DETAILED ACTION
This non-final office action is in response to Applicant’s amendment and request for continued examination filed March 31, 2026. Applicant’s March 31st amendment amended claims 1 and 2 and canceled claims 3-5. Currently Claims 1, 2 and 6-8 are pending. Claims 1 and 2 are the independent claims.
The instant application is a continuation of application no. 17683148, now abandoned, which is a continuation of application no. 16616257 now abandoned.
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 March 31, 2026 has been entered.
Response to Amendment
The 35 U.S.C. 101 rejection of Claims 1, 2 and 6-8 in the previous office action is maintained.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed March 31, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Specifically, Applicant argues that the claims are patent eligible under 35 U.S.C. 101 as the claims are not directed to an abstract idea (e.g. claims not directed to merely business analysis/displaying comparative risk of insufficient supply, fail to account hardware limitations, ignores specific limitations in the claims, claims involve an exception but do not recite an exception; Remarks: Pages 7, 8); the claims integrate the abstract idea into a practical application (e.g. claims recite a specific technological solution to existing technical problems, improve functioning of a computer; Specification, as published USPN 20240020611: Paragraphs 2, 67, 128-140, 71, 94, 96 and 113-119; Remarks: Last Paragraph, Page 8; Paragraph 1, Page 9).
In response to Applicant’s argument that the claims are patent eligible under 35 U.S.C. 101 as the claims are not directed to an abstract idea, the examiner respectfully disagrees.
The claims are directed to a well-known economic business practice – business analysis – more specifically displaying comparative risk of insufficient supply (supply imbalance) within a supply chain (Title: Systems and Methods for Risk Processing of Supply Chain Management System Data; representative claim 1: calculating a comparative opportunity value….generating a plurality of data outputs associated with the comparative value comprising the risk to the supply chain of the imbalance…displaying an interactive data visualization interface….displaying a drill-down window…) utilizing generic computing elements for the old, well-known, conventional and routine purpose (merely a tool/conduit for the abstract idea; i.e. without significantly more, see detailed discussion below).
Business analysis/analytics, more specifically the analysis of the risk of insufficient supply in a supply chain, is a fundamental economic practice that falls into the abstract idea subcategories of sales activities and/or commercial interactions. The intended purpose of independent claim appears to be to enable a human user to view data (comparative values) displayed as bubbles having relative sizes wherein the human user may or may not select a bubble to view a supply chain recommendation/change or enter data.
While the claims may represent an improvement to the fundamental economic process of analyzing and visualizing supply chain imbalance risks (improvement in the abstract idea itself), the claims in no way either claimed or disclosed provide a technical solution to a technical problem; improve any of the underlying technology or improve another technology or technical field.
Additionally, the claims are directed to a mental processing practically capable of being performed in the human mind via observation, evaluation, judgement and opinion. Representative claim 1: The step of receiving first data from a plurality of supply chain noes may be performed in the human mind using observation of data. The step of receiving social media data from one or more networked social media feeds may be performed in the human mind using observation of data. The step of producing tertiary data based on a plurality of rules may be performed in the human mind via judgement and opinion. The step of calculating a comparative opportunity value from the tertiary data may be performed in the human mind using judgement. This step is also directed to a mathematical operation/concept. The step of generating a plurality of data outputs, using a comparative learning algorithm, may be performed in the human mind via judgement and opinion. The step of displaying an interactive data visualization interface directed to insignificant extra-solution activity (i.e. data output), further a human via pen and paper is practically capable of drawing a visualization of graphical bubble icons. The step of receiving a selection of one of the bubble icons may be performed in the human mind via observation of data. The step of displaying an analytics window is directed to insignificant extra-solution activity (i.e. data output), further a human via pen and paper is practically capable of drawing a window comprising graphical component icons. The step of receiving a selection of a component icon may be performed in the human mind via observation. The step of displaying a drill down window directed to insignificant extra-solution activity (i.e. data output), further a human via pen and paper is practically capable of drawing of drill-down window overlaid on the analytics window. The step of receiving accumulation data may be performed in the human mind via observation. The step of modifying the weighted hierarchal structure may be performed in the human mind via judgement and opinion.
Other than the recitation of an analytics engine (software per se), processor, memory, network, primary/second nodes (software per se), computer readable storage medium comprising instructions, interactive data visualization interface (software per se), computing display nothing in the claimed steps precludes the step from practically being performed in the mind. The claims do not recite additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. The limitations directed to analytics engine (software per se), processor, memory, network, primary/second nodes (software per se), computer readable storage medium comprising instructions, interactive data visualization interface (software per se), computing display are each recited at a high level of generality and amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer. See MPEP 2106.05(f).
Further the mere nominal recitation of a generic computer does not take the claim limitation out of the mental processes grouping. The claims use “conventional or generic technology in a nascent but well-known environment” to implement the abstract idea of business analytics.
Nothing in Applicant’s disclosures suggests that the Applicant intended to accomplish any of the steps recited in the claims through anything other than well understood technology used in a routine and conventional manner. Therefore, the claims lack an inventive concept.
Reevaluating the steps of receiving first data, receiving social media data, displaying an interactive data visualization interface, receiving a selection, displaying an analytics window, receiving a selection, displaying a drill-down window, and receiving accumulation data which are considered insignificant extra solution activity, these limitations are mere data gathering and output recited at a high level of generality and amount to nothing more than receiving data over a network of display data via display device which are both well-understood, routine and conventional activities. The limitations remain insignificant extra solution activity even upon reconsideration. Even when considered in combination the additional elements represent mere instructions to apply an exception and insignificant extra solution activity which cannot provide an inventive concept.
As for Applicant’s argument that the examiner failed to consider the specific technical/hardware limitations recited in the claims (e.g. analytics engine (software per se), processor, memory, network, primary/second nodes (software per se), computer readable storage medium comprising instructions, interactive data visualization interface (software per se), computing display) the examiner respectfully disagrees. The recited hardware and software elements recited in the claims were specifically considered and were determined to be nothing more than recitations of a generic computer or other machinery used a tool/conduit for the abstract idea.
As described in MPEP § 2106.05(f), additional elements that invoke computers or other machinery merely as a tool to perform an existing process will generally not amount to significantly more than a judicial exception. See, e.g., Versata Development Group v. SAP America, 793 F.3d 1306, 1335, 115 USPQ2d 1681, 1702 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (explaining that in order for a machine to add significantly more, it must “play a significant part in permitting the claimed method to be performed, rather than function solely as an obvious mechanism for permitting a solution to be achieved more quickly”).
(2) Whether the claim invokes computers or other machinery merely as a tool to perform an existing process. Use of a computer or other machinery in its ordinary capacity for economic or other tasks (e.g., to receive, store, or transmit data) or simply adding a general purpose computer or computer components after the fact to an abstract idea (e.g., a fundamental economic practice or mathematical equation) does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more. See Affinity Labs v. DirecTV, 838 F.3d 1253, 1262, 120 USPQ2d 1201, 1207 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (cellular telephone); TLI Communications LLC v. AV Auto, LLC, 823 F.3d 607, 613, 118 USPQ2d 1744, 1748 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (computer server and telephone unit). Similarly, “claiming the improved speed or efficiency inherent with applying the abstract idea on a computer” does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide an inventive concept. Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Capital One Bank (USA), 792 F.3d 1363, 1367, 115 USPQ2d 1636, 1639 (Fed. Cir. 2015). In contrast, a claim that purports to improve computer capabilities or to improve an existing technology may integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more. McRO, Inc. v. Bandai Namco Games Am. Inc., 837 F.3d 1299, 1314-15, 120 USPQ2d 1091, 1101-02 (Fed. Cir. 2016); Enfish, LLC v. Microsoft Corp., 822 F.3d 1327, 1335-36, 118 USPQ2d 1684, 1688-89 (Fed. Cir. 2016). See MPEP §§ 2106.04(d)(1) and 2106.05(a) for a discussion of improvements to the functioning of a computer or to another technology or technical field.
Further as discussed in MPEP 2106.05(I)(A): "It is notable that mere physicality or tangibility of an additional element or elements is not a relevant consideration in Step 2B. As the Supreme Court explained in Alice Corp., mere physical or tangible implementation of an exception is not in itself an inventive concept and does not guarantee eligibility: The fact that a computer "necessarily exist[s] in the physical, rather than purely conceptual, realm," is beside the point. There is no dispute that a computer is a tangible system (in § 101 terms, a "machine"), or that many computer-implemented claims are formally addressed to patent-eligible subject matter. But if that were the end of the § 101 inquiry, an applicant could claim any principle of the physical or social sciences by reciting a computer system configured to implement the relevant concept. Such a result would make the determination of patent eligibility "depend simply on the draftsman’s art," Flook, supra, at 593, 98 S. Ct. 2522, 57 L. Ed. 2d 451, thereby eviscerating the rule that "‘[l]aws of nature, natural phenomena, and abstract ideas are not patentable,’" Myriad, 133 S. Ct. 1289, 186 L. Ed. 2d 124, 133).
As for the recited comparative learning algorithm or generating a plurality of data outputs associated with the comparative opportunity value comprising the risk to the supply chain imbalance and used to modify the weight hierarchical structure of the tertiary data based on the received accumulation data to update the plurality of rules associated with the comparative learning algorithm, the comparative learning algorithm is recited at a high level of generality and amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the abstract idea using a generic comparative learning algorithm on a generic computer, also recited at a high level of generality. Only Specification Paragraph 118, as published, tangentially mentions that risk modeling or recommendations may comprising one or more learning algorithms and that the learnings may cause modification to automated weightings assigned by the analytics engine. The comparative learning algorithm is used to generally apply the abstract idea without limiting how the comparative learning algorithm functions. The comparative learning algorithm is described at a high level such that it amounts to using a generic computer with a generic comparative learning algorithm to apply the abstract idea. These limitations only recite outcomes/results of the steps without any details about how the outcomes are accomplished.
Nothing in Applicant’s disclosures suggests that the Applicant intended to accomplish any of the steps recited in independent claims 1 and 2 through anything other than well understood technology used in a routine and conventional manner. Therefore, the claims lack an inventive concept. See also, e.g., Elec. Power Grp., 830 F.3d at 1355 (holding claims lacked inventive concept where “[n]othing in the claims, understood in light of the specification, requires anything other than off-the-shelf, conventional computer, network, and display technology for gathering, sending, and presenting the desired information”); Content Extraction, 776 F.3d at 1348 (holding claims lacked an inventive concept where the claims recited the use of “existing scanning and processing technology”).
Accordingly, the claims are not patent eligible under 35 U.S.C. 101.
In response to Applicant’s arguments that the claims are patent eligible under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claims are directed to a practical application the examiner respectfully disagrees.
As discussed above claims are directed to a well-known business practice – business analysis – more specifically displaying comparative risk of insufficient supply (supply imbalance) within a supply chain (Title: Systems and Methods for Risk Processing of Supply Chain Management System Data). While the claims may represent an improvement to the business process of supply chain risk analysis (i.e. improvement lies in the abstract idea itself – supply chain management), they in no way either claimed or disclosed or inherent in the recited method steps represent a practical application, (e.g. provide a technical solution to a technical problem; improve any of the underlying technology (analytics engine (software per se), processor, memory, network, primary/second nodes (software per se), computer readable storage medium comprising instructions, interactive data visualization interface (software per se), computing display) or represent an improvement to other technology or technical field (i.e. supply chain management/analysis is not a technical field or a technology – it is a well-known business problem).
More specifically, the instant application provides an interactive data visualization interface (aka. a user interface) comprising selectable bubble icons associated with a comparative opportunity value (data) that when selected (by a human) display an analytics window which when selected displays a drill-down window (overlaid) which enable a human user to input data. Neither the displayed data, in the form of one or more interactive/selectable bubbles/windows/icons, nor the ability to enter data via a window nor the launching of one or more windows in response to a user’s selection (a core requirement for any/all graphical user interfaces) in any way improves the underlying computer or other technical field. The interactive/actuatable/selectable bubbles/icons/windows simply data output on a screen and enable a human user to input data into a computer via a window/interactive data visualization interface wherein such data visualization and data input are a conventional, well-known and extremely common (if not inherent) use of a user interface and represent insignificant extra solution activity. Figure 8B provided for Applicant’s convenience.
PNG
media_image1.png
700
990
media_image1.png
Greyscale
The claimed windows, icons, bubbles and the like do not represent a technical solution to a technical problem nor do the claims improve the functioning of the underlying computer/technology nor do the claims recite an improvement to other technology (none identified in Applicant’s remarks) or technical field (supply chain management is not a technical field, supply chain management is a well-known, well-understood, conventional and routine business solution to a business planning problem) nor do the claims integrate the abstract idea into a practical application.
While the claims may improve the ability of a human user to visualize supply chain imbalances - utilizing well-known bubble charts/graphs, the claims are not directed to a technical solution to a technical problem, the claims do not recite an improvement in the underlying computer technology, the claims do not recite an improvement in another technology or technical field. The claimed invention, specifically the claimed data visualization interface, does not improve any of the generic/conventional technological components claimed.
In order to successfully argue that the claims invention results in an improvement in a technology or another technical field Applicant must claim the argued improvement and clearly disclose that the improvement as discussed in detail in McRO, McRO, 837 F.3d at 1316, 120 USPQ2d at 1103. The basis for the McRO court's decision was that the claims were directed to an improvement in computer animation. The court relied on the specification's explanation of how the claimed rules enabled the automation of specific animation tasks that previously could not be automated. 837 F.3d at 1313, 120 USPQ2d at 1101. The McRO court found that the claims clearly improved the functioning of the claimed computer and that the claims directed to recite improvement (e.g. rules). Further the court found that the specification clearly disclosed that the claimed improvement improved the functioning of the computer. Neither Applicant’s disclosure nor the pending claims recite or disclose an improvement to the functioning of any of the underlying technology/technological components.
As for Applicant’s that the claimed invention (Systems and Methods for Risk Processing of Supply Chain Management System Data) reduces cost, optimizing data process and networked communication improving flexibility and identifying and mitigating risk in a supply chain these are at best improvements in the abstract idea itself – i.e. at best business improvements to supply chain analysis and/or management. Reducing supply chain costs, for example, is not a technical solution to a specific technical problem inherent in computers or computer networks. Nor does reducing supply chain costs improve any of the underlying technology or represent an improvement to another technical field. Similarly, improving supply chain flexibility, is at best an improvement in supply analysis/management (a well-known, conventional, routine business/economic practice) and does not a represent a technical solution to a specific technical problem inherent in computers or computer networks and does not improve any of the underlying technology or represent an improvement to another technical field. Identifying and mitigating risk in a supply chain is at best an improvement in supply analysis/management, does not a represent a technical solution to a specific technical problem inherent in computers or computer networks and does not improve any of the underlying technology or represent an improvement to another technical field.
At best the claims recite an improvement to the abstract idea itself, wherein the abstract idea is merely applied and performed using generic computers performing generic computer processing.
The claims use “conventional or generic technology in a nascent but well-known environment” to implement the abstract idea of business analytics. In re TLI Commc’ns LLC Pat. Litig., 823 F.3d 607, 612 (Fed. Cir. 2016). The recited technology (processor, memory, device, platform, etc.), are used as a “conduit for the abstract idea,” not to provide a technological solution to a specific technological problem. Id.; see also id. at 611–13 (holding claims reciting the use of a cellular telephone and a network server to classify an image and store the image based on its classification to be abstract because the patent did “not describe a new telephone, a new server, or a new physical combination of the two” and did not address “how to combine a camera with a cellular telephone, how to transmit images via a cellular network, or even how to append classification information to that data”).
Nothing in Applicant’s disclosures suggests that the Applicant intended to accomplish any of the steps recited in independent claims 1 and 2 through anything other than well understood technology used in a routine and conventional manner. Therefore, the claims lack an inventive concept. See also, e.g., Elec. Power Grp., 830 F.3d at 1355 (holding claims lacked inventive concept where “[n]othing in the claims, understood in light of the specification, requires anything other than off-the-shelf, conventional computer, network, and display technology for gathering, sending, and presenting the desired information”); Content Extraction, 776 F.3d at 1348 (holding claims lacked an inventive concept where the claims recited the use of “existing scanning and processing technology”).
As discussed in Uniloc USA, Inc. v. LG Electronics USA, Appeal No. 19-1835 (Fed. Cir. Apr. 30, 2020), the Federal Circuit reaffirmed that software inventions are patentable in the U.S. with a bright-line statement: “Our precedent is clear that software can make patent-eligible improvements to computer technology, and related claims are eligible as long as they are directed to non-abstract improvements to the functionality of a computer or network platform itself.” Nothing in Applicant’s disclosure or the pending claims (e.g. a bubble chart that is selectable and capable of launching an analytics window and the analytics window itself is capable of nesting information and generating another window) makes patent eligible improvements to the functioning of the claimed processor, memory (platform) or another technical field similar to those discussed in Uniloc.
Additionally, it is noted that displaying text or other data as part of an interactive computer user interface (e.g., window) wherein the textual data comprises one or more items such that upon actuation/selection a second or third window is launched to provide additional data/information is old, very-well-known, routine and conventional in user interfaces (e.g. nearly all websites contain textual links which launch new websites many times in a new browser window). Such actuation/selection of textual data displayed as part of a user interface (e.g. URL links) does not represent an improvement to the user interface nor an improvement to the underlying technology (e.g. computer). Support for this old and well-known fact can be found in at least the following references: Hansen, U.S. Patent No. 9412117 (Claims 43, 63, 69); Rubin et al. U.S. Patent No. 11816619 (DETX 187, Claims 1, 14); Tawil et al. U.S. Patent Publication No. 20150248536 Paragraph 158, Claim 19; Huang U.S. Patent No. 9547409 Claims 7, 17; Jose, U.S. Patent No. 9489417 (Claim 19).
The claims are evaluated to determine if additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application (see Manual of Patent Examining Procedure ("MPEP") §§ 2106.05(a)-(c), (e)- (h)). A claim that integrates a judicial exception into a practical application applies, relies on, or uses the judicial exception in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on the judicial exception, such that the claim is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the judicial exception.
For example, limitations that are indicative of "integration into a practical application" include:
Improvements to the functioning of a computer, or to any other technology or technical field - see MPEP § 2106.05(a);
Applying the judicial exception with, or by use of, a particular machine - see MPEP § 2106.05(b);
Effecting a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing - see MPEP § 2106.05(c); and
Applying or using the judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment, such that the claim as a whole is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception - see MPEP § 2106.05(e).
In contrast, limitations that are not indicative of "integration into a practical application" include:
Adding the words "apply it" (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or merely include instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea - see MPEP § 2106.05(±);
Adding insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception- see MPEP § 2106.05(g); and
Generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use - see MPEP 2106.05(h). ("Prong Two").
In view of the MPEP 2106.05, one must consider whether there are additional elements set forth in the claims that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. The identified additional non-abstract elements recited in the independent claims are the generic analytics engine (software per se), processor, memory, network, primary/second nodes (software per se), computer readable storage medium comprising instructions, interactive data visualization interface (software per se), computing display. These generic computer hardware merely performs generic computer functions of receiving, processing and displaying data and represent a purely conventional implementation of applicant’s supply chain risk analysis in the general field of business analytics and do not represent significantly more than the abstract idea. See at least MPEP § 2106.05(a) ("Improvements to the Functioning of a Computer or to Any Other Technology or Technical Field").
These recited additional elements are merely generic computer components. The claims do present any other issues as set forth in MPEP 2106.05 regarding a determination of whether the additional generic elements integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. Rather, the claims merely use instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely use a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea.
The claims do not recite improvements to the functioning of a computer or any other technology field (MPEP 2106.05(a)), the claims do not apply or use the abstract idea to effect a particular treatment or prophylaxis for a disease or medical condition, the claims to do apply the abstract idea with a particular machine (MPEP 2106.05(b)), the claims do not effect a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing (e.g. data remains data even after processing; MPEP 2106.05(c)), the claims no not apply or use the abstract idea in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the user of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment (i.e. a generic computer) such that the claim as a whole is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the abstract idea (MPEP 2106.05(e)). The recited generic computing elements are no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Accordingly, this additional element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
Thus, under Step 2A, Prong Two (MPEP §§ 2106.05(a)-(c) and (e)- (h)), the claims do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
There is a fundamental difference between computer functionality improvements, on the one hand, and uses of existing computers as tools to perform a particular task, on the other — a distinction that the Federal Circuit applied in Enfish, in rejecting a § 101 challenge at the first stage of the Mayo/Alice framework because the claims at issue focused on a specific type of data structure, i.e., a self-referential table, designed to improve the way a computer stores and retrieves data in memory, and not merely on asserted advances in uses to which existing computer capabilities could be put. See Enfish, 822 F.3d at 1335-36. Here the claims simply use a computer as a tool and nothing more.
For the reasons outlined above, the claims are directed to a method of organizing human activity, i.e., an abstract idea, and that the additional element recited in the claim beyond the abstract idea (e.g., computer, data visualization interface, etc.) is no more than a generic computer component used as a tool to perform the recited abstract idea. As such, it does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. See Alice Corp., 573 U.S. at 223-24 (“[Wholly generic computer implementation is not generally the sort of ‘additional featur[e]’ that provides any ‘practical assurance that the process is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the [abstract idea] itself.’” (quoting Mayo, 566 U.S. at 77)).
Having determined under step one of the Mayo/Alice framework that the claims are directed to an abstract idea, we next consider under Step 2B of the Guidance, the second step of the Mayo/Alice framework, whether the claims include additional elements or a combination of elements that provides an “inventive concept,” i.e., whether an additional element or combination of elements adds specific limitations beyond the judicial exception that are not “well-understood, routine, conventional activity” in the field (which is indicative that an inventive concept is present) or simply appends well-understood, routine, conventional activities previously known to the industry to the judicial exception.
Under step two of the Mayo/Alice framework, the elements of each claim are considered both individually and “as an ordered combination” to determine whether the additional elements, i.e., the elements other than the abstract idea itself, “transform the nature of the claim” into a patent-eligible application. Alice Corp., 573 U.S. at 217 (citation omitted); see Mayo, 566 U.S. at 72-73 (requiring that “a process that focuses upon the use of a natural law also contain other elements or a combination of elements, sometimes referred to as an ‘inventive concept,’ sufficient to ensure that the patent in practice amounts to significantly more than a patent upon the natural law itself’ (emphasis added) (citation omitted)).
Here the only additional element recited in claims 1, 2, and 6-8 beyond the abstract idea are the analytics engine (software per se), processor, memory, network, primary/second nodes (software per se), computer readable storage medium comprising instructions, interactive data visualization interface (software per se), computing display i.e., generic computer component. See Alice, 573 U.S. at 223 (“[T]he mere recitation of a generic computer cannot transform a patent-ineligible abstract idea into a patent-eligible invention.”). Applicant has not identified any additional elements recited in the claim that, individually or in combination, provides significantly more than the abstract idea.
With regards to argued Specification Paragraph 2, as published, discusses that disclosure relates to supply chain management system processing to reduce cost, optimizing data processing, improve flexibility and identifying/mitigate supply chain risks. As discussed above this high-level list of wished for ‘improvements’ (reduce cost, optimizing data process and networked communication improving flexibility and identifying and mitigating risk in a supply chain, etc.,) are at best wished for business benefits - improvements in the abstract idea itself. Reducing supply chain costs is not a technical solution to a specific technical problem inherent in computers or computer networks. Nor does reducing supply chain costs improve any of the underlying technology or represent an improvement to another technical field. Similarly, improving supply chain flexibility, is at best an improvement in supply analysis/management (a well-known, conventional, routine business/economic practice) and does not a represent a technical solution to a specific technical problem inherent in computers or computer networks and does not improve any of the underlying technology or represent an improvement to another technical field. Identifying and mitigating risk in a supply chain is at best an improvement in supply analysis/management, does not a represent a technical solution to a specific technical problem inherent in computers or computer networks and does not improve any of the underlying technology or represent an improvement to another technical field.
With regards to argued Specification 70, this paragraph merely recites the primary data employed by the platform/system noting that the data is typical (i.e. conventional, routine) of supply chain management systems) and that the data may include social media data (as newly claimed). Additionally, this paragraph notes that social media data/trends may be indicative of changes in sale and/or inventory (i.e. business problem, not a technical problem). This paragraph, like the remainder of Applicant’s disclosure, fails to disclose a technical improvement to a technical solution, fails to disclose an improvement in a computer, computer network or underlying technology (e.g. processor), fails to disclose another technical field or technology, much alone disclose an improvement to another technology or technical field).
With regards to argued Specification 71, paragraph 71 discloses that the system applies rules, algorithms, and processes to stored data obtained from a plurality of data sources making use of a ‘significant’ amount of data. This paragraph, like the remainder of Applicant’s disclosure, fails to disclose a technical improvement to a technical solution, fails to disclose an improvement in a computer, computer network or underlying technology (e.g. processor), fails to disclose another technical field or technology, much alone disclose an improvement to another technology or technical field).
With regards to argued Specification 73, paragraph 73 discusses figure 4 highlight the use of various data, consumer groups, regions and sectors. This paragraph, like the remainder of Applicant’s disclosure, fails to disclose a technical improvement to a technical solution, fails to disclose an improvement in a computer, computer network or underlying technology (e.g. processor), fails to disclose another technical field or technology, much alone disclose an improvement to another technology or technical field).
With regards to argued Specification 81, paragraph 81 discloses that the system processes various data points to improve a supply chain and that data regarding opportunity values may have been previously overlooked by conventional approaches. Specifically this paragraph discusses the user of MOQ data (not claimed) to reduce/optimize safety stock (business problem). This paragraph, like the remainder of Applicant’s disclosure, fails to disclose a technical improvement to a technical solution, fails to disclose an improvement in a computer, computer network or underlying technology (e.g. processor), fails to disclose another technical field or technology, much alone disclose an improvement to another technology or technical field).
With regards to argued Specification Paragraph 94, as published, discloses that the platform packages processed data to ne uniquely visualized on a user’s screen (Figure 7) – including visualization identified (market) opportunities as bubbles. This paragraph, like the remainder of Applicant’s disclosure, fails to disclose a technical improvement to a technical solution, fails to disclose an improvement in a computer, computer network or underlying technology (e.g. processor), fails to disclose another technical field or technology, much alone disclose an improvement to another technology or technical field).
With regards to argued Specification Paragraph 95, as published, discloses that the platform packages processed data to ne uniquely visualized on a user’s screen (Figure 7) – including visualization identified (market) opportunities as bubbles. This paragraph, like the remainder of Applicant’s disclosure, fails to disclose a technical improvement to a technical solution, fails to disclose an improvement in a computer, computer network or underlying technology (e.g. processor), fails to disclose another technical field or technology, much alone disclose an improvement to another technology or technical field).
With regards to argued Specification Paragraph 96, as published, discloses that bubble data visualization (Figure 7) – is configured to provide immediate analytics (e.g. opportunity bubbles representing dollar value opportunity trend). This paragraph, like the remainder of Applicant’s disclosure, fails to disclose a technical improvement to a technical solution, fails to disclose an improvement in a computer, computer network or underlying technology (e.g. processor), fails to disclose another technical field or technology, much alone disclose an improvement to another technology or technical field).
With regards to argued Specification 116, paragraph 116 discloses that by using the attribute based risk a USER may be provided with a mapping of what supply chain attributes are causing a particular risk score such that a USER may take actions or the system may be asked to recommend remedial action (not claimed, nor support by Applicant’s disclosure). This paragraph, like the remainder of Applicant’s disclosure, fails to disclose a technical improvement to a technical solution, fails to disclose an improvement in a computer, computer network or underlying technology (e.g. processor), fails to disclose another technical field or technology, much alone disclose an improvement to another technology or technical field).
With regards to argued Specification 117, paragraph 117 discusses at a very high level of generality that risk recommendations (not claimed) MAY predict the risk per attribute, per category, per part, etc. and that the recommendations may or may not be accepted (by a user). This paragraph, like the remainder of Applicant’s disclosure, fails to disclose a technical improvement to a technical solution, fails to disclose an improvement in a computer, computer network or underlying technology (e.g. processor), fails to disclose another technical field or technology, much alone disclose an improvement to another technology or technical field).
With regards to argued Specification 118, paragraph 118 discusses that the risk modeling/recommendations MAY comprise one or more learning algorithms (not claimed) that may cause modifications to automated weightings assigned by the analytics engine (not claimed) wherein the data may be employed to create an ever-changing rule set (not claimed). This paragraph, like the remainder of Applicant’s disclosure, fails to disclose a technical improvement to a technical solution, fails to disclose an improvement in a computer, computer network or underlying technology (e.g. processor), fails to disclose another technical field or technology, much alone disclose an improvement to another technology or technical field).
With regards to argued Specification 119, this paragraph discloses that for a particular risk model may conclude that a part lifecycle is twice as important to the particular risk model than product lead time (not claimed; i.e. at best a business solution to a business problem). This paragraph, like the remainder of Applicant’s disclosure, fails to disclose a technical improvement to a technical solution, fails to disclose an improvement in a computer, computer network or underlying technology (e.g. processor), fails to disclose another technical field or technology, much alone disclose an improvement to another technology or technical field).
Accordingly, the claims are not patent eligible under 35 U.S.C. 101.
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, 2 and 6-8 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.
Regarding independent Claims 1 and 2, the claims are directed to the abstract idea of business analytics. This is a process (i.e. a series of steps) which (Statutory Category – Yes –process).
The claims recite a judicial exception, a method for organizing human activity, business analytics (data visualization) (Judicial Exception – Yes – organizing human activity). Specifically, the claims are directed to displaying comparative risk of insufficient supply (supply imbalance) within a supply chain, wherein business analytics is a fundamental economic practice that falls into the abstract idea subcategories of sales activities and/or commercial interactions. Further all of the steps of “receiving”, “receiving”, “producing”, “calculating”, “generating”, “displaying”, “receiving”, “displaying”, “receiving”, “displaying”, “receiving”, and “modifying” (Claim 1) recite functions of the business analytics; the steps of “receive”, “produce”, “calculate”, “generate”, “display”, “receive”, “display”, “receive”, “display”, “receive”, and “modify” (Claim2) recite function of business analytics. The intended purpose of independent Claims 1, 2 and 6-8 appears to be to provide a human user with visualization of data – supply chain imbalances - utilizing well-known bubble charts/graphs wherein the displayed data is associated with the risk of supply chain imbalance (insufficient supply/inventory) a supply chain (non-functional descriptive material, intended use). Business analysis/analytics, more specifically the analysis of the risk of insufficient supply in a supply chain, is a fundamental economic practice that falls into the abstract idea subcategories of sales activities and/or commercial interactions. The intended purpose of independent claim appears to be to enable a human user to view data (comparative values) displayed as bubbles having relative sizes wherein the human user may or may not select a bubble to view a supply chain recommendation/change or enter data.
Accordingly, the claims recite an abstract idea – fundamental economic practice, specifically in the abstract idea subcategories of sales activities and/or commercial interactions. The exceptions are the additional limitations of generic analytics engine (software per se), processor, memory, network, primary/second nodes (software per se), computer readable storage medium comprising instructions, interactive data visualization interface (software per se), computing display.
Accordingly, the claims recite an abstract idea under Step 2A, Prong One, we proceed to Step 2A, Prong Two. Considering whether the additional elements set forth in the claim integrate the abstract idea into a practical application, the previously identified non-abstract elements directed to generic computing components include: analytics engine (software per se), processor, memory, network, primary/second nodes (software per se), computer readable storage medium comprising instructions, interactive data visualization interface (software per se), computing display. These generic computing components are merely used to receive, process and display data as described extensively in Applicant’s specification (Specification: Figures 1, 2). Generic computers performing generic computer functions, alone, do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. Moreover, when viewed as a whole with such additional elements considered as an ordered combination, the claim modified by adding a generic computer would be nothing more than a purely conventional computerized implementation of applicant's business analytics in the general field of business management and would not provide significantly more than the judicial exception itself. Note McRo, Inc. v. Bandai Namco Games America Inc. (837 F.3d 1299 (Fed. Cir. 2016)), guides: "[t]he abstract idea exception prevents patenting a result where 'it matters not by what process or machinery the result is accomplished."' 837 F.3d at 1312 (quoting O'Reilly v. Morse, 56 U.S. 62, 113 (1854)) (emphasis added). The claims are not directed to a particular machine nor do they recite a particular transformation (MPEP § 2106.05(b)).
Additionally, the claims do not recite any specific claim limitations that would provide a meaningful limitation beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment. Nor do the claims present any other issues regarding a determination of whether the additional generic elements integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. See Revised Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. at 55. Rather, the claim merely uses instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely use a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea. Thus, under Step 2A, Prong Two (MPEP §§ 2106.05(a)-(c) and (e)- (h)), claim 1 does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. Regarding the use of the generic (known, conventional) analytics engine (software per se), processor, memory, network, primary/second nodes (software per se), computer readable storage medium comprising instructions, interactive data visualization interface (software per se), computing display the Supreme Court has held "the mere recitation of a generic computer cannot transform a patent-ineligible abstract idea into a patent-eligible invention." Alice, 573 U.S. 208, 223. Generic computers performing generic computer functions, alone, do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. The claim as a whole do not recite more than what was well-known, routine and conventional in the field (see MPEP § 2106.05(d)). In light of the foregoing, that each of the claims, considered as a whole, is directed to a patent-ineligible abstract idea that is not integrated into a practical application and does not include an inventive concept.
As for the recited comparative learning algorithm or generating a plurality of data outputs associated with the comparative opportunity value comprising the risk to the supply chain imbalance and used to modify the weight hierarchical structure of the tertiary data based on the received accumulation data to update the plurality of rules associated with the comparative learning algorithm, the comparative learning algorithm is recited at a high level of generality and amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the abstract idea using a generic comparative learning algorithm on a generic computer, also recited at a high level of generality. Only Specification Paragraph 118, as published, tangentially mentions that risk modeling or recommendations may comprising one or more learning algorithms and that the learnings may cause modification to automated weightings assigned by the analytics engine. The comparative learning algorithm is used to generally apply the abstract idea without limiting how the comparative learning algorithm functions. The comparative learning algorithm is described at a high level such that it amounts to using a generic computer with a generic comparative learning algorithm to apply the abstract idea. These limitations only recite outcomes/results of the steps without any details about how the outcomes are accomplished.
Accordingly, the claim is not patent eligible under 35 U.S.C. 101.
Additionally, the claims recite a judicial exception, a mental processes, which can be performed in the human mind or via pen and paper (Judicial Exception – Yes – mental process).
The claimed steps of producing tertiary data, calculating a comparative opportunity value and modifying the weighted hierarchical structure all describe the abstract idea. These limitations as drafted are directed to a process that under its reasonable interpretation covers performance of the steps in the mind but for the recitation of the generic computer components. Other than the recitation of an analytics engine (software per se), processor, memory, network, primary/second nodes (software per se), computer readable storage medium comprising instructions, interactive data visualization interface (software per se), computing display nothing in the claimed steps precludes the step from practically being performed in the mind. The claims do not recite additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the abstract idea because the receiving first data, receiving social media data, generating of data outputs, receiving a selection of one of the graphical bubble icons, receiving a selection of a component icon, displaying an analytics window, receiving a selection of a component icon, displaying a drill-down window and receiving accumulation data are directed to insignificant extra solution activity (i.e. data input/output). The mere nominal recitation of a generic processor/computer does not take the claim limitation out of the mental processes grouping. Thus, the claim recites a mental process. (Judicial Exception recited – Yes – mental process).
The claims do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. The generic primary device, platform, memory, processor, network, software and display are recited at a high level of generality merely performs generic computer functions of receiving, processing and outputting/displaying data. The generic processor/computer merely applies the abstract idea using generic computer components. The elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claims do not recite improvements to the functioning of a computer or any other technology field (MPEP 2106.05(a)), the claims do not apply or use the abstract idea to effect a particular treatment or prophylaxis for a disease or medical condition, the claims to do apply the abstract idea with a particular machine (MPEP 2106.05(b)), the claims do not effect a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing (e.g. data remains data even after processing; MPEP 2106.05(c)), the claims no not apply or use the abstract idea in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the user of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment (i.e. a generic computer) such that the claim as a whole is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the abstract idea (MPEP 2106.05(e)). The recited generic computing elements are no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component.
With regards to the recited comparative learning algorithm or generating a plurality of data outputs associated with the comparative opportunity value comprising the risk to the supply chain imbalance and used to modify the weight hierarchical structure of the tertiary data based on the received accumulation data to update the plurality of rules associated with the comparative learning algorithm, the comparative learning algorithm is recited at a high level of generality and amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the abstract idea using a generic comparative learning algorithm on a generic computer, also recited at a high level of generality. Only Specification Paragraph 118, as published, tangentially mentions that risk modeling or recommendations may comprising one or more learning algorithms and that the learnings may cause modification to automated weightings assigned by the analytics engine. The comparative learning algorithm is used to generally apply the abstract idea without limiting how the comparative learning algorithm functions. The comparative learning algorithm is described at a high level such that it amounts to using a generic computer with a generic comparative learning algorithm to apply the abstract idea. These limitations only recite outcomes/results of the steps without any details about how the outcomes are accomplished. The recitation of a comparative learning algorithm in this claim does not negate the mental nature of these limitations because the comparative learning algorithm is merely used at a tool to perform an otherwise mental process.
Accordingly, this additional element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. (Integrated into a Practical Application – No).
As discussed above the additional elements in the claims amount to no more than a mere instruction to apply the abstract idea using generic computing components, wherein mere instructions to apply a judicial exception using generic computer components cannot integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide an inventive concept. For the receiving and displaying steps that were considered extra-solution activity, this has been re-evaluated and determined to be well-understood, routine, conventional activity in the field.
Applicant’s specification does not provide any indication that the computer/processor is anything other than a generic, off-the-shelf computer component, and the Symantec, TLI, and OIP Techs. court decisions (MPEP 2106.05(d)(II)) indicate that mere collection or receipt of data over a network is a well‐understood, routine, and conventional function when it is claimed in a merely generic manner (as it is here). For these reasons, there is no inventive concept. The claim is ineligible (Provide Inventive Concept – No).
The claims are ineligible under 35 U.S.C. 101 as being directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Regarding dependent claims 6-8, the claims are directed to the abstract idea of business analytics and merely further limit the abstract idea claimed in independent claims 1 and 2.
Claim 6 further limits the abstract idea by limiting the comparative opportunity value being calculated based upon at least a difference between a future and current total cost (a more detailed abstract idea remains an abstract idea, non-functional descriptive material). Claim 7 further limits the abstract idea by limiting the comparative opportunity value to being rendered on the analytics window (a more detailed abstract idea remains an abstract idea, non-functional descriptive material). Claim 8 further limits the abstract idea by rending the comparative opportunity value as a plot (a more detailed abstract idea remains an abstract idea, non-functional descriptive material).
None of the limitations considered as an ordered combination provide eligibility because taken as a whole the claims simply instruct the practitioner to apply the abstract idea to a generic computer.
Further regarding Claims 1, 2 and 6-8 Applicant’s specification discloses that the claimed elements directed to a analytics engine (software per se), processor, memory, network, primary/second nodes (software per se), computer readable storage medium comprising instructions, interactive data visualization interface (software per se), computing display at best merely comprise generic computer hardware which is commercially available (Figures 1, 2). More specifically Applicant’s claimed features directed to a system do not represent custom or specific computer hardware circuits, instead the terms merely refer to commercially available software and/or hardware. Thus, as to the system recited, "the system claims are no different from the method claims in substance. The method claims recite the abstract idea implemented on a generic computer; the system claims recite a handful of generic computer components configured to implement the same idea." See Alice Corp. Pry. Ltd., 134 S.Ct. at 2360.
Accordingly, the claims merely recite manipulating data utilizing generic computer hardware (e.g. analytics engine (software per se), processor, memory, network, primary/second nodes (software per se), computer readable storage medium comprising instructions, interactive data visualization interface (software per se), computing display). Generic computers performing generic computer functions, alone, do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. Further the lack of detail of the claimed embodiment in Applicant’s disclosure is an indication that the claims are directed to an abstract idea and not a specific improvement to a machine.
Accordingly given the broadest reasonable interpretation and in light of the specification the claims are interpreted to include the process steps being performed by a human mind or via pen and paper. The claim limitations which recite a computer implemented method is at best recite generic, well-known hardware. However, the recited generic hardware simply performs generic computer function of storing, accessing, displaying or processing data. Generic computers performing generic, well known computer functions, alone, do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. Further the recited memories are part of every conventional general-purpose computer.
Applicant has not demonstrated that a special purpose machine/computer is required to carry out the claimed invention. A special purpose machine is now evaluated as part of the significantly more analysis established by the Alice decision and current 35 U.S.C. 101 guidelines. It involves/requires more than a machine only broadly applying the abstract idea and/or performing conventional functions.
Applicant’s specification discloses that the claimed elements directed to a system and software modules (analytics engine (software per se), primary/second nodes (software per se), interactive data visualization interface (software per se)) merely comprise generic computer hardware which is commercially available (Specification: Figures 1, 2). More specifically Applicant’s claimed features directed to a system and components do not represent custom or specific computer hardware circuits, instead the term system merely refers to commercially available software and/or hardware. Thus, as to the system recited, "the system claims are no different from the method claims in substance. The method claims recite the abstract idea implemented on a generic computer; the system claims recite a handful of generic computer components configured to implement the same idea." See Alice Corp. Pry. Ltd., 134 S.Ct. at 2360.
Accordingly, the claims merely recite manipulating data utilizing generic computer hardware (e.g. system, software, network, display, etc.). Generic computers performing generic computer functions, alone, do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. Further the lack of detail of the claimed embodiment in Applicant’s disclosure is an indication that the claims are directed to an abstract idea and not a specific improvement to a machine.
The claims are not patent eligible under 35 U.S.C. 101.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SCOTT L JARRETT whose telephone number is (571)272-7033. The examiner can normally be reached M-TH 6am-4:30PM.
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.
SCOTT L. JARRETT
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 3625
/SCOTT L JARRETT/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3625
Prosecution Insights