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 .
DETAILED ACTION
This is a non-final rejection. Claims 1, and 4-13 are pending.
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Information Disclosure Statement (IDS)
The information disclosure statement(s) filed on 09/18/2023 and 09/27/2024 comply with the provisions 37 CFR 1.97, 1.98, and MPEP 609 and is considered by the Examiner.
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 02/09/2026 has been entered.
Status of Claims
Applicant’s response date 02/09/2026, Amending claims 1 and 13.
Response to Amendment
The previously pending rejection under 35 USC 101, will be maintained. The 101 rejection is updated in light of the amendments.
The previously pending rejection under 35 USC 102/103, will be maintained. The 102/103 rejection is updated in light of the amendments.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s argument received on date 02/09/2026 have been fully considered, but they are not persuasive.
Response to Arguments under 35 USC 101:
Applicants argue: see remarks pages 8-9 (Abstract Idea)
As shown above independent claim 1, and similarly independent claim 13, now further
recite features of implementing a buyer portal and a supplier portal, and receiving, through the buyer portal and the supplier portal, registration of supply chain information. Applicant submits at least such clarified features clarify aspects under 35 U.S.C. § 101.
In that respect the claims were rejected as directed to "certain methods of organizing human activity" and as further not setting forth a practical application. Applicant traverses each of those grounds for rejection.
Applicant submits the clarified claim features clearly set forth aspects of the claims that
are not directed to "certain methods of organizing human activity". Clarified claim features of the "buyer portal" and "supplier portal" and the information received therethrough are believed to clearly be directed to structural features that are not directed to organizing human activity. Applicant submits the claims as currently written also clearly set forth a practical application.
….
countermeasure for a risk in the supply chain (e.g., giving advice to the supplier and increasing the number of suppliers) ([0082], etc.). Applicant submits such improvements to technology amount to a practical application and significantly more than an abstract idea.
Examiner respectfully disagree:
Independent claims, recite the abstract idea: Claim 1. (Currently Amended) A supply chain risk information generation device, comprising: a processor, wherein the processor is configured to:
implement a buyer portal and a supplier portal;
receive, through the buyer portal and the supplier portal, registration of supply chain information on a supply chain of each deliverable of a buyer into a memory, the supply chain information including site information on each of a plurality of suppliers included in a plurality of tiers of the supply chain, the site information including site names of the plurality of suppliers;
acquire the supply chain information from the memory;
count a number of appearances of each of the site names in the supply chain information;
calculate a multiplicity as the counted number or a value calculated based on the counted number;
generate the multiplicity calculated as supply chain risk information; and
graphically display the supply chain risk information on a display.
Claim 13. (Currently Amended) A supply chain risk information generation system, comprising: a terminal; and a supply chain risk information generation device connected to the terminal via a network, wherein the supply chain risk information generation device comprises a processor, the processor is configured to:
implement a buyer portal and a supplier portal;
receive, through the buyer portal and the supplier portal from the terminal, registration of supply chain information on a supply chain of each deliverable of a buyer into a memory, the supply chain information including site information on each of a plurality of suppliers included in a plurality of tiers of the supply chain, the site information including site names of the plurality of suppliers;
acquire the supply chain information from the memory;
count a number of appearances of each of the site names in the supply chain information;
calculate a multiplicity as the counted number or a value calculated based on the counted number;
generate the multiplicity calculated as supply chain risk information;
transmit the supply chain risk information to the terminal via the network in response to a request from the terminal received via the network to graphically display the supply chain risk information on a display.
The Applicant's Specification titled " SUPPLY CHAIN RISK INFORMATION GENERATION DEVICE AND SUPPLY CHAIN RISK INFORMATION GENERATION SYSTEM" emphasizes the business need for data analysis, "In summary, the present disclosure relates to generate a supply chain risk level for one or more suppliers based on different data " (Spec. [0002]).
As the bolded claim limitations above demonstrate, independent claims 1, and 13 are recites the abstract idea of generating a supply chain risk level for one or more suppliers based on different data. which is considered certain methods of organizing human activity because the bolded claim limitations pertain to (i) fundamental economic principles or practices and (ii) commercial or legal interactions. See MPEP §2106.04(a)(2)(II).
Applicant's claims as recited above provide a business solution of generate a supply chain risk level for one or more suppliers based on different data. Applicant's claimed invention pertains to Certain methods of organizing human activity –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);” See MPEP §2106.04(a)(2)(II).
In prong two of step 2A, an evaluation is made whether a claim recites any additional element, or combination of additional element, that integrate the exception into a practical application of that exception. An "additional element" is an element that is recited in the claim in addition to (beyond) the judicial exception (i.e., an element/limitation that sets forth an abstract idea is not an additional element). The phrase "integration into a practical application" is defined as requiring an additional element or a combination of additional elements in the claim to apply, rely on, or use exception, such that it is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception.
The claims recites the additional limitation a system, a terminal device, network, portal, a display, and processor are recited in a high level of generality and recited as performing generic computer functions routinely used in computer applications. Adding the words "apply it" (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, e.g., a limitation indicating that a particular function such as creating and maintaining electronic records is performed by a computer, as discussed in Alice Corp. 134 S. Ct, at 2360,110 USPQ2d at 1984 (see MPEP 2106.05(f).
The use of generic computer component to "receive, …information including site information on each of a plurality of suppliers included in a plurality of tiers of the supply chain …. Calculate a multiplicity as the counted number or a value calculated based on the counted number … generate the multiplicity calculated as supply chain risk information … display the supply chain risk information" does not impose any meaningful limit on the computer implementation of the abstract idea. Thus, taken alone, the additional elements do not amount to significantly more than the above identified judicial exception (the abstract idea). Looking at the limitations as an ordered combination adds nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually. There is no indication that the combination of elements improves the functioning of a computer or improves any other technology. Their collective functions merely provide conventional computer implementation.
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).
Further, with regard to mining (i.e., searching over a network), receiving, processing, storing data, and parsing (i.e. extract, transform data), the courts have recognized the following computer functions as well-understood, routing, and conventional functions when they are claimed in a merely generic manner (e.g., at a high level of generality) or as insignificant extra-solution activity (i.e. “receiving, processing, transmitting, storing data”, etc.) are well-understood, routine, etc. (MPEP 2106.05(d))
The Alice framework, step 2B (Part 2 of Mayo) determine if the claim is sufficient to ensure that the claim amounts to "significantly more" than the abstract idea itself. These additional elements recite conventional computer components and conventional functions of:
Claims 1, and 13 does not include my limitations amounting to significantly more than the abstract idea, along. Claims 1, and 13 includes various elements that are not directed to the abstract idea. These elements include a system, a terminal device, network, portal, display and processor.
Examiner asserts that a system, a terminal device, network, portal, display and processor are a generic computing element performing generic computing functions, (see MPEP 2106.05(f))
Therefore, the claims at issue do not require any nonconventional computer, network, or display components, or even a "non-conventional and non-generic arrangement of know, conventional pieces," but merely call for performance of the claimed on a set of generic computer components" and display devices.
In addition, fig. 1 of the specifications detail any combination of a generic computer system program to perform the method. Generically recited computer elements do not add a meaningful limitation to the abstract idea because the Alice decision noted that generic structures that merely apply abstract ideas are not significantly more than the abstract ideas.
Response to Arguments under 35 USC 103:
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
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, and 4-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter, specifically an abstract idea without a practical application or significantly more than the abstract idea.
Under the 35 U.S.C. §101 subject matter eligibility two-part analysis, Step 1 addresses whether the claim is directed to one of the four statutory categories of invention, i.e., process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter. See MPEP §2106.03. If the claim does fall within one of the statutory categories, it must then be determined in Step 2A [prong 1] whether the claim is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., law of nature, natural phenomenon, and abstract idea). See MPEP §2106.04. If the claim is directed toward a judicial exception, it must then be determined in Step 2A [prong 2] whether the judicial exception is integrated into a practical application. See MPEP §2106.04(d). Finally, if the judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application, it must additionally be determined in Step 2B whether the claim recites "significantly more" than the abstract idea. See MPEP §2106.05.
Examiner note: The Office's 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance (2019 PEG) is currently found in the Ninth Edition, Revision 10.2019 (revised June 2020) of the Manual of Patent Examination Procedure (MPEP), specifically incorporated in MPEP §2106.03 through MPEP §2106.07(c).
Regarding Step 1
Claims 1, and 4-12 are directed to “device” (machine), and claims 13 is directed to a system (machine). Thus, all claims fall within one of the four statutory categories as required by Step 1.
Regarding Step 2A [prong 1]
Claims 1, and 4-13 are directed toward the judicial exception of an abstract idea.
Regarding independent claim 1, the bolded limitations emphasized below correspond to the abstract ideas of the claimed invention:
Claim 1. (Currently Amended) A supply chain risk information generation device, comprising: a processor, wherein the processor is configured to:
implement a buyer portal and a supplier portal;
receive, through the buyer portal and the supplier portal, registration of supply chain information on a supply chain of each deliverable of a buyer into a memory, the supply chain information including site information on each of a plurality of suppliers included in a plurality of tiers of the supply chain, the site information including site names of the plurality of suppliers;
acquire the supply chain information from the memory;
count a number of appearances of each of the site names in the supply chain information;
calculate a multiplicity as the counted number or a value calculated based on the counted number;
generate the multiplicity calculated as supply chain risk information; and
graphically display the supply chain risk information on a display.
Claim 13. (Currently Amended) A supply chain risk information generation system, comprising: a terminal; and a supply chain risk information generation device connected to the terminal via a network, wherein the supply chain risk information generation device comprises a processor, the processor is configured to:
implement a buyer portal and a supplier portal;
receive, through the buyer portal and the supplier portal from the terminal, registration of supply chain information on a supply chain of each deliverable of a buyer into a memory, the supply chain information including site information on each of a plurality of suppliers included in a plurality of tiers of the supply chain, the site information including site names of the plurality of suppliers;
acquire the supply chain information from the memory;
count a number of appearances of each of the site names in the supply chain information;
calculate a multiplicity as the counted number or a value calculated based on the counted number;
generate the multiplicity calculated as supply chain risk information;
transmit the supply chain risk information to the terminal via the network in response to a request from the terminal received via the network to graphically display the supply chain risk information on a display.
The Applicant's Specification titled " SUPPLY CHAIN RISK INFORMATION GENERATION DEVICE AND SUPPLY CHAIN RISK INFORMATION GENERATION SYSTEM" emphasizes the business need for data analysis, "In summary, the present disclosure relates to generate a supply chain risk level for one or more suppliers based on different data " (Spec. [0002]).
As the bolded claim limitations above demonstrate, independent claims 1, and 13 are recites the abstract idea of generating a supply chain risk level for one or more suppliers based on different data. which is considered certain methods of organizing human activity because the bolded claim limitations pertain to (i) fundamental economic principles or practices and (ii) commercial or legal interactions. See MPEP §2106.04(a)(2)(II).
Applicant's claims as recited above provide a business solution of generate a supply chain risk level for one or more suppliers based on different data. Applicant's claimed invention pertains to Certain methods of organizing human activity –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);” See MPEP §2106.04(a)(2)(II).
Dependent claims 4-12 further reiterate the same abstract ideas with further embellishments (the bolded limitations), such as
claim 2 Cancelled
claim 3 Cancelled
claim 4 wherein the processor is configured to generate the supply chain risk information including the multiplicity and a counterparty risk level of each of the suppliers.
claim 5 wherein the processor is configured to output the supply chain risk information.
claim 6 wherein the processor is configured to generate, as the supply chain risk information, tabular data including the multiplicity and the counterparty risk level of each of the suppliers.
claim 7 wherein the processor is configured to generate, as the supply chain risk information, two-dimensional scatter diagram data having a first axis representing the multiplicity and a second axis representing the counterparty risk level.
claim 8 wherein the processor is configured to generate, as the supply chain risk information, one-dimensional scatter diagram data for which both the multiplicity and the counterparty risk level are taken into consideration.
claim 9 wherein the processor is configured to generate, as the supply chain risk information, graph data representing connections among the suppliers in the supply chain.
claim 10 wherein the supply chain information includes positional information on each of the suppliers, and the processor is configured to generate, as the supply chain risk information, map data representing a mark related to the multiplicity, the risk level, or both the multiplicity and the risk level of each of the suppliers on a map based on the positional information.
claim 11 wherein the processor is configured to generate the map data including a past disaster occurrence place based on past disaster occurrence information, and outputs the map data.
claim 12 wherein the processor is configured to correct a coefficient or an evaluation value for evaluating insurance or evaluating finance based on the multiplicity, a counterparty risk level of each of the suppliers, or both the multiplicity and the counterparty risk level.
which are nonetheless directed towards fundamentally the same abstract ideas as indicated for independent claims 1 and 13.
Regarding Step 2A [prong 2]
Claims 1, and 4-13 fail to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Independent claims 1, and 13 include the following additional elements which do not amount to a practical application:
Claim 1. A supply chain risk information generation device, comprising: a processor, wherein the processor is configured to: portal, a display
Claim 13. A supply chain risk information generation system, comprising: a terminal; and a supply chain risk information generation device connected to the terminal via a network, wherein the supply chain risk information generation device comprises a processor, the processor is configured to: .. terminal, and network, portal, a display
The bolded limitations recited above in independent claims 1, and 13 pertain to additional elements which merely provide an abstract-idea-based-solution implemented with computer hardware and software components, including the additional elements of a system, a terminal device, network, portal, a display, and processor. which fail to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because there are (1) no actual improvements to the functioning of a computer, (2) nor to any other technology or technical field, (3) nor do the claims apply the judicial exception with, or by use of, a particular machine, (4) nor do the claims provide a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing, (5) nor provide other meaningful limitations beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment, in view of MPEP §2106.04(d)(1) and §2106.05 (a-c & e-h), (6) nor do the claims apply the judicial exception to effect a particular treatment or prophylaxis for a disease or medical condition, in view of MPEP §2106.04(d)(2). The Specification provides a high level of generality regarding the additional elements claimed without sufficient detail or specific implementation structure so as to limit the abstract idea, for instance, (fig. 1). Nothing in the Specification describes the specific operations recited in claims 1, and 13 as particularly invoking any inventive programming, or requiring any specialized computer hardware or other inventive computer components, i.e., a particular machine, or that the claimed invention is somehow implemented using any specialized element other than all-purpose computer components to perform recited computer functions. The claimed invention is merely directed to utilizing computer technology as a tool for solving a business problem of data analytics. Nowhere in the Specification does the Applicant emphasize additional hardware and/or software elements which provide an actual improvement in computer functionality, or to a technology or technical field, other than using these elements as a computational tool to automate and perform the abstract idea. See MPEP §2106.05(a & e).
The relevant question under Step 2A [prong 2] is not whether the claimed invention itself is a practical application, instead, the question is whether the claimed invention includes additional elements beyond the judicial exception that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application by imposing a meaningful limit on the judicial exception. This is not the case with Applicant's claimed invention which merely pertains to steps for generating a supply chain risk level for one or more suppliers based on different data and the additional computer elements a tool to perform the abstract idea, and merely linking the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment. See MPEP §2106.04 and §21062106.05(f-h). Alternatively, the Office has long considered data gathering, analysis and data output to be insignificant extra-solution activity, and these additional elements do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. See MPEP §2106.04 and §2106.05(g). Thus, the additional elements recited above fail to provide an actual improvement in computer functionality, or to a technology or technical field. See MPEP §2106.04(d)(1) and §2106§2106.05 (a & e).
Instead, the recited additional elements above, merely limit the invention to a technological environment in which the abstract concept identified above is implemented utilizing the computational tools provided by the additional elements to automate and perform the abstract idea, which is insufficient to provide a practical application since the additional elements do no more than generally link the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment. See MPEP §2106.04. Automating the recited claimed features as a combination of computer instructions implemented by computer hardware and/or software elements as recited above does not qualify an otherwise unpatentable abstract idea as patent eligible. Alternatively, the Office has long considered data gathering and data processing as well as data output recruitment information on a social network to be insignificant extra-solution activity, and these additional elements used to gather and output recruitment information on a social network are insignificant extra-solution limitations that do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. See MPEP §2106.05(g). The current invention generate a supply chain risk level for one or more suppliers based on different data. When considered in combination, the claims do not amount to improvements of the functioning of a computer, or to any technology or technical field. Applicant's limitations as recited above do nothing more than supplement the abstract idea using additional hardware/software computer components as a tool to perform the abstract idea and generally link the use of the abstract idea to a technological environment, which is not sufficient to integrate the judicial exception into a practical application since they do not impose any meaningful limits.
Dependent claims 4-12 merely incorporate the additional elements recited above, along with further embellishments of the abstract idea of independent claims 1, and 13 for example claims 7-11 “scatter diagram, and map” but, these features only serve to further limit the abstract idea of independent claims 1, and 13. furthermore, merely using/applying in a computer environment such as merely using the computer as a tool to apply instructions of the abstract idea do nothing more than provide insignificant extra-solution activity since they amount to data gathering, analysis and outputting. Furthermore, they do not pertain to a technological problem being solved in a meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment, and/or the limitations fail to achieve an actual improvement in computer functionality or improvement in specific technology other than using the computer as a tool to perform the abstract idea.
Therefore, the additional elements recited in the claimed invention individually, and in combination fail to integrate the recited judicial exception into any practical application.
Regarding Step 2B
Claims 1, and 4-13 do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the additional element(s) as described above with respect to Step 2A Prong 2, the additional element of claims 1, and 13 include a system, a terminal device, network, portal, a display and processor. Further, claims 7-11 “scatter diagram, and map”. The displaying interface and storing data merely amount to a general purpose computer used to apply the abstract idea(s) (MPEP 2106.05(f)) and/or performs insignificant extra-solution activity, e.g. data retrieval and storage, as described above (MPEP 2106.05(g)) which are further merely well-understood, routine, and conventional activit(ies) as evidenced by MPEP 2106.06(05)(d)(II) (describing conventional activities that include transmitting and receiving data over a network, electronic recordkeeping, storing and retrieving information from memory, electronically scanning or extracting data from a physical document, and a web browser’s back and forward button functionality). Therefore, similarly the combination and arrangement of the above identified additional elements when analyzed under Step 2B also fails to necessitate a conclusion that the claims amount to significantly more than the abstract idea directed to generating a supply chain risk level for one or more suppliers based on different data.
Claims 1, and 4-13 is accordingly rejected under 35 USC 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea(s)) without significantly more.
REJECTIONS BASED ON PRIOR ART
Examiner Note: Some rejections will be followed/begin by an “EN” that will denote an examiner note. This will be place to further explain a rejection.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
Claims 1, and 4-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Herman et al. US 2020/0293962 (hereinafter Herman) in view of Williams et al. US 2021/0081957 (hereinafter Williams) in view of Martin et al. US 2019/0303831 (hereinafter Martin).
Regarding Claim 1:
A supply chain risk information generation device, comprising:
a processor, wherein the processor is configured to: (See Herman [0006], [0017], and [0020])
…
acquire the supply chain information from the memory; calculate a multiplicity as the [[counted number or a value calculated based on the counted number]]; (See Herman fig. 3 [0025], “up-to-date supplier risk for various suppliers in the supply chain”. Also, see [0046-0049]) […];
generate the multiplicity calculated as supply chain risk information; and graphically display the chain risk information on a display. (See Herman fig. 3 [0046-0049], “KPIs …. leveraged for calculation of one of the risk element scores 330 include: country risk score, corporate compliance risk based on supplier documents (e.g., ISO 9001 certificate), number of late deliveries, number of returns, pricing adjustments, etc. Some examples of the questionnaire assessment responses 325 leveraged for calculation of one of the risk element scores 330 include: responses related to information security, use rating of supplier performance, responses related to scoring supplier contracts, supplier responsiveness, supplier level of customer service, etc”.)
Herman disclose the above limitations but, specifically fails to disclose implement a buyer portal and a supplier portal; receive, through the buyer portal and the supplier portal, registration of supply chain information on a supply chain of each deliverable of a buyer into a memory, the supply chain information including site information on each of a plurality of suppliers included in a plurality of tiers of the supply chain, the site information including site names of the plurality of suppliers; count a number of appearances of each of the site names in the supply chain information; calculate a multiplicity as the counted number or a value calculated based on the counted number;
however, Williams teaches the following limitations:
implement a buyer portal and a supplier portal; receive, through the buyer portal and the supplier portal, registration of supply chain information on a supply chain of each deliverable of a buyer into a memory, acquire the supply chain information from the memory; (Williams see [0023], [0026], [0027-0032], EN: buyer and suppliers implemented portal for supply chain registration”. Also, see [0114], and [0135], “perform supply chain data”.)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to modify the system of Herman, to include the feature as taught by Williams, in order to include portal for suppliers and buyers to register for a supply chain management (Williams [0114]). This will improve a workflow for suppliers in a supply chain network. Further, the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements in a similar field of endeavor and, in the combination, each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that, given the existing technical ability to combine the elements as evidenced by Herman, and Williams, the results of the combination were predictable (see MPEP 2143 A).
Herman in view of Williams disclose the above limitations but, specifically fails to disclose the supply chain information including site information on each of a plurality of suppliers included in a plurality of tiers of the supply chain, the site information including site names of the plurality of suppliers; count a number of appearances of each of the site names in the supply chain information; calculate a multiplicity as the counted number or a value calculated based on the counted number;
However, Martin teaches the following limitation:
the supply chain information including site information on each of a plurality of suppliers included in a plurality of tiers of the supply chain, the site information including site names of the plurality of suppliers; (Martin fig. 1 and fig. 16 “ a plurality of tiers”. [0157], “calculation determines the unique interconnectivity of the selected site's parts to the end users products. The location of the site tile for the selected site on the RIM is determined by the analyzer 500 by normalizing the selected sites final products-at-risk count and determining a relative count. Site tiles are "painted" or created starting in the upper right comer of the map and placed in concentric arcs expanding from the comer”.)
acquire the supply chain information from the memory; count a number of appearances of each of the site names in the supply chain information; calculate a multiplicity as the counted number or a value calculated based on the counted number; (Martin figs. 1-2 and 16 [0136-0142], “FIG. 15A, a first view 1500a includes a first descriptive strip 1504 identifying the event of interest (e.g., ice storm), a second descriptive strip 1508 identifying the view as an impact chain view on a selected object ( e.g., sites). A search field 1512 receives search terms for events and places in connection with the selected supply and/or logistics chain impacted by the event. A relative event impact map 1516 is displayed including site tiles 1520 as described above. Information strip 1520 indicates a number of sites impacted by the event (e.g., 30 sites), each of which is listed below the strip. The depicted site entry 1524 includes enterprise supplier name 1528 (e.g., "Sava (Carl Stahl Sava Industries) and supplier geographic location (e.g., New Jersey, US). The view 1500a further includes tier identifier 1532 for the enterprise ( e.g., tier 1 ), watch list button 1536, and transport impact option 1540”.)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to modify the system of Herman, to include the feature as taught by Martin, in order to include supplier information on each of the suppliers included in a plurality of tiers of the supply chain related to a deliverable (Martin figs 1 and 16) and the number of appearance in a tier(s). This will improve a workflow for suppliers in a supply chain network. Further, the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements in a similar field of endeavor and, in the combination, each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that, given the existing technical ability to combine the elements as evidenced by Herman and Martin, the results of the combination were predictable (see MPEP 2143 A).
Regarding Claim 2: Cancelled
Regarding Claim 3: (Cacnelled)
Regarding Claim 4:
Herman in view of Williams in view of Martin disclose the supply chain risk information generation device according to claim 1,
Herman further teach wherein the processor is configured to generate the supply chain risk information including the multiplicity and a counterparty risk level of each of the suppliers. (See Herman fig. 3 & fig. 5 [0042], “supplier inherent risk, operational risk, and contractual risk. Each of the aspects may include one or more risk elements having associated risk scores stemming from respective ones of the KPIs …. Leverage when calculating the risk scores for the one or more risk elements comprising the overall supplier risk score. )
Regarding Claim 5:
Herman in view of Williams in view of Martin disclose the supply chain risk information generation device according to claim 1,
Herman further teach wherein the processor is configured to output the supply chain risk information. (See Herman fig. 5 EN: figure 5 display the supply chain risk information”)
Regarding Claim 6:
Herman in view of Williams in view of Martin disclose the supply chain risk information generation device according to claim 5,
Herman further teach wherein the processor is configured to generate, as the supply chain risk information, tabular data including the multiplicity and the counterparty risk level of each of the suppliers. (See Herman figure 5, EN: figure 5 display tabular data”)
Regarding Claim 7:
Herman in view of Williams in view of Martin disclose the supply chain risk information generation device according to claim 5,
Herman further teach wherein the processor is configured to generate, as the supply chain risk information, two-dimensional scatter diagram data having a first axis representing the multiplicity and a second axis representing the counterparty risk level. (See Herman figures 2-3 [0033-0035], “The aggregator module 140 is configured to run an aggregation on the source data of the relational databases 125 by select variables 230. The variables 230 selected from the relational databases 125, from which source data is extracted for aggregation, is determined based on the ultimate dimension member 210 pair the aggregation will be stored under in the multidimensional database 130. The aggregation is a method of summarizing a group of source data or data items by dimension member 210 in order to return a single value (hereinafter referred to as a "risk value" 205) for a particular pair of dimension members 210. As illustrated in FIG. 2, multidimensional databases 130 may comprise a plurality of dimension members (e.g., Confections, Condiments, Beverages) 210 within a Dimension (e.g., Product Category). Said differently, dimension members 210 from different dimensions in an OLAP Cube database for a particular measure 215. The value summary may be referred to herein as the risk value 205”. Also, see [0036] & [0044], “two-dimensional tables”. )
Regarding Claim 8:
Herman in view of Williams in view of Martin disclose the supply chain risk information generation device according to claim 5,
Herman further teach wherein the processor is configured to generate, as the supply chain risk information, one-dimensional scatter diagram data for which both the multiplicity and the counterparty risk level are taken into consideration. (See Herman figures 2-3 [0033-0035], “The aggregator module 140 is configured to run an aggregation on the source data of the relational databases 125 by select variables 230. The variables 230 selected from the relational databases 125, from which source data is extracted for aggregation, is determined based on the ultimate dimension member 210 pair the aggregation will be stored under in the multidimensional database 130. The aggregation is a method of summarizing a group of source data or data items by dimension member 210 in order to return a single value (hereinafter referred to as a "risk value" 205) for a particular pair of dimension members 210. As illustrated in FIG. 2, multidimensional databases 130 may comprise a plurality of dimension members (e.g., Confections, Condiments, Beverages) 210 within a Dimension (e.g., Product Category). Said differently, dimension members 210 from different dimensions in an OLAP Cube database for a particular measure 215. The value summary may be referred to herein as the risk value 205”. Also, see [0036] & [0044], “two-dimensional tables”. )
Regarding Claim 9:
Herman in view of Williams in view of Martin disclose the supply chain risk information generation device according to claim 5 but, does not specifically teach or disclose, however, Martin, in the same field of endeavor teaches wherein the processor is configured to generate, as the supply chain risk information, graph data representing connections among the suppliers in the supply chain. (Martin figs. 1-2 and fig. 16 EN: graph representing connections among the suppliers”. Also, see [0135])
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to modify the system of Herman, to include the feature as taught by Martin, in order to include graph data representing connections among the suppliers in the supply chain (Martin figs 1 and 16). This will improve a workflow for suppliers in a supply chain network. Further, the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements in a similar field of endeavor and, in the combination, each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that, given the existing technical ability to combine the elements as evidenced by Herman and Martin, the results of the combination were predictable (see MPEP 2143 A).
Regarding Claim 10:
Herman in view of Williams in view of Martin disclose the supply chain risk information generation device according to claim 5 but, does not specifically teach or disclose, however, Martin, in the same field of endeavor teaches wherein
the supply chain information includes positional information on each of the suppliers, and the processor is configured to generate, as the supply chain risk information, map data representing a mark related to the multiplicity, the risk level, or both the multiplicity and the risk level of each of the suppliers on a map based on the positional information. (Martin figs. 1-2 and 16 [0136-0142], “FIG. 15A, a first view 1500a includes a first descriptive strip 1504 identifying the event of interest (e.g., ice storm), a second descriptive strip 1508 identifying the view as an impact chain view on a selected object ( e.g., sites). A search field 1512 receives search terms for events and places in connection with the selected supply and/or logistics chain impacted by the event. A relative event impact map 1516 is displayed including site tiles 1520 as described above. Information strip 1520 indicates a number of sites impacted by the event (e.g., 30 sites), each of which is listed below the strip. The depicted site entry 1524 includes enterprise supplier name 1528 (e.g., "Sava (Carl Stahl Sava Industries) and supplier geographic location (e.g., New Jersey, US). The view 1500a further includes tier identifier 1532 for the enterprise ( e.g., tier 1 ), watch list button 1536, and transport impact option 1540”.)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to modify the system of Herman, to include the feature as taught by Martin, in order to generate map data representing a mark related to the multiplicity, the risk level, or both the multiplicity and the risk level of each of the suppliers on a map based on the positional information (Martin figs 1 and 16 [0136]). This will improve a workflow for suppliers in a supply chain network. Further, the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements in a similar field of endeavor and, in the combination, each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that, given the existing technical ability to combine the elements as evidenced by Herman and Martin, the results of the combination were predictable (see MPEP 2143 A).
Regarding Claim 11:
Herman in view of Williams in view of Martin disclose the supply chain risk information generation device according to claim 10,
Martin further teach wherein the processor is configured to generate the map data including a past disaster occurrence place based on past disaster occurrence information, and outputs the map data. (Martin figs. 1-2 and 16 [0136-0142], “FIG. 15A, a first view 1500a includes a first descriptive strip 1504 identifying the event of interest (e.g., ice storm), a second descriptive strip 1508 identifying the view as an impact chain view on a selected object ( e.g., sites). A search field 1512 receives search terms for events and places in connection with the selected supply and/or logistics chain impacted by the event. A relative event impact map 1516 is displayed including site tiles 1520 as described above. Information strip 1520 indicates a number of sites impacted by the event (e.g., 30 sites), each of which is listed below the strip. The depicted site entry 1524 includes enterprise supplier name 1528 (e.g., "Sava (Carl Stahl Sava Industries) and supplier geographic location (e.g., New Jersey, US). The view 1500a further includes tier identifier 1532 for the enterprise ( e.g., tier 1 ), watch list button 1536, and transport impact option 1540”.)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to modify the system of Herman, to include the feature as taught by Martin, in order to generate a past disaster occurrence place based on past disaster occurrence information, and outputs the map data (Martin figs 1 and 16 [0136]). This will improve a workflow for suppliers in a supply chain network. Further, the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements in a similar field of endeavor and, in the combination, each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that, given the existing technical ability to combine the elements as evidenced by Herman and Martin, the results of the combination were predictable (see MPEP 2143 A).
Regarding Claim 12:
Herman in view of Williams in view of Martin disclose the supply chain risk information generation device according to claim 1,
Herman further teach wherein the processor is configured to correct a coefficient or an evaluation value for evaluating insurance or evaluating finance based on the multiplicity, a counterparty risk level of each of the suppliers, or both the multiplicity and the counterparty risk level. (See Herman [0048-0049], “financial risk, geopolitical risk … credit risk …. Number of late deliveries … pricing adjustment …”. [0028], “adjust automated procurement workflow through the supply chain based on the supplier risk score”. Also, see [0059-0060], [0025])
Regarding Claim 13:
Claim 13 is system claim corresponding to the device claim 1 rejected above. Therefore, Claim 13 is rejected under the same rational as claim 1.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Li, Jimei, et al. "Construction and empirical testing of comprehensive risk evaluation methods from a multi-dimensional risk matrix perspective: taking specific types of natural disasters risk in China as an example." Natural Hazards 117.2 (2023): 1245-1271.
Makhija et al. US 2022/0058554: Risk management.
Crane, Jr. et al. US 2021/0097464: Supply chain management system.
Herman et al. US 2020/0293962: Risk scoring of suppliers and triggering procurement workflow in response thereto.
Roelofs et al. US 2016/0217399: Method and system for monitoring shipments in a supply and/or logistics chain.
McNamar et al. US 2015/0046363: Method and apparatus for managing, displaying, analyzing, coordinating, and optimizing innovation, engineering, manufacturing, and logistics infrastructures.
Hollenbach et al. US 2014/0278728: System and methods for determining risk of supply chain disruption.
Yoshida US 2007/0299763: Resource management apparatus, computer readable medium and information processing apparatus.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to HAMZEH OBAID whose telephone number is (313)446-4941. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8 am-5 pm 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, Patricia Munson can be reached at (571) 270-5396. 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.
/HAMZEH OBAID/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3624
Prosecution Insights