolene shows several events. Each even includes location codes (SGLNs) for each of the events. SGLN stands for serialized global location number and indicates the location of the item(s). From the first shipping step to the receiving step the SGLN changes showing that the item has been shipped from one location and received by another location. The shipping a receiving steps are linked together as explained in Col. 17, ll. 13-18. Therefore, Bolene does disclose transfer records including location codes indicating the nodes in the supply chain being transferred to and from. Furthermore, the child product numbers (i.e. EPCs) are tracking codes for the individual product units. Therefore, Bolene teaches tracking codes for the product units being transferred. Bolene is silent to the transfer records representing edges of the supply chain graph in a database.
The Examiner relies of Phaniraj to teach the transfer records representing edges in the database. Paragraph [0029] of Phaniraj recites:
As shown in table 106, data processing and aggregation data processing and aggregation 108 may consolidate information received from individual facilities into a merged data set that includes records for each “facility item” in the supply chain. A facility item is an object that represents a particular facility's processing of a particular item in a supply chain. The same item processed by two different facilities (e.g., item A and facilities 1 and 2) can be represented as two different facility items, for example. The central system 102 manages records for each facility item in the supply chain. For instance, as further shown in table 106, central system 102 maintains metadata for each facility item such as values of one or more supply chain metrics, e.g., actual inventory levels, OTIF, backorder amounts, target inventory levels, sales amounts, delivery projections, demand forecasts, etc. Data processing and aggregation data processing and aggregation 108 may also be configured to automatically pre-aggregate metadata (e.g., values of supply chain metrics) for groups of two or more facility items. For example, data processing and aggregation 108 may aggregate the metadata associated with all or a subset of items processed by an individual facility to derive facility-wide metrics. Additionally, data processing and aggregation 108 may aggregate the metadata associated with all or a subset of facilities that process a particular item or a particular group of items to derive overall item metrics for individual items or groups of items across facilities. In some implementations, data processing and aggregation 108 is programmed to automatically compute aggregated metrics on a regular or scheduled basis for a set of most popular groups of facility items that are frequently accessed by client computing systems 116a-n. Additionally, individual client computing systems 116a-n and users of the client computing systems 116a-n may request aggregation of metadata for additional groups of facility items on either a one-time or recurring (e.g., regular/periodic/scheduled) basis. Actionable data that is made accessible to client computing systems 116a-n, including re-formatted, merged, and aggregated data, can be stored in volatile and/or non-volatile memory in one or more data structures (e.g., databases) of a data repository 104. Central system 102 may expose an application programming interface (API) to client computing systems 116a-n allowing client computing systems 116a-n to access data from repository 104 as needed.
Paragraph [0029] of Phaniraj shows how the data from table 106 of Fig. 1 is stored in a database. As explained in the above office action, the data regarding item ID A would be one transfer record showing the how A item is transferred between two facilities. Therefore, Phaniraj does teach storing tracking information in a database.
This operation of Phaniraj is applicable to the system of Bolene as they both share characteristics and capabilities, namely, they are directed to tracking items in a supply chain. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to have modified the system of Bolene to incorporate a directed graph that stores the transfer data representing the edges in a database as taught by Phaniraj. One of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention would have been motivated to modify Bolene in order to allow users to quickly and efficiently access relevant data to gather desired insights (see paragraph [0001] of Phaniraj). Therefore, the Examiner maintains the combination of Phaniraj in view of Bolene teaches the amended claims.
With regards to claim 18, the applicant argues these claims are allowable due to its similarity to claim 1. As stated in the arguments above, the Examiner is maintaining the rejections for claim 1. Therefore, claim 18 remains rejected. With regards to claims 2-11 and 19-20, the applicant argues these claims are allowable due to their dependence on claims 1 and 18, respectively. As stated in the arguments above, the Examiner is maintaining the rejections for claims 1 and 18. Therefore, claims 2-11 and 19-20 remain rejected.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DANIELLE ELIZABETH ZEVITZ whose telephone number is (703)756-1070. The examiner can normally be reached Mo-Th 10am-6pm.
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, Resha Desai can be reached on (571)270-7792. 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.
/DANIELLE ELIZABETH ZEVITZ/Examiner, Art Unit 3628
/GEORGE CHEN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3628
Prosecution Insights