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 .
Drawings
New corrected drawings in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in this application because some of the boxes are illegible. Applicant is advised to employ the services of a competent patent draftsperson outside the Office, as the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office no longer prepares new drawings. The corrected drawings are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. The requirement for corrected drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Response to Applicant’s Arguments
Regarding 101, the examiner is not convinced. The additional elements continue to recite elements at a high level of generality. Further, the applicant makes an argument that the claim relies on machine processing of image data taken from the camera-enabled device related to the task (emphasis added). However, applicant argues elements (image data and camera-enabled device) that are not currently found in the claim.
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 1,3-6,8-11,13-15 and 17-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1:
Independent Claims 1, 11, 20 and the dependent claims are process/system/CRM claims thereby falling into one of the four statutory categories of invention.
Step 2A, prong 1:
Applicant recites the following elements in Claim 1 (and similarly in claims 11 and 20):
A method of predicting pricing of a product, comprising: collecting data related to the price of each of a plurality of materials required for the product over a predetermined period of time; predicting the price of each of the plurality of materials at a future time based on inputting the collected data to a plurality of generating a
Examiner has bolded the limitations that are part of the abstract idea and struck through additional elements.
Applicant claims an abstract idea in the category of Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity in the subcategory of Commercial or Legal interactions.
Applicant further claims an abstract idea in the category of Mental Processes because a human could certainly look make determinations about predicted cost and make recommendations based on predicted changes in price. MPEP 2104(a)(2)(IIT)(A) provides an example of an abstract mental process: “a claim to "collecting information, analyzing it, and displaying certain results of the collection and analysis".
Claim 1 (and similarly claims 11 and 20) thus recites an abstract idea. The dependent Claims contain the same abstract idea by virtue of their dependency on the independent claims. Accordingly Claims 1,3-6,8-11,13-15 and 17-20 recite an abstract idea.
Step 2A, prong 2:
In addition to the abstract idea discussed above, applicant recites a processor, models, a signal, and a network interface as additional elements in the independent claims (also, a memory, controller, network, in system claims 11 and 20).
The additional elements are general purpose computer elements. MPEP 2106.05(f)(2) states “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”.
Step 2B: As discussed above, applicant claims: A method of predicting pricing of a product, comprising: collecting data related to the price of each of a plurality of materials required for the product over a predetermined period of time; predicting the price of each of the plurality of materials at a future time based on inputting the collected data to a plurality of which is an abstract idea in the category of Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity in the subcategory of Commercial or Legal interactions and further is an abstract idea in the category of Mental Processes.
As discussed above, applicant also recites the additional elements in the claims of: a processor, models, a signal, and a network interface as additional elements in the independent claims (also, a memory, controller, network in system claims 11 and 20).
As discussed above with respect to Step 2A, the claimed additional elements are hardware recited at a high level of generality and amount to applying the exception using general purpose computer systems. MPEP 2106.05(f) states that merely adding a general purpose computer or computer components to an abstract idea does not amount to significantly more, thus the processor, models, signal, memory, controller, network, and interface are not significantly more.
The additional elements alone or in combination do not improve the functioning of a computer or any other technology or technological field. The additional elements alone or in combination do not apply the judicial exception to a particular (non-general purpose) machine. The additional elements alone or in combination do not effect a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing. Applicant does not claim or teach in their specification any special purpose hardware or improvements thereof. Therefore, the claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Therefore, the claims are not patent eligible.
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.
Claims 1,3-6,8-11,13-15 and 17-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over KR102403331B1 (hereafter “KR”) in view of CN103593725A (hereafter “CN”).
KR teaches all of the elements of the claims including 1) quantitative model (i.e., the regression model mentioned by the applicant in his remarks) and 2) qualitative model with positive or negative classifying (i.e., “the selling price of materials/parts related to other items has priority”) (see screenshot below where “related” is a qualitative input and “priority” is a positive/negative category.
PNG
media_image1.png
737
963
media_image1.png
Greyscale
KR does not explicitly provide a recommendation.
CN, in the same field of art, teaches a recommendation (i.e., “Reporting modules, produces required control report”) and “a process analysis… from a plurality of sources” [0009].
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify KR to include a recommendation of obtaining a plurality of materials to meet future demand, as taught by CN, in order to report out the necessary materials to meet the demand. The results would have been predictable in that those parties involved would have a report of what is needed for their records.
Regarding claim 3, KR teaches the use of natural language processing for the purposes of extracting useful data from text. (See below screenshot)
PNG
media_image2.png
317
990
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Regarding claims 6 and 15, it is old and well known to predict aggregate product cost based on quantity (or weight – KR teaches unit weight) of each of the materials based on predicted material cost. This is simple mathematics and it would have been obvious to one or ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to make this calculation.
PNG
media_image3.png
345
889
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Regarding claims 9, 18, and 20, controlling machines to produce products based on schedules is taught by CN [0096] (see screenshot below) and is well known in the manufacturing industry.
PNG
media_image4.png
308
979
media_image4.png
Greyscale
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to modify KR to include actual manufacturing of the products based on schedules, as taught by CN, in order to produce the goods in a timely manner (KR [0096]).
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Florian Zeender whose telephone number is (571)272-6790. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 9:30-5:30pm 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, Florian M Zeender can be reached at 571-272-6790. 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.
Florian Zeender
Supervisory Patent Examiner
Art Unit 3627
/FLORIAN M ZEENDER/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3627