DETAILED ACTION
This non-final office action is in response to Applicant’s amendment filed January 23, 2026 and request for continued examination filed February 9, 2026. Applicant’s January 23rd amendment amended claims 1, 4, 10, 11, 14, 19 and canceled claim 9. Currently Claims 1-8 and 10-21 are pending. Claims 1, 11 and 19 are the independent claims.
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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 January 23, 2026 has been entered.
Response to Amendment
The 35 U.S.C. 101 rejection of claims 1-8 and 10-21 in the previous office action is maintained.
The 35 U.S.C. 103 rejections of claims 1-8 and 10-21 in the previous office action are withdrawn in response to Applicant's amendments to the claims.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see Last Paragraph, Page 13; Last Paragraph, Page 14; Page 15, filed January 23, 2026, with respect to Krishan et al. and Song et al. have been fully considered and are persuasive. The 35 U.S.C. 103 rejections of claims 1-8 and 10-21 have been withdrawn.
Applicant's arguments filed January 23, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Specifically, Applicant argues that the claims are patent eligible under 35 U.S.C. 101 as the claims recite significantly more than an abstract idea (e.g. technical act of configuring one or more industrial device to manufacture a second product, improve technical field of autonomous industrial control; generating/sending configuration data to one or more industrial devices are not merely mental processes or human activities - computer specific functions, cannot be divorced from computer technology, Remarks: Last Two Paragraphs, Page 9; Page 10); and the claims are similar to Diamond v. Diehr (Remarks: Last Paragraph, Page 10; Paragraph 1, Page 11).
In response to applicant's argument that the references fail to show certain features of the invention, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., features not claimed (autonomous industrial control - Remarks: Last Paragraph, Page 9; proactive analytics, dynamic line/supply chain services, generating line-level inventory or shipping recommendations or dynamic modifying to line level of supply chain operations and planning schedules, dynamically update production or operator work schedules to optimize one or more business metrics - Remarks: Last Paragraph, Page 11; Paragraphs 1-2, Page 12) are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
In response to Applicant’s argument that the claims are patent eligible under 35 U.S.C. 101 as the claims recite significantly more than an abstract idea, the examiner respectfully disagrees.
The claims are directed to a well-known business practice of production scheduling, specifically the claims “generate and send configuration data to the one or more industrial devices....the configuration data configures the one or more industrial devices to manufacture the second product”. It is noted that the claims do not positively recite that the configuration data (insignificant post/extra solution activity – mere data output) is actually received by any of the one or more industrial devices. The claims do not positively recite that the industrial devices are actually configured based on the send (and not received) configuration data. Further the claims do not positively recite actually manufacturing the first or second product as currently amended. Examiner notes that even if Applicant were to amend the claims to positively recite configuring industrial devices and positively recite manufacturing first/second product using the configured industrial devices this recitation would represent an insignificant application of the abstract idea (apply it). See at least MPEP 2106.05(g) – Insignificant Application: Cutting hair after first determining the hair style, In re Brown, 645 Fed. App'x 1014, 1016-1017 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (non-precedential);
While the claims may represent an improvement to the fundamental economic process of manufacturing/production scheduling, this improvement is at best an improvement in the abstract idea itself (production planning) and does not provide a technical solution to a technical problem; improve any of the underlying technology (processor, computer readable medium, etc.) or improve another technology or technical field (e.g. production scheduling, transportation scheduling are not technical fields).
Additionally, the claims are directed to a mental processing practically capable of being performed in the human mind via observation, evaluation, judgement and opinion. Representative claim 1: The step of collect multi-tenant data from multiple entities of supply chain may be performed in the human mind using observation of data – also directed to insignificant pre-solution activity (i.e. data gathering). The step of forecast a predicted station of the supply chain based on a second analysis of the multi-tenant data may be performed in the human mind using evaluation and judgement – also directed to a mathematical operation/concept. The step of formulate a modification to a production schedule of the manufacturing entity can be performing practically by a human evaluation and opinion. The step of implement the (schedule) modification may be performed practically in the human mind using judgement. The step of generate and send configuration data to one or more industrial devices may be performing in the human mind via judgement and opinion wherein sending configuration data is also directed to insignificant post-solution activity (i.e. data output). That the configuration data configure the one or more industrial devices to manufacture the second can practically performed by a human and at best may represent automation of a well-known manual methods (See Specification Paragraph 83 wherein human operators’ setup/configure equipment). Additionally, these steps are at best an insignificant/necessary application of the abstract idea (apply it) – modifying a manufacturing production schedule.
The recitation of one or more industrial devices, used for their conventional, routine, well-known purposes, does not negate the mental nature of these claim limitations as the claims merely use the one or more industrial devices as a tool to perform an otherwise mental process. The one or more industrial devices are recited at a high level of generality and amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the abstract idea using a generic ‘industrial devices’. Further the configuring step is results based as the limitation merely recites a wished-for result without limiting how the step is performed/executed. See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2), subsection III.
Other than the recitation of a manufacturing entity, entities of a supply chain, manufacturing entity and supplier entity (which are businesses/companies) and generic internal services (software per se), manufacturing cloud system (software per se), multi-tenant Software-as-a-Service system (software per se), analytics component (software per se), scheduling component (software per se), processor, computer readable medium having stored instructions nothing in the claimed steps precludes the step from practically being performed in the mind. The claims do not recite additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. The limitations directed to internal services (software per se), manufacturing cloud system (software per se), multi-tenant Software-as-a-Service system (software per se), analytics component (software per se), scheduling component (software per se), processor, computer readable medium having stored instructions are each recited at a high level of generality and amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer. See MPEP 2106.05(f).
Further the mere nominal recitation of a generic computer (i.e., internal services (software per se), manufacturing cloud system (software per se), multi-tenant Software-as-a-Service system (software per se), analytics component (software per se), scheduling component (software per se), processor, computer readable medium having stored instructions - each used for their well-understood, conventional and routine purpose) does not take the claim limitation out of the mental processes grouping.
Reevaluating the steps of collect multi-tenant data and generate/send configuration data which are considered insignificant extra solution activity, these limitations are mere data gathering and output recited at a high level of generality and amount to nothing more than receiving and sending data which are both well-understood, routine and conventional activities. The limitations remain insignificant extra solution activity even upon reconsideration. Even when considered in combination the additional elements represent mere instructions to apply an exception and insignificant extra solution activity which cannot provide an inventive concept.
The claims use “conventional or generic technology in a nascent but well-known environment” to implement the abstract idea of production scheduling. In re TLI Commc’ns LLC Pat. Litig., 823 F.3d 607, 612 (Fed. Cir. 2016). The recited technology (processor, computer-readable medium, etc.), are used as a “conduit for the abstract idea,” not to provide a technological solution to a specific technological problem. Id.; see also id. at 611–13 (holding claims reciting the use of a cellular telephone and a network server to classify an image and store the image based on its classification to be abstract because the patent did “not describe a new telephone, a new server, or a new physical combination of the two” and did not address “how to combine a camera with a cellular telephone, how to transmit images via a cellular network, or even how to append classification information to that data”).
Nothing in Applicant’s disclosures suggests that the Applicant intended to accomplish any of the steps recited in the claims through anything other than well understood technology used in a routine and conventional manner. Therefore, the claims lack an inventive concept. See also, e.g., Elec. Power Grp., 830 F.3d at 1355 (holding claims lacked inventive concept where “[n]othing in the claims, understood in light of the specification, requires anything other than off-the-shelf, conventional computer, network, and display technology for gathering, sending, and presenting the desired information”); Content Extraction, 776 F.3d at 1348 (holding claims lacked an inventive concept where the claims recited the use of “existing scanning and processing technology”).
With regards to applicant's argument that the claims cannot be divorced from computer technology and are therefore patent eligible under 35 U.S.C. 101, the examiner respectfully disagrees.
As discussed in MPEP 2106.05(I)(A): "It is notable that mere physicality or tangibility of an additional element or elements is not a relevant consideration in Step 2B. As the Supreme Court explained in Alice Corp., mere physical or tangible implementation of an exception is not in itself an inventive concept and does not guarantee eligibility:
The fact that a computer "necessarily exist[s] in the physical, rather than purely conceptual, realm," is beside the point. There is no dispute that a computer is a tangible system (in § 101 terms, a "machine"), or that many computer-implemented claims are formally addressed to patent-eligible subject matter. But if that were the end of the § 101 inquiry, an applicant could claim any principle of the physical or social sciences by reciting a computer system configured to implement the relevant concept. Such a result would make the determination of patent eligibility "depend simply on the draftsman’s art," Flook, supra, at 593, 98 S. Ct. 2522, 57 L. Ed. 2d 451, thereby eviscerating the rule that "‘[l]aws of nature, natural phenomena, and abstract ideas are not patentable,’" Myriad, 133 S. Ct. 1289, 186 L. Ed. 2d 124, 133).
Further as discussed in MPEP 2106.05(f):
For example, as described in MPEP § 2106.05(f), additional elements that invoke computers or other machinery merely as a tool to perform an existing process will generally not amount to significantly more than a judicial exception. See, e.g., Versata Development Group v. SAP America, 793 F.3d 1306, 1335, 115 USPQ2d 1681, 1702 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (explaining that in order for a machine to add significantly more, it must “play a significant part in permitting the claimed method to be performed, rather than function solely as an obvious mechanism for permitting a solution to be achieved more quickly”).
(2) Whether the claim invokes computers or other machinery merely as a tool to perform an existing process. 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 integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more. See Affinity Labs v. DirecTV, 838 F.3d 1253, 1262, 120 USPQ2d 1201, 1207 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (cellular telephone); TLI Communications LLC v. AV Auto, LLC, 823 F.3d 607, 613, 118 USPQ2d 1744, 1748 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (computer server and telephone unit). Similarly, “claiming the improved speed or efficiency inherent with applying the abstract idea on a computer” does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide an inventive concept. Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Capital One Bank (USA), 792 F.3d 1363, 1367, 115 USPQ2d 1636, 1639 (Fed. Cir. 2015). In contrast, a claim that purports to improve computer capabilities or to improve an existing technology may integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more. McRO, Inc. v. Bandai Namco Games Am. Inc., 837 F.3d 1299, 1314-15, 120 USPQ2d 1091, 1101-02 (Fed. Cir. 2016); Enfish, LLC v. Microsoft Corp., 822 F.3d 1327, 1335-36, 118 USPQ2d 1684, 1688-89 (Fed. Cir. 2016). See MPEP §§ 2106.04(d)(1) and 2106.05(a) for a discussion of improvements to the functioning of a computer or to another technology or technical field.
TLI Communications provides an example of a claim invoking computers and other machinery merely as a tool to perform an existing process. The court stated that the claims describe steps of recording, administration and archiving of digital images, and found them to be directed to the abstract idea of classifying and storing digital images in an organized manner. 823 F.3d at 612, 118 USPQ2d at 1747. The court then turned to the additional elements of performing these functions using a telephone unit and a server and noted that these elements were being used in their ordinary capacity (i.e., the telephone unit is used to make calls and operate as a digital camera including compressing images and transmitting those images, and the server simply receives data, extracts classification information from the received data, and stores the digital images based on the extracted information). 823 F.3d at 612-13, 118 USPQ2d at 1747-48. In other words, the claims invoked the telephone unit and server merely as tools to execute the abstract idea. Thus, the court found that the additional elements did not add significantly more to the abstract idea because they were simply applying the abstract idea on a telephone network without any recitation of details of how to carry out the abstract idea.
Accordingly, the claims are not patent eligible under 35 U.S.C. 101.
In response to Applicant’s argument that the claims are patent eligible under 35 U.S.C. 101 as the claims are similar to Diamond v. Diehr, the examiner respectfully disagrees.
The Diamond v. Diehr decision found the claims to be patent eligible under 35 U.S.C. 101 as the claims are directed to controlling a rubber molding process with a computer to precisely shape uncured material under heat and pressure and then cure the synthetic rubber in the mold to obtain a product that retains its shape. Key to subject matter eligibility of this decision is that the claims are directed to automatically, via a computer, operating the rubber mold based on repetitive and constant calculations by the computer to ensure the mold is automatically opened at the appropriate time. The claim was found to recite significantly more than an abstract idea (i.e. calculating mold time) and resulted in the transformation of rubber into a different statue or thing (i.e. cured rubber).
The claims of the instant application do not pass either of these tests, as the claimed invention does not actually control any equipment of any kind (configuration data is merely sent) nor the claims transform anything into a different state or thing (first/second products are not manufactured). As recited the pending claims merely generate and send configuration data to one or more industrial devices which do not actually receive the configuration data, are not configured by the configurate data and do not manufacture anything.
Accordingly, the claims are not similar to Diehr and are therefore not patent eligible under 35 U.S.C. 101.
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 1-8 and 10-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more.
Regarding independent Claims 1, 11 and 19, the claims are directed to the abstract idea of production scheduling. This is a process (i.e. a series of steps) which (Statutory Category – Yes –process).
The claims recite a judicial exception, a method for organizing human activity, production scheduling (Judicial Exception – Yes – organizing human activity). Specifically, the claims are directed to ‘implement’ formulated modifications to a production schedule of a manufacturing entity to satisfy an optimization criterion given constraints (e.g. maximum throughput), wherein production scheduling is a fundamental economic practice that falls into the abstract idea subcategories of sales activities and/or commercial interactions. Further all of the steps of “collects”, “forecast”, “identifies”, “formulate”, ”implement”, “generate and send”, and “configures“ recite functions of the production scheduling are also directed to an abstract idea that falls into the abstract idea subcategories of sales activities and/or commercial interactions. The step of forecast a predicted state of the supply chain is also directed to an abstract idea because it is a mathematical concept. The intended purpose of independent claims 1, 11 and 19 appears to be to modify a production schedule to produce a second product based on a predicted state of a supply chain/change to a transportation schedule due to an unavailable component part or material.
Accordingly, the claims recite an abstract idea – fundamental economic practice, specifically in the abstract idea subcategories of sales activities and/or commercial interactions. The exceptions are the manufacturing entity, entities of a supply chain, manufacturing entity and supplier entity (which are businesses/companies) and the additional generic computer elements: internal services (software per se), manufacturing cloud system (software per se), multi-tenant Software-as-a-Service system (software per se), analytics component (software per se), scheduling component (software per se), processor, computer readable medium having stored instructions and one or more industrial devices. See MPEP § 2106.04.
Accordingly, the claims recite an abstract idea under Step 2A, Prong One, we proceed to Step 2A, Prong Two. Considering whether the additional elements set forth in the claim integrate the abstract idea into a practical application (See MPEP § 2106.05), the previously identified non-abstract elements directed to generic computing components include: memory, processor, internal services (software per se), analytics component (software per se), cloud system, Saas system, computer readable medium having stored instructions including instruction. These generic computing components are merely used to process data as described extensively in Applicant’s specification (Specification: Figures 2, 3). Generic computers performing generic computer functions, alone, do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. Moreover, when viewed as a whole with such additional elements considered as an ordered combination, the claim modified by adding a generic computer would be nothing more than a purely conventional computerized implementation of applicant's production scheduling in the general field of supply chain planning/optimization and would not provide significantly more than the judicial exception itself. Note McRo, Inc. v. Bandai Namco Games America Inc. (837 F.3d 1299 (Fed. Cir. 2016)), guides: "[t]he abstract idea exception prevents patenting a result where 'it matters not by what process or machinery the result is accomplished."' 837 F.3d at 1312 (quoting O'Reilly v. Morse, 56 U.S. 62, 113 (1854)) (emphasis added). The claims are not directed to a particular machine nor do they recite a particular transformation (MPEP § 2106.05(b)).
Additionally, the claims do not recite any specific claim limitations that would provide a meaningful limitation beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment. Nor do the claims present any other issues as set forth in the MPEP 2106 regarding a determination of whether the additional generic elements integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. Rather, the claims on merely use instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely use a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea. Thus, under Step 2A, Prong Two (MPEP §§ 2106.05(a)-(c) and (e)¬ (h)), claims 1-8 and 10-21 do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Regarding the use of the generic (known, conventional) recited memory, processor, internal services (software per se), analytics component (software per se), cloud system, Saas system, computer readable medium having stored instructions including instruction," the Supreme Court has held "the mere recitation of a generic computer cannot transform a patent-ineligible abstract idea into a patent-eligible invention." Alice, 573 U.S. 208, 223. Generic computers performing generic computer functions, alone, do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. The claims as a whole do not recite more than what was well-known, routine and conventional in the field (see MPEP § 2106.05(d)). In light of the foregoing, that each of the claims, considered as a whole, is directed to a patent-ineligible abstract idea that is not integrated into a practical application and does not include an inventive concept.
Accordingly, the claims are not patent eligible under 35 U.S.C. 101.
Additionally, the claims recite a judicial exception, a mental processes, which can be performed in the human mind or via pen and paper (Judicial Exception – Yes – mental process).
The claimed steps of implement a manufacturing cloud system, forecast a predicted sate of the supply chain, formulate a modification to a production schedule, and ‘implement’ the modification to the production schedule (e.g. update the schedule) and configure the one or more industrial devices all describe the abstract idea. These limitations as drafted are directed to a process that under its reasonable interpretation covers performance of the steps in the mind but for the recitation of the generic computer components. Other than the recitation of a memory, processor, internal services (software per se), analytics component (software per se), cloud system, Saas system, computer readable medium having stored instructions including instruction nothing in the claimed steps precludes the step from practically being performed in the mind. The claims do not recite additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the abstract idea because the step of ‘implement’ the modification to the production schedule and generate and send configuration data is directed to insignificant post-solution activity (e.g. data output, modify a production schedule – merely data – to include a modification to the production schedule). The mere nominal recitation of a generic processor/computer does not take the claim limitation out of the mental processes grouping. Thus, the claim recites a mental process. (Judicial Exception recited – Yes – mental process).
The claims do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. The generic memory, processor, internal services (software per se), analytics component (software per se), cloud system, Saas system, computer readable medium having stored instructions including instruction are each recited at a high level of generality merely performs generic computer functions of retrieving, processing or displaying data. The generic processor/computer merely applies the abstract idea using generic computer components. The 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 claims do not recite improvements to the functioning of a computer or any other technology field (MPEP 2106.05(a)), the claims do not apply or use the abstract idea to effect a particular treatment or prophylaxis for a disease or medical condition, the claims to do apply the abstract idea with a particular machine (MPEP 2106.05(b)), the claims do not effect a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing (e.g. data remains data even after processing; MPEP 2106.05(c)), the claims no not apply or use the abstract idea in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the user of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment (i.e. a generic computer) such that the claim as a whole is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the abstract idea (MPEP 2106.05(e)). The recited generic computing elements are no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component.
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. (Integrated into a Practical Application – No).
As discussed above the additional elements in the claims amount to no more than a mere instruction to apply the abstract idea using generic computing components, wherein mere instructions to apply an judicial exception using generic computer components cannot integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide an inventive concept. For the retrieving and displaying steps that were considered extra-solution activity, this has been re-evaluated and determined to be well-understood, routine, conventional activity in the field. Applicant’s specification does not provide any indication that the computer/processor is anything other than a generic, off-the-shelf computer component, and the Symantec, TLI, and OIP Techs. court decisions (MPEP 2106.05(d)(II)) indicate that mere collection or receipt of data is a well‐understood, routine, and conventional function when it is claimed in a merely generic manner (as it is here). For these reasons, there is no inventive concept. The claim is ineligible (Provide Inventive Concept – No).
The claims are ineligible under 35 U.S.C. 101 as being directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Regarding dependent claims 2-10, 12-18 and 20, the claims are directed to the abstract idea of production scheduling and merely further limit the abstract idea claimed in independent Claims 1, 11 and 19.
Claims 2 and 12 further limit the abstract idea by limiting the optimization criterion to at least ONE of maximization of overall profit, maximization of profit for a specified product, maximization of overall product throughput, overall demand fulfillment, fulfillment of demand for a specified product, minimization of energy consumption, minimization of emissions, OR a product quality target (a more detailed abstract idea remains an abstract idea). Claims 3 and 13 further limit the abstract idea wherein the multi-tenant data comprises at least ONE of availability of a component part or material provided by a supplier entity, a cost of the component part or material, an inventory level of a first/second product manufactured by the manufacturing entity or a component part used to manufacture the product, a transportation schedule of a shipping entity, shipping route information for the shipping entity, a demand for the first/second product manufactured by the manufacturing entity, current or scheduled capacity constraints on a production line operated by the manufacturing entity, budgetary information of the manufacturing entity, OR production data from the manufacturing entity (a more detailed abstract idea remains an abstract idea). Claims 4 and 14 further limit the abstract idea by limiting a change OR the modification to at least ONE of a change in availability of a component part or material used by the manufacturing entity, a change to a product transportation schedule, OR a change in a demand for a product manufactured by the manufacturing entity (a more detailed abstract idea remains an abstract idea). Claims 5, 15 and 20 further limit the abstract idea by formulating a prompt directed to a generative AI model to forecast a predicted state OR formulate the modification (a more detailed abstract idea remains an abstract idea). Claims 6 and 16 further limit the abstract idea by limiting the response to at least ONE of information regarding a capability of an industrial asset operated by the manufacturing entity, a current or predicted consumer demand for a product or type of product manufactured by the manufacturing entity, a sales statistic for the product, status information for a supply chain entity having a business relationship with the manufacturing entity, information regarding a service disruption in the supply chain, or information regarding alternative sources of a component part OR material required to manufacture the first product manufactured by the manufacturing entity (a more detailed abstract idea remains an abstract idea). Claims 7 and 17 further limit the abstract idea formulating a prompt based on training encoded data and limiting the training data to at least ONE of technical specifications of industrial assets, monitored trends in operation of the industrial assets OR the production schedule (a more detailed abstract idea remains an abstract idea). Claims 8 and 18 further limit the abstract idea by limiting the modification to the production schedule to at least ONE of changes a time period during which a product is scheduled to be produced, OR changes a source from which to obtain a component part or material used by the manufacturing entity to produce the product (a more detailed abstract idea remains an abstract idea). Claim 10 further limits the abstract idea by limiting the multiple entities of the supply chain to at least ONE of warehouse entity, retail entity, or distributor entity (a more detailed abstract idea remains an abstract idea).
Regarding the recited generative artificial intelligence model (Claims 5-7, 15-17 and 20), the recited generative artificial intelligence model is recited at a high level of generality and amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the abstract idea using a generic generative artificial intelligence model on a generic computer, also recited at a high level of generality. The generative artificial intelligence model is used to generally apply the abstract idea without limiting how the generative artificial intelligence model functions. The generative artificial intelligence model is described at a high level such that it amounts to using a generic computer with a generic generative artificial intelligence model to apply the abstract idea. These limitations only recite outcomes/results of the steps without any details about how the outcomes are accomplished. The recitation of a generative artificial intelligence model in these claim does not negate the mental nature of these limitations as the generative artificial intelligence model is merely used at a tool to perform an otherwise mental process.
None of the limitations considered as an ordered combination provide eligibility because taken as a whole the claims simply instruct the practitioner to apply the abstract idea to a generic computer.
Further regarding claims 1-8 and 10-21, Applicant’s specification discloses that the claimed elements directed to a memory, processor, internal services (software per se), analytics component (software per se), cloud system, Saas system, computer readable medium having stored instructions including instruction at best merely comprise generic computer hardware which is commercially available (Specification: Figures 2, 3). More specifically Applicant’s claimed features directed to a system do not represent custom or specific computer hardware circuits, instead the terms merely refers to commercially available software and/or hardware. Thus, as to the system recited, "the system claims are no different from the method claims in substance. The method claims recite the abstract idea implemented on a generic computer; the system claims recite a handful of generic computer components configured to implement the same idea." See Alice Corp. Pry. Ltd., 134 S.Ct. at 2360.
Accordingly, the claims merely recite manipulating data utilizing generic computer hardware (e.g. memory, processor, etc.). Generic computers performing generic computer functions, alone, do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. Further the lack of detail of the claimed embodiment in Applicant’s disclosure is an indication that the claims are directed to an abstract idea and not a specific improvement to a machine.
Accordingly given the broadest reasonable interpretation and in light of the specification the claims are interpreted to include the process steps being performed by a human mind or via pen and paper. The claim limitations which recite a computer implemented method is at best recite generic, well-known hardware. However, the recited generic hardware simply performs generic computer function of displaying or processing data. Generic computers performing generic, well known computer functions, alone, do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. Further the recited memories are part of every conventional general-purpose computer.
Applicant has not demonstrated that a special purpose machine/computer is required to carry out the claimed invention. A special purpose machine is now evaluated as part of the significantly more analysis established by the Alice decision and current 35 U.S.C. 101 guidelines. It involves/requires more than a machine only broadly applying the abstract idea and/or performing conventional functions.
Applicant’s specification discloses that the claimed elements directed to a memory, processor, internal services (software per se), analytics component (software per se), cloud system, Saas system, computer readable medium having stored instructions including instruction merely comprise generic computer hardware which is commercially available (Specification: Figures 2, 3). More specifically Applicant’s claimed features directed to a system and components do not represent custom or specific computer hardware circuits, instead the term system merely refers to commercially available software and/or hardware. Thus, as to the system recited, "the system claims are no different from the method claims in substance. The method claims recite the abstract idea implemented on a generic computer; the system claims recite a handful of generic computer components configured to implement the same idea." See Alice Corp. Pry. Ltd., 134 S.Ct. at 2360.
Accordingly, the claims are not patent eligible under 35 U.S.C. 101.
Examiner suggest Applicant review the recent 2024 Guidance Update on Patent Subject Matter Eligibility, Including on Artificial Intelligence (2024 AI SME Update) in the Federal Register on July 17, 2024 (https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2024/07/17/2024-15377/2024-guidance-update-on-patent-subject-matter-eligibility-including-on-artificial-intelligence) and the three new Subject Matter Eligibility Examples 47-49 (https://www.uspto.gov/sites/default/files/documents/2024-AI-SMEUpdateExamples47-49.pdf)
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-8 and 10-21 are allowable over the prior art.
The closest prior art Krishan et al. and Song et al. fail to teach or suggest either singularly or in combination a system and method internal services that implement a manufacturing cloud system, wherein the manufacturing cloud system is a multi-tenant Software-as-a-Service (SaaS) system that executes a supply chain analytics service that collects multi-tenant data from multiple entities of a supply chain, wherein the multiple entities comprise at least a manufacturing entity and a supplier entity; an analytics component configured to, based on a first analysis of the multi-tenant data, forecast a predicted state of the supply chain and, based on a second analysis of the multi-tenant data and the predicted state of the supply chain that identifies a supply chain disruption that will render a component part or material that is provided by the supplier entity and used by the manufacturing entity in a manufacturing process for a first product unavailable during a predicted time period, formulate a modification to a production schedule of the manufacturing entity that causes a business metric of the manufacturing entity to satisfy defined optimization criteria, wherein the defined optimization criteria comprise at least maximization of overall product throughput, and the predicted state of the supply chain is at least a change to a product transportation schedule; and a scheduling component configured to implement the modification to the production schedule, wherein the modification is at least a change of a type of product scheduled to be manufactured by the manufacturing entity during a specified time period from the first product to a second product that does not require the component part or material, the analytics component is further configured to generate and send configuration data to one or more industrial devices operating at a plant facility of the manufacturing entity, and the configuration data configures the one or more industrial devices to manufacture the second product as recited in independent Claims 1, 11, and 19.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Horne U.S. Patent No. 7058587, discloses a production planning system and method comprising identifying and unitizing substitute components wherein there is insufficient availability or lead-time to acquire as well as the ability to determine when to phase in/out a new product line to introduce new parts or products (Product Change Analysis).
Barts, U.S. Patent Publication No. 20020082893, discloses a system and method for transportation planning for manufactured products (e.g. vehicles to dealerships) comprising updating manufacturing plans (e.g. which products are manufactured) and transportation plans/schedules based on predicted disruptions (bottlenecks) and capacity.
Surendra et al. U.S. Patent No. 9805330 discloses a supply chain management system and method comprising analyzing and optimizing inventory
Shriver et al. U.S. Patent Publication No. 20020165747, discloses supply chain management system and method comprising updating supply chain plans to account for damaged or missing parts from supplies including changing transportation plans (e.g. shipping dates)
Grosvenor, U.S. Patent No. 7216086 discloses a supply chain management system and method including identifying alternate part/component suppliers/supplies based on identified part/component shortages.
Ishii, U.S. Patent No. 6094603 discloses a production planning system and method comprising changing/modifying production plan when supplied parts become insufficient.
Devarakonda et al. U.S. Patent No. 11694142 discloses a supply chain management/planning system comprising predicting supply chain metrics including predicting the impact of changing a transportation plan/schedule (e.g. expediated shipping for stock transfers)
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SCOTT L JARRETT whose telephone number is (571)272-7033. The examiner can normally be reached M-TH 6am-4:30PM.
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, Beth Boswell can be reached at (571) 272-6737. 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.
SCOTT L. JARRETT
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 3625
/SCOTT L JARRETT/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3625
Prosecution Insights