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 . The following is a Final Office Action. Claims 1-20 are pending and rejected below.
Applicant’s Amendments
Applicant’s amendments are acknowledged.
Applicant’s Arguments
Applicant’s arguments are based on the premise that the claimed improvements are technological in nature.
Examiner responds the steps within the abstract idea (diagnosing...the diagnosing including retrieving structured or unstructured data...correlating...wherein said correlation includes performing clustering and association rule learning...comparing...detecting...controlling a contract management activity....generating at least one response, a communication, or an action of a contract management system...adapting by adjusting setting or operations... wherein said controlling includes activating call-to-action events...dynamically adjust critical parameter thresholds based on performance feedback...apply data filters to exclude recent unconfirmed activity from influenced future procurement forecasts or contract amendments...generate a resolution output based on predicted exception type...route resolution tasks to targeted personnel based on classification of predicted exception types or threshold violations...) are reasonably categorized as Certain methods of organizing human activity and Mental processes and business-related improvements. Each of the computing elements recited are either used a tool to implement the abstract idea, or just a general link to technology. The reference to the current steps in the claim in the Specification (ie. machine learning functions, interconnected environment) is recited broadly or in a conclusory manner and thus the current steps are not sufficient to be a technological improvement. (See MPEP § 2106.04(d)(1), 2nd Paragraph. “...if the specification explicitly sets forth an improvement but only in a conclusory manner (i.e., a bare assertion of an improvement without the detail necessary to be apparent to a person of ordinary skill in the art), the examiner should not determine that the claim improves technology or a technical field.”). Thus, 101 Rejection is maintained.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 2-7 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for pre-AIA the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Claims 2 and 16, “wherein each model exchanges learned parameters through a federated training interface...”
The Examiner is unable to locate these limitations in the Specification.
Applicant is advised to point out in the original disclosure where the claimed subject matter appears otherwise the new subject matter should be removed from the claims.
Claims 3-7 (referring to Claim 2) are rejected based on the same rationale.
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.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter. Specifically Claims 1-20 are directed to an abstract idea without additional elements amounting to significantly more than the abstract idea.
Step 1 of the Alice/Mayo analysis is directed to determining whether or not the claims fall within a statutory class. Based on a facial reading of the claim elements, Claims 1-20 fall within a statutory class of process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter.
With respect to Step 2A Prong One of the framework, the claims recite an abstract idea. Claims 1, 8, and 15 include limitations reciting manage contracts based on a set of rules, including steps:
Diagnosing a condition of a case...the diagnosing including retrieving structured or unstructured data associated with procurement or contract transactions...
Correlating, by one or more perception nodes...at least one operating parameter with at least one critical parameter...wherein said correlation includes performing clustering and association rule learning to identify relationships...
Comparing the at least one critical parameter with a predefined threshold value...and detecting one or more match exceptions...
Controlling a contract management activity, based on the prediction of the activity aligned with the at least one critical parameter, by generating at least one response, a communication, or an action of a contract management system, and adapting by adjusting setting or operations...wherein said controlling includes activating call-to-action events...
Dynamically adjust critical parameter thresholds based on performance feedback...
Apply data filters to exclude recent unconfirmed activity from influenced future procurement forecasts or contract amendments;
Generate a resolution output based on predicted exception type...
Route resolution tasks to targeted personnel based on classification of predicted exception types or threshold violations...
which is an abstract idea reasonably categorized as
Certain methods of organizing human activity - fundamental economic principles or practices (ie. managing contracts); commercial or legal interactions (including agreements in the form of contracts; legal obligations; advertising, marketing or sales activities or behaviors; business relations); managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people (including social activities, teaching, and following rules or instructions) (ie. routing tasks) and
Mental processes (concepts performed in the human mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion).
Claim 2-7, 9-14, and 16-20 further describe the mental processes and certain methods of organization human activities and further narrow the abstract idea.
With respect to Step 2A Prong Two, the claims do not include additional elements that integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Claims 1, 8, and 15 includes various elements that are not directed to the abstract idea under Step 2A Prong One of the framework. These additional elements include computer, procurement inference engine, memory, processor, computer-readable medium, instructions, device, “automatically”. When considered in view of the claim as a whole, Examiner submits that the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because these elements are generic computing elements performing generic computing functions and amount to mere instructions to apply the abstract idea on a computer under MPEP 2106.05(f). With respect to a “neural network trained via supervised and supervised machine learning to model...” this recitation generally links the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use. See MPEP 2106.05(h). The interconnected computing environment comprising internal resources planning systems and external computing systems configured to exchange contract terms, supplier account data, and exception alerts using middleware, API’s, or electronic interfaces, are generally links the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use. See MPEP 2106.05(h).
With respect to Claim 2, 9, 16, the multi-model machine-learning framework including a first supervised model, a second unsupervised model, and a third reinforcement model, the three machine learning models, and each model exchanging learned parameters through a federated training interface, do not change machine learning is a meaningful way beyond a general link to machine learning technology or generic and routine machine learning functions (ie. exchanging parameters through a federated training interface, supervised, unsupervised, reinformcenet). Because the claimed machine learning functions are directed to basic functions of machine learning technology, the claims do not improve the functioning of the technology of machine learning.
With respect to Claim 4, 11, and 18, the transmission through an API to an external enterprise system is a general link to API technology and mere data gathering/data exchange and insignificant extrasolution activities which do not provide a practical application to the abstract idea (See MPEP 2106.05(g)).
With respect to Claim 6, 13, and 20 the logging of the analysis within a database amounts to insignificant extrasolution activity which do not provide a practical application to the abstract idea (See MPEP 2106.05(g)).
With respect to Claims 7 and 14, electronic messages or data exchange payloads to internal or external enterprise systems are mere data gathering/data exchange and insignificant extrasolution activities which do not provide a practical application to the abstract idea (See MPEP 2106.05(g)).
Claim 3, 5, 10, 12, 17, and 19 do not include additional elements above and beyond the claims above.
With respect to Step 2B of the framework, the claims do not include additional elements amounting to significantly more than the abstract idea. Claims 1 8 and 15 include various elements that are not directed to the abstract idea under Step 2A Prong One of the framework. These additional elements include computer, procurement inference engine, memory, processor, computer-readable medium, instructions, device, “automatically”. When considered in view of the claim as a whole, Examiner submits that the additional elements do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea because these elements are generic computing elements performing generic computing functions and amount to mere instructions to apply the abstract idea on a computer under MPEP 2106.05(f) and/or recite generic computer structure that serves to perform generic computer functions that are well-understood, routine, and conventional activities previously known to the pertinent industry. With respect to a “neural network trained via supervised and supervised machine learning to model...” this recitation generally links the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use. See MPEP 2106.05(h). The interconnected computing environment comprising internal resources planning systems and external computing systems configured to exchange contract terms, supplier account data, and exception alerts using middleware, API’s, or electronic interfaces, are generally links the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use. See MPEP 2106.05(h).
With respect to Claim 2, 9, 16, the recitations of the machine learning models generally link the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use. See MPEP 2106.05(h).
With respect to Claim 4, 11, and 18, the transmission through an API to an external enterprise system are is a general link to API technology and mere data gathering/data exchange and insignificant extrasolution activities which do not provide significantly more to the abstract idea (See MPEP 2106.05(g)); and these limitations are equivalent to receiving/transmitting data and are well-understood routine and conventional which do not provide significantly more to the abstract idea (See MPEP 2106.05(d)).
With respect to Claim 6, 13, and 20, the logging of the analysis within a database is well-understood, routine, and conventional in view of MPEP 2106.05(d)
iii. Electronic recordkeeping, Alice Corp., 134 S. Ct. at 2359, 110 USPQ2d at 1984 (creating and maintaining “shadow accounts”); Ultramercial, 772 F.3d at 716, 112 USPQ2d at 1755 (updating an activity log);
iv. Storing and retrieving information in memory, Versata Dev. Group, Inc. v. SAP Am., Inc., 793 F.3d 1306, 1334, 115 USPQ2d 1681, 1701 (Fed. Cir. 2015); OIP Techs., 788 F.3d at 1363, 115 USPQ2d at 1092-93;
With respect to Claims 7 and 14, electronic messages or data exchange payloads to internal or external enterprise systems are mere data gathering/data exchange and insignificant extrasolution activities which do not provide significantly more to the abstract idea (See MPEP 2106.05(g)); and these limitations are equivalent to receiving/transmitting data and are well-understood routine and conventional which do not provide significantly more to the abstract idea (See MPEP 2106.05(d)).
Claim 3, 5, 10, 12, 17, and 19 do not include additional elements above and beyond the claims above.
Accordingly, Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 as being directed to non-statutory subject matter.
Overcoming Prior Art
Claims 1-20 would be allowable if the claims were written to overcome 101.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. [AltContent: rect]
PNG
media_image1.png
141
967
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any extension fee pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SCOTT ROSS whose telephone number is (571) 270-1555. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday 8:00 AM - 5:00 PM E.S.T..
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, Applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Rutao Wu, can be reached on (571) 272-6045. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of 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.
/Scott Ross/
Examiner - Art Unit 3623
/RUTAO WU/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3623