DETAILED ACTION
Status of Claims
This action is in reply to the RCE filed on August 24, 2026.
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claims 12, 19, 26 and 32-34 have been amended.
Claims 35-36 have been added.
Claims 1-11, 16, 20 and 27 have been canceled.
Claims 12-15, 17-19, 21-26 and 28-36 are currently pending and have been examined.
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on August 24, 2026 has been entered.
Response to Amendments
Applicant’s amendments to claims 12, 19, 26 and 32-34 have been acknowledged.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments have been considered but not found persuasive. Applicant argues:
Applicant’s amended claims cannot be practically performed in the human mind.
Examiner’s Response: Not being able to perform something manually or in the human mind is not enough to confer eligibility or show an improvement to the computer or the technology. The computer components are recited at a high level of generality as a tool to implement the abstract idea. Merely using a general computer component to replace or automate human work is not enough to confer eligibility. For example, a person could record that fiber from bale A contributed to output X, identify the related input of a subsequent operation and associate that operation with machine M. Applicants invention merely produces more comprehensive records. It is important to keep in mind that an improvement in the abstract idea itself is not an improvement in technology. For example, in Trading Technologies Int’l v. IBG, 921 F.3d 1084, 1093-94, 2019 USPQ2d 138290 (Fed. Cir. 2019), the court determined that the claimed user interface simply provided a trader with more information to facilitate market trades, which improved the business process of market trading but did not improve computers or technology. To show that the involvement of a computer assists in improving the technology, the claims must recite the details regarding how a computer aids the method, the extent to which the computer aids the method, or the significance of a computer to the performance of the method. Merely adding generic computer components to perform a method is not sufficient. Thus, the claim must include more than mere instructions to perform the method on a generic component or machinery to qualify as an improvement to an existing technology. See MPEP § 2106.05(f) for more information about mere instructions to apply an exception.
Applicant’s amended claims provide a specific technical improvement over prior systems.
Examiner’s Response: The claims specify what information must be related but does not specify a technical mechanism that improves how the tracking system operates. For example, a particular RFID encoding technique, reader coordination protocol, error resolution procedure or database structure that improves current technology.
Similar to Enfish, LLC v. Microsoft Corp applicant’s invention improves the functionality and utility of the system’s database.
Examiner’s Response: In Enfish the claims recite a specific self-referential table structure that changed how the computer stored and retrieved information. The specification explained concrete technological benefits, including faster searching, greater flexibility and reduced memory requirements. The Federal Circuit therefore concluded that the claims were directed to a specific improvement in computer functionality rather than using a computer as a tool to perform another task. Applicant’s invention stores the received fiber information in a database that includes relationship data configured to be used in tracking a textile product to the bale of fibers. Later, define the relationship data to include a relationship between the output information for the first textile operation, the input information for the second textile operation and the equipment information. Then associate that relationship data with the stored fiber information. That makes tracking information more useful but it does not recite how the database is technologically improved. There is no claimed self-referential architecture, particular indexing mechanism, new memory organization, new database retrieval mechanism or comparable/structural logical database technique. Instead, the database appears to perform its ordinary storage/association function on a particular set of textile production information.
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 12-15, 17-19, 21-26 and 28-33 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.”
Regarding Claims 12, 19, 26, 32 and 33 the claims describe a system for tracking textile supply chain which is a mental process (observation/evaluation). The limitations on receive fiber information, store the information, receive input/output information, define relationship and associate the relationship data could be all performed in the human mind and/or with the help of paper and pencil. Other than reciting processors, RFID readers, RFID tags, a memory and a database, nothing in the claim precludes the steps for being performed in the human mind and/or the help of paper and pencil. The computer components are performing their ordinary functions for data processing, gathering and data association. This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. The computer components are recited at a high-level of generality such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components. Accordingly, this additional element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. Generic computer components performing generic computer functions alone, do not amount to significantly more that an abstract idea. Simply implementing the abstract idea on a generic computer environment is not a practical application of the abstract idea and does not take the claim out of the mental process. The claims are directed to an abstract idea.
The claims do not include additional elements that even in combination 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 element of using general computer components to perform the receiving, storing, defining and associating steps amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components as a tool. Mere instructions to apply an exception using generic computer components cannot provide an inventive concept. There are no improvements to technology or any new technology involved. The claims are not patent eligible.
Regarding independent claim 34, the claim describes a system for tracking fiber sources which is a mental process (observation/evaluation). The limitations on receiving an input, searching a database and outputting data could be all performed in the human mind and/or with the help of paper and pencil. Other than reciting a memory, a processor, a database and a user interface, nothing in the claim precludes the steps for being performed in the human mind and/or the help of paper and pencil. This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. The computer components are recited at a high-level of generality such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components. Accordingly, this additional element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. Generic computer components performing generic computer functions alone, do not amount to significantly more that an abstract idea. Simply implementing the abstract idea on a generic computer environment is not a practical application of the abstract idea and does not take the claim out of the mental process. The claim is directed to an abstract idea.
The claim do not include additional elements that even in combination 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 element of using computer components to perform the receiving, searching and outputting steps amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components. Mere instructions to apply an exception using generic computer components cannot provide an inventive concept. There are no improvements to technology or any new technology involved. The claim is not patent eligible.
Regarding dependent claims 13-15, 17-18, 21-25, 28-31 and 35-36, these claims are directed to limitations which serve to limit the components, the processing steps and the information used. These claims neither introduce a new abstract idea nor additional limitations which are significantly more than an abstract idea. They provide descriptive details that offer helpful context, but have no impact on statutory subject matter eligibility.
Therefore the limitations on the invention, when viewed individually and in ordered combination are directed to in-eligible subject matter.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 12-15, 17-19, 21-26 and 28-36 are allowable over prior art and would be allowed if 101 rejection is overcome. Best prior art found on Renfro (US 9, 972, 224 B2) discloses a tracking system for a textile supply chain using taggants from manufacturing to final product. Schoening (US 9, 489, 650 B2) on the other hand, discloses using RFID technology to track the movement of materials from each manufacturing stage. However, none of the cited art references, separately or in combination, explicitly discloses or render obvious each and every one of the limitations in independent claims 12, 19, 26 and 32-34. The specific limitations regarding receiving inputs, outputs and equipment information as claimed; defining relationships between input/output/equipment information and associating the relationship with the stored fiber information in combination with the other limitations on independent claims 12, 19, 26 and 32-34 are novel and non-obvious over the prior art of record.
CONCLUSION
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DENISSE Y ORTIZ ROMAN whose telephone number is (571)270-5506. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday 9-7.
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, Fahd A Obeid can be reached at 571-270-3324. 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.
/DENISSE Y ORTIZ ROMAN/Examiner, Art Unit 3627 /ARIEL J YU/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3627
