DETAILED ACTION
This non-final office action is in response to Applicant’s amendment and request for continued examination filed August 19, 2026. Applicant’s August 19th amendment amended claims 1, 2, 4, 8, 9, 15, 16. Claims 5-7 being previously canceled.
Currently Claims 1-4 and 8-24 are pending. Claims 1, 8 and 15 are the independent claims.
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 August 19, 2026 has been entered.
Response to Amendment
The objection to claim 14 in the previous office action is withdrawn in response to Applicant's correction to the claim status of claim 14.
The 35 U.S.C. 112b rejection of claims 2, 9, 10 and 16 in the previous office action are withdrawn in response to Applicant's amendments to the claims.
The 35 U.S.C. 101 rejection of claims 1-4 and 8-24 in the previous office action is maintained.
The Double Patenting rejection of claims 1-4 and 8-20 over co-pending application no. 18510841 in the previous office action is withdrawn in response to Applicant's amendments to the claims.
Applicant's amendments to the claims necessitated the new grounds of rejection.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed February 19, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Specifically, Applicant’s argues that the claims are similar to Desjardins et al. (e.g. computer-implement control architecture; Remarks: Last Three Paragraphs, Page 22); the claims integrate the abstract idea into a practical application (e.g. particular coordination of integrate file data, stored case data, field, populated message state...subsequent file synchronization; particular processing among successive integrate file states; Remarks: Last Three Paragraphs, Page 22; Pages 24, 26); the claims do not recite an abstract idea/cannot be performed in the human mind (e.g. receive/synchronize integrate files, execute trained neural network perception nodes, transmit electronic message templates, etc.; Remarks: Page 23); integration files/electronic messaging operations not extra solution activity (Remarks: Page 25); claims recite an asserted implementation (e.g. specification identifies computer system deficiencies - inaccurate/repetitive transmissions, ineffective issue tracking, etc. Specification Paragraph 66-74, 374-378; Figures 6A-6E); claims recite significantly more than an abstract idea (Remarks: Last Two Paragraphs, Page 27; Page 28).
Initially it is noted that the August 19th amendment to the claims are substantially different than both the after final claim amendment filed May 12, 2026 addressed Advisory Action mailed May 18, 2026 and the claim amendment filed February 13, 2026 addressed in the Final office action mailed March 5, 2026. As argued by the Applicant, in the August 19th response (Remarks: Last Paragraph, Page 19) “Amended claim 1 now recites materially different and substantially more specific limitations that were not addressed in the prior eligibility analysis.”(emphasis added) Applicant’s arguments, with regards to the patent eligibility of the claims under 35 U.S.C. 101 are directed to newly recited features/limitations which are newly rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101, see detailed discussion below. Accordingly, Applicant’s arguments have been primarily addressed in the detailed rejection of claims 1-4 an 8-24 below.
In response to applicant's argument that claims are patent eligible under 35 U.S.C. 101, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., real time monitoring, predictive analysis, communication tracking, and processing of substantial transaction volumes (Paragraph 1, Page 18); case state loop (Remarks: Paragraph 1, Page 22); successive integrate file states (Remarks: Paragraph 1, Page 24); detection of new row) are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
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 business practice – procurement management/planning (Title: “IDENTIFYING AND CORRECTING SUPPLIER ITEM DISCREPANCIES IN A PROCUREMENT SYSTEM” – i.e. resources/items are medical products/goods and procurement management/planning is directed managing the procurement/inventory of those products)– more specifically the claimed invention directed controlling the item management activity by automatically adjusting at least ONE setting OR operation of the resource planning system to address a condition represented by a prediction including initiating at least ONE automated transaction corresponding to at least ONE of a reorder or a substitute item or a restock or a recall (e.g. issuing a recall notification/alert, nothing is actually controlled – data is output with the intended wished for purpose of reorder or substitute or restock or recall – no action is actually/positively performed or executed).
Regarding the use of the generic (known, conventional) recited integrated computing system, one or more processors, memory, procurement inference engine (software per se), match exception inference engine (software per se), call-to-action inference engine (software per se), communication interface," 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 claims 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 and under the guidance, 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.
Regarding the recited one or more perception nodes comprising a neural network trained to correlate operating parameters with a critical parameter and generate a prediction indicating a deviation trained perception nodes/neural network (independent claims 1, 8, 15) are recited at a high level of generality and amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the abstract idea using a generic trained perception nodes on a generic computer, also recited at a high level of generality. The trained perception nodes are used to generally apply the abstract idea without limiting how the trained perception nodes function. The trained perception nodes are described at a high level such that it amounts to using a generic computer with generic trained perception nodes to apply the abstract idea. These limitations only recite outcomes/results of the steps without any details about how the outcomes are accomplished.
Regarding the recited first/second/third machine learning models (dependent claims 2, 3, 9, 10, 16, 17, 21), the first/second/third ML models are recited at a high level of generality and amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the abstract idea using a generic first/second/third ML models on a generic computer, also recited at a high level of generality. The first/second/third ML models are used to generally apply the abstract idea without limiting how the first/second/third ML models function. The first/second/third ML models are described at a high level such that it amounts to using a generic computer with generic first/second/third ML models to apply the abstract idea. These limitations only recite outcomes/results of the steps without any details about how the outcomes are accomplished.
While the claims may represent an improvement to the fundamental economic process of procurement planning (i.e. automatically adjusting at least ONE setting OR operation including initiating (starting, outputting, sending, etc.) at least one automated transaction (e.g. alert notifications/escalations, messages, etc.)), the claims in no way either claimed or disclosed represent a practical application (e.g. provide a technical solution to a technical problem; improve any of the underlying technology.
Additionally, the claims are directed to a mental process practically capable of being performed in the human mind via observation, evaluation, judgement and opinion. Representative claim 1: The step of receiving an integration data file may be performed using a human mind via observation of data. The step of creating a case record in response to detecting a new row may be performed in the human mind via observation and judgement. The step of determining a condition of a case of a resource planning system may be performed in the human mind using observation and evaluation. The step of training one or more perception nodes comprising a neural network may be performed in the human mind using evaluation and judgement. The step of correlating at least ONE operating parameter with at least ONE critical parameter to generate a prediction of a deviation may be performed in the human mind using judgement and opinion. The step of adapting at least ONE of a correlation module OR the neural network and repeating the training/correlation steps in response to determining that the deviation exceeds a threshold may be performed in the human mind using judgement and opinion. The step of terminating training in response to determining that the deviation is below a threshold may be performed in the human mind using judgement and opinion. The step of processing the prediction data and the new row data to classify unresolved invoice discrepancies may be performed in the human mind via observation and evaluation. The step of selecting an electronic message template may be performed in the human mind via evaluation and judgement. The step of transmitting the outbound electronic message may be performed in the human mind via evaluation. The step of monitoring inbound electronic messages may be performed in the human mind via observation and judgement. The step of determining a response has not been logged within a stored escalation period may be performed in the human mind via evaluation. The step of receiving a subsequent integration vile and synchronizing the case record may be performed in the human mind via evaluation. The step of ‘controlling’ activity by automatically adjusting at least ONE setting OR operation may be performed in the human mind using judgement and opinion.
Other than the recitation of an integrated computing system, one or more processors, memory, procurement inference engine (software per se), match exception inference engine (software per se), call-to-action inference engine (software per se), communication interface 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 a hardware device including a processor, computer readable memory, display device, sensors, network, control devices and/or database 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, generic sensors, and/or generic control devices. See MPEP 2106.05(f).
Further the mere nominal recitation of a generic computer (i.e., integrated computing system, one or more processors, memory, procurement inference engine (software per se), match exception inference engine (software per se), call-to-action inference engine (software per se), communication interface; each used for their well-understood, conventional and routine purpose) 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 procurement management/planning. In re TLI Commc’ns LLC Pat. Litig., 823 F.3d 607, 612 (Fed. Cir. 2016). The recited technology (processor, memories, 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 the claims 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”).
Reevaluating the step of receiving an integrating data file, transmitting the outbound communication message, receiving a subsequent integration file and initiating at least one automatic transaction which are considered insignificant extra solution activity, these limitations are mere data gathering and data output recited at a high level of generality and amount to nothing more than receiving data, transmitting data and/or initiating (requesting, starting, or the like an action (reorder an item, substitute an item, restock an item or recall an item) all of which are 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.
Accordingly, the claims are not patent eligible under 35 U.S.C. 101.
In response to Applicant’s argument that the claims are patent eligible under 35 U.S.C. 101 as the claims cannot be practically performed in the human mind, examiner respectfully disagrees.
As discussed above the claims are directed to a series of method steps which can be performed in the human mind or via pen and paper. The claims recite the use of generic computers performing generic computing functions in order to process data. The recitation of trained perception nodes in the claims does not negate the mental nature of these limitations because the trained perception nodes is merely used at a tool to perform an otherwise mental process. That the final step of the method is to ‘controlling’ item management activity including initiating at least one automated transaction corresponding to at least ONE of a reorder or substitute or recall or restock is a step a human is more than capable of completing upon determining that there is a deviation (e.g. send/generating a recall notification/alert is something a human mind via pen and paper is readily capable of performing).
As for Applicant’s argument that the claims are similar to the recent USPTO AI guidance, as the claims recite training/retraining of perception nodes comprising a neural network, the examiner respectfully disagrees. As discussed above the perception nodes comprising a neural network are recited at a high level of generality and are merely a tool/instructions to apply the abstract idea utilizing a generic computer.
Nowhere in Applicant’s disclosure or remarks is there any discussion at any level that the invention either as disclosed or claimed provides a technical solution to a technical problem or improves a technology or technical field. More specifically, as discussed in MPEP § 2106.04(d)(1) (below) nowhere in Applicant’s disclosure is there any discussion that the claims improve the field of machine learning or artificial intelligence.
MPEP § 2106.04(d)(1)
In short, first the specification should be evaluated to determine if the disclosure provides sufficient details such that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize the claimed invention as providing an improvement in the functioning of a computer, or an improvement to other technology or a technical field. The specification need not explicitly set forth the improvement, but it must describe the invention such that the improvement would be apparent to one of ordinary skill in the art. Conversely, 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. Second, if the specification sets forth an improvement in technology or a technical field, the claim must be evaluated to ensure that the claim itself reflects the disclosed improvement, i.e., That is, the claim includes the components or steps of the invention that provide the improvement described in the specification. The claim itself does not need to explicitly recite the improvement described in the specification (e.g., “thereby increasing the bandwidth of the channel”). See, e.g., Ex Parte Desjardins, Appeal No. 2024-000567 (PTAB September 26, 2025, Appeals Review Panel Decision) (precedential), in which the specification identified the improvement to machine learning technology by explaining how the machine learning model is trained to learn new tasks while protecting knowledge about previous tasks to overcome the problem of “catastrophic forgetting,” and that the claims reflected the improvement identified in the specification. Indeed, enumerated improvements identified in the Desjardins specification included disclosures of the effective learning of new tasks in succession in connection with specifically protecting knowledge concerning previously accomplished tasks; allowing the system to reduce use of storage capacity; and the enablement of reduced complexity in the system. Such improvements were tantamount to how the machine learning model itself would function in operation and therefore not subsumed in the identified mathematical calculation.
Accordingly, the claims are not patent eligible under 35 U.S.C. 101.
In response to Applicant’s argument that the claims are patent eligible under 35 U.S.C. 101 as the claims recite an “asserted implementation”, the examiner respectfully disagrees.
At best the claims represent an improvement in the well-known business/economic process of procurement management/planning (e.g. generating/sending recall notices/alerts) wherein the improvement lies in the abstract idea itself. Computer implemented resource planning, inventory management, procurement management/planning and/or management functions are not technologies nor are they a technological field, they are well-known business/economic practice. The instant application merely applies the abstract idea using a generic computer as a conduit/tool for the abstract idea and does not improve the functioning of a computer or computer networks, does not improve another technical field and does not provide a technical solution to a technical problem.
Specifically, that argued asserted implementations (e.g. Specification identifies computer system deficiencies - inaccurate/repetitive transmissions, ineffective issue tracking, and the like) are at best wished for business benefits for the claimed procurement management system/method and as such represent a wished-for improvement in the abstract idea itself.
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 a method of organizing human activity, i.e., an abstract idea, and that the additional element recited in the claim beyond the abstract idea (i.e., processor, memory, resource planning system, 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 the claims beyond the abstract idea is a “integrated computing system, one or more processors, memory, procurement inference engine (software per se), match exception inference engine (software per se), call-to-action inference engine (software per se), communication interface,” 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.”).
Regarding the recited one or more perception nodes comprising a neural network trained to correlate operating parameters with a critical parameter and generate a prediction indicating a deviation trained perception nodes/neural network (independent claims 1, 8, 15) are recited at a high level of generality and amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the abstract idea using a generic trained perception nodes on a generic computer, also recited at a high level of generality. The trained perception nodes are used to generally apply the abstract idea without limiting how the trained perception nodes function. The trained perception nodes are described at a high level such that it amounts to using a generic computer with generic trained perception nodes to apply the abstract idea. These limitations only recite outcomes/results of the steps without any details about how the outcomes are accomplished.
Regarding the recited first/second/third machine learning models (dependent claims 2, 3, 9, 10, 16, 17, 21), the first/second/third ML models are recited at a high level of generality and amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the abstract idea using a generic first/second/third ML models on a generic computer, also recited at a high level of generality. The first/second/third ML models are used to generally apply the abstract idea without limiting how the first/second/third ML models function. The first/second/third ML models are described at a high level such that it amounts to using a generic computer with generic first/second/third ML models to apply the abstract idea. These limitations only recite outcomes/results of the steps without any details about how the outcomes are accomplished.
Applicant has not identified any additional elements recited in the claim that, individually or in combination, provides significantly more than the abstract idea.
Accordingly, the claims are not patent eligible under 35 U.S.C. 101.
In response to Applicant’s argument that the claims are patent eligible under 35 U.S.C. 101 as the claims integrate the abstract idea into a practical application, the examiner respectfully disagrees.
The claims are directed to a well-known business practice – procurement management/planning (e.g. item/product procurement) – in this case ‘directed controlling the item management activity by automatically adjusting at least ONE setting OR operation of the resource planning system to eliminate at least one deviation including initiating at least ONE automated transaction corresponding to at least ONE of a reorder or a substitute item or a restock or a recall (e.g. issuing a recall notification/alert). While the claims may represent an improvement to the business process of resource planning / procurement management they in no way either claimed or disclosed represent a practical application.
Under the see MPEP § 2106.05, 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).
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 integrated computing system, one or more processors, memory, procurement inference engine (software per se), match exception inference engine (software per se), call-to-action inference engine (software per se), communication interface. These generic computer hardware merely performs generic computer functions of processing and providing data and represent a purely conventional implementation of applicant’s procurement management summary in the general field of procurement management/planning 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 the 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.
Regarding the recited one or more perception nodes comprising a neural network trained to correlate operating parameters with a critical parameter and generate a prediction indicating a deviation trained perception nodes/neural network (independent claims 1, 8, 15) are recited at a high level of generality and amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the abstract idea using a generic trained perception nodes on a generic computer, also recited at a high level of generality. The trained perception nodes are used to generally apply the abstract idea without limiting how the trained perception nodes function. The trained perception nodes are described at a high level such that it amounts to using a generic computer with generic trained perception nodes to apply the abstract idea. These limitations only recite outcomes/results of the steps without any details about how the outcomes are accomplished.
Regarding the recited first/second/third machine learning models (dependent claims 2, 3, 9, 10, 16, 17, 21), the first/second/third ML models are recited at a high level of generality and amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the abstract idea using a generic first/second/third ML models on a generic computer, also recited at a high level of generality. The first/second/third ML models are used to generally apply the abstract idea without limiting how the first/second/third ML models function. The first/second/third ML models are described at a high level such that it amounts to using a generic computer with generic first/second/third ML models to apply the abstract idea. These limitations only recite outcomes/results of the steps without any details about how the outcomes are accomplished.
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, that the claims recite a method of organizing human activity, i.e., an abstract idea, and that the additional element recited in the claim beyond the abstract idea (i.e., integrated computing system, one or more processors, memory, procurement inference engine (software per se), match exception inference engine (software per se), call-to-action inference engine (software per se), communication interface) 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)).
Accordingly, the claims are directed to an abstract idea.
Step Two of the Mayo/Alice Framework (Step 2B)
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. See MPEP § 2106.05.
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 the claims beyond the abstract idea is a integrated computing system, one or more processors, memory, procurement inference engine (software per se), match exception inference engine (software per se), call-to-action inference engine (software per se), communication interface” 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.
Regarding the recited one or more perception nodes comprising a neural network trained to correlate operating parameters with a critical parameter and generate a prediction indicating a deviation trained perception nodes/neural network (independent claims 1, 8, 15) are recited at a high level of generality and amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the abstract idea using a generic trained perception nodes on a generic computer, also recited at a high level of generality. The trained perception nodes are used to generally apply the abstract idea without limiting how the trained perception nodes function. The trained perception nodes are described at a high level such that it amounts to using a generic computer with generic trained perception nodes to apply the abstract idea. These limitations only recite outcomes/results of the steps without any details about how the outcomes are accomplished.
Regarding the recited first/second/third machine learning models (dependent claims 2, 3, 9, 10, 16, 17, 21), the first/second/third ML models are recited at a high level of generality and amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the abstract idea using a generic first/second/third ML models on a generic computer, also recited at a high level of generality. The first/second/third ML models are used to generally apply the abstract idea without limiting how the first/second/third ML models function. The first/second/third ML models are described at a high level such that it amounts to using a generic computer with generic first/second/third ML models to apply the abstract idea. These limitations only recite outcomes/results of the steps without any details about how the outcomes are accomplished.
Similar to the discussion in Uniloc USA, Inc. v. LG Electronics USA, Appeal No. 19-1835 (Fed. Cir. Apr. 30, 2020), where 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.” The instant application merely applies the abstract idea using a generic computer as a conduit/tool for the abstract idea and does not improve the functioning of a computer or computer networks, does not improve another technical field and does not provide a technical solution to a technical problem.
As for Applicant’s arguments that the claimed invention recites a particular coordination of integrate file data, stored case data, field, populated message state...subsequent file synchronization; particular processing among successive integrate file states and therefore integrates the abstract idea into a practical application, the examiner respectfully disagrees. Nowhere in Applicant’s disclosure is there any discussion at any level of coordinating or synchronizing integration data files (see detailed 35 U.S.C. 112a rejection below), further nowhere in Applicant’s disclosure is there any discussion of a technical problem, much alone a technical solution, to coordinating or synchronizing data files or any kind. Populating electronic messages, including doing so in response to a condition and using a template does not represent an improvement in the functioning of a computer or another technology, does not provide a technical solution to a technical problem inherent in computers or computer networks nor does it improve another technical field. That the claims ‘process’ two data integration data files similarly does not represent an improvement in the functioning of a computer or another technology, does not provide a technical solution to a technical problem inherent in computers or computer networks nor does it improve another technical field as argued.
Accordingly, the claims are not patent eligible under 35 U.S.C. 101.
In response to Applicant’s argument that the claims are patent eligible under 35 U.S.C. 101 as the claims recite significantly more than the abstract idea, the examiner respectfully disagrees.
The claims use “conventional or generic technology in a nascent but well-known environment” to implement the abstract idea of procurement management/planning. In re TLI Commc’ns LLC Pat. Litig., 823 F.3d 607, 612 (Fed. Cir. 2016). The recited technology (processor, memories, neural network, ML models, 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 the claims 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 argument that the claims are patent eligible under 35 U.S.C. 101 as the claims are similar to the recent Appeals Review Panel review of Ex parte Desjardins et al., the examiner respectfully disagrees.
While the Desjardins decision cautions against overbroad application of 35 U.S.C. 101 to artificial intelligence inventions, such inventions not categorically excluded from patentability, the thrust of the decision made clear that improvements to an AI model itself can be sufficient for the purpose of patent eligibility, even when the claims recite, on their face, an ostensibly “abstract idea.” Specifically, the Appeals Review Panel found that the claims under review provided a technical improvement in the functioning of machine learning models by enabling continual learning, reducing storage requirements, and preserving performance across tasks. In particular, the decision emphasized that the claimed invention addresses a technical problem ("catastrophic forgetting") and improves the operation of AI systems, not just through generic computer implementation but by a specific training strategy. To support this determination, the Appeals Review Panel looked to the specification which, on its own, disclosed how the invention would improve functioning of an AI model--in particular, the specification explained how the proposed invention would use less “storage capacity” and lead to “reduced system complexity." These improvements, which the Appeals Review Panel found were incorporated into the claims as a whole, constituted an “improvement to how the machine learning model itself operates”.
None of Applicant’s arguments, disclosure or claims discusses at any level that the generically applied/utilization of machine learning or neural networks or perception nodes represents or provides an improvement in machine learning itself.
Regarding the recited one or more perception nodes comprising a neural network trained to correlate operating parameters with a critical parameter and generate a prediction indicating a deviation trained perception nodes/neural network (independent claims 1, 8, 15) are recited at a high level of generality and amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the abstract idea using a generic trained perception nodes on a generic computer, also recited at a high level of generality. The trained perception nodes are used to generally apply the abstract idea without limiting how the trained perception nodes function. The trained perception nodes are described at a high level such that it amounts to using a generic computer with generic trained perception nodes to apply the abstract idea. These limitations only recite outcomes/results of the steps without any details about how the outcomes are accomplished.
Regarding the recited first/second/third machine learning models (dependent claims 2, 3, 9, 10, 16, 17, 21), the first/second/third ML models are recited at a high level of generality and amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the abstract idea using a generic first/second/third ML models on a generic computer, also recited at a high level of generality. The first/second/third ML models are used to generally apply the abstract idea without limiting how the first/second/third ML models function. The first/second/third ML models are described at a high level such that it amounts to using a generic computer with generic first/second/third ML models to apply the abstract idea. These limitations only recite outcomes/results of the steps without any details about how the outcomes are accomplished.
Further nowhere in Applicant’s disclosure is there any discussion at any level that the utilization of a generic machine learning model or neural networks improve the general field of machine learning or addresses a technical problem in the field of machine learning or provides an improvement to a specific machine learning model, algorithm, technique or the like.
Applicant's invention is more akin to the recent Recentive Analytics, Inc. V. Fox Corp., No. 2023- 2437 (Fed. Cir. Apr. 18, 2025) wherein the instant application fails to be patent eligible under 35 U.S.C. 101 for very similar reasons the court found Recentive's patents ineligible, namely the claims do no more than apply established methods of machine learning to a new data environment (procurement management/planning). Recentive sued Fox in November 2022 for infringement of four patents - Network Map patents and Machine learning training patents. Recentive asserted that its patents claim eligible subject matter because they involve "the unique application of machine learning to generate customized algorithms, based on training the machine learning model, that can then be used to automatically create event schedules that are updated in real-time." Recentive characterized its patents as introducing "the application of machine learning models to the unsophisticated, and equally niche, prior art field of generating network maps for broadcasting live events and live event schedules." The court did not find Recentive's arguments persuasive and found the patents ineligible under 35 U.S.C. 101.
Similar to the discussion on Page 12 of the Recentive decision, the Applicant has failed to provide support or substantative arguments that the disclosed invention or the claimed invention improves the recited machine learning or neural network now claimed ("But Recentive also admits that the patents do not claim a specific method for "improving the mathematical algorithm or making machine learning better." Oral Arg. at 4:40-4:44.). As such the recited machine learning and neural network are merely tools/conduits for the abstract idea - recited at a high level and applied using a generic computer/computing device which is likewise not improved by the recited or disclosed invention (i.e. claims lack a specific technological improvement). More specifically, not only does Applicant's specification fail to disclose an improvement which the newly claimed machine learning or neural networks, Applicant's disclosure and subsequent arguments fail to delineate steps through which the machine learning or neural network, achieve an improvement. See, e.g., IBM V. Zillow Grp., Inc., 50 F.4th 1371, 1381 (Fed. Cir. 2022) (holding abstract a claim that "d[id] not sufficiently describe how to achieve [its stated] results in a non-abstract way," because "[s]uch functional claim language, without more, is insufficient for patentability under our law." (quoting Two-Way Media Ltd V. Comcast Cable Commc'ns, LLC, 874 F.3d 1329, 1337 (Fed. Cir. 2017))); see also Intell. Ventures I LLC V. Capital One Fin. Corp., 850 F.3d 1332, 1342 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (similar); Elec. Power Grp., LLC V. Alstom S.A., 830 F.3d 1350, 1356 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (similar). "[T]he patent system represents a carefully crafted bargain that encourages both the creation and the public disclosure of new and useful advances in technology, in return for an exclusive monopoly for a limited period of time." Pfaff V. Wells Elecs., 525 U.S. 55, 63 (1998); Sanho Corp. V. Kaijet Tech. Int'ILtd., 108 F.4th 1376, 1382 (Fed. Cir. 2024). Allowing a claim that functionally describes a mere concept without disclosing how to implement that concept risks defeating the very purpose of the patent system. In this respect, the patents' claims are materially different from those in McRO, Inc. V. Bandai Namco Games America Inc., 837 F.3d 1299 (Fed. Cir. 2016), and Koninklijke, the cases on which Recentive relies. Instead of disclosing "a specific implementation of a solution to a problem in the software arts," Enfish, LLC V. Microsoft Corp., 822 F.3d 1327, 1339 (Fed. Cir. 2016), or "a specific means or method that solves a problem in an existing technological process," Koninklijke, 942 F.3d at 1150, the only thing the claims disclose about the use of machine learning is that machine learning is used in a new environment. This new environment is identifying and performing process (worklow) variants. Similar to the court's conclusion that simply applying machine learning to a new field of use does not result in patent eligibility, Applicant's disclosure makes clear that the recited machine learning processes are not improved in any way and do not result in an improvement in an underlying technology or another technical field) ("We see no merit to Recentive's argument that its patents are eligible because they apply machine learning to this new field of use. We have long recognized that "[a]n abstract idea does not become nonabstract by limiting the invention to a particular field of use or technological environment." Intell. Ventures I LLC V. Capital One Bank (USA), 792 F.3d 1363, 1366 (Fed. Cir. 2015); see also Alice, 573 U.S. at 222; Parker V. Flook, 437 U.S. 584, 593 (1978); Stanford, 989 F.3d at 1373 (rejecting argument that a claim was not abstract where patentee contended "the specific application of the steps [was] novel and enable[d] scientists to ascertain more haplotype information than was previously possible").
Accordingly, the claims are nothing like those in the Desjardins decision and are therefore not patent eligible under 35 U.S.C. 101.
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 1-4 and 8-24 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.
Regarding independent claims 1, 8 and 15, the claims recite “processing, by the match exception inference engine, the prediction and the data contained in the new row to classify the unresolved invoice discrepancy into a classification and a subclassification associated with the case record” wherein Applicant’s specification does not provide a sufficient description to show possession of the invention. Specifically, Applicant’s specification fails to provide a specific algorithm, models, flow-charts, steps, processes or the like for at least the step of processing prediction and new row data to classify unresolved invoice discrepancies into a classification and subclassification associated with a case record as claimed. Applicant’s specification only describes an indication of a result that one might achieve. This is insufficient to show possession or enablement under 35 U.S.C. 112.
The phrase row appears only in Specification Paragraph 376 ("This system operates through daily integration data files, where new rows of data trigger the creation of corresponding cases.") wherein there is no discussion or disclosure of new rows much alone classifying the unresolved invoice discrepancy into a classification and a subclassification associated with the case record by processing prediction and data contained in a new row (of the integrated data file) as claimed.
While Specification Paragraph 61 discloses, at a very high level, that match exceptions may be associated with inaccuracy/misalignment between different sets of data, including discrepancies between purchase orders and invoices, this paragraph like the remainder of Applicant’s disclosure fails to disclose processing prediction and new row data to classify unresolved invoice discrepancies into a classification and subclassification associated with a case record as claimed.
Similarly, Specification Paragraphs 98-101 discuss that the resource planning system determines or predicts match exceptions, but fails to discuss or disclose processing prediction and new row data to classify unresolved invoice discrepancies into a classification and subclassification associated with a case record as claimed.
Specification Paragraph 136, discloses classifying suppliers based on performance levels and flagging discrepancies in transaction data, predicting supplier response to potential delays, etc.- by the procurement prediction engine however this paragraph, like the remainder of Applicant’s disclosure fails to disclose or discuss at any level of detail processing prediction and new row data to classify unresolved invoice discrepancies into a classification and subclassification associated with a case record as claimed.
Accordingly, Applicant's specification fails to provide adequate written support to show possession as well as lacks written disclosure to enable one to use the invention without undue experimentation as claimed. Applicant's disclosure fails to disclose any specific method, algorithm, approach, process or working example for the step “formulating a candidate linear programming problem comprising at least to hierarchical objectives and representing the supply chain planning problem for a supply chain network” as claimed nor the claimed embodiment as a whole.
While Applicant’s specification appears to suggest some potential capabilities of the claimed system/method, the Specification merely lists potential features and fails to disclose any specific method, mechanism, process, algorithm, or example for how to perform any of the claimed steps much alone the combination of the steps as claimed. Applicant’s specification simply represents a wish list of potential system/device capabilities without any disclosure as to HOW those wished for capabilities are actually performed or implemented (e.g. HOW To process prediction and new row data to classify unresolved invoice discrepancies into a classification and subclassification associated with a case record).
The Federal Circuit explained that “[t]he test for the sufficiency of the written description ‘is whether the disclosure of the application relied upon reasonably conveys to those skilled in the art that the inventor had possession of the claimed subject matter as of the filing date.’” Id. at 682 (quoting Ariad, 598 F.3d at 1351). The Federal Circuit emphasized that “[t]he written description requirement is not met if the specification merely describes a ‘desired result.’” Vasudevan, 782 F.3d at 682 (quoting Ariad, 598 F.3d at 1349). Thus, in applying this standard to the computer implemented functional claim at issue, the Federal Circuit stated that “[t]he more telling question is whether the specification shows possession by the inventor of how [the claimed function] is achieved.” Vasudevan, 782 F.3d at 683.
It is noted that the written description requirement under 112(a) is not satisfied by stating that one of ordinary skill in the art could devise an algorithm to perform the specialized programmed functions. For written description, the specification as filed must describe the claimed invention in sufficient detail so that one of ordinary skill in the art can reasonably conclude that the inventor had possession of the claimed invention. An original claim may lack written description when the claim defines the invention in functional language specifying a desired result but the specification does not sufficiently identify how the inventor has devised the function to be performed or result achieved. For software, this can occur when the algorithm or steps/procedure for performing the computer function are not explained at all or are not explained in sufficient detail (simply restating the function recited in the claim is not necessarily sufficient).
Further, the structure corresponding to claim limitations that are computer-implemented specialized functions must include a general-purpose computer or computer component along with the algorithms that the computer uses to perform each claimed specialized function.
It is not enough that one skilled in the art could theoretically write a program to achieve the claimed function, rather the specification itself must explain how the claimed function is achieved to demonstrate that the applicant had possession of it. See, e.g., Vasudevan, 782 F.3d at 682-83.
Applicant’s specification does not provide a disclosure of the computer and algorithms in sufficient detail to demonstrate to one of ordinary skill in the art that the inventor possessed the invention that achieves the claimed result.
Accordingly, Applicant's specification fails to provide adequate written support to show possession as well as lacks written disclosure to enable one to use the invention without undue experimentation as claimed. Applicant's disclosure fails to disclose any specific method, algorithm, approach, process or working example for the step of “processing, by the match exception inference engine, the prediction and the data contained in the new row to classify the unresolved invoice discrepancy into a classification and a subclassification associated with the case record” as claimed.
Further regarding independent claims 1, 8 and 15, the claims recite “selecting, by the call-to-action inference engine, an electronic message template based on the classification and the subclassification, and generating, according to the selected electronic message template, an outbound electronic message by populating respective fields of the electronic message template with a purchase order identifier, an invoice identifier, and a response due date stored in the case record, the outbound electronic message specifying a required response corresponding to the subclassification” wherein Applicant’s specification does not provide a sufficient description to show possession of the invention. Specifically, Applicant’s specification fails to provide a specific algorithm, models, flow-charts, steps, processes or the like for at least the step of selecting an electronic message template based on the classification/subclassification and subsequently populating the respective fields of the outbound electronic message using the selected template as claimed. Applicant’s specification only describes an indication of a result that one might achieve. This is insufficient to show possession or enablement under 35 U.S.C. 112.
Initially it is noted that the phrase call-to-action inference engine appears nowhere in Applicant’s disclosure.
While specification Paragraph 377 tangentially mentions that the classification and subclassification of invoice discrepancies determine the appropriate email template for the outbound communication this simple/brief mention of determining an appropriate email template is insufficient to show possession of the invention as claimed. The specification merely recites a desired result without any discussion as to how that result is actually implemented or achieved.
Accordingly, Applicant's specification fails to provide adequate written support to show possession as well as lacks written disclosure to enable one to use the invention without undue experimentation as claimed. Applicant's disclosure fails to disclose any specific method, algorithm, approach, process or working example for the step recite “selecting, by the call-to-action inference engine, an electronic message template based on the classification and the subclassification, and generating, according to the selected electronic message template, an outbound electronic message by populating respective fields of the electronic message template with a purchase order identifier, an invoice identifier, and a response due date stored in the case record, the outbound electronic message specifying a required response corresponding to the subclassification” as claimed nor the claimed embodiment as a whole.
While Applicant’s specification appears to suggest some potential capabilities of the claimed system/method, the Specification merely lists potential features and fails to disclose any specific method, mechanism, process, algorithm, or example for how to perform any of the claimed steps much alone the combination of the steps as claimed. Applicant’s specification simply represents a wish list of potential system/device capabilities without any disclosure as to HOW those wished for capabilities are actually performed or implemented (e.g. HOW to select an message template based on the classification and subclassification).
Further, the structure corresponding to claim limitations that are computer-implemented specialized functions must include a general-purpose computer or computer component along with the algorithms that the computer uses to perform each claimed specialized function.
It is not enough that one skilled in the art could theoretically write a program to achieve the claimed function, rather the specification itself must explain how the claimed function is achieved to demonstrate that the applicant had possession of it. See, e.g., Vasudevan, 782 F.3d at 682-83.
Applicant’s specification does not provide a disclosure of the computer and algorithms in sufficient detail to demonstrate to one of ordinary skill in the art that the inventor possessed the invention that achieves the claimed result.
Accordingly, Applicant's specification fails to provide adequate written support to show possession as well as lacks written disclosure to enable one to use the invention without undue experimentation as claimed. Applicant's disclosure fails to disclose any specific method, algorithm, approach, process or working example for the step of recite “selecting, by the call-to-action inference engine, an electronic message template based on the classification and the subclassification, and generating, according to the selected electronic message template, an outbound electronic message by populating respective fields of the electronic message template with a purchase order identifier, an invoice identifier, and a response due date stored in the case record, the outbound electronic message specifying a required response corresponding to the subclassification” as claimed.
Further regarding independent claims 1, 8 and 15, the claims recite “monitoring, by the call-to-action inference engine, inbound electronic messages for an inbound electronic message associated with the case record and classifying the inbound electronic message as an out of office response or a valid response, when the inbound electronic message is classified as the out of office response, excluding the inbound electronic message from qualifying as the required response specified by the outbound electronic message, and, when the inbound electronic message is classified as the valid response, logging the valid response and transitioning a case status field of the case record to a pending agent review state” wherein Applicant’s specification does not provide a sufficient description to show possession of the invention. Specifically, Applicant’s specification fails to provide a specific algorithm, models, flow-charts, steps, processes or the like for at least the step of monitoring and classifying inbound electronic messages as out-of-office or valid or subsequently logging the valid response and transiting a case status field of the case record as claimed. Applicant’s specification only describes an indication of a result that one might achieve. This is insufficient to show possession or enablement under 35 U.S.C. 112.
Specification Paragraph 378 discloses that inbound emails activate changes in case status with a logged inbound email response causing the case status to transition to pending agent review. This brief and tangential mention of case status transitions is in sufficient to support the step of monitoring, by the call-to-action inference engine, inbound electronic messages for an inbound electronic message associated with the case record and classifying the inbound electronic message as an out of office response or a valid response, when the inbound electronic message is classified as the out of office response, excluding the inbound electronic message from qualifying as the required response specified by the outbound electronic message, and, when the inbound electronic message is classified as the valid response, logging the valid response and transitioning a case status field of the case record to a pending agent review state as claimed.
Specification Paragraph 379 discloses that out-of-office responses are handled differently and excluded from valid responses. This generic and high-level disclosure fails to provide sufficient disclosure to demonstrate possession of the step of monitoring, by the call-to-action inference engine, inbound electronic messages for an inbound electronic message associated with the case record and classifying the inbound electronic message as an out of office response or a valid response, when the inbound electronic message is classified as the out of office response, excluding the inbound electronic message from qualifying as the required response specified by the outbound electronic message, and, when the inbound electronic message is classified as the valid response, logging the valid response and transitioning a case status field of the case record to a pending agent review state as claimed.
Accordingly, Applicant's specification fails to provide adequate written support to show possession as well as lacks written disclosure to enable one to use the invention without undue experimentation as claimed. Applicant's disclosure fails to disclose any specific method, algorithm, approach, process or working example for the step recite “monitoring, by the call-to-action inference engine, inbound electronic messages for an inbound electronic message associated with the case record and classifying the inbound electronic message as an out of office response or a valid response, when the inbound electronic message is classified as the out of office response, excluding the inbound electronic message from qualifying as the required response specified by the outbound electronic message, and, when the inbound electronic message is classified as the valid response, logging the valid response and transitioning a case status field of the case record to a pending agent review state” as claimed nor the claimed embodiment as a whole.
While Applicant’s specification appears to suggest some potential capabilities of the claimed system/method, the Specification merely lists potential features and fails to disclose any specific method, mechanism, process, algorithm, or example for how to perform any of the claimed steps much alone the combination of the steps as claimed. Applicant’s specification simply represents a wish list of potential system/device capabilities without any disclosure as to HOW those wished for capabilities are actually performed or implemented.
Accordingly, Applicant's specification fails to provide adequate written support to show possession as well as lacks written disclosure to enable one to use the invention without undue experimentation as claimed. Applicant's disclosure fails to disclose any specific method, algorithm, approach, process or working example for the step of recite “monitoring, by the call-to-action inference engine, inbound electronic messages for an inbound electronic message associated with the case record and classifying the inbound electronic message as an out of office response or a valid response, when the inbound electronic message is classified as the out of office response, excluding the inbound electronic message from qualifying as the required response specified by the outbound electronic message, and, when the inbound electronic message is classified as the valid response, logging the valid response and transitioning a case status field of the case record to a pending agent review state” as claimed.
Further regarding independent claims 1, 8 and 15, the claims recite “in response to determining that a valid response has not been logged within a stored escalation period measured from the last email sent date, updating, by the call-to- action inference engine, an escalation level field of the case record and transmitting an escalation message generated from an escalation message template populated with at least the updated escalation level, the purchase order identifier, the invoice identifier, and the response due date” wherein Applicant’s specification does not provide a sufficient description to show possession of the invention. Specifically, Applicant’s specification fails to provide a specific algorithm, models, flow-charts, steps, processes or the like for at least the step of monitoring and classifying inbound electronic messages as out-of-office or valid or subsequently logging the valid response and transiting a case status field of the case record as claimed. Applicant’s specification only describes an indication of a result that one might achieve. This is insufficient to show possession or enablement under 35 U.S.C. 112.
Initially it is noted that Applicant’s disclosure fails to disclose or discuss an escalation message template as claimed.
Specification Paragraph 54 discloses that when an exception is detected or issue arises a call-to-action may be used to alert/ notify relevant personal to escalate a problem previously identified, this brief mention of alerting/notifying relevant personal to escalate a problem is insufficient to demonstrate support for the step of in response to determining that a valid response has not been logged within a stored escalation period measured from the last email sent date, updating, by the call-to- action inference engine, an escalation level field of the case record and transmitting an escalation message generated from an escalation message template populated with at least the updated escalation level, the purchase order identifier, the invoice identifier, and the response due date as claimed.
Specification Paragraph 353 discloses that an escalation process is trigged when match exception remains unresolved for a certain duration wherein the escalation includes escalating the case to higher management level. This brief mention of triggering an escalation process to escalate a case to a higher management level is insufficient demonstrate possession of the step of in response to determining that a valid response has not been logged within a stored escalation period measured from the last email sent date, updating, by the call-to- action inference engine, an escalation level field of the case record and transmitting an escalation message generated from an escalation message template populated with at least the updated escalation level, the purchase order identifier, the invoice identifier, and the response due date as claimed.
Specification Paragraph 380 discloses escalations are made when outgoing emails do not receive timely responses and escalation level progress based on the date of the last outgoing email wherein email notifications are sent to leaders with pertinent escalation information. This brief discussion of notifying leaders with pertinent escalation information when responses are not received in a timely manner is insufficient demonstrate possession of the step of in response to determining that a valid response has not been logged within a stored escalation period measured from the last email sent date, updating, by the call-to- action inference engine, an escalation level field of the case record and transmitting an escalation message generated from an escalation message template populated with at least the updated escalation level, the purchase order identifier, the invoice identifier, and the response due date as claimed.
Accordingly, Applicant's specification fails to provide adequate written support to show possession as well as lacks written disclosure to enable one to use the invention without undue experimentation as claimed. Applicant's disclosure fails to disclose any specific method, algorithm, approach, process or working example for the step recite “in response to determining that a valid response has not been logged within a stored escalation period measured from the last email sent date, updating, by the call-to- action inference engine, an escalation level field of the case record and transmitting an escalation message generated from an escalation message template populated with at least the updated escalation level, the purchase order identifier, the invoice identifier, and the response due date” as claimed nor the claimed embodiment as a whole.
While Applicant’s specification appears to suggest some potential capabilities of the claimed system/method, the Specification merely lists potential features and fails to disclose any specific method, mechanism, process, algorithm, or example for how to perform any of the claimed steps much alone the combination of the steps as claimed. Applicant’s specification simply represents a wish list of potential system/device capabilities without any disclosure as to HOW those wished for capabilities are actually performed or implemented.
Accordingly, Applicant's specification fails to provide adequate written support to show possession as well as lacks written disclosure to enable one to use the invention without undue experimentation as claimed. Applicant's disclosure fails to disclose any specific method, algorithm, approach, process or working example for the step of recite “in response to determining that a valid response has not been logged within a stored escalation period measured from the last email sent date, updating, by the call-to- action inference engine, an escalation level field of the case record and transmitting an escalation message generated from an escalation message template populated with at least the updated escalation level, the purchase order identifier, the invoice identifier, and the response due date” as claimed.
Further regarding independent claims 1, 8 and 15, the claims recite “receiving, by the integrated computing system, a subsequent integration data file from the resource planning system and synchronizing the case record with the subsequent integration data file by closing the case record when the unresolved invoice discrepancy corresponding to the case record is no longer represented in the subsequent integration data file” wherein Applicant’s specification does not provide a sufficient description to show possession of the invention. Specifically, Applicant’s specification fails to provide a specific algorithm, models, flow-charts, steps, processes or the like for at least the step of synchronizing case record with subsequent data integration files by closing the case record when unresolved invoice discrepancies are not long present in the integration data file as claimed. Applicant’s specification only describes an indication of a result that one might achieve. This is insufficient to show possession or enablement under 35 U.S.C. 112.
Specification Paragraph 90 discloses that the system serves as a centralized platform where these critical operations are coordinated, synchronized, and streamlined, enhancing efficiency and facilitating smoother interactions between different components of the organization. This brief mention of a wished for benefit of a centralized platform for critical operations (no definition, no scope) are synchronized is not the same as the claimed receiving, by the integrated computing system, a subsequent integration data file from the resource planning system and synchronizing the case record with the subsequent integration data file by closing the case record when the unresolved invoice discrepancy corresponding to the case record is no longer represented in the subsequent integration data file. Accordingly, this paragraph fails to provide sufficient disclosure to demonstrate possession of the claimed synchronization method step.
Specification Paragraph 365 discloses that APIs and middleware provide for synchronization of data between internal and external systems. This brief mention of data synchronization is not the same as the claimed receiving, by the integrated computing system, a subsequent integration data file from the resource planning system and synchronizing the case record with the subsequent integration data file by closing the case record when the unresolved invoice discrepancy corresponding to the case record is no longer represented in the subsequent integration data file. Accordingly, this paragraph fails to provide sufficient disclosure to demonstrate possession of the claimed synchronization method step.
Accordingly, Applicant's specification fails to provide adequate written support to show possession as well as lacks written disclosure to enable one to use the invention without undue experimentation as claimed. Applicant's disclosure fails to disclose any specific method, algorithm, approach, process or working example for the step recite “receiving, by the integrated computing system, a subsequent integration data file from the resource planning system and synchronizing the case record with the subsequent integration data file by closing the case record when the unresolved invoice discrepancy corresponding to the case record is no longer represented in the subsequent integration data file” as claimed nor the claimed embodiment as a whole.
While Applicant’s specification appears to suggest some potential capabilities of the claimed system/method, the Specification merely lists potential features and fails to disclose any specific method, mechanism, process, algorithm, or example for how to perform any of the claimed steps much alone the combination of the steps as claimed. Applicant’s specification simply represents a wish list of potential system/device capabilities without any disclosure as to HOW those wished for capabilities are actually performed or implemented.
Accordingly, Applicant's specification fails to provide adequate written support to show possession as well as lacks written disclosure to enable one to use the invention without undue experimentation as claimed. Applicant's disclosure fails to disclose any specific method, algorithm, approach, process or working example for the step of recite “receiving, by the integrated computing system, a subsequent integration data file from the resource planning system and synchronizing the case record with the subsequent integration data file by closing the case record when the unresolved invoice discrepancy corresponding to the case record is no longer represented in the subsequent integration data file” as claimed.
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 1-4 and 8-24 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, 8 and 15, the claims are directed to the abstract idea of procurement management/planning. 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, procurement management/planning (Judicial Exception – Yes – organizing human activity). Specifically, the claims are directed controlling the item management activity by automatically adjusting at least ONE setting OR operation of the resource planning system to eliminate at least one deviation including initiating at least ONE automated transaction corresponding to at least ONE of a reorder or a substitute item or a restock or a recall (e.g. issuing a recall notification/alert), wherein procurement management/planning 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”, “creating”, “executing”, “determining”, “training”, “correlating”, “comparing”, “adapting”, “repeating”, “terminating”, “providing”, “processing”, “providing”, “selecting”, “transmitting”, “monitoring”, “updating”, “receiving”, and “controlling” recite functions of the procurement management/planning are also directed to an abstract idea that falls into the abstract idea subcategories of sales activities and/or commercial interactions. The intended purpose of independent claims 1, 8 and 15 appears enable a business to adapt/adjust settings OR operations to eliminate at least one deviation by initiating at least ONE automated transaction corresponding to at least ONE of a reorder or a substitute item or a restock or a recall.
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 computer elements: integrated computing system, one or more processors, memory, procurement inference engine (software per se), match exception inference engine (software per se), call-to-action inference engine (software per se), communication interface.
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: integrated computing system, one or more processors, memory, procurement inference engine (software per se), match exception inference engine (software per se), call-to-action inference engine (software per se), communication interface. These generic computing components are merely used to process data as described extensively in Applicant’s specification (Specification: Figure 5).
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 resource planning in the general field of procurement management/planning 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 as set forth the guidance 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 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. Thus, under Step 2A, Prong Two (MPEP §§ 2106.05(a)-(c) and (e)- (h)), Claims 1-4 and 8-24 do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Regarding the use of the generic (known, conventional) recited integrated computing system, one or more processors, memory, procurement inference engine (software per se), match exception inference engine (software per se), call-to-action inference engine (software per se), communication interface," 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 claims 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 and under the guidance, 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.
Regarding the recited one or more perception nodes comprising a neural network trained to correlate operating parameters with a critical parameter and generate a prediction indicating a deviation trained perception nodes/neural network (independent claims 1, 8, 15) are recited at a high level of generality and amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the abstract idea using a generic trained perception nodes on a generic computer, also recited at a high level of generality. The trained perception nodes are used to generally apply the abstract idea without limiting how the trained perception nodes function. The trained perception nodes are described at a high level such that it amounts to using a generic computer with generic trained perception nodes to apply the abstract idea. These limitations only recite outcomes/results of the steps without any details about how the outcomes are accomplished.
Regarding the recited first/second/third machine learning models (dependent claims 2, 3, 9, 10, 16, 17, 21), the first/second/third ML models are recited at a high level of generality and amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the abstract idea using a generic first/second/third ML models on a generic computer, also recited at a high level of generality. The first/second/third ML models are used to generally apply the abstract idea without limiting how the first/second/third ML models function. The first/second/third ML models are described at a high level such that it amounts to using a generic computer with generic first/second/third ML models to apply the abstract idea. These limitations only recite outcomes/results of the steps without any details about how the outcomes are accomplished.
Even upon reconsideration the additional elements (e.g. memory, processor, trained perception nodes, etc.) even when considered in combination represent mere instructions to apply the abstract idea and insignificant extra solution activity which cannot provide an inventive concept.
Accordingly, the claims are 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 creating a case record corresponding to the unresolved invoice discrepancy, determining a condition of a case, training one or more perception nodes comprising a neural network, correlating at least one more operating parameter with at least one critical parameter, comparing the at least one critical parameter to a threshold (also a mathematical operation), adapting at least one of a correlation module OR the neural network, repeating the training/correlating, terminating the training, processing the prediction and data contained in the new row, selecting an electronic message template, monitoring inbound electronic messages, updating an escalation level field, and controlling an item management by automatically adjusting at least ONE of a setting OR an operation activity 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. The steps of receiving an integration data file, providing the prediction to the match inference engine, providing the classification and subclassification to the call-to-action inference engine, transmitting the outbound electronic message and receiving a subsequent data integration file are directed to insignificant post-solution activity (i.e. data output).
Other than the recitation of integrated computing system, one or more processors, memory, procurement inference engine (software per se), match exception inference engine (software per se), call-to-action inference engine (software per se), communication interface 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 mere nominal recitation of a generic processor/computer, machine learning and trained neural network 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 integrated computing system, one or more processors, memory, procurement inference engine (software per se), match exception inference engine (software per se), call-to-action inference engine (software per se), communication interface are recited at a high level of generality merely performs generic computer functions of processing 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.
Regarding the recited one or more perception nodes comprising a neural network trained to correlate operating parameters with a critical parameter and generate a prediction indicating a deviation trained perception nodes/neural network (independent claims 1, 8, 15) are recited at a high level of generality and amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the abstract idea using a generic trained perception nodes on a generic computer, also recited at a high level of generality. The trained perception nodes are used to generally apply the abstract idea without limiting how the trained perception nodes function. The trained perception nodes are described at a high level such that it amounts to using a generic computer with generic trained perception nodes 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 trained perception nodes in the claims does not negate the mental nature of these limitations because the trained perception nodes is merely used at a tool to perform an otherwise mental process.
Regarding the recited first/second/third machine learning models (dependent claims 2, 3, 9, 10, 16, 17, 21), the first/second/third ML models are recited at a high level of generality and amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the abstract idea using a generic first/second/third ML models on a generic computer, also recited at a high level of generality. The first/second/third ML models are used to generally apply the abstract idea without limiting how the first/second/third ML models function. The first/second/third ML models are described at a high level such that it amounts to using a generic computer with generic first/second/third ML models 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 first/second/third ML models in the claims does not negate the mental nature of these limitations because the first/second/third ML models 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 an judicial exception using generic computer components cannot integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide an inventive concept. For the receiving, storing and obtaining steps that were considered extra-solution activity, this has been re-evaluated and determined to be well-understood, routine, conventional activity in the field. Applications 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).
Accordingly, the claims are ineligible under 35 U.S.C. 101 as being directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Regarding dependent claims 2-4, 9-14 and 16-24, the claims are directed to the abstract idea of resource planning and merely further limit the abstract idea claimed in independent claims 1, 8 and 15.
Claim 2, 8 and 16 further limits the abstract idea by obtaining a first/second plurality of inference results generated by first/second/third machine learning model wherein the first/second/third ML are part of a group of ML models (a more detailed abstract idea remains an abstract idea). Claims 3, 9 and 17 further limit the abstract idea by a first ML model to diagnose an item substitution, a second ML model to diagnose a new item, a third ML model to diagnose a recall, determining an action to date for an available substitute item, a new item or a recall item (a more detailed abstract idea remains an abstract idea). Claims 4, 10 and 18 further limit the abstract idea by forming the operating parameter from at least ONE specified field to at least ONE critical parameter including at least ONE of: new product benefits or used products or whether a product can replace a current item (a more detailed abstract idea remains an abstract idea). Claims 12 and 19 further limit the abstract idea by generating or configuring at least one of an intercompany action, external actions, response management or resolution deployment (a more detailed abstract idea remains an abstract idea). Claims 13 and 20 further limit the abstract idea by limiting the escalated call to actions to include a recall alert after a predefined time or after a predetermined threshold (a more detailed abstract idea remains an abstract idea). Claim 14 further limits the abstract idea by limiting the call to action to include recalls for a product device including one or more of an authenticated notification of a defect, defect alert or substitute item recommendation (a more detailed abstract idea remains an abstract idea). Claim 21 further limits the abstract idea by determining a first/second/third response corresponding to the first/second/third ML models, selecting one or the first- or second-ML model, and redistributing inference requests (a more detailed abstract idea remains an abstract idea). Claim 22 further limits the abstract idea by limiting the at least one critical parameter to safety-related associated with a recall and wherein controlling includes automatic generation of a recall notification (a more detailed abstract idea remains an abstract idea). Claim 23 further limits the abstract idea by monitoring recall acknowledgement status and inventory records and updating a recall stage status and escalated recall notification (a more detailed abstract idea remains an abstract idea). Claim 24 further limits the abstract idea by training using historical recall transaction and acknowledgement data, generating a predicted time to acknowledgement and initiating an escalation call-to action recall notification (a more detailed abstract idea remains an abstract idea).
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 1-4 and 8-24, Applicant’s specification discloses that the claimed elements directed to a integrated computing system, one or more processors, memory, procurement inference engine (software per se), match exception inference engine (software per se), call-to-action inference engine (software per se), communication interface at best merely comprise generic computer hardware which is commercially available (Specification: Figure 5). More specifically Applicant’s claimed features directed to a system do not represent custom or specific computer hardware circuits, instead the terms 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. memory, processor, 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.
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, processor, interface, component and memory merely comprise generic computer hardware which is commercially available (Specification: Figure 5). 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. memory, processor, 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.
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 memory, processor, interface or similar generic computer structures which at best recite generic, well-known hardware. However, the recited generic hardware simply performs generic computer function of 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.
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