DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claims 1, 8 and 15 have been amended pending. Claims 1-20 are pending.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more.
Claims 1-7 are drawn to a method for ordering biological material such as blood, which is within the four statutory categories (i.e. process), Claims 8-14 are drawn to one or more non-transitory computer readable data storage media for ordering biological material such as a blood, which is within the four statutory categories (i.e. manufacture), and Claims 15-20 are drawn to a system for ordering biological material such as a blood, which is within the four statutory categories (i.e. machine) (Examiner notes that as claim 14 recites a processor, there is structure to the claim system).
Claim 1 recites:
receiving a biological material order at a computing device over a network (MPEP § 2106.05(f), apply it), the biological material order being associated with an order facility and specifying demand biological material units;
identifying a plurality of suppliers each having one or more supply biological material units;
identifying one or more groups within the plurality of suppliers, wherein each of the one or more groups corresponds to a rating indicating an ability to fulfill the biological material order based on a comparison of the demand biological material units with the one or more supply biological material units available at each of the plurality of suppliers; and
selecting a particular supplier from the group with a highest rating corresponding to the group of the plurality of suppliers that is a best match for the biological material order; and
generating an order corresponding to the selected supplier, the order including the demand for biological material units for fulfillment, the selected supplier filling the biological material order by shipping the demand biological material units to the order facility based on the best match.
The bolded limitations, given the broadest reasonable interpretation, cover a certain method of organizing human activity because it recites fundamental economic practices, commercial or legal interactions, and/or managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people. Any limitations not identified above as part of the method of organizing human activity are deemed “additional elements,” and will be discussed in further detail below. Claim 8 recites the additional elements of one or more non-transitory computer-readable data storage media comprising instructions that, when executed by at least one processor of a computing system… (MPEP § 2106.05(f), apply it) and Claim 15 recites at least one processor…(MPEP § 2106.05(f), apply it).
The dependent claims, claims 2-7, 9-14 and 16-20 further limit the abstract idea itself and do not contain any additional elements beyond those recited in independent claims 1, 8 and 15.
Furthermore, Claims 1-20 are not integrated into a practical application because the additional elements (i.e. the limitations not identified as part of the abstract idea) amount to no more than limitations which amount to mere instructions to apply an exception – for example, the recitation of computer-readable storage media, computing unit, and computing system, which amounts to merely invoking a computer as a tool to perform the abstract idea, e.g. see paragraphs [0050-0051] of the present Specification, see MPEP 2106.05(f).
Furthermore, the Claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to “significantly more” than the judicial exception because, the additional elements (i.e. the elements other than the abstract idea) amount to no more than limitations which:
amount to elements that have been recognized as well-understood, routine, and conventional activity in particular fields, as demonstrated by:
The Specification expressly disclosing that the additional elements are well-understood, routine, and conventional in nature:
paragraphs [0050-0051] of the Specification discloses that the additional elements (i.e. non-transitory computer-readable storage media, processor, computing system) comprise a plurality of different types of generic computing systems that are configured to perform generic computer functions (i.e. receiving data over a network, TLI Communications LLC v. AV Auto. LLC as discussed in MPEP 2106.05(d(II)) that are well-understood, routine, and conventional activities previously known to the pertinent industry (i.e. ordering supplies/healthcare).
Thus, taken alone, the additional elements do not amount to “significantly more” than the above-identified abstract idea. Furthermore, looking at the limitations as an ordered combination adds nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually, and there is no indication that the combination of elements improves the functioning of a computer or improves any other technology, and their collective functions merely provide conventional computer implementation.
Therefore, whether taken individually or as an ordered combination, Claims 1-20 are nonetheless rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 as being directed to non-statutory subject matter.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 03/10/2026 have been fully considered.
Claim Rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 101
Applicant traverses the section 101 rejection asserting that the “generating an order corresponding to the selected supplier, the order including the demand biological material units for fulfilment, the selected supplier filling the biological material order by shipping the demand biological material units to the order facility based on the best match” limitation of the independent claim demonstrates a practical application because of the additional elements recited in the claim (Remarks, pages 7-8). Examiner maintains that these limitations are part of the abstract idea. Shipping the order is part of the activity between the supplier and order facility, and thus part of the abstract idea. The abstract idea cannot be used to integrate itself into a practical application. The additional elements recited in the claim, including a computing device, non-transitory computer-readable data storage media, processor and computing system, do not result in a practical application as indicated in the above rejection. The a computing device, non-transitory computer-readable data storage media, processor and computing system are not improved as a result of the claimed invention.
Additionally, MPEP § 2106.04(d)(I) states limitations that the courts have found indicative of an additional element (or combination of elements) may have integrated the exception into a practical application include:
An improvement in the functioning of a computer, or an improvement to other technology or technical field, as discussed in MPEP §§ 2106.04(d)(1) and 2106.05(a);
Applying or using a judicial exception to effect a particular treatment or prophylaxis for a disease or medical condition, as discussed in MPEP § 2106.04(d)(2);
Implementing a judicial exception with, or using a judicial exception in conjunction with, a particular machine or manufacture that is integral to the claim, as discussed in MPEP § 2106.05(b);
Effecting a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing, as discussed in 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, as discussed in MPEP § 2106.05(e).
There is nothing in the present claims to suggest that the additional elements (including a computing device, network, one or more non-transitory computer-readable data storage media comprising instructions that, when executed by at least one processor of a computing system, or at least one processor) result in a practical application.
Applicant further asserts that the “ordered combination is not simply generic data gathering and output” and that the claims require “a comparison of demanded vs. supplier-available biological material units, grouping suppliers according to a rating indicating ability to fulfill based on that comparison, selection from the highest-rated group that is the best match, generating an order including the demanded units, and fulfillment by shipping the demanded units to the order facility based on the best match.” These limitations are part of the abstract idea. The ordered combination analysis considers the additional elements as an ordered combination. Here, as in Mayo, “’the computer components … ‘[a]dd nothing … that is not already present when the steps are considered separately’’ and simply recite intermediated settlement as performed by a generic computer.” 573 U.S. at 225 (citing Mayo, 566 U.S. at 79, 101 USPQ2d at 1972). See MPEP § 2106.05(I)(B).
Therefore, the claims remain rejected as being directed towards ineligible subject matter.
Conclusion
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 Rachelle Reichert whose telephone number is (303)297-4782. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9-5 MT.
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, Jason Dunham can be reached on (571)272-8109. 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.
/RACHELLE L REICHERT/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3686
Prosecution Insights