DETAILED ACTION
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
1. 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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 5/18/2026 has been entered.
2. This Non-Final Office Action is in response to Applicant’s RCE filing on 5/18/2026. Claims 1-5, 7-16, and 18-20 are currently pending. The earliest effective filing date of the present application is 5/15/2023.
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
3. The present application is being examined under the AIA first to file provisions.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
4. 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.
5. Claims 1-5, 7-16, and 18-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed a judicial exception (i.e., an abstract idea) without significantly more.
Step 1 – Statutory Categories
As indicated in the preamble of the claim, the examiner finds the claim is directed to a process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter. Claims 1-5 and 7-11 are processes (methods), and claims 12-16 and 18-20 are machines (systems or devices).
Step 2A – Prong 1: was there a Judicial Exception Recited
Claim 1 (similarly claim 12) recites the following bolded abstract concepts that are found to include “abstract idea”:
1. A method for forecasting material requirements planning and inventory controls, the method comprising:
collecting, by a processor of an Enterprise Resource Planning (ERP) system, data from one or more data sources (observation);
applying, by the processor of the ERP system, one or more artificial intelligence processes to the collected data and based on one or more trained models, wherein applying the one or more artificial intelligence processes to the collected data comprises initiating, by the processor of the ERP system, an electronic communication within the ERP system (judgment), extracting, by the processor of the ERP system, one or more records from the collected data (evaluation), sending, by the processor of the ERP system, the extracted one or more records and an indication of a requested communication type to an artificial intelligence system (judgment), and receiving, by the processor of the ERP system, a generated electronic communication from the artificial intelligence system (opinion);
generating, by the processor of the ERP system, from the one or more artificial intelligence processes, one or more insights to the data (opinion);
generating, by the processor of the ERP system, one or more actions from the generated insights (opinion); and
presenting, by the processor of the ERP system, through a user interface of the ERP system, the one or more insights into the data and the one or more actions (opinion).
Claim 1 (similarly claim 12) is directed to a series of steps for forecasting material requirements planning and inventory controls, which is a commercial/legal interaction and thus grouped as a certain method of organizing human interactions and/or a mental process (see above notations). Examiner notes that presenting insights into the data or actions could be reports, which could be accomplished with pen and paper. Thus, the claim recites an abstract idea. See MPEP §2106.4(a).
Step 2A – Prong 2: Can the Judicial Exception Recited be integrated into a practical application
Limitations that are indicative of integration into a practical application:
Improvements to the functioning of a computer, or to any other technology or technical field - see MPEP 2106.05(a)
Applying or using a judicial exception to effect a particular treatment or prophylaxis for a disease or medical condition – see Vanda Memo
Applying the judicial exception with, or by use of, a particular machine - see MPEP 2106.05(b)
Effecting a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing - see MPEP 2106.05(c)
Applying or using the judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment, such that the claim as a whole is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception - see MPEP 2106.05(e) and Vanda Memo
Limitations that are not indicative of integration into a practical application:
Adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea - see MPEP 2106.05(f)
Adding insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception - see MPEP 2106.05(g)
Generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use – see MPEP 2106.05(h)
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the processor, ERP system, artificial intelligence processes, artificial intelligence system, communication network, user interface, and memory are merely generically recited computer elements that do not add a meaningful limitation to the abstract idea because they amount to simply the abstract idea on a generic computer. Accordingly, alone and in combination, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. See for example Specification [0031] discussing the multiple types of generic processors that could be used. The claim is directed to an abstract idea.
Step 2B – Significantly More Analysis
The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because, when considered separately and in combination the processor, ERP system, artificial intelligence processes, artificial intelligence system, communication network, user interface, and memory are merely generically recited computer elements amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component (sending, receiving, applying, processing, extracting, generating,…of data). Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. Thus, claims 1 and 12 are not patent eligible.
Dependent claims 2-5, 7-11, 13-16, and 18-20 fail to provide additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. Claims 6 and 17 introduce an artificial intelligence system, which discussed at such a high level to be considered mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component. All other additional elements were previously addressed with the independent claims. Therefore, claims 2-5, 7-11, 13-16, and 18-20 are rejected for the same reasons as stated in the rejection from independent claim from which they depend.
Allowable Subject Matter
6. The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
The reason for allowable subject matter of claims 1-5, 7-16, and 18-20 in the instant application is because the prior art of record fails to teach the overall combination as claimed. Therefore, it would not have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the prior art to meet the combination above without unequivocal hindsight and one of ordinary skill would have no reason to do so. In the closest reference, US 2016/0217501 A1 to Brigham ("Brigham") discloses a messaging type; however, an indication for a particular type isn't sent to the artificial intelligence system to generate an electronic communication and modifying the references would require a complexity beyond the level of ordinary skill. Upon further searching the examiner could not identify any prior art to teach these limitations. The prior art on record, alone or in combination, neither anticipates, reasonably teaches, not renders obvious the Applicant' s claimed invention.
Response to Arguments
6. Applicant's arguments filed 5/18/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues the claims should have been received a Streamlined Eligibility Analysis. Examiner disagrees. MPEP 2106.06 states “For purposes of efficiency in examination, examiners may use a streamlined eligibility analysis (Pathway A) when the eligibility of the claim is self-evident, e.g., because the claim clearly improves a technology or computer functionality. However, if there is doubt as to whether the applicant is effectively seeking coverage for a judicial exception itself, the full eligibility analysis (the Alice/Mayo test described in MPEP § 2106, subsection III) should be conducted to determine whether the claim integrates the judicial exception into a practical application or recites significantly more than the judicial exception (emphasis added).” Further, it states “On the other hand, a claim that does not qualify as eligible after Step 2B of the full analysis would not be suitable for the streamlined analysis, because the claim lacks self‐evident eligibility.” Streamline is inappropriate.
Applicant states the claim is not organizing human activity. Examiner disagrees. The forecasting of material requirements for planning and inventory control are sales activities. Further. Applicant provides no evidence other than general allegations to counter Examiner’s analysis; thus, not an argument.
Applicant argues that the claim is not directed to a mental process because a device did it. Examiner disagrees. See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III)(C) entitled “A Claim That Requires a Computer May Still Recite a Mental Process.” Therefor, Applicant’s comments on McRO are inconsistent with the MPEP, which provides several cases that use a device such as a computer to perform a mental process. Examiner notes that Applicant’s citations are directed to Step 2A prong 2 and Step 2B analysis of the additional elements in ordered combination with the limitations and not the abstract idea groupings.
Applicant argues the “claims address a technical problem associated with material requirements planning and that the ordered combination of elements is a practical application. Specifically, collecting and analyzing electronic data from a variety of data sources. Examiner disagrees. Applicant’s argument that the claims amount to be “practical application” under Step 2A Prong 2 analysis or “significantly more” under Step 2B analysis is not persuasive because an improvement (material requirements planning) of conventional computer technologies is not a technical solution to a technical problem. Instead, the argued improvement represent improvements to the abstract idea of the certain methods of organizing human activity as discussed above. In contrast, the 2019 PEG cite to “a modification of Internet hyperlink protocol to dynamically produce a dual-source hybrid web page” (i.e., the invention of DDR Holdings) to demonstrate an “improvement in the function of a computer or an improvement to other technology or technical field.” That is, the improvements achieved by the claimed invention appear to be directed towards improvements to business practices (i.e., to save time and effort , e.g., see [0005] of the originally filed Specification) and/or to commerce (i.e., lower overhead (manage disruptions and day to day operations), e.g., see [0005] of the originally filed Specification) rather than technical/technological improvements to those disclosed in, for example, DDR Holdings and 101 Examples 37-42. See MPEP 2106.04(d)(I) discussing the analysis under Step 2A Prong 2 discussing the merely including instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. Here, the claims and their additional elements when looked at in an ordered combination are a generic computer applying the abstract idea. Naming individual components of the computer does not change that it is a computer. See id. discussing five examples of cases that do provide a practical application. Further, Examiner notes the last section of Applicant’s Remarks “Prong Two -Analyze the Claim, AS A WHOLE, to Determine if there are Additional Limitations that Amount to Significantly More than the Abstract Idea.” is flawed in that Prong 2 is a practical application analysis and not a significantly more analysis, which would be a Step 2B analysis.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. See Notice of References Cited, PTO form 892.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MICHAEL JARED WALKER whose telephone number is (303)297-4407. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday 9:00 AM -5:00 PM CT.
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 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.
/MICHAEL JARED WALKER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3627 Michael.walker@uspto.gov
Prosecution Insights