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 .
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 on 03/30/2026 has been entered.
Status of Claims
Claim 1-7 are pending and examined here in per Applicant’s 03/30/2026 filing with the USPTO. Claims 1, 2, 4, 6, and 7 are amended. Claim 5 is canceled. No claims are newly added or withdrawn.
Response to Amendment
Applicant’s amendments to the claims are NOT sufficient to overcome the 35 USC 101 rejection of the previous Office action.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed with respect to the 35 USC 101 rejection of the previous Office action have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. The updated rejection below fully addresses Applicant’s arguments. Applicant makes the following arguments:
Office generalizes the actual elements recited by Applicant’s claims and fails to provide Applicant’s claims their broadest reasonable interpretation consistent with Applicant’s Specification . . . any interpretation of at least Applicant's independent claim without accounting for any hardware limitations would be facially inconsistent with the Applicant's Specification, and as such, inconsistent with the Office’s own examination procedures. Remarks p. 1-2.
Respectfully, the claimed limitations were given their broadest reasonable interpretation in the light specification. Relevant portions of the specification were cited in the rejection. The actual limitations found to embody the abstract idea were highlighted in the rejection. The Alice/Mayo analysis in the rejection mirrors that of found in MPEP 2106(III).
The Office maintains the rejection of the previous Office action as updated below.
If the claims do recite language related to any alleged abstract idea, it is respectfully submitted that the claims "involve an exception" as opposed to "recite an exception[.]" MPEP 2106.04(II)(A), subsection 1. Prong One (emphasis in original). Remarks p. 2.
Respectfully, the Office disagrees with Applicant’s position. MPEP 2106.04(a)(1) provides – “Step 2A Prong One analysis articulated in MPEP § 2106.04 accounts for this cautionary principle by requiring a claim to recite (i.e., set forth or describe) an abstract idea in Prong One before proceeding to the Prong Two inquiry about whether the claim is directed to that idea, thereby separating claims reciting abstract ideas from those that are merely based on or involve an abstract idea.”
The Specification provides “the present disclosure is related to processing SCM data to reduce cost, optimize data processing and networked communications, improving flexibility, and identifying and mitigating risk in a supply chain.” Spec [2]. The claimed limitations that are to identifying and mitigating risk in a supply chain include, “a comparative learning algorithm, wherein the analytics engine is configured to perform the operations of . . . performing a heuristic fuzzy logic search with a search string associated with the received textual data entered by the user, wherein the heuristic fuzzy logic search matches the part data against the string search; if a correctness threshold for the match of the part data fails, requesting that the user make a correction . . . learning by the fuzzy logic of subsequent corrections based on the correction data; increasing a confidence threshold based on the learning of the correction data; and . . . based on the confidence threshold, automatically correcting second textual data entered for the part to second correction data corresponding to the learned correction data” (Claim 1).
The claims are not only to the involve but are directed to the identified abstract idea. Where taking steps to mitigate risk is a fundamental economic practice. Which falls under the at least the abstract class of certain methods of organizing human activity. The Office maintains the rejection of the previous Office action as updated below.
Specification describes, and Applicant's claims recite, a specific, technological solution to existing, technical problems supply chain management by "utilize[ing] extensive data across many primary and secondary nodes, advanced analytics, logic and visualization to convert extensive, voluminous unstructured data into an easy-to-action, prioritized list of tasks for improved SCM functionality." See, e.g., U.S. Patent App. Publ'n No. 2024/0028998 at para. [0071] and [0128]-[0140]. By converting and structuring the voluminous amount of data, the data may be easily analyzed to correct data errors and in turn optimize the claimed platform. See id. Remarks p. 2
Respectfully, the Office disagrees with Applicant’s position. It is noted that MPEP 2106.05(a) provides examples of things that the courts have indicated may not be sufficient to show an improvement in computer-functionality “Accelerating a process of analyzing audit log data when the increased speed comes solely from the capabilities of a general-purpose computer, FairWarning IP, LLC v. Iatric Sys., 839 F.3d 1089, 1095, 120 USPQ2d 1293, 1296 (Fed. Cir. 2016)”. Like FairWarning, the “easy” analysis to voluminous amount of data comes from the solely from the capabilities of the computer rather than the claimed invention.
The Office maintains the rejection of the previous Office action as updated below.
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 1-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea (i.e. certain methods of organizing human activity and mental processes) without practical application or significantly more when the elements are considered individually and as an ordered combination.
Step 1: Is the claimed invention to a process, machine, manufacture or composition of matter?
Yes, the claims fall within at least one of the four categories of patent eligible subject. Claims 1-7 are to a platform (machine).
Step 2A, prong 1: Does the claim recite an abstract idea, law or nature, or natural phenomenon?
Yes, the claims are found to recite an abstract idea. Specifically, the abstract idea of certain methods of organizing human activity and mental processes. Where certain methods of organizing human activity include fundamental economic principles or practices (including hedging, insurance, mitigating risk); commercial or legal interactions (including agreements in the form of contracts; legal obligations; advertising, marketing or sales activities or behaviors; business relations); managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people (including social activities, teaching, and following rules or instructions) (see MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2), subsection II). Where mental processes relates to concepts performed in the human mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion) (see MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2), subsection III).
Claim 1 (as a representative claim) recites the following, where the limitations found to contain elements of the abstract idea are in bold italics:
1. A supply chain platform comprising:
one supply chain node is operatively coupled to at least one data source and at least one external node, wherein the at least one supply chain node comprises an analytics engine comprising a processor, a memory storing instructions, and a comparative learning algorithm, wherein the analytics engine is configured to perform the operations of:
accumulating part data by obtaining first data from the least one external node using data hooks from a plurality of applications associated with a client capable of processing rules and processes, and obtaining social media data from one or more network social media feeds using data hooks associated with the plurality of applications;
receiving preferences associated with a user associated with an application selected from the plurality of applications associated with the client;
producing tertiary data based on a plurality of rules associated with the comparative learning algorithm and the preferences for the application selected from the one or more applications;
generating and displaying a graphical user an unique interface(GUI) based on the data;
receiving, through the GUI, textual data entered into the GUI by the user for a part associated with the part data;
performing a heuristic fuzzy logic search with a search string associated with the received textual data entered by the user, wherein the heuristic fuzzy logic search matches the part data against the string search;
if a correctness threshold for the match of the part data fails, requesting that the user make a correction;
receiving, through the GUI, correction data entered into the GUI by the user for the correction;
learning by the fuzzy logic of subsequent corrections based on the correction data;
increasing a confidence threshold based on the learning of the correction data; and
receiving, through the GUI, second textual data entered into the GUI for the part associated with the part data;
based on the confidence threshold, automatically correcting second textual data entered for the part to second correction data corresponding to the learned correction data; and
displaying the second correction data on the GUI.
The system is directed towards the correcting manual entries based on a confidence threshold. Where the Specification provides, “example, if a confidence threshold initially indicates that it is 20% likely that a particular correction is what a user wants, but then nine consecutive users say yes that is a correction they wish to make, the confidence threshold may successively increase, such as to a point where the correction to the data may be made automatically by the analytics engine without asking the user.” (Spec [129]). The system sends (displays) and receives uses the user input of corrected information to determine if the suggested correction was right. The Office finds this to be a form of organizing human activity, in that is does both managing personal behavior of the user with instructions and certain activity between a person and a computer.
The system goes through the steps a user might in his mind using its ability to reason and make determinations. Where the specification provides “comparison of that error to a list of common errors that are generally made in naming a part, a supplier, a location, or the like, may be performed. To the extent the subject error falls within the list of common errors, a correction may then automatically be made, or the user may be asked if the user wishes to make a suggested modification to the data. For example, a standard naming convention may indicate that a particular supplier is referred to as "Supply AXE", but the user may have entered "Supplier AX". When this error is flagged, the entered Supplier AX may be compared to a list of common errors, which list may indicate that most users who enter Supplier AX actually intend to refer to Supply AXE. Corrective action may then be taken, either automatically or with user permission.” (Spec. [127]).
It is clear from the Specification that the system simply automates a manual process – where the corrections can be made manually or automatically based on past determinations made by other users. The claimed invention is therefore found to be directed towards an abstract idea fitting in to the abstract categories of certain methods of organizing human activity and mental processes.
Step 2A, prong 2: Does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application?
No, the claimed invention does not recite additional elements that integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Where a practical application is described as integrating the abstract idea by applying it, relying on it, or using the abstract idea in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on it such that the claim is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize it, see October 2019: Subject Matter Eligibility at p. 11.
The identified judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claims recites the additional limitations see non-bold-italicized elements above. The “accumulating” and “receiving” elements are determined to be insignificant extra-solution activity – data gathering. Where the hook as used in the Specification and the claims is interpreted to as simply a data input for the system, see Spec. [73].
Where 2106.05(g) MPEP states, “term "extra-solution activity" can be understood as activities incidental to the primary process or product that are merely a nominal or tangential addition to the claim. Extra-solution activity includes both pre-solution and post-solution activity. An example of pre-solution activity is a step of gathering data for use in a claimed process, e.g., a step of obtaining information about credit card transactions, which is recited as part of a claimed process of analyzing and manipulating the gathered information by a series of steps in order to detect whether the transactions were fraudulent. An example of post-solution activity is an element that is not integrated into the claim as a whole, e.g., a printer that is used to output a report of fraudulent transactions, which is recited in a claim to a computer programmed to analyze and manipulate information about credit card transactions in order to detect whether the transactions were fraudulent.”
The Office finds that merely including instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely using a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea; adding insignificant extra solution activity to the judicial exception; or only generally linking the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field is not sufficient to integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Step 2B: Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the abstract idea?
No, the claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception, when considered individually and as part of the ordered combination. Further the computing components of the claimed invention are generic/off-the-shelf, see Spec. [58] and [60] none of which can transform the abstract idea in to significantly more.
Where 2106.05(d)(I)(2) of the MPEP states, “A factual determination is required to support a conclusion that an additional element (or combination of additional elements) is well-understood, routine, conventional activity. Berkheimer v. HP, Inc., 881 F.3d 1360, 1368, 125 USPQ2d 1649, 1654 (Fed. Cir. 2018). However, this does not mean that a prior art search is necessary to resolve this inquiry. Instead, examiners should rely on what the courts have recognized, or those in the art would recognize, as elements that are well-understood, routine, conventional activity in the relevant field when making the required determination. For example, in many instances, the specification of the application may indicate that additional elements are well-known or conventional. See, e.g., Intellectual Ventures v. Symantec, 838 F.3d at 1317; 120 USPQ2d at 1359 ("The written description is particularly useful in determining what is well-known or conventional"); Internet Patents Corp. v. Active Network, Inc., 790 F.3d 1343, 1348, 115 USPQ2d 1414, 1418 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (relying on specification’s description of additional elements as "well-known", "common" and "conventional"); TLI Communications LLC v. AV Auto. LLC, 823 F.3d 607, 614, 118 USPQ2d 1744, 1748 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (Specification described additional elements as "either performing basic computer functions such as sending and receiving data, or performing functions ‘known’ in the art.").”
These limitations do NOT offer an improvement to another technology or technical field; improvements to the functioning of the computer itself; apply the judicial exception with, or by use of, a particular machine; effect a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing; add a specific limitation other than what is well-understood, routine and conventional in the field, or add unconventional steps that confine the claim to a particular useful application; or other meaningful limitations beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment. Therefore, these additional limitations when considered individually or in combination do not provide an inventive concept that can transform the abstract idea into patent eligible subject matter.
The other independent claims recite similar limitations and are rejected for the same reasoning given above.
The dependent claims do not further limit the claimed invention in such a way as to direct the claimed invention to statutory subject matter.
Claim 2 where the claimed limitations are directed an abstract idea information (mental process) of the automated correction base on known data without significantly more or a practical application.
Claim 3 where the claimed limitations is focused on the correction made by the user; therefore the claimed limitation is found to be directed towards an abstract idea (organizing human activity) without significantly more or a practical application.
Claim 4 where the claimed limitations are directed to matching based on rules the claimed limitation is found to be directed towards an abstract idea (mental process) without significantly more or a practical application.
Claim 6 under step 2A it is noted that the client is not positively recited in the claims and further where the claim further defines the hardware of the platform these elements are found to be generic/off-the-shelf components; therefore it cannot transform the abstract idea in to significantly more under step 2B.
Claim 7 under step 2A it is noted that the client is not positively recited in the claims and further where the claim further defines the hardware of the platform these elements are found to be generic/off-the-shelf components; therefore it cannot transform the abstract idea in to significantly more under step 2B.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Hofberg (US 20070087756 A1) teaches use of risk or confidence as an independent factor may be express or intermediate. Thus, a confidence threshold may be internally applied before communicating an event to the user. In determining or predicting risk or confidence, it may be preferred to provide a central database.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to FOLASHADE ANDERSON whose telephone number is (571)270-3331. The examiner can normally be reached Monday to Thursday 12:00 P.M. to 6:00 P.M. CST.
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, Rutao Wu can be reached at (571) 272-6045. 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.
/FOLASHADE ANDERSON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3623
Prosecution Insights