DETAILED ACTION
Notice to Applicant
1. The following is a NON-FINAL Office action upon examination of application number 18/649,252 filed on 04/29/2024, in response to Applicant’s Request for Continued Examination (RCE) filed on May 15, 2026. Claims 1-7, 9-17, 19, 21, and 23 are pending in the application and have been examined on the merits discussed below.
2. The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Priority
3. Application 18/649,252, field on 04/29/2024 is a Continuation of application 16/790,473, filed 02/13/2020. Application 16/790,473 claims Priority from Provisional Application 62/509,675, filed 05/22/2017; claims Priority from Provisional Application 60/509,665, filed 10/08/2003; claims Priority from Provisional Application 62/509,660, filed 05/22/2017; claims Priority from Provisional Application 62/509,669, filed 05/22/2017; and claims Priority from Provisional Application 62/509,653, filed 05/22/2017. Application 16/790,473 is a Continuation of application 14/523,642, filed 10/24/2014. Application 14/523,642 claims Priority from Provisional Application 61/896,636, filed 10/28/2013; claims Priority from Provisional Application 61/895,665, filed 10/25/2013; and claims Priority from Provisional Application 61/896,251, filed 10/28/2013.
Examiner’s Note
4. Following the Applicant’s Response filed May 15, 2026, the Examiner prepared a proposed Examiner’s Amendment intended to address the outstanding issues under 35 U.S.C §101 and § 112(b), as well as certain typographical errors in claims 1, 3-4, and 11, and thereby place this application in condition for allowance. On June 3, 2026, the Examiner contacted Applicant’s Representative and requested authorization to communicate by Internet un order to provide the proposed Examiner’s Amendment for discussion and consideration. On June 5, 2026, Applicant’s Representative indicated that a PTO/SB/439 authorizing Internet communications had been filed via form using EFS-Web. The Examiner thereafter provided the proposed Examiner’s Amendment on June 8, 2026, and requested written authorization to enter the amendment by June 15, 2026. No authorization was received by that date. The Examiner followed up by email on June 18, 2026, again requesting authorization and providing an additional deadline of June 23, 2026. No authorization to enter the propped Examiner’s Amendment was received. In that correspondence, the Examiner also invited Applicant’s Representative to contact the Examiner by telephone should Applicant have any questions. Accordingly, notwithstanding the Examiner’s efforts to resolve the outstanding issues and place the application in condition for allowance through an Examiner’s Amendment, the proposed amendment could not be entered in the absence of Applicant’s authorization. The present Office Action is therefore being issued as a Non-Final Office Action.
Response to Amendment
5. In the response filed May 15, 2026, Applicant amended claims 1-7, 9-17, 19, 21, and 23, and did not cancel any claims. No new claims were presented for examination.
6. Applicant's amendments to the claims are hereby acknowledged. The amendments are not sufficient to overcome the previously issued claim rejection under 35 U.S.C. 101; accordingly, this rejection has been maintained.
Response to Arguments
7. Applicant's arguments filed May 15, 2026, have been fully considered.
8. Applicant submits “that the claims, as amended, are directed to a specific technological supply chain management system that improves the functioning of computer systems and provides a practical application in the field of contract manufacturing inventory management, and thus the claims are patent-eligible under the Alice/Mayo framework.” [Application No. : 16/809,185 CNTFiled : March 4, 2020Applicant’s Remarks, 05/15/2016, page 5]
In response to Applicant’s argument that “that the claims, as amended, are directed to a specific technological supply chain management system that improves the functioning of computer systems and provides a practical application in the field of contract manufacturing inventory management,” the Examiner respectfully disagrees. Under Step 2A Prong Two of the eligibility inquiry, any additional elements are evaluated individually and in combination to determine whether they integrate the judicial exception into a practical application, with consideration of the following exemplary considerations that may be indicative of a practical application: an additional element that reflects an improvement to the functioning of a computer or to any other technology or technical field, applying the exception with a particular machine, applying the judicial exception to effect a particular treatment or prophylaxis for a disease or medical condition, effecting a transformation of a particular article to a different state or thing, and applying or using the judicial exception some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment.
In this instance, the additional elements recited in exemplary claim 1 include: one or more computing devices, at least one rule set, a customer database of distinct customers contracted to receive manufactured products from a supply chain, wherein the customer database is relationally accessible in accordance with entries of the distinct customers in the customer database, a first database, a second database, an excess and obsoletion (E&O) engine implemented on the one or more computing devices, a machine learning module, at least one linked inventory management system, and a graphical user interface (GUI). These elements have been considered individually and in combination, however these computing elements amount to using a generic computer programmed with computer-executable instructions/software to perform the abstract idea, similar to adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent), which merely serves to link the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment, which is not sufficient to amount to a practical application, as noted in MPEP 2106. See also MPEP 2106.05(f) and 2106.05(h). Furthermore, these additional elements fail to provide an improvement to the functioning of a computer or to any other technology or technical field, fail to apply the exception with a particular machine, fail to apply the judicial exception to effect a particular treatment or prophylaxis for a disease or medical condition, fail to effect a transformation of a particular article to a different state or thing, and fail to apply/use the abstract idea in a meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment. Instead, the task generator amounts to using generic computing devices as tools to implement the abstract idea, which does not amount to a technological improvement or otherwise indicate a practical application. See MPEP 2106.05(f).
The Examiner emphasizes that nowhere in Applicant’s Specification is there any discussion or suggestion that the problem or solution is a technical one, nor is there even a hint of any contemplated improvement to technology. It is not clear how the claimed limitations provide an actual improvement to another technology or technical field, an improvement to the functioning of the computer itself, or meaningful limitations beyond generally linking the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment evident in the claims. The Applicant’s claims do not adequately explain how the additional elements of the claim integrate to add any meaningful limits on the abstract idea. At the most, the claimed invention seems to provide improvement beneficial to the end users. The focus of the claims of the instant application is not on such an improvement in computers as tools, but on certain independently abstract ideas that use computers as tools. Even reviewing the Applicant’s Specification (which describes the hardware and software), it is not made clear how the hardware and software result in an improvement to the technology or hardware itself, etc. The claimed invention does not provide an improvement to another technology/technical field or the functioning of the computer itself. Applicant's invention is directed towards providing business solutions to business problems rather than providing technical solutions to technical problems; thus, the claimed invention does not provide an improvement to another technology/technical field or the functioning of the computer itself. The Examiner further points out there is no actual improvement to another technology or technical field, no improvement to the functioning of the computer itself, and no meaningful limitations beyond generally linking the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment evident in the claims.
It is also noted that Applicant’s claims are devoid of any discernible change, transformation, or improvement to a computer (software or hardware) or any existing technology. Applicant has not shown that any specific technological improvement is achieved within the scope of the claims. It bears emphasis that no computing devices, database, inventory management system, graphical user interface, or technological elements are modified or improved upon in any discernible manner. Instead, the result produced by the claims is simply information associated with details of at least the manufactured product, the parts and materials lists, and the modified definitions, which is not a technical result or improvement thereof. For the reasons above, this argument is found unpersuasive.
9. Applicant submits “a human could not practically perform the claimed invention because it requires: - Relational access across multiple specialized databases (customer, parts/materials, and contract-specific definitions). - A machine learning module (E&O engine) that learns temporal and relational inventory patterns from large volumes of customer and supply chain data. - Dynamic modification of contract definitions. - Real-time integration of inventory data. - Automated, preemptive claim generation. - Rule-based, user-specific GUI reconfiguration for secure, role-appropriate access. These features improve the technical functioning of the supply chain management computer system itself by enabling more accurate, predictive, and efficient handling of excess and obsolete inventory, a complex problem in networked, multi-party contract manufacturing environments. This is analogous to Enfish LLC V. Microsoft Corp. (Fed. Cir. 2016), where claims directed to a self-referential database (an improvement in how the computer stores and retrieves data) were held not abstract.” [Application No. : 16/809,185 CNTFiled : March 4, 2020Applicant’s Remarks, 05/15/2016, page 6]
The Examiner respectfully disagrees. In response to Applicant’s argument that “These features improve the technical functioning of the supply chain management computer system itself by enabling more accurate, predictive, and efficient handling of excess and obsolete inventory, a complex problem in networked, multi-party contract manufacturing environment,” it is noted that the additional elements in exemplary claim 1 are: one or more computing devices, at least one rule set, a customer database of distinct customers contracted to receive manufactured products from a supply chain, wherein the customer database is relationally accessible in accordance with entries of the distinct customers in the customer database, a first database, a second database, an excess and obsoletion (E&O) engine implemented on the one or more computing devices, a machine learning module, at least one linked inventory management system, and a graphical user interface (GUI)., which merely serve to tie the abstract idea to a particular technological environment (computer-based operating environment) via generic computing hardware, software/instructions, which is not sufficient to amount to a practical application, as noted in MPEP 2106.05. Applicant has not provided a persuasive line of reasoning showing how the additional elements are integrated with the abstract idea to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. It is also noted that Applicant’s claims are devoid of any discernible change, transformation, or improvement to a computer (software or hardware) or any existing technology. Applicant has not shown that any specific technological improvement is achieved within the scope of the claims. It bears emphasis that no computing devices, database, inventory management system, graphical user interface, or technological elements are modified or improved upon in any discernible manner. Instead, the result produced by the claims is simply information associated with details of at least the manufactured product, the parts and materials lists, and the modified definitions, which is not a technical result or improvement thereof. For the reasons above, this argument is found unpersuasive.
Lastly, Applicant argues against the §101 rejection by seeking to analogize to Enfish. Here, unlike Enfish, the claims do not provide any device with an improvement in technology or the functioning of the computer, but rather amount to an application of the abstract idea using the ordinary functions of the computer. The claim limitations are broad, directed to implementation, and not technologically specific, so as indicated in Versata Development Group, Inc. v. SAP America, Inc., No. 2014‐1194, F.3d (Fed. Cir. July 9, 2015), “even if the invention required the use of a computer, the claim did not constitute a technological invention. As we are now instructed, the presence of a general purpose computer to facilitate operations through uninventive steps does not change the fundamental character of an invention. See Alice Corp. Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank Int’l, 134 S. Ct. 2347 (2014).” Furthermore, the courts have said the use of a computer or other machinery in its ordinary capacity for economic or other tasks (e.g., to receive, store, or transmit data) or simply adding a general purpose computer or computer components after the fact to an abstract idea (e.g., a fundamental economic practice or mathematical equation) does not provide significantly more. MPEP 2106.05(f)(2).
Moreover, the Examiner points out that the focus of the claimed invention is on the details of the abstract ideas and not on the details of a database construct, much less how a database construct interacts with the processor to actively improve operations of the processor. The focus of the invention is on the algorithms that have been identified as abstract ideas (as opposed to an improvement to operations of the additional elements, improvement to another technology or technical field). Furthermore, as recited, the claim limitations do not rise to the level of the self-referential table in Enfish. Also, in the Enfish decision, the court found that there was no abstract idea in the Enfish claims, which is not the case in the instant application.
10. Applicant submits “even if the claims were considered to recite an abstract idea under Step 2A-Prong 1, which Applicant does not concede, Applicant submits the claims as a whole integrate any alleged abstract idea into a practical application by: - Implementing a specific E&O engine on computing devices that uses machine learning to dynamically modify contract definitions based on learned patterns. - Integrating real-time data from linked inventory systems. - Automatically and preemptively generating claims. - Improving identification and mitigation of excess/obsolete parts in a contract manufacturing supply chain. - Providing a rule-configured GUI that restricts access based on current user. These limitations provide a specific technical solution to a technical problem in supply chain systems (static contract definitions, delayed E&O identification, excess inventory waste, and inefficient data access across parties).” [Application No. : 16/809,185 CNTFiled : March 4, 2020Applicant’s Remarks, 05/15/2016, page 6]
In response to Applicant’s argument that “even if the claims were considered to recite an abstract idea under Step 2A-Prong 1, which Applicant does not concede, Applicant submits the claims as a whole integrate any alleged abstract idea into a practical application by: - Implementing a specific E&O engine on computing devices that uses machine learning to dynamically modify contract definitions based on learned patterns. - Integrating real-time data from linked inventory systems. - Automatically and preemptively generating claims. - Improving identification and mitigation of excess/obsolete parts in a contract manufacturing supply chain. - Providing a rule-configured GUI that restricts access based on current user. These limitations provide a specific technical solution to a technical problem in supply chain systems (static contract definitions, delayed E&O identification, excess inventory waste, and inefficient data access across parties),” the Examiner respectfully disagrees. Under Step 2A Prong Two of the eligibility inquiry, any additional elements are evaluated individually and in combination to determine whether they integrate the judicial exception into a practical application, with consideration of the following exemplary considerations that may be indicative of a practical application: an additional element that reflects an improvement to the functioning of a computer or to any other technology or technical field, applying the exception with a particular machine, applying the judicial exception to effect a particular treatment or prophylaxis for a disease or medical condition, effecting a transformation of a particular article to a different state or thing, and applying or using the judicial exception some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment.
In this instance, the additional elements recited in exemplary claim 1 include: one or more computing devices, at least one rule set, a customer database of distinct customers contracted to receive manufactured products from a supply chain, wherein the customer database is relationally accessible in accordance with entries of the distinct customers in the customer database, a first database, a second database, an excess and obsoletion (E&O) engine implemented on the one or more computing devices, a machine learning module, at least one linked inventory management system, and a graphical user interface (GUI). These elements have been considered individually and in combination, however these computing elements amount to using a generic computer programmed with computer-executable instructions/software to perform the abstract idea, similar to adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent), which merely serves to link the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment, which is not sufficient to amount to a practical application, as noted in MPEP 2106. See also MPEP 2106.05(f) and 2106.05(h). Furthermore, these additional elements fail to provide an improvement to the functioning of a computer or to any other technology or technical field, fail to apply the exception with a particular machine, fail to apply the judicial exception to effect a particular treatment or prophylaxis for a disease or medical condition, fail to effect a transformation of a particular article to a different state or thing, and fail to apply/use the abstract idea in a meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment. Instead, the task generator amounts to using generic computing devices as tools to implement the abstract idea, which does not amount to a technological improvement or otherwise indicate a practical application. See MPEP 2106.05(f).
The Examiner emphasizes that nowhere in Applicant’s Specification is there any discussion or suggestion that the problem or solution is a technical one, nor is there even a hint of any contemplated improvement to technology. It is not clear how the claimed limitations provide an actual improvement to another technology or technical field, an improvement to the functioning of the computer itself, or meaningful limitations beyond generally linking the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment evident in the claims. The Applicant’s claims do not adequately explain how the additional elements of the claim integrate to add any meaningful limits on the abstract idea. At the most, the claimed invention seems to provide improvement beneficial to the end users. The focus of the claims of the instant application is not on such an improvement in computers as tools, but on certain independently abstract ideas that use computers as tools. Even reviewing the Applicant’s Specification (which describes the hardware and software), it is not made clear how the hardware and software result in an improvement to the technology or hardware itself, etc. The claimed invention does not provide an improvement to another technology/technical field or the functioning of the computer itself. Applicant's invention is directed towards providing business solutions to business problems rather than providing technical solutions to technical problems; thus, the claimed invention does not provide an improvement to another technology/technical field or the functioning of the computer itself. The Examiner further points out there is no actual improvement to another technology or technical field, no improvement to the functioning of the computer itself, and no meaningful limitations beyond generally linking the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment evident in the claims.
It is also noted that Applicant’s claims are devoid of any discernible change, transformation, or improvement to a computer (software or hardware) or any existing technology. Applicant has not shown that any specific technological improvement is achieved within the scope of the claims. It bears emphasis that no computing devices, database, inventory management system, graphical user interface, or technological elements are modified or improved upon in any discernible manner. Instead, the result produced by the claims is simply information associated with details of at least the manufactured product, the parts and materials lists, and the modified definitions, which is not a technical result or improvement thereof. For the reasons above, this argument is found unpersuasive.
11. Applicant submits “even if the claims were considered to recite an abstract idea based on all prior steps and prongs, which Applicant does not concede, Applicant submits the ordered combination of elements (relational multi-database structure, ML-driven dynamic modification of contract definitions, real-time inventory integration, automated preemptive claim generation, and rule-based GUI) is not well-understood, routine, or conventional.” [Application No. : 16/809,185 CNTFiled : March 4, 2020Applicant’s Remarks, 05/15/2016, page 7]
Specifically, regarding the rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 101, Applicant submits that “Applicant submits the ordered combination of elements (relational multi-database structure, ML-driven dynamic modification of contract definitions, real-time inventory integration, automated preemptive claim generation, and rule-based GUI) is not well-understood, routine, or conventional.” As best understood by the Examiner, Applicant’s reliance on the Berkheimer Memo is based on Applicant’s misunderstanding of the Berkheimer decision, which is germane only to Step 2B eligibility inquiry into whether certain additional claim limitations are well-understood, routine, and conventional and the evidentiary requirements to support factual findings related thereto. Berkheimer v. HP Inc., 881 F.3d 1360 (Fed. Cir. 2018).
Accordingly, the Examiner emphasizes that a §101 rejection, including one based on a judicial exception, does not hinge on whether or not any particular limitation or the entire claimed subject matter is directed to “well-understood, routine, and conventional activities.” Notably, a §101 rejection may be proper even none of the claim limitations are deemed well-understood, routine, and conventional. We may assume that the techniques claimed are “[g]roundbreaking, innovative, or even brilliant,” but that is not enough for eligibility. Ass’n for Molecular Pathology v. Myriad Genetics, Inc., 569 U.S. 576, 591 (2013); buySAFE, Inc. v. Google, Inc., 765 F.3d 1350, 1352 (Fed. Cir. 2014). Nor is it enough for subject-matter eligibility that claimed techniques be novel and nonobvious in light of prior art, passing muster under 35 U.S.C. §§ 102 and 103. See Mayo Collaborative Servs. v. Prometheus Labs., Inc., 566 U.S. 66, 89–90 (2012); Synopsys, Inc. v. Mentor Graphics Corp., 839 F.3d 1138, 1151 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (“[A] claim for a new abstract idea is still an abstract idea. The search for a § 101 inventive concept is thus distinct from demonstrating §102 novelty.”); Intellectual Ventures LLC v. Symantec Corp., 838 F.3d 1307, 1315 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (same for obviousness) (Symantec).
Moreover, it is noted that the addition of non-conventional components to an abstract idea does not necessarily turn an abstraction into something concrete. Further, the Examiner points out that limitations that were found not to be enough to qualify as "significantly more" when recited in a claim with a judicial exception also include: adding the words “apply it” or equivalent with the judicial exceptions, or mere instruction to implement an abstract idea on a computer, simply appending well-understood, routine and conventional activities previously known to the industry, specified at a high level of generality, of the judicial exception. As described below, the claims of the instant application are drawn to an abstract idea. It is noted that for the role of a computer in a computer-implemented invention to be deemed meaningful, it must involve more than performance of "well-understood, routine and conventional activities previously known in the industry.” Claim 1 is directed to performing the method steps, but these limitations add nothing of substance to the underlying abstract idea.
Furthermore, it is noted that only those additional elements (analyzed under 2B) that are deemed “conventional” need to comply with Berkheimer. When elements are just part of “apply it” [abstract idea] on a computer, under MPEP 2106.05(f), no evidence is needed. Citations for conventionality to MPEP 2106.05 were already provided. Arguing abstract elements for Berkheimer is not persuasive. See BSG Tech, LLC v. Buyseasons, Inc., 899 F.3d 1281,1290 (Fed. Cir. 2018) states “Our precedent has consistently employed this same approach. If a claim’s only “inventive concept” is the application of an abstract idea using conventional and well-understood techniques, the claim has not been transformed into a patent-eligible application of an abstract idea. See, e.g., Berkheimer, 881 F.3d at 1370 (holding claims lacked an inventive concept because they “amount to no more than performing the abstract idea of parsing and comparing data with conventional computer components”). For the reasons above, this argument is found unpersuasive.
12. Applicant’s remaining arguments either logically depend from the above-rejected arguments, in which case they too are unpersuasive for the reasons set forth above, or they are directed to features which have been newly added via amendment. Therefore, this is now the Examiner's first opportunity to consider these limitations and as such any arguments regarding these limitations would be inappropriate since they have not yet been examined. A full rejection of these limitations will be presented later in this Office Action.
Claim Objections
13. Claim 11 is objected to because of the following informalities: typographical/grammatical error.
Claim 11 recites “wherein the data includes at least order date.” Examiner suggests amending the claim to recite “wherein the data includes at least an order date.” Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
14. The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
15. Claims 3 and 4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor, or for pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
16. Claim 3 recites “The system of claim 2, wherein the curative measure comprises use of an excess of obsolete part on behalf of the distinct customer in a different one of the manufactured products.” The phrase “use of an excess of obsolete part” is unclear. Specifically, it is unclear whether the claim is intended to recite use of an excess part, use of an obsolete part or “use of an excess or obsolete part,” therefore rendering the claim scope indefinite. Appropriate correction is required.
17. Claim 4 recites “wherein the curative measure comprises use of an excess of obsolete part on behalf of a different one of the distinct customers in a different one of the manufactured products.” The phrase “use of an excess of obsolete part” is unclear. Specifically, it is unclear whether the claim is intended to recite use of an excess part, use of an obsolete part or “use of an excess or obsolete part,” therefore rendering the claim scope indefinite. Appropriate correction is required.
18. All claims dependent from above rejected claims are also rejected due to dependency.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
19. 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.
20. Claims 1-7, 9-17, 19, 21, and 23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
21. Claims 1-7, 9-17, 19, 21, and 23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The eligibility analysis in support of these findings is provided below, in accordance with MPEP 2106.
With respect to Step 1 of the eligibility inquiry (as explained in MPEP 2106), it is first noted
that the system (claims 1-7, 9-17, 19, 21, and 23) is directed to at least one potentially eligible category of subject matter (i.e., machine). Thus, Step 1 of the Subject Matter Eligibility test for claims 1-4 and 7-9 is satisfied.
With respect to Step 2A Prong One, it is next noted that the claims recite an abstract idea that falls under the “Mental Processes” and the “Certain methods of organizing human activity” group within the enumerated groupings of abstract ideas set forth in MPEP 2106 since the claims set forth steps that can be performed in the human mind (e.g., observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion) and for managing commercial interactions (e.g., sales activities or behaviors; business relations). With respect to independent claim 1, the limitations reciting the abstract idea are indicated in bold below:
one or more computing devices;
at least one rule set;
a customer database of distinct customers contracted to receive manufactured products from a supply chain, wherein the customer database is relationally accessible in accordance with entries of the distinct customers in the customer database;
a first database comprising one or more parts and materials lists of manufactured products corresponding to a selected entry of the entries of the distinct customer;
a second database comprising definitions from a contract for each of the manufactured products and each of the distinct customers regarding when one from the parts and the materials list become excess, and when another one from the parts and the materials list becomes obsolete, for the manufactured product corresponding to the selected entry of the entries of the distinct customers (This limitation falls under the “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity.”);
an excess and obsoletion (E&O) engine implemented on the one or more computing devices and comprising at least a machine learning module that learns and recognizes temporal and relational inventory patterns based on the entries of the distinct customers and historical supply chain data, that dynamically modifies definitions from the contract based on the learned and recognized patterns to improve identification and mitigation of excess and obsolete parts in the supply chain, and that automatically preemptively generates a claim for excess or obsoletion based on a comparison of data analyzed from the contract compared to at least one of the parts and materials lists, a distinct customer, and the manufactured product, wherein the E&O engine integrates real-time data received from at least one linked inventory management system (This step falls under the “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity,” and can also be performed mentally via human observation or perhaps by documenting the patterns with the aid of pen and paper); and
a graphical user interface (GUI) dynamically reconfigured by the at least one rule set to restrict user access to specific inventory subsets such that the GUI is configured to provide access to details of at least the manufactured product, the parts and materials list, and the modified definitions, such that the claim for excess or obsoletion is processed through the GUI against at least one from the parts and materials list in accordance with application of the modified definitions by the at least one rule set (This step falls under the “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity” by reciting a step for managing commercial interactions such as sales activities or behaviors, and can also be performed mentally via human observation or perhaps by documenting the patterns with the aid of pen and paper).
Considered together, these steps set forth an abstract idea of managing supply chain interactions between suppliers and sellers, which falls under the realm of managing commercial interactions (e.g., marketing or sales activities or behaviors), thus falling under the “Certain methods of organizing human activity” grouping set forth in MPEP 2106, as well as the “Mental Processes” abstract idea grouping via recitation of activities that be performed in the human mind. Moreover, Applicant’s Specification supports the interpretation of the above-noted steps as implemented in the context of managing relationships or interactions between people (See, e.g., paragraph [0009]: “Moreover, which party, whether it be the contract manufacturer or the customer, is responsible for excess and obsolete parts and materials within the definitions provided in a given contract, and/or to what extent each party is responsible for the foregoing, also generally varies on a contract-by-contract basis. Although it is often the case that obsoletion is a customer's responsibility, and excess is either a shared responsibility or the responsibility of the contract manufacturer, even this apportionment of responsibilities may vary on a contract-by-contract basis. Yet further, there is, of course, the need for a contract manufacturer to provide quality customer service to its customers; and hence, it may be the case that even excess and obsolete parts and materials within the definitions provided in a contract may prove less than desirable to be subjected to an excess or obsolete claim under the contract by the contract manufacturer.”).
With respect to Step 2A Prong Two, the judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. The additional elements recited are: one or more computing devices, at least one rule set, a customer database of distinct customers contracted to receive manufactured products from a supply chain, wherein the customer database is relationally accessible in accordance with entries of the distinct customers in the customer database, a first database, a second database, an excess and obsoletion (E&O) engine implemented on the one or more computing devices, a machine learning module, at least one linked inventory management system, and a graphical user interface (GUI) dynamically reconfigured by the at least one rule set (claim 1). These elements have been considered, however they merely describe elements of one or more generic computers and/or instructions (software) to implement the abstract idea, similar to simply adding the words “apply it,” which is not sufficient to amount to a practical application, as noted in MPEP 2106. See also, MPEP 2106.05(f). See also, Alice Corp., 134 S. Ct. 2347, 110 USPQ2d 1976; Versata Dev. Group, Inc. v. SAP Am., Inc., 793 F.3d 1306, 1334, 115 USPQ2d 1681, 1701 (Fed. Cir. 2015). Additionally, the steps “wherein the customer database is relationally accessible in accordance with entries of the distinct customers in the customer database; one or more parts and materials lists of manufactured products corresponding to a selected entry of the entries of the distinct customer; and definitions from a contract for each of the manufactured products and each of the distinct customers regarding when one from the parts and the materials list become excess, and when another one from the parts and the materials lists becomes obsolete, for the manufactured product corresponding to the selected entry of the entries of the distinct customers” merely encompass insignificant pre-solution data gathering activity accomplished via receiving/transmitting data, which has been recognized as well-understood, routine, and conventional, and thus insufficient to add significantly more to the abstract idea. See MPEP 2106.05(d). Furthermore, the additional elements(s) fail to provide an improvement to the functioning of a computer or to any other technology or technical field, fail to apply the exception with a particular machine, fail to apply the judicial exception to effect a particular treatment or prophylaxis for a disease or medical condition, fail to effect a transformation of a particular article to a different state or thing, and fail to apply/use the abstract idea in a meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment.
Accordingly, because the Step 2A Prong One and Prong Two analysis resulted in the conclusion that the claims are directed to an abstract idea, additional analysis under Step 2B of the eligibility inquiry must be conducted in order to determine whether any claim element or combination of elements amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
With respect to Step 2B of the eligibility inquiry, it has been determined that the claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. The additional elements recited are: one or more computing devices, at least one rule set, a customer database of distinct customers contracted to receive manufactured products from a supply chain, wherein the customer database is relationally accessible in accordance with entries of the distinct customers in the customer database, a first database, a second database, an excess and obsoletion (E&O) engine implemented on the one or more computing devices, a machine learning module, at least one linked inventory management system, and a graphical user interface (GUI) dynamically reconfigured by the at least one rule set (claim 1). These additional elements have been evaluated, but fail to add significantly more to the claims because they amount to using generic computing elements or instructions (software) to perform the abstract idea, similar to adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent), which merely serves to link the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment (network computing environment) and does not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself. Notably, Applicant’s Specification describes that generic computer devices that may be used to implement the invention, which cover virtually any computing device under the sun (Specification at paragraph [0032]: “The figures and descriptions provided herein may have been simplified to illustrate aspects that are relevant for a clear understanding of the herein described devices, systems, and methods, while eliminating, for the purpose of clarity, other aspects that may be found in typical similar devices, systems, and methods. Those of ordinary skill may thus recognize that other elements and/or operations may be desirable and/or necessary to implement the devices, systems, and methods described herein. However, because such elements and operations are well known in the art, and because they do not facilitate a better understanding of the present disclosure, a discussion of such elements and operations may not be provided herein. However, the present disclosure is deemed to inherently include all such elements, variations, and modifications to the described aspects that would be known to those of ordinary skill in the art.”). Therefore, the additional elements merely describe generic computing elements or computer-executable instructions (software) merely serve to tie the abstract idea to a particular operating environment, which does not add significantly more to the abstract idea. See, e.g., Alice Corp., 134 S. Ct. 2347, 110 USPQ2d 1976; Versata Dev. Group, Inc. v. SAP Am., Inc., 793 F.3d 1306, 1334, 115 USPQ2d 1681, 1701 (Fed. Cir. 2015).
Additionally, even if the machine learning module is evaluated as an element beyond software/code for a generic computer to execute, it is noted that that the claimed use of a machine learning module is recited at a high level of generality these elements amount to well-understood, routine, and conventional activity in the art, which fails to add significantly more to the claims. See, e.g., Magdon-Ismail et al., US 2009/0055270 (paragraph 39: “Both local and central engines may incorporate analysis techniques, such as artificial intelligence, machine learning and other techniques, which are well known in the art”). See also, Muchkaev, US 2010/0287011 (paragraph 47: “artificial intelligence algorithm such as a search algorithm, a learning algorithm, or any other artificial intelligence algorithm commonly known in the art”).
In addition, when taken as an ordered combination, the ordered combination adds nothing that is not already present as when the elements are taken individually. There is no indication that the combination of elements integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Their collective functions merely provide generic computer implementation. Therefore, when viewed as a whole, these additional claim elements do not provide meaningful limitations to transform the abstract idea into a practical application of the abstract idea or that, as an ordered combination, amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself.
Dependent claims 2-7, 9-17, 19, and 21-23 recite the same abstract idea as recited in the independent claims, and when evaluated under Step 2A Prong One are found to merely recite additional details that narrow the abstract idea. For example, claims 2-7, 9-17, 19, 21, and 23 recite steps for “enables a curative measure, rather than a claim, regarding one of the excess or obsoletion,” “wherein the curative measure comprises use of an excess of obsolete part on behalf of the distinct customer in a different one of the manufactured products,” “wherein the curative measure comprises use of an excess of obsolete part on behalf of a different one of the distinct customers in a different one of the manufactured products,” “wherein ones of the distinct customers viewable are varied by the at least one rule set based on a current user,” “wherein ones of the manufactured products viewable are varied by the at least one rule set based on a current user,” “wherein the at least one rule set allows for exclusions of the claim, in whole or in part, according to a current user,” “provides an automated assessment of a meeting of the definitions,” “providing data regarding a meeting of the definitions,” “wherein the data includes at least order date,” “wherein the data includes at least return and refund definitions,” “wherein the at least one rule set comprises rules generic to all of the distinct customers,” “wherein the at least one rule set comprises rules generic to all of the manufactured products,” “wherein the at least one rule set comprises administrative permissions,” “wherein the definitions are manually input,” “wherein the definitions are automatically input,” “tracking at least need for and inventory of the parts and the materials,” “update the definitions from the contract based on a change in a supply versus demand assessment performed,” “wherein the generated claim for excess or obsoletion is output,” however these steps cover organizing human activity since they flow directly from the distinct customers interactions involving human/commercial interactions, which similar to base claim 1, fall under the same “Certain methods of organizing human activity,” while 5-6, 16, 17, and 19 recite the additional element “GUI” which, although not part of the abstract idea itself, does not amount to a practical application (under Step 2A Prong Two) or significantly more (under Step 2B) because the GUI and display activity merely invokes an interface of a generic computer, which serves to generally link the abstract idea to a particular technological environment. See, e.g., Alice Corp., 134 S. Ct. 2347, 110 USPQ2d 1976; Versata Dev. Group, Inc. v. SAP Am., Inc., 793 F.3d 1306, 1334, 115 USPQ2d 1681, 1701 (Fed. Cir. 2015). See also, e.g., Affinity Labs of Texas LLC v. DirecTV LLC, 838 F.3d 1253, 1257-1258 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (mere recitation of a GUI does not make a claim patent-eligible); Intellectual Ventures LLC v. Capital One Bank, 792 F.3d 1363, 1370 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (“the interactive interface limitation is a generic computer element”). The “link to at least one inventory management system” (claim 9), “link to a parts and materials ordering system” (claim 10), “embedded analytics tools” (claims 19) have been evaluated as additional elements as well. However, each of these elements is recited at a high level of generality and fails to yield any discernible improvement to the computer or to any technology, nor set forth any additional function or result that provided meaningful limitation beyond linking the abstract idea to a particular technological environment (i.e., automated/computing environment), and thus fail to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application.
The ordered combination of elements in the dependent claims (including the limitations inherited from the parent claim(s)) add nothing that is not already present as when the elements are taken individually. There is no indication that the combination of elements improves the functioning of a computer or improves any other technology. Their collective functions merely provide generic computer implementation. Accordingly, the subject matter encompassed by the dependent claims fails to amount to a practical application or significantly more than the abstract idea itself.
For more information, see MPEP 2106.
Allowable over the prior art
22. Claims 1-7, 9-17, 19, 21, and 23 are allowable over the prior art of record. The state of the art is reflected via the prior art of record summarized in the Conclusion below. Although Katz et al. and Eisenson et al. collectively teach a supply chain management system, comprising: at least one rule set; a database of distinct customers contracted to receive manufactured products from a supply chain, wherein the database is relationally accessible in accordance with entries of the distinct customers in the database; a parts and materials list of manufactured product; and definitions from a contract for each of the manufactured products and each of the distinct customers regarding when one from the parts and the materials list become excess, and when another one from the parts and the materials list becomes obsolete, for the manufactured product corresponding to the selected entry of the entries of the distinct customers; and a graphical user interface (GUI) configured to provide access to details of at least the manufactured product and the parts and materials list [See Office Action mailed 01/24/2025 for prior art citations pertinent to the above-noted subject matter], the prior art of record does not teach an excess and obsoletion (E&O) engine implemented on the one or more computing devices and comprising at least a machine learning module that learns and recognizes temporal and relational inventory patterns based on the entries of the distinct customers and historical supply chain data, that dynamically modifies definitions from the contract based on the learned and recognized temporal and relational inventory patterns to improve identification and mitigation of excess and obsolete parts in the supply chain, and that automatically preemptively generates a claim for excess or obsoletion based on a comparison of data analyzed from the contract to at least one of the parts and materials list, a distinct customer, and the manufactured product, wherein the E&O engine integrates real-time data received from at least one linked inventory management system; and a graphical user interface (GUI) dynamically reconfigured by the at least one rule set to restrict user access to specific inventory subsets such that the GUI is configured to provide access to details of at least the manufactured product, the parts and materials lists, and the modified definitions, such that the claim for excess or obsoletion is processed through the GUI against at least one from the parts and materials lists in accordance with application of the modified definitions by the at least one rule set, as recited in independent claim 1, thus rendering claims 1-7, 9-17, 19, 21, and 23 as allowable over the prior art. Claims 1-7, 9-17, 19, 21, and 23 are not allowable, however, because these claims are rejected under 35 USC §101, as set forth above.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Surendra et al., Pub. No.: US 2010/0125489 A1 – describes a system and method for root cause analysis and early warning of inventory problems.
Cavitt, Maurice D. "Evaluating Obselete Inventory Policies in a Hospital's Supply Chain." (2010) – describes a methodology for warehouse management using inventory turns that can be used to identify obsolete inventory.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DARLENE GARCIA-GUERRA whose telephone number is (571) 270-3339. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7:30a.m.-5:00p.m. EST.
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, Brian M. Epstein can be reached on (571) 270-5389. 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.
/Darlene Garcia-Guerra/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3625
Prosecution Insights