DETAILED ACTION
The following is a Final Office action. In response to Non-Final communications received 8/21/2025, Applicant, on 11/20/2025, amended Claim 2, and added Claim 3. Claims 1-3 are pending in this action, with Claim 1 having been withdrawn. Claims 2 and 3 have been considered in full, and are rejected below.
Response to Arguments
Arguments regarding the Claims Objections – The objections are hereby removed in light of Applicant’s amendments which removed the language from the Claims.
Arguments regarding 35 USC §112(b) – The rejections are hereby removed in light of Applicant’s amendments which removed the language from the Claims.
Arguments regarding 35 USC §101 Alice – Applicant states the claims cannot be performed in the human mind, and similar to that of Example 42 there is a combination of elements that as a whole integrates the abstract limitations into a practical application by reciting a specific improvement over prior art system by allowing remote users to shar information in real time in a standardized format regardless of the format in which the information was input by the user, stating that the machine data is converted into readable form and then recorded in a local database. Applicant further states that the additional elements recite a specific improvement over prior art systems by allowing remote users to share machine data in real time in a standardized format regardless of the format in which the information was collected from the machine. Examiner disagrees as in the rejection below, the claims limitations and additional elements were taken both individually and in ordered combination, and the claims were found to have multiple abstract ideas that of a Mental Process and a Certain Method of Organizing Human Activity, which are not practically integrated nor are they significantly more, as the claims are not directed to an improvement in any additional element, combination of elements, a technology, or technological field, but rather recites claims directed at sending of reports and machine data to an email address. This can be done in the human mind, such as by sending notes, and there although there is support for the synchronization of a local and cloud database, there are no details in the specification which would lead anyone to believe that this is an improvement in technology. The claims as a whole do not improve any claimed addition element, such as local and cloud database which are synchronized for example, and the whole of the rest, including the amended limitations, are part of the abstraction, as per the rejection below, as they merely are collecting, analyzing, and transmitting steps which are observations, evaluations, and judgments and a Certain Method of Organizing Human Activity. These are not practically integrated, as the claim limitations merely utilize current technologies, such as the synchronization of the databases, to perform the abstract limitations of the claims, similar to that of Alice, essentially “Applying It”. There is no improvement to any technology or any technological process, and any inventive concept would be contained wholly within the abstraction.
Therefore, the arguments are non-persuasive, the Claims are ineligible as there is no inventive concept, and the rejection of the Claims and their dependents are maintained under 35 USC 101.
Arguments regarding 35 USC §103 – Applicant asserts the references do not teach “checking, by the mini computer, of the connection with the software every minute after the software connects to the system, converting of machine data received from the machine into a readable form and starting of storing of the machine data, recording of the machine data into a local database if the internet connection is lost, and synchronizing of the local database and a cloud database when the internet connection is restored” by stating that neither Sharp nor Hoffman does not disclose this. Sharpe teaches adding of the mini-computer, via the internet, manually and by a computer/processor as in [0048] where there are multiple computers with processors which are used in conjunction by the system. Hoffman teaches use of a virtual private network/VPN as in [0130] for the sending of emails and teach use of barcodes for processing of shipment of goods, such as raw materials, as in [0591-592] and checking of the connection with the controller software every minute after the software connects to the system, converting of machine data received from the machine into a readable form and starting of the storing of the machine data, recording of the machine data into a local database if the Internet connection is lost, and synchronizing of the local and cloud database when the Internet connection is restored as in [0339] where real time/minute by minute/second by second information is converted for the system and check for errors as in [0344-345] which is also in real time, and this is done to synchronize shared resources such as in a local database as in [1604]. This teaches the limitations of the Claims
Therefore, the arguments are non-persuasive, the combination of Sharpe and Hoffman teaches the amended limitations of the Claims, and the rejection of the Claims and their dependents are maintained under 35 USC 103.
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.
Alice – Claims 2 and 3 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Claim 2 is directed at limitations for checking of the connection with the controller software every minute after its installed software connects to the system, converting of the data received from the machine into a readable form and starting of the storing of the machine data, recording of such info (Collecting and Analyzing Information, an observation and evaluation, a Mental Process; Organizing and Tracking Information for a Fundamental Economic Process, i.e. calculating costs; a Certain Method of Organizing Human Activity), providing of user name and password to the user to enable logging in to the system (Collecting and Transmitting Information, an observation and judgment, a Mental Process; Organizing and Tracking Information for a Fundamental Economic Process, i.e. calculating costs; a Certain Method of Organizing Human Activity), directing of the user to the password creation page to allow him/her to set of his/her own password if he/she is logging in for the first time, and then introducing of the system with the system tutorial; monitoring, instantly by the user, of the status of the machine and being able to intervene if necessary, after completion of the above-mentioned steps (Collecting and Analyzing Information, an observation and evaluation, a Mental Process; Organizing and Tracking Information for a Fundamental Economic Process, i.e. calculating costs; a Certain Method of Organizing Human Activity), calculating of the cost of the product produced by the machine if the user has entered the raw material costs through the system (Analyzing the Information, an evaluation, a Mental Process; Organizing and Tracking Information for a Fundamental Economic Process, i.e. calculating costs; a Certain Method of Organizing Human Activity), having the opportunity, for the user, to see the historical data or create reports by specifying the time interval since the machine data is saved in the database on a minute-by-minute basis (Analyzing and Transmitting the Information, an evaluation and judgment, a Mental Process; Organizing and Tracking Information for a Fundamental Economic Process, i.e. calculating costs; a Certain Method of Organizing Human Activity), and sending of the generated reports or data to an e-mail address designated by the user (Transmitting the Information, a judgment, a Mental Process; Organizing and Tracking Information for a Fundamental Economic Process, i.e. calculating costs; a Certain Method of Organizing Human Activity), which under their broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind for the purposes of organizing and tracking information for generating reports, but for the recitation of generic computer components. That is, other than reciting machine which is connected to a system via an internet connection, a mini computer, a software which is installed to the machine to be connected to the system, a virtual private network, a barcode system or manually, a software's native database, and synchronizing of the local and cloud database when the Internet connection, nothing in the claim element precludes the step from practically being performed or read into the mind for the purposes of Organizing and Tracking information for Managing Human Behavior, i.e. transmitting reports. For example, sending of generating reports or data to a user about the monitored machines and costs to produce a product from those machines encompasses a person, manager, floor manager, supervisor, etc. who takes the raw materials cost and creates a report based on analyzing the information, an observation, evaluation, and judgment. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas, an observation, evaluation, and judgment. Further, as described above, the claims recite limitations for organizing and tracking information for a Commercial Interaction, a “Certain Method of Organizing Human Activity”. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim recites the above stated additional elements to perform the abstract limitations as above. The system, machines, mini computer, software, VPN, logging into a system of a user, and database are recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as a generic software/module performing a generic computer function of storing, retrieving, sending, and processing data) such that they amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components. Even if taken as an additional element, the receiving and transmitting steps above are insignificant extra-solution activity as these are receiving, storing, and transmitting data as per the MPEP 2106.05(d). Accordingly, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to an abstract idea.
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception, when considered both individually and as an ordered combination. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional element being used to perform the abstract limitations stated above amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components. Mere instructions to apply an exception using generic computer components cannot provide an inventive concept. The claim is not patent eligible. Applicant’s Specification states:
“Connecting of the mini computer (13) where the software is installed to the machine to be connected to the system;”
Which states that this mini computer runs software and is connected to the system, basically any type of processor, such as any personal computer, laptop, mobile phone, tablet, etc., to perform the abstract limitations, and from this interpretation, one would reasonably deduce the aforementioned steps are all functions that can be done on generic components, and thus application of an abstract idea on a generic computer, as per the Alice decision and not requiring further analysis under Berkheimer, but for edification the Applicant’s specification has been used as above satisfying any such requirement. This is “Applying It” by utilizing current technologies. For the receiving and storing steps that were considered extra-solution activity in Step 2A above, if they were to be considered additional elements, they have been re-evaluated in Step 2B and determined to be well-understood, routine, conventional, activity in the field. The background does not provide any indication that the additional elements, such as the mini computer, system, etc., nor the receiving and transmitting steps as above, are anything other than a generic, and the MPEP Section 2106.05(d) indicates that mere collection or receipt, storing, or transmission of data 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 not patent eligible.
Claim 3 contains the identified abstract ideas, further narrowing them such as selecting a program to be updated and starting updating the program in the PLC, Analyzing and Transmitting steps which are part of the abstraction, with the additional element of a PLC which is highly generalized when considered as part of a practical application or under prong 2 of the Alice analysis of the MPEP, thus not integrated into a practical application, nor are they significantly more for the same reasons and rationale as above.
After considering all claim elements, both individually and in combination, Examiner has determined that the claims are directed to the above abstract ideas and do not amount to significantly more. Therefore, the claims and dependent claims are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 as being directed to non-statutory subject matter. See Alice Corporation Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank International, No. 13–298.
Claims 2 and 3 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sharpe (U.S. Publication No. 2013/008,5812) in view of Hoffman (U.S. Publication No. 2003/005,0809).
Regarding Claim 2, Sharpe, a supply chain performance management tool for profiling a supply chain, teaches a method, the method comprises the following steps:
connecting of a mini computer where a software is installed to the machine to be connected to the system ([0039-40] and [0045] a processor (mini-computer) and computer are connected to a network to provide information in the form of reports which are presented to clients),
monitoring, instantly by the user, of the status of the machine and being able to intervene if necessary, after completion of the above-mentioned steps ([0040-41] the network and all services are monitored such as the machines as in [0089])
calculating of the cost of the product produced by the machine if the user has entered the raw material costs through the system ([0056] raw and processed materials, called SKUs in the reference, are use to calculate the costs as in [0059]);
having the opportunity, for the user, to see the historical data or create reports by specifying the time interval since the machine data is saved in the database on a minute-by-minute basis ([0087] desirable intervals are used for monitoring activities such as the machines as stated above); and
sending of the generated reports or data to an e-mail address designated by the user ([0078] reports are sent to email address via alerts to users).
Although Sharpe teaches adding of the mini-computer, via the internet, manually and by a computer/processor as in [0048] where there are multiple computers with processors which are used in conjunction by the system, as well as use of a username and password for authentication of a user and logging into a system as in [0069], but it does not teach to a VPN network, using a barcode, or the checking of a connection.
Hoffman, a system, method, and computer program product for providing real-time feedback on the accuracy of forecasting in a supply chain management architecture, teaches use of a virtual private network/VPN as in [0130] for the sending of emails and teach use of barcodes for processing of shipment of goods, such as raw materials, as in [0591-592].
directing of the user to a password creation page to allow him/her to set of his/her own password if he/she is logging in for the first time, and then introducing of the system with a system tutorial ([0576-578] a webpage is used for creation of an account and identification of a user);
Hoffman teaches checking of the connection with the controller software every minute after the software connects to the system, converting of machine data received from the machine into a readable form and starting of the storing of the machine data, recording of the machine data into a local database if the Internet connection is lost, and synchronizing of the local and cloud database when the Internet connection is restored ([0339] real time information is converted for the system and check for errors as in [0344-345] also in real time, and this is done to synchronize shared resources such as in a local database as in [1604].
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the use of processors and usernames of Sharpe with the username and password creation of Hoffman as they are both are analogous art along with the claimed invention which teach solutions to supply chain analysis, and the combination would lead to an improved system which would increase accuracy and reduce response time as taught in [0303] of Hoffman.
Regarding Claim 3, Sharpe teaches forwarding a port to the PLC ([0058] ports are enabled/forwarded).
Although Sharpe teaches a controller which enables a port and a program as above and in Claim 2, it does not explicitly state selecting and starting an update.
Hoffman teaches selecting a program to be update; and starting updating the program in the PLC as in [01442-1444] where an application session is updated, thus a program, which is selected.
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the use of processors and usernames of Sharpe with the username and password creation of Hoffman as they are both are analogous art along with the claimed invention which teach solutions to supply chain analysis, and the combination would lead to an improved system which would increase accuracy and reduce response time as taught in [0303] of Hoffman.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
US 20180330293 A1
Kulkarni; Raghavendra et al.
SYSTEM FOR MANAGING AN INDUSTRIAL WORKFLOW
US 20130085812 A1
Sharpe; Richard et al.
Supply Chain Performance Management Tool for Profiling A Supply Chain
US 20030050809 A1
Hoffman, George Harry et al.
System, method and computer program product for providing real-time feedback on the accuracy of forecasting in a supply chain management architecture
US 20250259123 A1
Hertz; Benjamin J. et al.
OPERATIONAL REASONING SYSTEM AND METHOD
US 20210133607 A1
Stubbs; Mark et al.
SYSTEMS AND METHODS FOR SELF-LEARNING ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE OF THINGS (AIOT) DEVICES AND SERVICES
US 20200103894 A1
Cella; Charles Howard et al.
METHODS AND SYSTEMS FOR DATA COLLECTION, LEARNING, AND STREAMING OF MACHINE SIGNALS FOR COMPUTERIZED MAINTENANCE MANAGEMENT SYSTEM USING THE INDUSTRIAL INTERNET OF THINGS
US 20110040660 A1
Allison; Damon R. et al.
Monitoring And Management Of Lost Product
US 20090248481 A1
Dick; Mischa et al.
System and Method for Collecting Revenue
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JOSEPH M WAESCO whose telephone number is (571)272-9913. The examiner can normally be reached on 8 AM - 5 PM M-F.
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 on (571) 272-6737. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-1348.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see https://ppair-my.uspto.gov/pair/PrivatePair. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/JOSEPH M WAESCO/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3683 12/24/2025