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 .
Response to Amendment
The amendment filed March 6, 2026 has been entered. Claims 1-4, 6-7, 9-13, 15-16, and 18-21 remain pending in the application.
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, 6-7, 9-13, 15-16, and 18-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Independent claims 1 and 10 each recite a method of organizing human activity because each of the claims recite a method that includes acquiring product information regarding each of a plurality of included products included in a target product from a plurality of suppliers in a supply chain, the product information including a predetermined traceability item for each respective one of the included products, the predetermined traceability item including a least a CO2 emission amount; storing the product information in dedicated storage areas where each of the dedicated storage areas is a distinctive logical area on a hardware memory with separate access authority set so that each dedicated storage area is accessible only by a respective one of the suppliers; acquiring a linking request from a terminal of a downstream supplier logging into the information processing device and selecting an upstream product of an upstream supplier as a linking target when a list of products is presented to an operator of the terminal of the downstream supplier for selection; upon acquiring the linking request from the terminal of the downstream supplier: determining whether permission information permitting the downstream supplier to access pieces of the product information of the upstream supplier has been received from the terminal of the upstream supplier; upon determining that the permission information has been received from the terminal of the upstream supplier, copying only the pieces of the product information identified in the permission information from the dedicated storage area of the upstream supplier to a shared storage area that is another distinctive logical area on the hardware memory with separate access authority set so as to be accessible by both the downstream and upstream suppliers, wherein pieces of the product information of the upstream supplier that are not identified in the permission information are not copied to the shared storage area; generating a product tree linking a downstream product of the downstream supplier with the upstream product of the upstream supplier, which was the linking target in the linking request using the pieces of the product information stored in the shared storage area, wherein the downstream product is a parent node and the upstream product is a child node; transmitting the generated product tree to the terminal of the downstream supplier; while the product tree is displayed on the terminal of the downstream supplier, receive a selection input selecting one product included in the product tree; and in response to the selection input, cause the product tree to be displayed along with the predetermined traceability item of the selected product, wherein the predetermined traceability item of the selected product is an aggregate of the predetermined traceability items of the selected product and each upstream product of the selected product; determining whether a predetermined target value for the predetermined traceability item of the target product located at a most downstream end of the product tree has been achieved based on an aggregate of the predetermined traceability items of each upstream product of the target product in the product tree; upon determining that the predetermined target value has not been achieved, specifying at least one first product whose predetermined traceability item is to be improved from among the included products of the product tree; and outputting an improvement request to a terminal of a supplier of the first product, requesting improvement of the predetermined traceability item for the first product, wherein: specifying the at least one first product from among the included products includes specifying the first product based on a predetermined priority order of improvement requests for the included products, and the priority order of the predetermined improvement requests is set such that an included product that has a large degree of influence on a value of the predetermined traceability item is higher than an included product that has a small degree of influence. This is a method of managing commercial interactions between people (e.g., the product seller and the product shipper). The mere nominal recitation of an information processing device and a control unit does not take the claims out of the method of organizing human activity grouping. Thus, the claims fall within the “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity” grouping of abstract ideas.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. The claim as a whole merely describes how to generally “apply” the concepts of acquiring, storing, acquiring, determining, copying, generating, transmitting, receiving, causing, determining, specifying, and outputting in a computer environment. The claimed information processing device and control unit are merely invoked as tools to perform the claimed method, whether viewed individually or in combination. Simply implementing the abstract idea on a generic computer is not a practical application of the abstract idea. Accordingly, alone and in combination, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. The claims are directed to an abstract idea.
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed with respect to Step 2A, the claim as a whole merely describe how to generally “apply” the concepts of acquiring, storing, acquiring, determining, copying, generating, transmitting, receiving, causing, determining, specifying, and outputting in a computer environment. Thus, even when viewed as a whole, nothing in the claims add significantly more (i.e., an inventive concept) to the abstract idea. The claims are ineligible.
Dependent claims 2-4, 6-7, 9, 11-13, 15-16, and 18-21 are directed to substantially the same abstract idea as claims 1 and 10 and are rejected for substantially the same reasons. Claims 2 and 11 further narrow the abstract idea of claims 1 and 10, respectively, by e.g., further defining outputting the improvement request for the predetermined traceability item. Claims 3-4 and 12-13 further narrow the abstract idea of claims 1 and 10, respectively, by e.g., further defining specifying the at least one first product from among the included products. Claims 6-7 and 15-16 further narrow the abstract idea of claims 1 and 10, respectively, by e.g., further defining the priority order of the predetermined improvement requests. Claims 9 and 18 further narrow the abstract idea of claims 1 and 10, respectively, by e.g., further defining receiving a completion notification, specifying at least one second product required to be improved regarding the predetermined traceability item, and outputting an improvement request for the predetermined traceability item for the second product. Claim 21 further narrows the abstract idea of claim 1 by, e.g., further defining the product information of the downstream product and filling in the upstream product information field of the product information.
These limitations are all directed to a method of managing commercial interactions between people (e.g., the product seller and the product shipper). Thus, claims 2-4, 6-7, 9, 11-13, 15-16, and 18-20 are directed to substantially the same abstract idea as claims 1 and 10 and do not add any additional elements to evaluate at Steps 2A prong two or 2B. Therefore, claims 2-4, 6-7, 9, 11-13, 15-16, and 18-20 describe neither a practical application of nor significantly more than the abstract idea.
Independent claim 19 recites a method of organizing human activity because the claim recites a method that includes transmitting product the respective included product, the product information including information regarding a predetermined traceability item including at least a CO2 emission amount for the respective included product; acquiring the product information regarding each of the included products from the respective terminal of the suppliers; storing the product information in dedicated storage areas where each of the dedicated storage areas is a distinctive logical area on a hardware memory with separate access authority set so that each dedicated storage area is accessible only by a respective one of the suppliers; acquiring a linking request from a terminal of a downstream supplier logging into the server device and selecting an upstream product of an upstream supplier as a linking target when a list of products is presented to an operator of the terminal of the downstream supplier for selection; upon acquiring the linking request from the terminal of the downstream supplier: determining whether permission information permitting the downstream supplier to access pieces of the product information of the upstream supplier has been received from the terminal of the upstream supplier; upon determining that the permission information has been received from the terminal of the upstream supplier, copying only the pieces of the product information identified in the permission information from the dedicated storage area of the upstream supplier to a shared storage area that is another distinctive logical area on the hardware memory with separate access authority set so as to be accessible by both the downstream and upstream suppliers, wherein pieces of the product information of the upstream supplier that are not identified in the permission information are not copied to the shared storage area; generating a product tree linking a downstream product of the downstream supplier with the upstream product of the upstream supplier, which was the linking target in the linking request, using the pieces of the product information stored in the shared storage area, wherein the downstream product is a parent node and the upstream product is a child node; transmitting the generated product tree to the terminal of the downstream supplier; while the product tree is displayed on the terminal of the downstream supplier, receive a selection input selecting one product included in the product tree; and in response to the selection input, cause the product tree to be displayed along with the predetermined traceability item of the selected product, wherein the predetermined traceability item of the selected product is an aggregate of the predetermined traceability items of the selected product and each upstream product of the selected product; determining whether a predetermined target value for the predetermined traceability item of the target product located at a most downstream end of the product tree has been achieved based on an aggregate of the predetermined traceability items of each upstream product of the target product in the product tree; upon determining that the predetermined target value has not been achieved, specifying at least one first product whose predetermined traceability item is to be improved from among the included products of the product tree; and outputting an improvement request, to a terminal of a supplier of the first product, requesting improvement of the predetermined traceability item for the first product, wherein: specifying the at least one first product from among the included products includes specifying the first product based on a predetermined priority order of improvement requests for the included products, and the priority order of the predetermined improvement requests is set such that an included product that has a large degree of influence on a value of the predetermined traceability item is higher than an included product that has a small degree of influence. This is a method of managing commercial interactions between people (e.g., the product seller and the product shipper). The mere nominal recitation of an information processing system, a plurality of terminals related to suppliers of a plurality of respective included products included in a target product, and a server device does not take the claim out of the method of organizing human activity grouping. Thus, the claim falls within the “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity” grouping of abstract ideas.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. The claim as a whole merely describes how to generally “apply” the concepts of transmitting, acquiring, storing, acquiring, determining, copying, generating, transmitting, determining, specifying, and outputting in a computer environment. The claimed information processing system, terminals, and server device are merely invoked as tools to perform the claimed method, whether viewed individually or in combination. Simply implementing the abstract idea on a generic computer is not a practical application of the abstract idea. Accordingly, alone and in combination, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. 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. As discussed with respect to Step 2A, the claim as a whole merely describe how to generally “apply” the concepts of transmitting, acquiring, storing, acquiring, determining, copying, generating, transmitting, determining, specifying, and outputting in a computer environment. Thus, even when viewed as a whole, nothing in the claim adds significantly more (i.e., an inventive concept) to the abstract idea. The claim is ineligible.
Dependent claim 20 is directed to substantially the same abstract idea as claim 19 and is rejected for substantially the same reasons. Claim 20 further narrows the abstract idea of claim 19 by e.g., further defining outputting the improvement request for the predetermined traceability item. Thus, claim 20 is directed to substantially the same abstract idea as claim 19 and does not add any additional elements to evaluate at Steps 2A prong two or 2B. Therefore, claim 20 describes neither a practical application of nor significantly more than the abstract idea.
Novel & Non-Obvious Subject Matter
Claims 1-4, 6-7, 9-13, 15-16, and 18-20 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the 35 U.S.C. 101 rejections.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Claim 1, 10, and 19 would be allowable for disclosing specifying the at least one first product from among the included products includes specifying the first product based on a predetermined priority order of improvement requests for the included products, the priority order of the predetermined improvement requests is set such that an included product that has a large degree of influence on a value of the predetermined traceability item is higher than an included product that has a small degree of influence.
The combination of Chowdhry US 20170255903, Felix US 11488093, Malviya US 20100250608, and Zahnow US 20140025785 teaches that specifying the at least one first product from among the included products includes specifying the first product based on a predetermined priority order of improvement requests for the included products. However, the prior art does not teach the limitations of previous claims 1, 5, 10, and 14 in combination with a priority order of the predetermined improvement requests being set such that an included product that has a large degree of influence on a value of the predetermined traceability item is higher than an included product that has a small degree of influence.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments regarding the 35 U.S.C. 101 rejections have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that “[s]ince the amended independent claims define novel and non-obvious subject matter over the prior art, the claims are immediately allowable upon determining that the ordered limitations as a whole are not directed to an abstract idea” (p. 14). The Examiner disagrees. Even assuming arguendo that the abstract limitations were novel/non-obvious, “a claim for a new abstract idea is still an abstract idea.” Synopsys, Inc. v. Mentor Graphics Corp., 839 F.3d 1138, 1151 (Fed. Cir. 2016).
Applicant argues that:
The limitations above as a whole and ordered invention achieve technical improvements
of providing useful central management of the traceability item information (e.g., CO2 emission amount) of each of included products on the manufacturing process of a target product as well as providing a streamlined user interface where the linkage information among the products and associated traceability item information can be easily reviewed
(p. 16). The Examiner disagrees. Contrary the position taken by Applicant, managing the traceability of an item in a supply chain does not provide a technical improvement. Such an improvement is at best an improvement to the commercial process implemented via the generically recited devices and not an improvement to any of those devices or any technology associated with those devices.
Applicant argues that:
This case is analogous to BASCOM Global Internet Services, Inc. v. AT&T Mobility LLC (Fed. Cir. 2016), in which the Federal Circuit agreed that "filtering internet content" is an abstract idea of certain methods of organizing human activities. But the court reversed the district court's decision, holding that the specific, non-conventional ordering of software components provided an "inventive concept" necessary to satisfy the Alice test under Step 2B.
(p. 18). The Examiner disagrees. BASCOM is distinguishable from the present case because the “inventive concept” asserted by Applicant is part of the abstract idea (i.e., managing commercial interactions between people) and is therefore not an “additional element” under Step 2B. As discussed above, even assuming arguendo that the abstract limitations were novel/non-obvious, “a claim for a new abstract idea is still an abstract idea.” Synopsys, Inc. v. Mentor Graphics Corp., 839 F.3d 1138, 1151 (Fed. Cir. 2016).
Applicant argues that the manner in which the product tree is rendered graphically in the claim is analogous to the GUI found eligible in Core Wireless Licensing S.A.R.L. v. LG Electronics, Inc. (Fed. Cir. 2018). The Examiner disagrees. The present claims are distinguishable from the claims in Core Wireless. For instance, the present claims do not recite a GUI, an interface, or a display. Instead, the claims merely recite a “control unit,” “a plurality of terminals,” and “a server device.”
Applicant argues that “the manner in which the server acquires, stores, and processes product information to generate and render the product tree graphically has already been determined not to be routine, well-known, or conventional. In fact, it has been determined that they are novel and non-obvious” (p. 19). The Examiner disagrees. As discussed above, even assuming arguendo that the abstract limitations (acquiring, storing, processing product information) were novel/non-obvious, “a claim for a new abstract idea is still an abstract idea.” Synopsys, Inc. v. Mentor Graphics Corp., 839 F.3d 1138, 1151 (Fed. Cir. 2016).
Applicant argues that new claim 21 enhances the server’s functionality. Applicant fails to provide any arguments to uphold this conclusory statement. See October 2019 Update: Subject Matter Eligibility, pg. 12. ("if the specification explicitly sets forth an improvement but 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 the claim improves technology").
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 extension fee 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 date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DUANE MOORE whose telephone number is (571)272-7544. The examiner can normally be reached on Mon-Fri 9:00-5:30.
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, JEFFREY ZIMMERMAN can be reached on (571)272-4602. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
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.
/D.N.M./Examiner, Art Unit 3628
/GEORGE CHEN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3628