DETAILED ACTION
This non-final office action is in response to Applicant’s amendment and request for continued examination filed February 19, 2026. Applicant’s February 19th amendment amended claims 1, 8 and 15. Claims 1-20 are pending. Claims 1, 8 and 15 are the independent claims.
The instant application is a continuation of application no. 16700390 now U.S. Patent No. 11875289.
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 February 19, 20926 has been entered.
Response to Amendment
The Objection to the Title in the previous office action is maintained.
The 35 U.S.C. 101 rejection of claims 1-20 in the previous office action is maintained.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed February 19, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Specifically, Applicant argues that the claims are patent eligible under 35 U.S.C. 101 as the claims integrate the abstract idea into a practical application (e.g. supply chain optimization is computationally intensive; addresses manual re-solving - particular use of computers to solve supply chain planning problems which cannot be practically performed mentally; re-solve supply chain problem when few changes occurring – computational requirements for re-solving; improvement in processing time in particular for supply chain optimization; scan RFID tags, instruct automated machinery/robotic warehouse system; Specification: Paragraphs 3, 21, 25, 38, 42, 43, 117; Figure 12A; Remarks: Last Paragraph, Page 11; Pages 12, 16; Paragraphs 1-3, Page 17); and the claims are similar to DDR (e.g. not merely performing generic supply chain planning, solving a problem arising from the use of computer systems performing supply chain optimization; instructing automated machinery to produce parts, instruct robotic warehouse system to adjust inventory levels; Remarks: Last Two Paragraphs, Page 17; Page 18); and the claims are similar to the recent Dejardinis et al. decision (Remarks: Page 18).
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.
As argued by Applicant the claims are directed to the well-known economic practice of supply chain plan optimization as well as a mental process capable of being performed by a human mind. More specifically, the claims are directed to updating the solution to a supply chain planning problem related to lateable and non-lateable demand, wherein supply chain planning is a fundamental economic practice that falls into the abstract idea subcategories of sales activities and/or commercial interactions. The identified non-abstract elements are directed to generic computing components and include: system, computer, computer readable medium embodied with software, radio receiver/transmitter. These generic computing components are merely used to obtain/receive and process information as described extensively in Applicant’s specification (Specification: Figure 1; Paragraphs 25-28). 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 supply chain planning in the general field of business management and would not provide significantly more than the judicial exception itself.
The steps directed to instructing automated machinery to produce products and instruct robotic warehouse systems to adjust inventory levels are directed to insignificant extra solution activity (data output – merely instructions) and at best represents an insignificant application see at least MPEP § 2106.05(f) (e.g. “other machinery merely as a tool to perform an existing process; Versata Development Group v. SAP America, 793 F.3d 1306, 1335, 115 USPQ2d 1681, 1702 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (explaining that in order for a machine to add significantly more, it must “play a significant part in permitting the claimed method to be performed, rather than function solely as an obvious mechanism for permitting a solution to be achieved more quickly”) and see at least MPEP 2106.05(g) (e.g. Cutting hair after first determining the hair style, In re Brown, 645 Fed. App'x 1014, 1016-1017 (Fed. Cir. 2016)).
That the automated machinery is configured to produce the products according to the updated solution and that the robotic warehouse system is configured to adjust the inventory levels of products at one or more stocking points does not require that the products are actually produced nor that the inventory levels are actually adjusted. The claims merely require/recite configuring the automated machinery and robotic warehouse systems to be configured to apply the results of the abstract idea. Additionally, even if the products are produced and the inventory is adjusted these steps are merely an insignificant application of the abstract idea – a well-known, conventional and routine application of the abstract idea (supply chain optimization – inventory management).
Each of the ‘automated machinery’ and generic ‘robotic warehouse systems’ are used for their well-known, conventional, routine and widely prevalent purpose. See MPEP 2106.05(d). The ‘automated machinery’ and generic ‘robotic warehouse systems’ are both disclosed and claimed at a high level such that it amounts to using a generic computer/processor to apply the abstract idea using generic ‘automated machinery’ and generic ‘robotic warehouse systems’. The limitation only recites outcomes/results without any details as to how the outcomes are accomplished. See MPEP 2106.05(f)(1)
Further neither Applicant’s claims nor Applicant’s disclosure disclose specific, unique, unconventional automated machinery or robotic warehouse systems. Applicant’s disclosure fails to disclose or provide any details related to instructing such generic non-specifically disclosed automated machinery or robotic warehouse systems therefore the automated machinery/robotic warehouse system and the claimed method of instructing the automated machinery and/or robotic warehouse systems are generic technology element used for their conventional, routine, well-known purposes (e.g. no technical improvement to either the generic machinery or robotic warehouse systems).
The last two method step have been added merely as an attempt to overcome the pending rejection under 35 U.S.C. 101 by adding well-known, conventional and routine method steps and automated machinery and robotic warehouse systems found in nearly all supply chains.
Additionally, the claims are directed to a mental processing practically capable of being performed in the human mind via observation, evaluation, judgement and opinion. Representative claim 1: The step of scan an RFID tag may be performed by a human mind by observation of data. The step of adding a new non-lateable demand may be performed in the human mind by judgement and opinion. The step of changing a demand priority may be performed in the human mind by judgement, evaluation and opinion. The step of changing a demand quantity may be performed in the human mind by judgement and evaluation. The step of changing a demand need date may be performed in the human mind by judgement and evaluation. The step of adding a new lateable demand may be performed in the human mind by judgement and opinion. The step of performing at least one of adding work in progress OR changing a work in progress quantity OR changing a work in progress data may be performed in the human mind by judgement and evaluation. The step of update the solution may be performed in the human mind by judgement and opinion. The step of instruct automated machinery to produce may be performed in the human mind by evaluation and opinion and at best may represent automation of a well-known manual production methods. The step of instruct robotic warehouse systems to adjust inventory levels may be performed in the human mind by evaluation and opinion and at best may represent automation of a well-known manual production methods. See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2), subsection III.
Other than the recitation of a system, computer, computer readable medium embodied with software, radio receiver/transmitter 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 system, computer, computer readable medium embodied with software, radio receiver/transmitter are each recited at a high level of generality and amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer. See MPEP 2106.05(f). Further the mere nominal recitation of a generic computer does not take the claim limitation out of the mental processes grouping. The claims use “conventional or generic technology in a nascent but well-known environment” to implement the abstract idea of “supply chain optimization/planning”. In re TLI Commc’ns LLC Pat. Litig., 823 F.3d 607, 612 (Fed. Cir. 2016). The recited technology (system, computer, computer readable medium embodied with software, radio receiver/transmitter, 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 scan RFID tag step which is considered insignificant pre-solution activity (data gathering) and reevaluating the instruct automated machine step and instruct robotic warehouse systems step which are considered insignificant extra solution activity, these limitations are merely directed to data input or data output recited at a high level of generality and amount to nothing more than inputting or outputting data from a generic computer which is 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.
While the claims may represent an improvement to the fundamental economic process of supply chain planning/optimization, 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, improve another technical field, improve the functioning of a computer or computer network, or the like).
As for the argued benefits of solving supply chain optimization that is computationally intensive; resolving supply chain planning problem may take as much time to solve as the initial problem; uses solution information from previous solving run of multi-objective hierarchical LPP to increase efficiency of solving subsequent runs (Specification: Paragraphs 3, 21, 38, 42, 43) these wished-for benefits are at best directed to improvements in the abstract idea itself and do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Computers are commonly, routine and conventionally used to solve computationally intensive supply chain planning/optimization problems. Computers are commonly, routine and conventionally used to iteratively solve multi-objective hierarchical LPP (well-known mathematical operation).
Specifically argued Specification Paragraph 3, merely discloses that re-solving supply chain problems may take as much time an solving the initial supply chain planning problem. This paragraph fails to disclose how re-solving a supply chain planning problem may take less time or specifically disclose what or whose solution time maybe reduced. This paragraph, at best, discloses a wished-for benefit of the disclosed invention. This paragraph does not disclose an improvement in an underlying technology or technical field. This paragraph fails to disclose a technical solution to a technical problem. This paragraph fails to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application.
With regards to Specification Paragraph 21, this paragraph discloses the well-known mathematical concept/operations of utilizing solution from a previous run/iteration to inform and/or increase the ‘efficiency’ of subsequent solution/optimization runs. This paragraph fails to disclose what efficiency is improved or how the increase efficiency is actually achieved. This paragraph, at best, discloses a wished-for benefit of the disclosed invention. This paragraph does not disclose an improvement in an underlying technology or technical field. This paragraph fails to disclose a technical solution to a technical problem. This paragraph fails to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application.
With regards to Specification Paragraph 25, this paragraph merely discloses the well-known use of conventional, commercially available imaging devices including sensors and these sensors may be used to identify/determine the location of items which may then be used to coordinate/allocate items in a supply chain network. This paragraph does not disclose an improvement in an underlying technology or technical field. This paragraph fails to disclose a technical solution to a technical problem. This paragraph fails to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. This paragraph does not disclose an improvement in the functioning of a computer.
While Specification Paragraph 38, discloses at a very high level of generality that the invention may reallocate inventory by instructing automated machinery (robotic warehouse systems) to adjust product mix rations, inventory levels, etc. this paragraph, like the remainder of Applicant’s disclosure, fails to disclose at any level improvements to the underlying technology (e.g. robotic warehouse systems) or another technical field. This paragraph merely discloses the use of well-known widely available equipment/machinery to perform well-known and widely practiced supply chain/inventory management tasks/actions. This paragraph does not disclose an improvement in an underlying technology or technical field. This paragraph fails to disclose a technical solution to a technical problem. This paragraph does not disclose an inventive concept and the generic robotic warehouse systems are used for the well-known, conventional and routine purpose (i.e. fails to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application).
Specification Paragraph 42 discloses that supply chain input data may include various variable, business constraints, objectives, goals, and the like. This paragraph does not disclose an improvement in an underlying technology or technical field. This paragraph fails to disclose a technical solution to a technical problem. This paragraph does not disclose an improvement in the functioning of a computer.
Specification Paragraph 43 discloses that the data model represents flow of materials through supply chain entities (e.g. each edge may represent the flow, transportation or assembly of materials between the modes by production processing or transportation). The use of data models (e.g. graphs having nodes and edges) to represent a supply chain is well-known, conventional and routine. This paragraph does not disclose an improvement in an underlying technology or technical field. This paragraph fails to disclose a technical solution to a technical problem. This paragraph does not disclose an improvement in the functioning of a computer.
As for Applicant’s argument that manages computer resources efficiently (Specification: Paragraph 117, below), the examiner disagrees and encourages Applicant to specifically detail which method steps improve what specific computer resource efficiencies (e.g. what method steps improve memory usage? What method steps improve the functioning of a computer?). Paragraph 117/Figure 12A merely discloses that various runs (mathematical calculations performed by the LPP – not positively claimed) involving various datasets (presumably different) result in run time improvements. Examiner suggest Applicant more clearly map the claimed method steps to the various datasets and runs and methods detailed in Figure 12A/Paragraph 117. This paragraph does not disclose an improvement in the functioning of a computer.
[00117] As may be seen by referring to the illustrated embodiment, method 900 was 1.65 times faster than method 400 when solving demand addition 1222 in the first dataset, while method 1100 was 7.59 times faster than method 400. In seventeen of eighteen trials, method 900 and method 1100 were faster than method 400. Method 900 took less than 6% of the run time of method 400 in thirteen of the eighteen trials. Method 1100 took less than 20% of the run time of method 400 in seventeen of the eighteen trials. In fourteen out of eighteen trials, method 900 was faster than method 1100 when solving the exemplary multi-objective hierarchical LPP. However, in four of the eighteen trials, method 1100 was faster than method 900.
With regards to Applicant’s argument that the claimed invention takes into account the limitations of the computer system to res-solve a supply chain planning problem when few changes occur in view of the computational requirements of re-solving the supply chain planning problem, the examiner respectfully disagrees. As discussed above there are no specific claim limitations or supporting disclosure for Applicant’s assertion that the invention as claimed or as disclosed improves the functioning of the underlying computer/processor or other technical components. More specifically, neither the claims nor Applicant’s disclosure supports Applicant’s assertion that the invention takes into account limitations of computer systems to re-solve supply chain planning problem when few changes occur in view of computational requirements. Applicant’s disclosure, in particular none of the argued paragraphs, support Applicant’s assertion that the claims improve the functioning of a computer, provide a technical solution to a technical problem or improve another technical field.
With regards to the newly amended step of "update the solution to the supply chain planning problem in response to one or more changes to the supply chain problem to reduce the computer solve time", this amended is directed to a wished-for benefit/result as well as non-functional descriptive material. As discussed above Applicant’s argument and disclosure fail to specifically discuss or argue what, if any of the method steps, lead to the wished for benefit of reducing computer solve time. At best the ‘to reduce computer solve time” may represent an improvement in abstract idea itself or at beast in an improvement in the claimed mathematical operations. Support for this may be found see Paragraphs 71 and 72 of the application as published.
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 claims 1, 8 and 15 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., system, computer, computer readable medium embodied with software, radio receiver/transmitter) 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 an abstract idea.
Step Two of the Mayo/Alice Framework
Having determined under step one of the Mayo/Alice framework that the claims are directed to an abstract idea, we next consider under Step 2B of the Guidance, the second step of the Mayo/Alice framework, whether the claims include additional elements or a combination of elements that provides an “inventive concept,” i.e., whether an additional element or combination of elements adds specific limitations beyond the judicial exception that are not “well-understood, routine, conventional activity” in the field (which is indicative that an inventive concept is present) or simply appends well-understood, routine, conventional activities previously known to the industry to the judicial exception.
Under step two of the Mayo/Alice framework, the elements of each claim are considered both individually and “as an ordered combination” to determine whether the additional elements, i.e., the elements other than the abstract idea itself, “transform the nature of the claim” into a patent-eligible application. Alice Corp., 573 U.S. at 217 (citation omitted); see Mayo, 566 U.S. at 72-73 (requiring that “a process that focuses upon the use of a natural law also contain other elements or a combination of elements, sometimes referred to as an ‘inventive concept,’ sufficient to ensure that the patent in practice amounts to significantly more than a patent upon the natural law itself’ (emphasis added) (citation omitted)).
Here the only additional element recited in claims 1, 8 and 15 beyond the abstract idea are the system, computer, computer readable medium embodied with software, radio receiver/transmitter” 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.
Under MPEP2106, the claims are evaluated to determine if additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application (see Manual of Patent Examining Procedure ("MPEP") §§ 2106.05(a)-(c), (e)- (h)). A claim that integrates a judicial exception into a practical application applies, relies on, or uses the judicial exception in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on the judicial exception, such that the claim is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the judicial exception.
For example, limitations that are indicative of "integration into a practical application" include:
Improvements to the functioning of a computer, or to any other technology or technical field - see MPEP § 2106.05(a);
Applying the judicial exception with, or by use of, a particular machine - see MPEP § 2106.05(b);
Effecting a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing - see MPEP § 2106.05(c); and
Applying or using the judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment, such that the claim as a whole is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception - see MPEP § 2106.05(e).
In contrast, limitations that are not indicative of "integration into a practical application" include:
Adding the words "apply it" (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or merely include instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea - see MPEP § 2106.05(±);
Adding insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception- see MPEP § 2106.05(g); and
Generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use - see MPEP 2106.05(h).
("Prong Two").
In view of MPEP2106, 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 system, computer, computer readable medium embodied with software, radio receiver/transmitter. As discussed above the automated machinery is outside the scope of the claims as the claims do not positively recite that the automated machinery actually receives or subsequently executes the instructions. These generic computer elements merely performs generic computer functions of processing and providing data and represent a purely conventional implementation of applicant’s supply chain planning in the general field of business management and do not represent significantly more than the abstract idea. See at least MPEP § 2106.05(a) ("Improvements to the Functioning of a Computer or to Any Other Technology or Technical Field").
These recited additional elements are merely generic computer components. The claims do present any other issues as set forth in MPEP 2106 regarding a determination of whether the additional generic elements integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. Rather, the claims merely use instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely use a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea.
The claims do not recite improvements to the functioning of a computer or any other technology field (MPEP 2106.05(a)), the claims do not apply or use the abstract idea to effect a particular treatment or prophylaxis for a disease or medical condition, the claims to do apply the abstract idea with a particular machine (MPEP 2106.05(b)), the claims do not effect a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing (e.g. data remains data even after processing; MPEP 2106.05(c)), the claims no not apply or use the abstract idea in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the user of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment (i.e. a generic computer) such that the claim as a whole is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the abstract idea (MPEP 2106.05(e)). The recited generic computing elements are no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Accordingly, this additional element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
Thus, under Step 2A, Prong Two (MPEP §§ 2106.05(a)-(c) and (e)- (h)), the claims do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Accordingly, the claims are not patent eligible under 35 U.S.C. 101.
In response to Applicant’s arguments that the claims are similar to the claims in the DDR Holdings V Hotels.com board decision, the examiner respectfully disagrees.
In DDR Holdings, the Federal Circuit, applying the Alice analytical framework, upheld the validity of DDR’s patent on its webpage display technology. The court found that "the claimed solution is necessarily rooted in computer technology in order to overcome a problem specifically arising in the realm of computer networks." Further that the invention established an "inventive concept" for resolving an Internet-centric problem.
The instant application is directed to supply chain planning/optimization, more specifically instructing automated machinery to product products according to an updated solution and instructing robotic warehouse systems to adjust inventory levels wherein the updated solution to a supply chain planning problem is related to lateable and non-lateable demand. While the claims may represent an improvement to the business process of supply chain solution optimization and/or inventory management the claims do not alone provide a solution to a problem that is necessarily rooted in computer technology in order to overcome a problem arising in the realm of computer networks as is the case in DDR. The claims do not recite a computer network of any kind much alone provide a solution to a problem that is necessarily rooted in computer technology in order to overcome a problem arising in the realm of computer networks. Business (people) have solved, iteratively solved, and updated solutions to supply chain planning solutions well prior to the advent of computers, computer technology or computer networks.
As also discussed in Uniloc USA, Inc. v. LG Electronics USA, Appeal No. 19-1835 (Fed. Cir. Apr. 30, 2020), the Federal Circuit reaffirmed that software inventions are patentable in the U.S. with a bright-line statement: “Our precedent is clear that software can make patent-eligible improvements to computer technology, and related claims are eligible as long as they are directed to non-abstract improvements to the functionality of a computer or network platform itself.” Neither Applicant’s claimed or disclosed invention recites or discloses improvements to the functionality of a computer or network platform itself, accordingly the claims do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application.
Accordingly, the claims are not similar to those found patentable in the DDR Holdings V. Hotels.com decision and are therefore 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”.
In sharp contrast to Dejardinis et al., the instant application fails to disclose machine learning/artificial intelligence of any kind much alone disclose or claim improvements to how machine learning/artificial intelligence itself operates.
Accordingly, the claims are nothing like those in the Desjardins et al. decision and are therefore not patent eligible under 35 U.S.C. 101.
Specification
The title of the invention is not descriptive. A new title is required that is clearly indicative of the invention to which the claims are directed.
The following title is suggested: System and Method for Generating Supply Chain Problem Solutions Lateable and Non-Lateable Demand Accounting for Work In Progress or System and Method for Maintaining Primal Feasibility for Lateable and Non-Lateable Supply Chain Demand or Inventory Management System and Method Utilizing Multi-Objective Hierarchical Linear Programing for Lateable and Non-Lateable Demand or the like.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more.
Regarding independent Claims 1, 8 and 15, the claims are directed to the abstract idea of supply chain planning (solving supply chain planning problem). 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, supply chain planning (Judicial Exception – Yes – organizing human activity). Specifically, the claims are directed to updating the solution to a supply chain planning problem related to lateable and non-lateable demand, instructing machinery to product products based on the updated solution and instructing robotic warehouse systems to adjust inventory levels, wherein supply chain 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 “scan”, “adding”, “changing”, “changing”, “changing”, “adding”, “adding” or “changing”, “changing”, “updating”, “instruct”, “instruct”, “produce”, and “adjust” recite functions of the supply chain planning (i.e. updating a supply chain solution) are also directed to an abstract idea that falls into the abstract idea subcategories of sales activities and/or commercial interactions. The steps of add a corresponding new variable, change a corresponding objective coefficient, change a corresponding upper bound, and change at least a corresponding objective coefficient are also directed to an abstract idea because they are mathematical concepts/operations. The intended purpose of independent claims 1, 8 and 15 appears to be directed to inventory management or more specifically updating a supply chain plan/solution and then instructing automated machinery to produce products based on an updated solution associated with lateable demand and instructing robotic warehouse systems to adjust inventory levels of the products at one or more stocking points (i.e. apply the abstract idea – implement the updated solution).
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: system, computer, computer readable medium embodied with software, and radio receiver/transmitter.
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: system, computer, computer readable medium embodied with software, radio receiver/transmitter. These generic computing components are merely used to obtain/receive and process data as described extensively in Applicant’s specification (Specification: Figure 1; Paragraphs 25-28). 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 supply chain planning (e.g. inventory management) in the general field of business management and would not provide significantly more than the judicial exception itself. Note McRo, Inc. v. Bandai Namco Games America Inc. (837 F.3d 1299 (Fed. Cir. 2016)), guides: "[t]he abstract idea exception prevents patenting a result where 'it matters not by what process or machinery the result is accomplished."' 837 F.3d at 1312 (quoting O'Reilly v. Morse, 56 U.S. 62, 113 (1854)) (emphasis added). The claims are not directed to a particular machine nor do they recite a particular transformation (MPEP § 2106.05(b)).
Additionally, the claims do not recite any specific claim limitations that would provide a meaningful limitation beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment. Nor do the claims present any other issues as set forth in MPEP2016 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. Thus, under Step 2A, Prong Two (MPEP §§ 2106.05(a)-(c) and (e)- (h)), claims 1-20 do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. Regarding the use of the generic (known, conventional) recited system, computer, computer readable medium embodied with software, radio receiver/transmitter," 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, 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.
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 adding a new non-lateable demand and corresponding new variable, change a demand priority, changing a demand quantity and corresponding upper bound, change a demand need date and corresponding objective coefficient, adding a new lateable demand and corresponding new constraint, adding or changing work in progress, update the solution, produce the products and adjust the inventory levels all describe the abstract idea. The claims do not recite additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the abstract idea because the step(s) of scan an RFID tag is directed to insignificant pre-solution activity (i.e. data gathering). The step of instructing automated machinery to produce products is directed to insignificant extra solution activity (i.e. insignificant post-solution activity, data output – merely instructions - data). The step of instructing robotic warehouse systems to adjust inventory levels is directed to insignificant extra solution activity (i.e. insignificant post-solution activity, data output – merely instructions - data). Nothing in the claims require the products to actually be produced (i.e. production of products is outside the scope of the claims) or require that the inventory is actually adjusted (i.e. adjusting inventory levels using robotic warehouse systems is outside the scope of the claims) – the automated machinery is merely configured to produce the products and the robotic warehouse system is configured to adjust the inventory levels. The step of instructing robotic warehouse systems to adjust inventory levels is directed to insignificant extra solution activity (i.e. insignificant post-solution activity, data output – merely instructions - data). The claims do not positively recite that the robotic warehouse systems actually receive or execute the instructions. Nothing in the claims require the products to be products or the inventory levels of the products at the one or more stocking points to actually be adjusted (i.e. inventory adjustments are outside the scope of the claims). At best the steps of configuring the automated machinery to produce the products and/or configuring robotic warehouse systems to adjust the inventory levels are an necessary application of the abstract idea (i.e. merely applying the updated supply chain planning problem solution).
These limitations as drafted are directed to a process that under its reasonable interpretation covers performance of the steps in the mind but for the recitation of the generic computer components.
Other than the recitation of a system, computer, computer readable medium embodied with software, radio receiver/transmitter 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 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 system, computer, computer readable medium embodied with software, radio receiver/transmitter are recited at a high level of generality merely performs generic computer functions of receiving and processing data. The generic processor 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.
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. Applicant’s specification does not provide any indication that the computer/processor is anything other than a generic, off-the-shelf computer component, and the Symantec, TLI, and OIP Techs. court decisions (MPEP 2106.05(d)(II)) indicate that mere collection or receipt of data over a network is a well‐understood, routine, and conventional function when it is claimed in a merely generic manner (as it is here). For these reasons, there is no inventive concept. The claim is ineligible (Provide Inventive Concept – No).
The claims are ineligible under 35 U.S.C. 101 as being directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Regarding dependent claims 2-7, 9-14 and 16-20, the claims are directed to the abstract idea of supply chain planning and merely further limit the abstract idea claimed in independent claims 1, 8 and 15.
Claims 2, 9 and 16 further limits the abstract idea by map one or more mathematical constraints, one or more objectives and one or more bounds to one or more mathematical expressions (a more detailed abstract idea remains an abstract idea). Claims 3, 10 and 17 further limit the abstract idea by using an optimal basis and list one or more generated variables (a more detailed abstract idea remains an abstract idea). Claims 4, 11 and 18 further limit the abstract idea wherein optimal basis is duel and primal feasible (a more detailed abstract idea remains an abstract idea). Claims 5, 12 and 19 further limit the abstract idea by adding a new demand, changing corresponding objective coefficient for existing demand and change a new quantity (a more detailed abstract idea remains an abstract idea). Claims 6, 13 and 20 further limit the abstract idea by setting a new constraint at a lower bound and setting a variable to the new constraint (a more detailed abstract idea remains an abstract idea). Claims 7 and 14 further limit the abstract idea by updating the solution according to an order change received (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 1-20, Applicant’s specification discloses that the claimed elements directed to a system, computer, computer readable medium embodied with software, radio receiver/transmitter at best merely comprise generic computer hardware which is commercially available (Specification: Paragraphs 25-28). 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. system, 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 computer implemented method is at best recite generic, well-known hardware. However, the recited generic hardware simply performs generic computer function of storing, accessing, displaying or processing data. Generic computers performing generic, well known computer functions, alone, do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. Further the recited memories are part of every conventional general-purpose computer.
Applicant has not demonstrated that a special purpose machine/computer is required to carry out the claimed invention. A special purpose machine is now evaluated as part of the significantly more analysis established by the Alice decision and current 35 U.S.C. 101 guidelines. It involves/requires more than a machine only broadly applying the abstract idea and/or performing conventional functions.
Applicant’s specification discloses that the claimed elements directed to a system, computer, computer readable medium embodied with software, radio receiver/transmitter merely comprise generic computer hardware which is commercially available (Specification: Paragraphs 25-28; Figure 1). 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.
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