DETAILED ACTION
This is a Final Office Action in response to the amendment filed 08/15/2025.
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 .
Priority
Applicant’s claim for the benefit of a prior-filed application under 35 U.S.C. 119 and/or 35 U.S.C. 120 is acknowledged.
Status of Claims
Claims 1-18 are currently pending in the application and have been examined.
Response to Amendment
The amendment filed 08/15/2025 has been entered.
Response to Arguments
Applicant submits on page 9 of the remarks that claim 1 is not directed to an abstract idea. Examiner respectfully disagrees and notes that according to the 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance (PEG), if a claim limitation covers observations or evaluations then it falls within the “mental process” grouping of abstract ideas.
Applicant submits on page 10 of the remarks that even assuming arguendo, the claim is integrated into a practical application. Examiner respectfully disagrees and notes that the present claims do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application in a matter that imposes meaningful limit to the judicial exception.
Applicant submits on page 11 of the remarks that the claim also recites significantly more. Examiner notes that when determining whether a claim recites significantly more in Step 2B the analysis takes into consideration whether the claim effects a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing. Transformation and reduction of an article ‘to a different state or thing’ is the clue to patentability of a process claim that does not include particular machines." Bilski v. Kappos, 561 U.S. 593, 658, 95 USPQ2d 1001, 1007 (2010) (quoting Gottschalk v. Benson, 409 U.S. 63, 70, 175 USPQ 673, 676 (1972)). See MPEP 2106.05(c). The present claims do not provide a combination of features or additional elements that amount to more than well-understood, routine conventional activities in the field.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
The following claim limitations are being interpreted under 112 (f): a graph database template providing unit, a shipping data providing unit, a predefined product data extraction unit, a graph database generation unit, a control signal generation unit, a search unit, a missing data determination unit, a quality determination unit, an additional data proving unit, an overall graph database generation unit, storage unit, interface unit, training data providing unit, a trainable product data model providing unit, training unit. The specification states: “Any units described herein may be processing units that are part of a computing system. Processing units may include a general-purpose processor and may also include a field programmable gate array (FPGA), an application specific integrated circuit (ASIC), or any other specialized circuit.”
There is not enough description of the steps taken or hardware used to perform the functions described by the units.
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.
Claim(s) 1-18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-patentable subject matter. The claims are directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
With respect to claims 1-18, the independent claims (claims 1, 12-18 and 16) are directed, in part, to methods and computer embodiments for generating a database for controlling a workflow and training a data model. Step 1 – First pursuant to step 1 in the January 2019 Guidance, claims 1-11 and 13 are directed to an apparatus, which falls under the statutory category of a system, claims 14-15 and 18 are directed to a method comprising a series of steps which falls under the statutory category of a process, claim 12 is directed to a system, which falls under the statutory category of a machine and claims 16-17 are directed to a computer program product which falls under the category of an article of manufacture. However, these claim elements are considered to be abstract ideas because they are directed to a mental process which includes observations or evaluations.
As per Step 2A - Prong 1 of the subject matter eligibility analysis, the claims are directed, in part, to generating a database for controlling a workflow of a production process referring to a product… providing a graph database template indicative of predefined product data for filling nodes and edges of a graph database, wherein product data refers to information related to the product and/or one or more pre-products utilized in the production process of the product… providing shipping data of the product and/or one or more pre-products utilized in the production process of the product, wherein the shipping data refers to data generated in relation to a logistic process concerning the product and/or the one or more pre- products… extracting predefined product data for the product and/or one or more pre-products from the shipping data… generating a graph database for the product and/or the one or more pre-products by utilizing the graph database template filled with the extracted predefined product data… generating, based on the graph database for the product and/or the one or more pre-products, a control signal for affecting the workflow of the production process referring to the product, wherein the control signal generation unit is configured to: query the graph database in accordance with a production process workflow phase, determine, based on relationships among nodes and edges of the queried graph database, one or more workflow parameters comprising computed timing, sequencing, or resource- allocation values derived from the dependencies represented in the queried graph database for the product and/or the one or more pre-products, and generate the control signal for transmission to a plant-control interface to adjust scheduling or operation parameters of equipment involved in the production process. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation covers an observation or evaluation, then it falls under the “mental process” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
As per Step 2A - Prong 2 of the subject matter eligibility analysis, this judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim recites additional elements: an apparatus, a graph database template providing unit, a shipping data providing unit, a predefined product data extraction unit, a graph database generation unit, a control signal generation unit, a search unit, a missing data determination unit, a quality determination unit, an additional data proving unit, an overall graph database generation unit, sensors, system, storage unit, databases, interface unit, training data providing unit, a trainable product data model providing unit, training unit, plant-control interface. These additional elements are recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as a generic device performing a generic computer function of receiving and storing data) such that these elements amount no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Examiner looks to Applicant’s specification to understand that “the invention may be implemented in a generic environment that the invention may be practiced in network computing environments with many types of computing system configurations, including, per- sonal computers, desktop computers, laptop computers, message processors, hand-held devices, multi-processor systems, microprocessor-based or programmable consumer electronics, network PCs, minicomputers, mainframe computers, mobile telephones, PDAs, pagers, routers, switches, datacenters, wearables, such as glasses, and the like. The invention may also be practiced in distributed system environments where local and remote computing system, which are linked, for example, either by hardwired data links, wireless data links, or by a combination of hardwired and wireless data links, through a network, both perform tasks. In a distributed system environment, program modules may be located in both local and remote memory storage devices. Those skilled in the art will also appreciate that the invention may be practiced in a cloud computing environment. Cloud computing environments may be distributed, although this is not required. When distributed, cloud computing environments may be distributed inter- nationally within an organization and/or have components possessed across multiple organizations. In this description and the following claims, "cloud computing" is defined as a model for enabling on-demand network access to a shared pool of configurable computing resources, e.g., networks, servers, storage, applications, and services. The definition of "cloud computing" is not limited to any of the other numerous advantages that can be obtained from such a model when deployed. The computing systems of the figures include various components or functional blocks that may implement the various embodiments dis- closed herein as explained. The various components or functional blocks may be implemented a local computing system or may be implemented on a distributed computing system that includes elements resident in the cloud or that implement aspects of cloud computing. The various components or functional blocks may be implemented as software, hardware, or a combination of software and hardware.”
Accordingly, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they are mere instructions to implement the abstract idea on a computer.
As per Step 2B of the subject matter eligibility analysis, the claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. The additional elements are mere instructions to apply the abstract idea on a computer. When considered individually, these claim elements only contribute generic recitations of technical elements to the claims. It is readily apparent, for example, that the claim is not directed to any specific improvements of these elements and the invention is not directed to a technical improvement. When the claims are considered individually and as a whole, the additional elements noted above, appear to merely apply the abstract concept to a technical environment in a very general sense – i.e. a generic computer receives information from another generic computer, processes the information and then sends information back. 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. 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 amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself. The most significant elements of the claims, that is the elements that really outline the inventive elements of the claims, are set forth in the elements identified as an abstract idea. The fact that the generic computing devices are facilitating the abstract concept is not enough to confer statutory subject matter eligibility. Next, when the “machine learning” is evaluated as an additional element, this feature is recited at a high level of generality and encompasses well-understood, routine, and conventional prior art activity. See, e.g., Balsiger et al., US 2012/0054642, noting in paragraph [0077] that “Machine learning is well known to those skilled in the art.” See also, Djordjevic et al. US 2013/0018651, noting in paragraph [0019] that “As known in the art, a generative model can be used in machine learning to model observed data directly.” See also, Bauer et al., US 2017/0147941, noting at paragraph [0002] that “Problems of understanding the behavior or decisions made by machine learning models have been recognized in the conventional art and various techniques have been developed to provide solutions.” Accordingly, the use of machine learning does not add significantly more to the claims. Regarding the use of Natural Language Processing, the Examiner notes that this activity is recognized as well-understood, routine, and conventional in the art, which does not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself. See, e.g., Morsa, US 2006/0085408 (paragraph 0144: well -known-to-the-arts natural language processing (NLP) (computational linguistics) or some other method as is well known to the arts may be used). See also, Szabo, US Pat. No. 5,966,126 (col. 6, lines 57-62 and col. 28, lines 16-19: e.g., definitions may be produced in known manner, such as by explicit definition, or through use of assistive technologies, such as natural language translators; user defines a search using prior known techniques, such as natural language searching).
The dependent claims further refine the abstract idea. These claims do not provide a meaningful linking to the judicial exception. Rather, these claims offer further descriptive limitations of elements found in the independent claims and addressed above – such as by describing the nature and content of the data that is received/sent. While these descriptive elements may provide further helpful context for the claimed invention these elements do not serve to confer subject matter eligibility to the invention since their individual and combined significance is still not significantly more than the abstract concepts at the core of the claimed invention.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-18 are allowable over prior art but have other pending rejections as indicated above.
The claims would be allowable if rewritten or amended to overcome the rejection(s) set forth in this Office Action.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to FRANCIS Z SANTIAGO-MERCED whose telephone number is (571)270-5562. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7am-4:30pm 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 EPSTEIN can be reached at 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.
/FRANCIS Z. SANTIAGO MERCED/Examiner, Art Unit 3625