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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed in the Reply to Office Action (“Response”) on 17 October 2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
The 2024 Guidance Update on Patent Subject Matter Eligibility, Including on Artificial Intelligence, for example 47, claim 2 explains that training an artificial neural network (ANN) based on input data and a selected training algorithm to generate a trained ANN covers mathematical relationships, mathematical formulas or mathematical calculations which is an example of a mathematical concept, further discretizing and analyzing data to generate data cover steps which could be performed in the human mind including an observation, evaluation, judgement of opinion which is an example of a mental process. Similarly, creating/generating/training models and determining/analyzing an amount/data as recited in the claims recite similar claim features as the example above and are therefore also abstract ideas. Applicant argues that the claim limitations “automatically produce a work order that drives downstream machine execution” (Response: pg. 9), however the claims only recite generating and displaying the work order. Neither of the claims recite anything to do with downstream machine execution. The claims simply recite displaying a work order, but the further steps to perform the work order (which are not recited) could all be performed by a human.
The McRO court relied on the specification's explanation of how the claimed rules enabled the automation of specific animation tasks that previously could not be automated when determining that the claims were directed to improvements in computer animation instead of an abstract idea. The McRO court indicated that it was the incorporation of the particular claimed rules in computer animation that "improved [the] existing technological process", unlike cases such as Alice where a computer was merely used as a tool to perform an existing process. The present case is different: the focus of the claims is not on such an improvement in computers as tools, but on certain independently abstract ideas that use computers as tools and the specification gives no indication that the claimed could not have previously been automated.
Evidence under Berkheimer is not needed when the additional elements of “one or more computing devices” and “a client device” amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component (MPEP 2106.05(f), i.e. the creating, storing, inputting, receiving, determining, outputting and generating steps) and data gathering, which is a form of insignificant extra-solution activity (MPEP 2106.05(g), i.e. the accessing step). Mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component and insignificant extra-solution activity cannot provide an inventive concept. Further, the background does not provide any indication that the “computing devices” and “client device” are anything other than a generic, off-the-shelf computer components. For these reasons, there is no inventive concept. The claim is not patent eligible.
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., an abstract idea) without “significantly more.” Claims 1-20 are directed to accessing data, creating and storing a first model, receiving a request, inputting request in first model, determining a first amount and transaction data for a first purchase order, creating and storing a second model, inputting the first purchase order in the second model, determining a second amount and transaction data, creating and storing a third model, inputting invoice in third model, outputting first, second and third amounts and transactions and generating a work order by evaluating the first, second and third amounts and transactions which is considered an abstract idea. Further, the claim(s) as a whole, when examined on a limitation-by-limitation basis and in ordered combination do not include an inventive concept.
Step 1 – Statutory Categories
As indicated in the preamble of the claims, the examiner finds the claims are directed to a process, machine, or article of manufacture.
Step 2A – Prong One - Abstract Idea Analysis
Exemplary claim 1 (and similarly claims 10 and 19) recites the following abstract concepts, in italics below, which are found to include an “abstract idea”:
A computer-implemented method comprising, executed using one or more computing devices:
accessing historical data associated with events in a procure-to-pay (P2P) process, the historical data comprising a plurality of records specifying numbers of days between historic requisitions and approval of historic purchase orders associated with the historic requisitions;
creating and storing a first procurement model based at least in part on the historical data, the first procurement model being programmed to predict a first amount and a first transaction data;
receiving a request for a requisition;
inputting the request for the requisition to the first procurement model and automatically predicting the first amount and the first transaction data for a requisition-to-purchase-order cycle time if the request for the requisition is processed using the P2P process;
determining an actual first amount and an actual first transaction data for the requisition-to-purchase-order cycle time when a first purchase order associated with the request for the requisition is generated and updating the historical data with the actual first amount and the actual first transaction data for the requisition-to-purchase-order cycle time of the P2P process;
creating and storing a second procurement model based at least in part on the historical data and the first purchase order, the second procurement model being programmed to predict a second amount and a second transaction data for a purchase-order-to-invoice cycle time of the P2P process;
inputting the first purchase order to the second procurement model and automatically predicting the second amount and the second transaction data for the purchase-order-to-invoice cycle time if the first purchase order is processed using the P2P process;
in response to receiving an invoice associated with the first purchase order, determining an actual second amount and an actual second transaction data for the purchase-order-to-invoice cycle time, and updating the historical data with the actual second amount and the actual second transaction data;
creating and storing a third procurement model based at least in part on the historical data and the invoice, the third procurement model being programmed to predict a third amount and a third transaction data for an invoice approval cycle time of the P2P process;
in response to the invoice being approved for payment, inputting the invoice to the third procurement model and automatically determining an actual third amount and an actual third transaction data for the invoice approval cycle time, and updating the historical data with the actual third amount and the actual third transaction data for the invoice approval cycle time of the P2P process;
outputting the first, second, and third amounts and the first, second, and third transaction data for the requisition-to-purchase-order cycle time, the purchase-order-to-invoice cycle time, and the invoice approval cycle time of the P2P process;
generating a work order by evaluating the first, second, and third amounts and the first, second, and third transaction data for the requisition-to-purchase-order cycle time, the purchase-order-to-invoice cycle time, and the invoice approval cycle time of the P2P process and causing a display of the work order on a user interface of a client device
The claim features in italics above as drafted, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, are mathematical concepts, mental processes and/or certain methods of organizing human activity performed by generic computer components. That is, other than reciting “one or more computing devices” and “a client device,” nothing in the claim element precludes the step from practically being a mathematical concept, performed in the mind or a method of organized human activity. For example, but for the “computing device” and “client device” language, “creating … a first procurement model based at least in part on the historical data, the first procurement model being programmed to predict a first amount and a first transaction data… inputting the request for the requisition to the first procurement model… creating …a second procurement model based at least in part on the historical data and the first purchase order, the second procurement model being programmed to predict a second amount and a second transaction data for a purchase-order-to-invoice cycle time of the P2P process… inputting the first purchase order to the second procurement model … creating … a third procurement model based at least in part on the historical data and the invoice, the third procurement model being programmed to predict a third amount and a third transaction data for an invoice approval cycle time of the P2P process… in response to the invoice being approved for payment, inputting the invoice to the third procurement model …” in the context of this claim encompasses mathematical concepts and/or mental processes. If the claim limitations, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers mathematical relationship, mathematical formula or mathematical calculation or steps which could be performed in the human mind including an observation, evaluation, judgement of opinion but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls respectively within the “mathematical concepts” or “mental process” grouping of abstract ideas. Further, “automatically predicting the first amount and the first transaction data for a requisition-to-purchase-order cycle time if the request for the requisition is processed using the P2P process… determining an actual first amount and an actual first transaction data for the requisition-to-purchase-order cycle time when a first purchase order associated with the request for the requisition is generated and updating the historical data with the actual first amount and the actual first transaction data for the requisition-to-purchase-order cycle time of the P2P process… automatically predicting the second amount and the second transaction data for the purchase-order-to-invoice cycle time if the first purchase order is processed using the P2P process… in response to receiving an invoice associated with the first purchase order, determining an actual second amount and an actual second transaction data for the purchase-order-to-invoice cycle time, and updating the historical data with the actual second amount and the actual second transaction data… automatically determining an actual third amount and an actual third transaction data for the invoice approval cycle time, and updating the historical data with the actual third amount and the actual third transaction data for the invoice approval cycle time of the P2P process… generating a work order by evaluating the first, second, and third amounts and the first, second, and third transaction data for the requisition-to-purchase-order cycle time, the purchase-order-to-invoice cycle time, and the invoice approval cycle time of the P2P process” in the context of this claim encompasses mental processes. If the claim limitations, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers steps which could be performed in the human mind including an observation, evaluation, judgement of opinion but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “mental processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Even further, “accessing historical data associated with events in a procure-to-pay (P2P) process, the historical data comprising a plurality of records specifying numbers of days between historic requisitions and approval of historic purchase orders associated with the historic requisitions… storing a first procurement model based at least in part on the historical data, the first procurement model being programmed to predict a first amount and a first transaction data… receiving a request for a requisition… storing a second procurement model based at least in part on the historical data and the first purchase order, the second procurement model being programmed to predict a second amount and a second transaction data for a purchase-order-to-invoice cycle time of the P2P process… storing a third procurement model based at least in part on the historical data and the invoice, the third procurement model being programmed to predict a third amount and a third transaction data for an invoice approval cycle time of the P2P process… outputting the first, second, and third amounts and the first, second, and third transaction data for the requisition-to-purchase-order cycle time, the purchase-order-to-invoice cycle time, and the invoice approval cycle time of the P2P process… causing a display of the work order on a user interface” in the context of this claim encompasses certain methods of organizing human activity. If the claim limitations, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers a fundamental economic practice, commercial or legal interaction or managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “certain methods of organizing human activity” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
Step 2A – Prong Two - Abstract Idea Analysis
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim only recites two additional elements – “one or more computing devices” and “a client device”. The “computing devices” and “client device” are recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as a generic processor performing generic computer functions) such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component (MPEP 2106.05(f), i.e. the creating, storing, inputting, receiving, determining, outputting and generating steps) and data gathering, which is a form of insignificant extra-solution activity (MPEP 2106.05(g), i.e. the accessing step). 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.
Step 2B - Significantly More Analysis
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to
significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements of “one or more computing devices” and “a client device” amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component and insignificant extra-solution activity. Mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component and insignificant extra-solution activity cannot provide an inventive concept. Further, the background does not provide any indication that the “computing devices” and “client device” are anything other than a generic, off-the-shelf computer components. For these reasons, there is no inventive concept. The claim is not patent eligible.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 Hunter Wilder whose telephone number is (571)270-7948. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8:30AM-5:30PM.
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, Florian Zeender can be reached at (571)272-6790. 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.
/A. Hunter Wilder/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3627