DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Priority
This application is a Division (DIV) of application No. 16/938,112, filed on July 24, 2020, now US patent 11,880,781.
Claim Status
Claims 1-20 are pending. They comprise of 3 independent groups:
(1) Method1: 14-19, and
(2) System1: 1-13, and
(3) Product1: 20.
They appear to have similar scope. Method claim group, claims 14-19, appear to be broadest and will be examined first.
As of 09/22/23, method claim 14 is as followed:
14. A method of Category management, the method comprises:
[1] generating a plurality of data patterns related to one or more object categories for providing actionable insights to a user through at least one dashboard of a category workbench application user interface;
[2] injecting by an intelligent bot, the data patterns related to one or more object categories into a recommended strategy for generating at least one object characteristic data set;
[3] processing historical data from a data lake and the object characteristic data set to identify one or more suppliers for executing the recommended strategy, and
[4] generating a set of quantitative and qualitative data on the dashboard to analyze trends in supply chain for category management by enabling execution of at least one task initiated by a user through the interface.
Note: for referential purpose, numerals [1]-[4], are added to the beginning of each step.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
1) In independent claims 1, 14 and 20, the results of the first 3 steps is a processed steps to identify one or more suppliers for executing the recommended strategy. The result of the last step is “generating a set of quantitative and qualitative data on the dashboard..” and it’s not clear the relationship of step [3] and step [4]? How the “identified a supplier for executing the recommended strategy” relates to the “generated set of quantitative and qualitative data on the dashboard” or “execution of at least one task initiated by a user through the interface”?
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 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more.
When considering subject matter eligibility under 35 U.S.C. § 101, it must be determined whether the claim is directed to one of the four statutory categories of invention, i.e.,
(1) process,
(2) machine,
(3) manufacture or product, or
(4) composition of matter.
If the claim does fall within one of the statutory categories, it must then be determined whether the claim is directed to a judicial exception, i.e.,
(1) law of nature,
(2) natural phenomenon, and
(3) abstract idea.
and if so, it must additionally be determined whether the claim is a patent-eligible application of the exception. If an abstract idea is present in the claim, any element or combination of elements in the claim must be sufficient to ensure that the claim amounts to significantly more than the abstract idea itself. Examples of abstract ideas include:
(i) a method of organizing human activities,
(2i) an idea of itself, or
(3i) a mathematical relationship or formula.
For instance, in Alice Corp. (Alice Corp. Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank Int’l, 134 S. Ct. 2347 (2014)), the Court found that “intermediated settlement” was a fundamental economic practice, which is considered as (i) a certain method of organizing human activities, which is an abstract idea.
Step 1:
In the instant case, with respect to claims 1-20:
Claim category:
System (machine): 1-13, and
Method (process): 14-19, and
A computer program product (article): 20.
Analysis:
(1) System: claims 1-13, are directed to a system for category management comprising (1) Interface, (2) an intelligent bot, and (3) a processor, for generating a plurality data patterns related to one or more object categories, injecting the data patterns into a recommended strategy, processing historical data and the object characteristic data set to identify one or more suppliers for executing the recommended strategy (Step 1: yes).
(2) Method: claims 14-19, are directed to a method for managing category, comprises the steps of: generating a plurality data patterns related to one or more object categories, injecting the data patterns into a recommended strategy, processing historical data and the object characteristic data set to identify one or more suppliers for executing the recommended strategy (Step 1: yes).
(3) Product/article: claim 20 is directed to a computer readable storage medium readable by a processor and storing instructions for execution by the processor to carry out the method for managing category, comprises the steps of: generating a plurality data patterns related to one or more object categories, injecting the data patterns into a recommended strategy, processing historical data and the object characteristic data set to identify one or more suppliers for executing the recommended strategy (Step 1: yes).
Thus, the claims are generally directed towards one of the four statutory categories under 35 USC § 101.
Step 2A,
(1) Prong One: Does the claim recite a judicial exception?
(2) Prong Two: Are there any additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application?
Only if a claim (1) recites a judicial exception and (2) does not integrate that exception into a practical application, then proceeds to step 2B.
Step 2B: Are there any additional elements that adds an inventive concept to the claim? Determine whether the claim:
(3) adds a specific limitation beyond the judicial exception that is not “well-understood, routine, and conventional” in the field (see MPEP 2106.05(d)); or
(4) simply appends well-understood, routine, and conventional activities previously known to the industry, specified at a high level of generality, to the judicial exception.
A. Step 2A, Prong One: Does the claim recite a judicial exception?
Claim 14, as exemplary, recites a method for managing category in supply chain, comprising the steps [1]-[4], as shown above, which is considered as (i) a certain method of organizing human activities, which is an abstract idea.
These recited limitations fall within the “Certain Methods of Organizing Human activities” grouping of abstract ideas as it relates to business process for managing categories of resources in a supply chain management. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
(ii) commercial or legal interactions (including agreements in the form of contracts; Legal obligations; Advertising, marketing or sales activities or behaviors; business relations);
B. Step 2A, Prong Two: Are there any additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application?
The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because it deals with a method for managing categories of resources in a supply chain management, by carrying out steps of:
The claims recites the additional elements of:
Steps: Types
[1] generate data patterns (data) Data output/gathering for analysis,
Insignificant extra-solution activity (IE-SA).
[2] inject data … strategy (data) Mental/analyze/prediction.
[3] process data … to identify supplier. Mental/analyze/prediction.
[4] generate data on dashboard. Data output for analysis, IE-SA.
Steps [1] and [4] are data generating and/or gathering, which are considered as insignificant extra-solution activity steps.
Steps [2], and [3] are well known steps mental / business steps for collecting data patterns, analyzing data using a prediction model to generate recommended strategy, processing data to identify a supplier for executing the recommended strategy, and generating a set of data for display on a dashboard.
The claim does not result in an improvement to the functioning of the computer system or to any other technology or technical field. Further, the claim limitations are not indicative of integration into a practical application by applying or using the judicial exception in some other meaningful way. The combination of these additional elements is no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a well known computer device, GUI, and bot to carry out the steps. Accordingly, even in combination, these additional 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 claim is directed to an abstract idea for managing categories of resources in a supply chain management, which does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application. See MPEP 2106.05(f).
C. Step 2B: Are there any additional elements that adds an inventive concept to the claim?
The additional elements do not add an inventive element to the claim. The claims recites the additional elements of steps [1]-[4] above.
Steps [1] and [4] are data generating and/or gathering, which are considered as insignificant extra-solution activity steps.
Steps [2], and [3] are well known steps mental / business steps for collecting data patterns, analyzing data using a prediction model to generate recommended strategy, processing data to identify a supplier for executing the recommended strategy, and generating a set of data for display on a dashboard.
The claim does not result in an improvement to the functioning of the computer system or to any other technology or technical field. Further, the claim limitations are not indicative of integration into a practical application by applying or using the judicial exception in some other meaningful way. The combination of these additional elements is no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a well known computer device, GUI, and bot to carry out the steps. Accordingly, even in combination, these additional 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 claim is directed to an abstract idea for managing categories of resources in a supply chain management, which does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application. See MPEP 2106.05(f).
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because as discussed above, the additional elements, steps [2]-[3] and IE-SA steps [1] and [4], when considered both individually and as an ordered combination do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea(s) using a generic computer device. These generic computer components, i.e. a processor, a memory to store a set of instructions to carry out the data processing step. A GUI to display a plurality of data patterns, and a bot for injecting data pattern into a recommended strategy. The combination of these additional elements is no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer network devices, i.e. a software for managing categories of resources in a supply chain management, etc., are claimed at high level of generality to perform their basis functions which amount to no more than generally linking the use of the judicial exception to the particular technological environment of field of use and further see insignificant extra-solution activity MPEP 2106.05 (f), (g) and (h). The Symantec, TLI, and OIP Techs, court decisions cited in MPEP 2106.05(d)(II) indicate that mere receipt or transmission of data over a network, sorting data, analyzing data, and transmitting the data is a well-understood, routine and conventional function when it is claimed in a merely generic manner (as it is here). The claim are basically collect data, analyze data, and provide set of results, which are not patent eligible, see Electric Power Group, LLC. For these reasons, there is no inventive concept in the claim, and thus the claim is not patent eligible.
As for dep. claim 15 (part of 14 above), which deals with further details of the prediction analysis and recommended strategy, this further limits the abstract idea of the analysis for strategy recommendation, without including: (a) an improvement to another technology or technical field, (b) an improvement to the functioning of the computer itself, or (c ) meaningful limitations beyond generally linking the use of an abstract idea to a particular technological environment. Therefore, claim 15 is not considered as being “significantly more”, and thus does not facilitate the claim to meet the “inventive concept”.
As for dep. claim 16 (part of 14 above), which deals with further details of the prediction analysis and recommended strategy, this further limits the abstract idea of the analysis for strategy recommendation, without including: (a) an improvement to another technology or technical field, (b) an improvement to the functioning of the computer itself, or (c ) meaningful limitations beyond generally linking the use of an abstract idea to a particular technological environment. Therefore, claim 16 is not considered as being “significantly more”, and thus does not facilitate the claim to meet the “inventive concept”.
As for dep. claim 17 (part of 14 above), which deals with further details of the prediction analysis and recommended strategy using the bot, this further limits the abstract idea of the analysis for strategy recommendation, without including: (a) an improvement to another technology or technical field, (b) an improvement to the functioning of the computer itself, or (c ) meaningful limitations beyond generally linking the use of an abstract idea to a particular technological environment. Therefore, claim 17 is not considered as being “significantly more”, and thus does not facilitate the claim to meet the “inventive concept”.
As for dep. claim 18 (part of 14 above), which deals with further details of the prediction analysis and recommended strategy, this further limits the abstract idea of the analysis for strategy recommendation, without including: (a) an improvement to another technology or technical field, (b) an improvement to the functioning of the computer itself, or (c ) meaningful limitations beyond generally linking the use of an abstract idea to a particular technological environment. Therefore, claim 18 is not considered as being “significantly more”, and thus does not facilitate the claim to meet the “inventive concept”.
As for dep. claim 19 (part of 14 above), which deals with further details of the prediction analysis and recommended strategy, this further limits the abstract idea of the analysis for strategy recommendation, without including: (a) an improvement to another technology or technical field, (b) an improvement to the functioning of the computer itself, or (c ) meaningful limitations beyond generally linking the use of an abstract idea to a particular technological environment. Therefore, claim 19 is not considered as being “significantly more”, and thus does not facilitate the claim to meet the “inventive concept”.
Therefore, claims 11-19, 1-10, and 20 are not drawn to eligible subject matter as they are directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. step 2B: NO
Citations of Pertinent Prior Art
BURROWS et al., US 2017/0.323.265, and HALE et al., US 2002/0.087.336, discloses a method for supply chain compliance and category management using model for integrating outsourced functions in a virtual enterprise system, however, they do not teach the features of steps [2]-[3].
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Tan "Dean" D NGUYEN whose telephone number is (571)272-6806. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F: 6;30-4:30 PM ET.
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, Sarah M Monfeldt can be reached on 571-270-1833. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/TAN D NGUYEN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3689