CTNF 18/437,548 CTNF 81688 DETAILED ACTION This Office Action is in response to Applicants application filing received on February 9, 2024. Claim(s) 1-20 is/are currently pending in the instant application. The application claims priority to Japanese application 2023-019982 filed on February 13, 2023. Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status 07-03-aia AIA 15-10-aia The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA. Information Disclosure Statement The Examiner acknowledges the Applicants filing of IDS references on February 9, 2024 and July 17, 2024. The references have been considered at this time. A copy of the annotated IDS sheet is included in this correspondence. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101 07-04-01 AIA 07-04 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 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more. Claims 1-20 are directed to one of the four statutory classes of invention (e.g. process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter). The claims include a system or “apparatus”, method or “process”, or product or “article of manufacture” and is a method of collecting and controlling information across a supply chain which is a process (e.g. process/machine) ( Step 1: YES ). The Examiner has identified independent method Claim 9 as the claim that represents the claimed invention for analysis and is similar to independent apparatus Claim 1 and product Claim 16. Claim Y recites the limitations of ( abstract ideas highlighted in italics and additional elements highlighted in bold ) identifying one or more second products included in a first product by consulting information indicating association among products in a tree structure having the first product as a root node ; identifying a third product that is a target of improvement from among the one or more second products in accordance with a predetermined condition by consulting traceability-related information of each of the one or more second products ; determining whether disclosure of information on the third product to a company of the first product is permitted, by consulting information on a disclosure setting of the third product ; accepting whether to make a request of a company of the third product for improvement in response to a determination that disclosure of the information on the third product to the company of the first product is permitted ; identifying a fourth product of which disclosure of information to the company of the first product is permitted from among the one or more second products, by ascending the tree structure from the third product toward the root node in response to a determination that disclosure of the information on the third product to the company of the first product is not permitted ; and accepting whether to make a request of a company of the fourth product for improvement . These limitations, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, cover performance of the limitation as “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity”. Identifying a second product, identifying a third product as a target of improvement, determining information disclosure, requesting an improvement to the third product, identifying and improving a fourth product recites a commercial interaction. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea. The processing apparatus in Claim 1 is just applying generic computer components to the recited abstract limitations. The non-transitory storage medium storing instructions executable on one or more processors in Claim 16 appears to be just software. Claims 1 and 16 are also abstract for similar reasons. ( Step 2A-Prong 1: YES. The claims are abstract) These limitations, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, cover performance of the limitation as “Mental Processes”. Identifying a second product, identifying a third product as a target of improvement, determining information disclosure, requesting an improvement to the third product, identifying and improving a fourth product recites a concept performed in the human mind. But for the generic “by a computer” in the preamble, the claim encompasses reviewing products and product information and contacting a company regarding a request to improve a product. The mere nominal recitation of a generic computer does not take the claim out of the mental processes grouping. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea. The processing apparatus in Claim 1 is just applying generic computer components to the recited abstract limitations. The non-transitory storage medium storing instructions executable on one or more processors in Claim 16 appears to be just software. Claims 1 and 16 are also abstract for similar reasons. ( Step 2A-Prong 1: YES. The claims are abstract) This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claims only recite information processing apparatus (Claim 1) a computer (claim Y) and/or a non-transitory medium storing instructions (Claim 16)<<. The computer hardware is recited at a high-level of generality ( i.e. , as a generic processor performing a generic computer function) such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Accordingly, these additional elements, when considered separately and as an ordered combination, do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. Therefore claims 1, 9, and 16 are directed to an abstract idea without a practical application. ( Step 2A-Prong 2: NO. The additional claimed elements are 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 because, when considered separately and as an ordered combination, they do not add significantly more (also known as an “inventive concept”) to the exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional element of using a computer hardware amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. See Applicant’s specification para. [0051, 0058] about implementation using general purpose or special purpose computing devices ([0051] The server apparatus 1 may be configured as a computer including a processor (a CPU, a GPU, or the like), a main storage device (a RAM, a ROM, or the like), and an auxiliary storage device (an EPROM, a hard disk drive, a removable medium, or the like). An operating system (OS), various programs, various tables, and the like are stored in the auxiliary storage device. Various functions (software modules) that match predetermined purposes as will be described later can be implemented by running the programs stored in the auxiliary storage device. One, some, or all of the modules may be implemented as hardware modules by a hardware circuit, such as an ASIC and an FPGA. [0058] The company terminal 2, as in the case of the server apparatus 1, may be configured as a computer including a processor (a CPU, a GPU, or the like), a main storage device (a RAM, a ROM, or the like), and an auxiliary storage device (an EPROM, a hard disk drive, a removable medium, or the like). One, some, or all of the functions (software modules) may be implemented as hardware modules by a hardware circuit, such as an ASIC and an FPGA.) and MPEP 2106.05(f) where applying a computer as a tool is not indicative of significantly more. Accordingly, these additional elements, when considered separately and as an ordered combination, do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. Thus claims 1, 9, and 16 are not patent eligible. (St ep 2B: NO. The claims do not provide significantly more ) Dependent claims 2-8, 10-15, and 17-20 further define the abstract idea that is present in their respective independent claims 1, 9, and 16 and thus correspond to Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity and/or Mental Processes and hence are abstract for the reasons presented above. The dependent claims do not include any additional elements that integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception when considered both individually and as an ordered combination. The dependent claims include steps or processes which are similar to that disclosed in MPEP 2106.05(d), (f), (g), and/or (h) which include activities and functions the courts have determined to be well-understood, routine, and conventional when claimed in a generic manner, or as insignificant extra solution activity, or as merely indicating a field of use or technological environment in which to apply the judicial exception. Claims 2, 10, and 17 are similar to MPEP 2106.05(d)II. iv. 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; Claims 3, 11, and 18 is similar to MPEP 2106.05(d)II. i. Receiving or transmitting data over a network, e.g., using the Internet to gather data, 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); Claims 4-7, 12-15, and 19-20 are covered under MPEP 2106.05(g)(3) iii. Selecting information, based on types of information and availability of information in a power-grid environment, for collection, analysis and display, Electric Power Group, LLC v. Alstom S.A., 830 F.3d 1350, 1354-55, 119 USPQ2d 1739, 1742 (Fed. Cir. 2016); Claim 8 are similar to MPEP 2106.05(d)II. iii. Electronic recordkeeping, Alice Corp. Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank Int'l, 573 U.S. 208, 225, 110 USPQ2d 1984 (2014) (creating and maintaining "shadow accounts"); Ultramercial, 772 F.3d at 716, 112 USPQ2d at 1755 (updating an activity log); Therefore, the claims 2-8, 10-15, and 17-20 are directed to an abstract idea. Thus, the claims 1-20 are not patent-eligible. Conclusion 07-96 AIA The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. The cited prior art generally refers to supply chain management and associated methods and systems . U.S. Publication 2014/0222520 A1 - Techniques for managing customer change requests include receiving a change request associated with a business project of a business enterprise, the change request including one or more parameters; comparing the one or more parameters with one or more business rules associated with the business enterprise; based on the comparison, determining that at least one of the one or more of the parameters satisfies at least one of the one or more business rules; in response to the determination, generating one or more requests for approval for the change request; receiving one or more approval responses from one or more entities associated with the business enterprise in response to the one or more requests for approval; and in response to receiving the one or more approval responses, updating a property associated with the business project. U.S. Publication 2023/0342703 A1 - An information management method, implemented by a computer, for managing information includes: acquiring a plurality of pieces of item information having different data input cycles or data measurement cycles as information associated with a specific item; and individually storing each of the plurality of pieces of item information associated with the specific item in association with a plurality of different blockchains. U.S. Publication 2022/0122026 A1 - A supply chain management method for managing, using a blockchain, a trading record between traders that form a supply chain includes acquiring (i) first item data recorded on a first storage medium that is physically attached to an incoming item delivered to a first trader of traders and (ii) a node identification data assigned to the first trader. The supply chain management method includes calculating, as second item data, a hash value based on the first item data and the node identification data. The supply chain management method includes physically attaching, to an outgoing item, a second storage medium on which at least the second item data is recorded. The supply chain management method includes delivering the outgoing item to a second trader of the traders along with the attached second storage medium such that the second item data is transferred to the second trader. U.S. Publication 2019/0147397 A1 - The invention provides systems and methods for monitoring the movement of a product in a supply chain and further managing the exchange of traceability information of the product as it moves among members or entities in the supply chain. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DYLAN C WHITE whose telephone number is (571)272-1406. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7:30-4:00 EST. 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, Beth Boswell can be reached at (571)272-6737. 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. /DYLAN C WHITE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3625 May 15, 2026 Application/Control Number: 18/437,548 Page 2 Art Unit: 3625 Application/Control Number: 18/437,548 Page 3 Art Unit: 3625 Application/Control Number: 18/437,548 Page 4 Art Unit: 3625 Application/Control Number: 18/437,548 Page 5 Art Unit: 3625 Application/Control Number: 18/437,548 Page 6 Art Unit: 3625
