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 .
Claims 1-20 have been examined.
Claim Objections
Claims 1-7 are objected to because of the following informalities: In the twenty-sixth line of claim 1, the “and” after “critical parameter;” is unnecessary, because the following and penultimate clause (“adapting”) is followed by an “and”. Appropriate correction is required, or at least would be stylistically preferable.
Claims 3 through 7 are objected to because of the following informalities: In the third and fourth lines of claim 3, “diagnose a supplier communication in a third ML model” should apparently be “diagnosing a supplier communication in a third ML model”. Also, claim 3 recites “the inference results” in the sixteenth and seventeenth lines, and again in the twentieth line. This is ambiguous because claim 2, from which claim 3 depends, recites “obtaining a first plurality of inference results” in the fourth line, and “a second plurality of inference results” in the fifth and sixth lines. For examining purposes, “the inference results” in both places in claim 3 is presumed to refer to all of the inference results, whether from the first plurality or the second plurality. Appropriate correction is required.
Claims 10-14 are objected to because of the following informalities: Claim 10 recites “the inference results” in the eighteenth and nineteenth lines, and again in the twenty-first and twenty-second lines. This is ambiguous because claim 9, from which claim 10 depends, recites “obtain a first plurality of inference results” in the fourth line, and “a second plurality of inference results” in the fifth and sixth lines. For examining purposes, “the inference results” in both places in claim 10 is presumed to refer to all of the inference results, whether from the first plurality or the second plurality. Appropriate correction is required.
Claims 15-20 are objected to because of the following informalities: In the twenty-sixth line of claim 15, the “and” after “critical parameter;” is unnecessary, because the following and penultimate clause (“adapt”) is followed by an “and”. Appropriate correction is required, or at least would be stylistically preferable.
Claims 17-20 are objected to because of the following informalities: Claim 17 recites “the inference results” in the eighteenth and nineteenth lines, and again in the twenty-second line. This is ambiguous because claim 16, from which claim 17 depends, recites “obtain a first plurality of inference results” in the fourth line, and “a second plurality of inference results” in the fifth and sixth lines. For examining purposes, “the inference results” in both places in claim 17 is presumed to refer to all of the inference results, whether from the first plurality or the second plurality. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 19 is objected to because of the following informalities: Claim 19 recites, “The non-transitory medium according to claim 17, comprising generating or configuring a call to action condition.” A non-transitory medium as such cannot comprise a method step, so claim 19 should be amended to recite: “The non-transitory medium according to claim 17, wherein the instructions, when executed by at least one computing device, cause the at least one computing device to: generate or configure a call to action”, or otherwise rephrased Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 3-7 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. In the sixteenth through nineteenth lines of claim 3, the phrase “the inference results automatically determining based upon criteria associated with purchase order acknowledgement data and case information for further action in the case” is confusing, and appears to lack an intended object after “determining”. It cannot be determined what the inference results automatically determine; therefore, claim 3 and its dependents are indefinite, and cannot be fully analyzed for anticipation/obviousness in view of the prior art. (By contrast, in the twentieth and twenty-first lines of claim 3, the phrase “the inference results automatically determining a scheduling action based upon criteria associated with the purchase order, item demand, and inventory” has a clear direct object in “a scheduling action”.)
Claims 10-14 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. In the eighteenth through twentieth lines of claim 10, the phrase “the inference results automatically determining based upon criteria associated with purchase order acknowledgement data and case information for further action in the case” is confusing, and appears to lack an intended object after “determining”. It cannot be determined what the inference results automatically determine; therefore, claim 10 and its dependents are indefinite, and cannot be fully analyzed for anticipation/obviousness in view of the prior art. (By contrast, in the twenty-first through twenty-third lines of claim 10, the phrase “the inference results automatically determining a scheduling action based upon criteria associated with the purchase order, item demand, and inventory” has a clear direct object in “a scheduling action”.)
Claims 17-20 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. In the eighteenth through twentieth lines of claim 17, the phrase “the inference results automatically determining based upon criteria associated with purchase order acknowledgement data and case information for further action in the case” is confusing, and appears to lack an intended object after “determining”. It cannot be determined what the inference results automatically determine; therefore, claim 17 and its dependents are indefinite, and cannot be fully analyzed for anticipation/obviousness in view of the prior art. (By contrast, in the twenty-second and twenty-third lines of claim 17, the phrase “the inference results automatically determining a scheduling action based upon criteria associated with the purchase order, item demand, and inventory” has a clear direct object in “a scheduling action”.)
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 (abstract idea) without significantly more. The claims recite a method, computer system, and non-transitory computer-readable medium for diagnosing a condition of a case of a resource planning system, correlating one or more operating parameters with at least one critical parameter of the resource planning system, comparing the at least one critical parameter with a predefined threshold value to identify at least one deviation including one or more discrepancies when a critical parameter fails, and controlling a supplier management activity, based on the prediction of that activity aligned with the at least one critical parameter, by generating at least one of a response, communication, or action of a supplier management system and adapting by automatically adjusting settings or operations to eliminate the at least one deviation by correcting the [one or more discrepancies]; the claims are therefore directed to an abstract idea, a form of commercial operations in the field of certain methods of organizing human activity, specifically commercial operations, which includes business operations. This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because it is recited at a high degree of generality, such that even if some embodiments of the claims might not be directed to an abstract idea, other embodiments would be. For example, “generating at least one of a response, communication, or action of a supplier management system” might involve merely sending a communication to someone. The claims does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception, as set forth in detail below.
First, it is determined that the claims are directed to a statutory category of invention. See MPEP 2106.03 (II). In the instant case, claims 16-20 are directed to a method, the statutory category of process. Therefore, claims 16-20 are directed to statutory subject matter under Step 1 of the Alice/Mayo test (Step 1: YES).
The following 35 U.S.C. 101 analysis is performed in accordance with section 2106 of the Manual of Patent Examination Procedure (concerning Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance). First, it is determined that the claims are directed to a statutory category of invention. See MPEP 2106.03 (II). Independent claim 1 recites a method, and therefore falls within the statutory category of process, as do its dependents; independent claim 8 recites a system comprising at least a memory and at least one processor coupled to the memory, and therefore falls within the statutory category of machine, as do its dependents; independent claim 15 recites a non-transitory computer-readable medium having instructions stored thereon, and therefore falls within the statutory category of article of manufacture, as do its dependents (Mayo test, Step 1). (Step 1: YES)
The claims are then analyzed to determine whether the claims are directed to a judicial exception. See MPEP 2106.04. The claims are analyzed to evaluate whether they recite a judicial exception (Step 2A, Prong One) as well as analyzed to evaluate whether the claims recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application of the judicial exception (Step 2A, Prong Two). See MPEP 2106.04.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea, and specifically to commercial interactions under the field of organizing human activity without significantly more (Mayo test, Step 2A, Prong 1). The claims recite a method, system, and computer-readable medium for supplier management. See representative claim 1, as amended, set forth below with language indicating the relevance to commercial interactions bolded:
A computer-implemented method, comprising:
obtaining, by a procurement prediction engine, one or more operating parameters formed from at least one specified field of a resource-planning system, the operating parameters representing structured data associated with a case comprising one or more activities arising from at least one of a purchase order, a backorder, a past-due order, a return-to-vendor event, or a supplier communication;
diagnosing, by the procurement prediction engine, a condition of a case by executing one or more perception nodes comprising a neural network trained using supervised and unsupervised learning techniques to determine a model-diagnosed value for the one or more operating parameters;
correlating, by a correlation module of the procurement prediction engine, model-diagnosed value of the one or more operating parameters with at least one critical parameter stored in association with the resource-planning system, the critical parameter defining a threshold condition relevant to supplier-management processing;
comparing, by the procurement prediction engine, the correlated value of the at least one critical parameter with a predefined threshold stored in the resource-planning system, to identify at least one deviation comprising a discrepancy between the model-diagnosed value of the operating parameters and an expected system condition defined by the critical parameter;
adapting, by the procurement prediction engine, at least one of the neural network, the perception nodes, or the correlation module to improve predictive accuracy when the deviation exceeds an adaptation condition diagnosed during training; and
controlling, automatically, a supplier-management activity based on the prediction aligned with the at least one critical parameter by initiating at least one automated system action comprising adjusting a configuration setting of the supplier-management system or modifying an operational workflow to eliminate the deviation by correcting the discrepancy.
Analyzing claim 1 under Step 2A, Prong Two, this judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application, partly because mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or use a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea, are not indicative of integration into a practical application, nor is linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use (Mayo test, Step 2A, Prong 2). Adding insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception is also not indicative of integration into a practical application. Claims 1 and its dependents do not recite improvements to the functioning of a computer or to any other technology or technical field. The claims do not recite applying or using a judicial exception to effect a particular treatment or prophylaxis for a disease or medical condition. The claims do not recite applying the judicial exception with, or by the use of, a particular machine. The claims do not recite effecting a transformation or reduction of a particular article to different state or thing. The claims do not recite applying or using a 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. Claim 1 recites a computer-implemented method, but the computer is not described except as being present at a high level of abstraction, without details of structure, and an abstract idea does not become non-abstract merely because a computer is involved in applying it, as the Supreme Court ruled in Alice Corporation v. CLS Bank. The reasoning set forth here also applies to parallel system claim 8 and its dependents, and to parallel computer-readable medium claim 15 and its dependents. (Step 2A, Prong Two: NO for claims 1-20).
Next, under Step 2B of the Alice/Mayo test, the claims are analyzed to determine whether there are additional claim limitations that individually, or as an ordered combination, ensure that the claims amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. See MPEP 2106.05. This is in part a reiteration of the Step 2A, Prong Two analysis, and further involves the question of whether specific limitations are other than what is well-understood, routine, and conventional activity in the field.
There are no additional elements recited in the claims to raise them to significantly more than the judicial exception. In particular, the claims do not add a specific limitation other than what is well-understood, routine, and conventional activity in the field (Mayo test, Step 2B). The detailed method, system, and computer-readable medium recited are non-obvious over the prior art, but non-obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 is a different issue from eligibility under 35 U.S.C. 101. The specific steps of the claims, such as: diagnosing a condition of a case by executing one or more perception nodes of a neural network; correlating a correlation module of the procurement prediction engine; comparing, by the procurement prediction engine, the correlated value of least one critical parameter with a predefined threshold value to identify at least one deviation comprising a discrepancy; adapting, by the procurement prediction engine, at least one of the neural network, the perception nodes, or the correlation module to improve predictive accuracy when the deviation exceeds an adaptation condition diagnosed during training; and controlling, automatically, a supplier management activity based on the prediction aligned with at least one critical parameter, etc., do not qualify, alone or in combination, to raise the claimed method and system to significantly more than an abstract idea.
Specifically with regard to independent claim 1, Flint (U.S. Patent Application Publication 2022/0277196) discloses (paragraph 29, emphasis added), “The process of training neural networks using input datasets and using trained neural networks to generate predictions is well-known in the prior art.” Further, Gervais (U.S. Patent Application Publication 2019/0353366) discloses (paragraph 78, emphasis added), “A predictive model is used by the neural network inference engine 412 for inferring output(s) based on inputs, as is well known in the art of neural networks.” Further, the courts have recognized the computer function of storing and retrieving information in memory as well-understood, routine, and conventional, 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. Hence, the recitation in claim 1 of “correlating, by a correlation module of the procurement prediction engine, model-diagnosed value of the one or more operating parameters with at least one critical parameter stored in association with the resource-planning system, the critical parameter defining a threshold condition relevant to supplier-management processing” need involve only well-understood, routine, and conventional technology, and the same applies to “executing one or more perception nodes comprising a neural network trained using supervised and unsupervised learning techniques”. The limitations of claim 1, whether considered separately or in combination, do not raise the claimed method to significantly more than an abstract idea.
Claim 2, which depends from claim 1, recites additional elements, in particular, “obtaining a first plurality of inference results generated by a first machine learning (ML) model of the procurement prediction engine and a second plurality of inference results generated by a second ML model of the procurement prediction engine”. Puri et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication 2021/0073671) discloses (paragraph 1, emphasis added), “Recent years have seen a rapid increase in the utilization of computer-implemented learning models to perform a variety of tasks. For example, conventional systems utilize learning models to edit digital videos/digital images, generate digital predictions, and/or classify digital objects.” Hence, the recited use of machine learning models to generate inference results need involve only well-understood, routine, and conventional technology. The limitations of claim 2, whether considered separately or in combination with each other and with the limitations of claim 1, do not raise the claimed method to significantly more than an abstract idea.
Claim 3, which depends from claim 2, recites multiple steps of diagnosing, which involve technology (principally machine learning models) already established as well-understood, routine, and conventional. Claim 4, which depends from claim 3, recites nothing specifically technological. The limitations of claims 3 and 4, whether considered separately or in combination with each other and with the limitations of claims 1 and 2, do not raise the claimed method to significantly more than an abstract idea.
Claim 3, which depends from claim 2, recites multiple steps of diagnosing, which involve technology (principally machine learning models) already established as well-understood, routine, and conventional. Claim 5, which depends from claim 3, recites generating or configuring a call to action condition, which is not specifically technological. Claim 7, which depends from claim 5, recites that the procurement inference engine is trained to generate the call to action from operation parameters based on previous communications, which is not specifically technological. The procurement inference engine requires only well-understood, routine, and conventional, as set forth above with respect to claim 1, based on Gervais and Flint. The limitations of claims 3, 5, and 7, whether considered separately or in combination with each other and with the limitations of claims 1 and 2, do not raise the claimed method to significantly more than an abstract idea.
Claim 3, which depends from claim 2, recites multiple steps of diagnosing, which involve technology (principally machine learning models) already established as well-understood, routine, and conventional. Claim 6, which depends from claim 3, recites that the call to action communication is generated or configured for at least one of an intercompany action, external actions, response management, or resolution deployment; this limitation is not in itself technological. The limitations of claims 3 and 6, whether considered separately or in combination with each other and with the limitations of claims 1 and 2, do not raise the claimed method to significantly more than an abstract idea.
Independent claim 8 recites “A system, comprising: a memory; and at least one processor coupled to the memory and configured to: [perform operations corresponding to the steps of method claim 1].” Avidan et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication 2017/0193592) discloses (paragraph 25, emphasis added), “Although not illustrated, it should be appreciated that the ecommerce server 110, the merchant computer 120, and the customer computer 130 each include conventional components, such as a processor and a memory medium storing computer-readable instructions that are executable by the processor to perform various operations including those described herein.” Hence, the memory and coupled at least one processor are well-understood, routine, and conventional technology. Otherwise, the operations of claim 8 require only well-understood, routine, and conventional technology on the same grounds as the method steps of claim 1, and based on Flint and Gervais, as cited above with respect to claim 1. The limitations of claim 8, whether considered separately or in combination, do not raise the claimed system to significantly more than an abstract idea.
Claim 9, which depends from claim 8, is parallel to claim 2, and thus requires only the use of well-understood, routine, and conventional technology, as set forth above with regard to claim 2, and based on Puri. The limitations of claim 9, whether considered separately or in combination with each other and with the limitations of claim 8, do not raise the claimed system to significantly more than an abstract idea.
Claim 10, which depends from claim 9, is parallel to claim 3, and thus requires only the use of well-understood, routine, and conventional technology, as set forth above with regard to claim 3. Claim 11, which depends from claim 10, is parallel to claim 4, and thus requires only the use of well-understood, routine, and conventional technology, as set forth above with regard to claim 4. The limitations of claims 10 and 11, whether considered separately or in combination with each other and with the limitations of claims 8 and 9, do not raise the claimed system to significantly more than an abstract idea.
Claim 10, which depends from claim 9, is parallel to claim 3, and thus requires only the use of well-understood, routine, and conventional technology, as set forth above with regard to claim 3. Claim 12, which depends from claim 10, is parallel to claim 5, and thus requires only the use of well-understood, routine, and conventional technology, as set forth above with regard to claim 5. Claim 14, which depends from claim 12, recites a statement of what the call to action comprises, actions and communications listed not being inherently technological, wherein certain analyses are further limited in ways which are also not inherently technological. Therefore, the limitations of claims 10, 12 and 14, whether considered separately or in combination with each other and with the limitations of claims 8 and 9, do not raise the claimed system to significantly more than an abstract idea.
Claim 10, which depends from claim 9, is parallel to claim 3, and thus requires only the use of well-understood, routine, and conventional technology, as set forth above with regard to claim 3. Claim 13, which depends from claim 10, is parallel to claim 6, and thus requires only the use of well-understood, routine, and conventional technology, as set forth above with regard to claim 6. The limitations of claims 10 and 13, whether considered separately or in combination with each other and with the limitations of claims 8 and 9, do not raise the claimed system to significantly more than an abstract idea.
Independent claim 15 recites, “A non-transitory computer-readable medium having instructions stored thereon that, when executed by at least one computing device, cause the at least one computing device to:[perform operations corresponding to the steps of method claim 1].” Avidan et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication 2017/0193592) discloses (paragraph 25, emphasis added), “Although not illustrated, it should be appreciated that the ecommerce server 110, the merchant computer 120, and the customer computer 130 each include conventional components, such as a processor and a memory medium storing computer-readable instructions that are executable by the processor to perform various operations including those described herein. The computer-readable instructions can be stored on non-transitory computer-readable storage media of a conventional type, whether devices and/or materials.” Hence, the non-transitory computer-readable medium having instructions stored thereon is well-understood, routine, and conventional technology. Otherwise, the operations of claim 15 require only well-understood, routine, and conventional technology on the same grounds as the method steps of claim 1, and based on Flint and Gervais, as cited above with respect to claim 1. The limitations of claim 15, whether considered separately or in combination, do not raise the claimed computer-readable medium to significantly more than an abstract idea.
Claim 16, which depends from claim 15, is parallel to claim 2, and thus requires only the use of well-understood, routine, and conventional technology, as set forth above with regard to claim 2, and based on Puri. The limitations of claim 16, whether considered separately or in combination with each other and with the limitations of claim 15, do not raise the claimed computer-readable medium to significantly more than an abstract idea.
Claim 17, which depends from claim 16, is parallel to claim 3, and thus requires only the use of well-understood, routine, and conventional technology, as set forth above with regard to claim 3. Claim 18, which depends from claim 17, is parallel to claim 4, and thus requires only the use of well-understood, routine, and conventional technology, as set forth above with regard to claim 4. The limitations of claims 17 and 18, whether considered separately or in combination with each other and with the limitations of claims 15 and 16, do not raise the claimed computer-readable medium to significantly more than an abstract idea.
Claim 17, which depends from claim 16, is parallel to claim 3, and thus requires only the use of well-understood, routine, and conventional technology, as set forth above with regard to claim 3. Claim 19, which depends from claim 17, is parallel to claim 5, and thus requires only the use of well-understood, routine, and conventional technology, as set forth above with regard to claim 5. The limitations of claims 17 and 19, whether considered separately or in combination with each other and with the limitations of claims 15 and 16, do not raise the claimed computer-readable medium to significantly more than an abstract idea.
Claim 17, which depends from claim 16, is parallel to claim 3, and thus requires only the use of well-understood, routine, and conventional technology, as set forth above with regard to claim 3. Claim 20, which depends from claim 17, is parallel to claim 6, and thus requires only the use of well-understood, routine, and conventional technology, as set forth above with regard to claim 6. The limitations of claims 17 and 20, whether considered separately or in combination with each other and with the limitations of claims 15 and 16, do not raise the claimed computer-readable medium to significantly more than an abstract idea. (Step 2B: NO for claim 1-20)
Non-Obvious Subject Matter
Claims 1-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101, claims 3-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112; additionally, claims 1-7 and especially 3-7 are objected to for informalities. However, claims 1-7 recite non-obvious subject matter.
Claims 8-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101, claims 10-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112; additionally, claims 10-14 are objected to for informalities. However, claims 8-14 recite non-obvious subject matter.
Claims 15-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101, claims 17-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112; additionally, claims 15-20 are objected to for informalities. However, claims 15-20 recite non-obvious subject matter.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: Devarakonda et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication 2020/0210922) is the closest prior art of record as general background for the claimed invention, being directed to resource planning in the context of a supply chain involving suppliers. Devarakonda discloses, for example, neural networks (paragraph 68), and discloses (paragraph 98, emphasis added), “The action sequence, whether executed in the manual mode, the semi-autonomous mode, or the fully-autonomous mode, may include the machine-learning (ML) application 218 communicating, over a network, an electronic message to a planning system (enterprise resource planning system 204).” Devarakonda does not disclose the specific operations of the claimed method, system, and non-transitory computer-readable medium. Demeilliez et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication 2021/0026755) discloses comparison with a predetermined threshold value (paragraphs 25-30, e.g., paragraph 25, emphasis added) “it further comprises a step of identifying a resource with an anomaly risk, said identification step comprising comparing a value of future consumption of a resource to be predicted to a predetermined monitoring threshold value, the resource to be predicted having to a resource with an anomaly risk when a predetermined monitoring threshold value is exceeded.”
Merg et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication 2018/0357614) discloses determining a deviation (e.g., Abstract, emphasis added), “determining a comparison element based on a quantity of VROs in the second set including the common VSP; determining a deviation between the baseline and the comparison element; determining the deviation exceeds a threshold and responsively determining one or more common factors associated with at least a subset of the second set”. Merg further discloses (paragraph 114, emphasis added), “Accordingly, the processor 204, when comparing the deviation to the threshold, can determine that the deviation of 230% exceeds the threshold of 30%.. Similarly, in the second embodiment, the threshold can be 25%. The processor 204 can compare the deviation of 50% to the threshold of 25% and can determine that the deviation exceeds the threshold.” However, Devarakonda, Demeilliez, Merg, and the other prior art references of record do not, alone or in combination, disclose, teach, or reasonably suggest the specific method of claim 1, or the parallel system of claim 18 or non-transitory computer-readable medium of claim 15.
The above statement is applicable to each of the independent claims.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed December 23, 2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant’s amendments have overcome some, but not all, of the informalities previously objected to, and have introduced what may qualify as minor informalities into claims 1 and 15 (an extra word “and”). Applicant writes (on page 14 of the Amendment and Remarks) that claim 3 has been amended to recite “diagnosing … diagnosing …”. Unfortunately, claim 3 has only been amended to recite “diagnosing … diagnose …”, so there is still a minor informality.
Further with regard to informalities, Applicant writes (on page 15 of the Amendment and Remarks), “Claim 19 has been amended to recite that the instructions cause the computing device [emphasis added by Examiner] to ‘generate or configure a call to action,’ resolving the method-step objection.” Unfortunately, this has in fact not been done.
Less trivially, there is still a 35 U.S.C. 112 problem with “the inference results” in claim 3, and how they relate to the first and second pluralities of inference results in claim 2 (and similarly with parallel claims 10 and 17). Also, there is antecedent basis for “an inference result” in the eleventh line of claim 3 (and the thirteenth lines of claims 10 and 17), but “the inferences results”, plural, later in claims 3, 10, and 17 are presumed not to refer back to this. Examiner is unable to agree with Applicant (pages 14 and 15 of the Amendment and Remarks) that claims 3, 10, and 17 have been amended to clarify references to “the inference results”.
The Double Patenting rejections made in the previous Office Action no longer apply due to Applicant’s Terminal Disclaimer.
The remaining objections and 112 rejections might be overcome by an interview and authorization for an Examiner’s Amendment, but unfortunately this does not appear to be the case for the 35 U.S.C. 101 rejections.
Beginning on page 17 of the Amendment and Remarks, Applicant argues for eligibility under 35 U.S.C. 101, beginning with the argument that the claims are not directed to commercial interactions. Examiner maintains that the claims are directed to commercial interactions, based on the language, “the operating parameters representing structured data associated with a case comprising one or more activities arising from at least one of a purchase order, a backorder, a past-due order, a return-to-vendor event, or a supplier communication” in the third through sixth lines of claim 1, and parallel language in claims 8 and 15.
Applicant then argues that the claims recite various operations involving neural networks and so forth, and therefore are not directed to commercial interactions, or not merely to commercial interactions. Examiner replies that, although computer components and operations are involved, they are applied to matters arising in the context of commercial interactions (see bolded words above). Some of the claims in the four Shepherd patents at issue in Alice Corp v. CLS Bank recited computer components, but the Supreme Court nonetheless ruled that they were ineligible. There is also the question of whether the claims recite “significantly more” than an abstract idea that is present, and Examiner will address this.
Applicant argues that the claims fall squarely within the USPTO’s latest guidance on machine-learning improvements, based on Ex Parte Desjardins, and provides technical solutions to technical problems (pages 18-20 of the Amendment and Remarks). Examiner has considered the guidance and the Board’s decision in Ex Parte Desjardins, and remains of the view that there are distinctions between Ex Parte Desjardins and the instant application, such that the correct decision in Ex Parte Desjardins is not the same as the correct decision in the instant application, which does not have a technical solution to a technical problem in the same sense.
Examiner does not dispute that it can be useful to apply a neural network and other computer technology to implement commercial interactions, but the Supreme Court ruled in Alice Corp v. CLS Bank that applying an abstract idea using a computer was insufficient to make it significantly more than an abstract idea. The claims in the instant application are not analogous to those in Enfish, LLC v. Microsoft Corp., where the self-referential database was an improvement in the functioning of a computer itself. They are also not analogous to the claim language of claim 1 of the Ex Parte Desjardins case, in particular, “training the machine learning model on the second machine learning task by training the machine learning model on the second training data to adjust the first values of the plurality of parameters to optimize performance of the machine learning model on the second machine learning task while protecting performance of the machine learning model on the first machine learning task.” The Specification is quoted in the decision, including the sentence, “In addition, by training the model on a new task by adjusting values of parameters of the model to optimize an objective function that depends in part on how important the parameters are to previously learned task(s), the model can effectively learn new tasks in succession whilst protecting knowledge about previous tasks.” There is thus a technical improvement, not merely an application of technology to more efficiently perform operations relating to commercial interactions.
The present claims are not, to the best of Examiner’s knowledge, an exact match to the claims in any precedential decision, but they are analogous to the claims in several court precedents. Specifically, they are analogous to the representative claim in the Ultramercial, Inc. v. Hulu, LLC decision, in which a method claim included, inter alia, “a third step of providing the media product for sale at an Internet website”, and therefore could not be carried out without the use of computer and telecommunication technology. The Court of Appeal for the Federal Circuit found the claims patent-ineligible, and wrote “The claims’ invocation of the Internet also adds no inventive concept. As we have held, the use of the Internet is not sufficient to save otherwise abstract claims from ineligibility under § 101.” Examiner maintains that use of a neural network is also not sufficient to save otherwise abstract claims from ineligibility under § 101.
Applicant also refers (pages 20 and 21 of the Amendment and Remarks) to BASCOM Global Internet Services v. AT&T Mobility, 827 F. 3d 1341, along with other cases such as DDR Holdings. Examiner replies that Bascom was concerned with a technological improvement, rather than a use of known technology for performing a particular economic practice. The CAFC decision in Bascom sets forth the distinction:
Although the invention in DDR’s patent was engineered in the context of retaining potential customers, the invention was not claiming a business method per se, but was instead claiming a technical way to satisfy an existing problem for website hosts and viewers. Similarly, although the invention in the ‘606 patent is engineered in the context of filtering content, the invention is not claiming the idea of filtering content simply applied to the Internet. The ‘606 patent is instead claiming a technology-based solution (not an abstract-idea-based solution implemented with generic technical components in a conventional way) to filter content on the Internet that overcomes existing problems with other Internet filtering systems. By taking a prior art filter solution (one-size-fits-all filter at the ISP server) and making it more dynamic and efficient (providing individualized filtering at the ISP server), the claimed invention represents a “software-based invention[] that improve[s] the performance of the computer system itself.”
Examiner maintains Applicant’s claimed invention is essentially what the Court ruled that Bascom was not: an abstract-idea-based solution implemented with generic technical components, which does not improve the performance of a computer system itself. Therefore, rejection under 35 U.S.C. 101 is in accordance with the greater weight of relevant precedents.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) 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 mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to NICHOLAS D ROSEN, whose telephone number is (571)272-6762. The examiner can normally be reached 9:00 AM-5:30 PM, M-F. Non-official/draft communications may be faxed to the examiner at 571-273-6762, or emailed to Nicholas.Rosen@uspto.gov (in the body of an email, please, not as an attachment).
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, Marissa Thein, can be reached at 571-272-6764. 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.
/NICHOLAS D ROSEN/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3689 February 25, 2026