DETAILED ACTION
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 .
Status of Claims
Office Action is in response to the Applicant's amendments and remarks filed3/19/2025. Claims 1-3, 5 and 9-10 were amended. Claims 1-10 are presently pending and presented for examination.
Response to Remarks/Arguments
In regards to rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 101: Applicant’s arguments, filed 3/19/2025, with respect to claims 1, 3-10 and 12-19 have been fully considered and are not persuasive.
In regards to Applicant’s arguments that “Claims 1 and 9, as a whole, recite a "method of organizing human activity" pursuant to step 2A, prong 1 of the patent eligibility test, but rather an error recovery apparatus and method for analyzing, by a computer, supply chain data. While a supply chain might be an organized human activity, the invention does not involve organizing supply chains but the technical problem of recovering errors in supply chain transaction information, by using a processor to sum information supplied by more than two different but related entities in the supply chain (a parent and a plurality of child parties ("players"), or a child and a plurality of parent players); and b. The underlying limitations in claims 1 and 9 are clearly integrated into a "practical application" under step 2A, prong 2 of the patent eligibility test, namely recovering errors in supply chain "maps," supply chain mapping being both a practical and highly critical technical problem”, (see remarks , pg. 6-7).
Examiner respectfully disagrees, the current claims are not statutory because they are directed towards an abstract idea without significantly more. The claims recite method for determining errors in supply chain transactions information, which is a method of managing interactions between people, which falls into the methods of organizing human activity grouping, as an individual can review a database to determine anomalies in supply chain transactions. The computing elements such as “apparatus, memory, processor of claim 1; apparatus of claim 9” are recited at a high level of generality and are generically recited computer elements. The generically recited computer elements amount to simply implementing the abstract idea on a computer. The combination of these additional elements are additional elements do no more than generally link the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use. Accordingly, in combination, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. Therefore, elements being analyzed for significantly more are mere generic computer components being implemented to implement the abstract idea on a computer.
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 1-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claim recites method for recovering errors in supply chain.
Step 2A – Prong 1
Independent Claims 1 and 9 as a whole recite a method of organizing human activity. The limitations from exemplary Claim 1 reciting “recovering errors in supply chain transaction information, comprising: a that stores at least one instruction; and a , wherein, when the at least one instruction is executed by the , a map is prepared based on a plurality of pieces of event information from two or more players involved in a manufacturing or distribution process of a specific product, and each of the plurality of pieces of event information includes transaction information on the supply chain of the product, and error event information that is lost or has outliers among the plurality of pieces of event information is recovered by acquiring and using history information transmitted and received between the players from the map, wherein the processor executes the at least one instruction to recover error event information in one of the players using first information on a received product from the player connected to the one of the players in a child relationship and second information on a shipped product from a player connected to the one of the players in a parent relationship, wherein the player connected to the one player in the parent relationship or the player connected to the one player in the child relationship is a plurality of players, and wherein the error event information in one of the players is recovered using at least one of a result of summing the second information from each of the plurality of players connected in the parent relationship and a result of summing the first information from each of the plurality of players connected in the child relationship” is a method of managing interactions between people, which falls into the certain methods of organizing human activity grouping. The mere recitation of a generic computer (apparatus, memory, processor of claim 1; apparatus of claim 9) does not take the claim out of the methods of organizing human activity grouping. Thus, the claim recites an abstract idea.
Step 2A - Prong 2: Claims 1-10 and their underlining limitations, steps, features and terms, are further inspected by the Examiner under the current examining guidelines, and found, both individually and as a whole, not to include additional elements that are sufficient to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. The limitations are directed to limitations referenced in MPEP 2106.05 that are not enough to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Limitations that are not enough include, as a non-limiting or non-exclusive examples, such as: (i) adding the words "apply it" (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, e.g., a claim to an abstract idea requiring no more than a generic computer to perform generic computer functions, (ii) insignificant extra solution activity, and/or (iii) generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the claim recites the additional elements of (apparatus, memory, processor of claim 1; apparatus of claim 9). The apparatus, memory, processor of claim 1; apparatus of claim 9, are recited at a high level of generality and are generically recited computer elements. The generically recited computer elements amount to simply implementing the abstract idea on a computer. The combination of these additional elements are additional elements do no more than generally link the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use. Accordingly, in combination, these additional 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 claim do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because, as discussed above, the additional elements do no more than generally link the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use. Thus, even when viewed as an ordered combination, nothing in the claims add significantly more (i.e. an inventive concept) to the abstract idea. The claims are ineligible.
Dependent claims 2-8 and 10 are also directed to same grouping of methods of organizing human activity. The additional elements of the apparatus in claims 2-8 and 10; processor of claim 3-4, 8; electronic identification code of claim 8, are additional elements do no more than generally link the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use. Accordingly, in combination, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
Novel/Non-Obvious Subject Matter
Examiner has determined that all of Applicant’s claims have overcome having prior art rejections. The reason for this is that Examiner does not believe that, at the time of Applicant’s priority date, it would have been obvious for a person of ordinary skill in the art to combine prior art disclosures to result in the particular combination of elements/limitations in that claim, including the particular configuration of the elements/limitations with respect to each other in the particular combination, without the use of impermissible hindsight.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 IBRAHIM EL-BATHY whose telephone number is (571)272-7545. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 9am - 7pm.
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, Resha Desai can be reached at 571-270-7792. 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.
/IBRAHIM N EL-BATHY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3628
Prosecution Insights