DETAILED ACTION
This Office Action is in reply to Applicants response to Election / Restriction received on March 26, 2026. Claim(s) 1-20 is/are currently pending in the instant application.
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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The Examiner acknowledges the Applicants filing of IDS references on September 29, 2024. The references have been considered at this time. A copy of the annotated IDS sheet is included in this correspondence.
Response to Amendment
The Examiner acknowledges the Applicants amendments to claims 1, 12, and 18 in the response filed on March 26, 2026. No claims are canceled at this time.
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 1-20 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.
Claims 1-20 are directed to one of the four statutory classes of invention (e.g. process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter). The claims include a system or “apparatus”, method or “process”, or product or “article of manufacture” and is a system and method of optimizing production management which is a process (Step 1: YES).
The Examiner has identified independent method Claim 18 as the claim that represents the claimed invention for analysis and is similar to independent method Claim 1 and system Claim 12. Claim 18 recites the limitations of (abstract ideas highlighted in italics and additional elements highlighted in bold)
receiving a first input including product data defining a first type of product;
receiving a second input including product data defining a second type of product;
determining whether a mapping between the first type of product and the second type of product exists in a database of the product management system;
validating, in response to a determination that a mapping between the first type of product and the second type of product exists in the database of the product management system, the mapping;
when the mapping is determined to be valid:
generating a decomposition relationship between the first type of product and the second type of product based on the mapping; and
when the mapping is determined to be invalid:
generating a new mapping between the first type of product and the second type of product; validating the new mapping to determine whether the new mapping is correct; and
generating the decomposition relationship between the first type of product and the second type of product based on the new mapping when the new mapping is determined to be valid; and
displaying the decomposition relationship between the first type of product and the second type of product to a user.
These limitations, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, cover performance of the limitation as “Mental Processes”. Receiving data, determining and validating relationships, generating decomposition mappings and relationships, and displaying a result recites a concept performed in the human mind. But for the “database” and “project management system” language the claim encompasses reviewing data, validating mappings, generating decomposition relationships between product types and new mappings to display results using his/her mind and or pen and paper. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea. The system for optimizing rules in Claim 12 is just applying generic computer components to the recited abstract limitations. The method of in Claim Z appears to be based on software. Claims 1 and 12 are also abstract for similar reasons. (Step 2A-Prong 1: YES. The claims are abstract)
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claims do not recite any computer hardware. The claims do not pass In re Bilski with the without the inclusion of computer hardware (i.e. a machine). Therefore claims 1, 12, and 18 are directed to an abstract idea without a practical application. (Step 2A-Prong 2: NO. The additional claimed elements are not integrated into a practical application)
The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because, when considered separately and as an ordered combination, they do not add significantly more (also known as an “inventive concept”) to the exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional element of using a computer hardware amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. See Applicant’s specification para. [0025] about implementation using general purpose or special purpose computing devices [User terminal 101 may be implemented as a mobile device, a smartphone, a tablet
computing device, a personal computing device, a laptop computing device, a desktop computing device, a computer system of a vehicle, a personal digital assistant (PDA), a smart watch, another type of wired and/or wireless computing device, or any part thereof.]
and MPEP 2106.05(f) where applying a computer as a tool is not indicative of significantly more. Accordingly, these additional elements, when considered separately and as an ordered combination, do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. Thus claims 1, 12, and 18 are not patent eligible. (Step 2B: NO. The claims do not provide significantly more)
Dependent claims 2-11, 13-17, and 19-20 further define the abstract idea that is present in their respective independent claims 1, 12, and 18 and thus correspond to Mental Processes and hence are abstract for the reasons presented above. The dependent claims do not include any additional elements that integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception when considered both individually and as an ordered combination. The dependent claims include steps or processes which are similar to that disclosed in MPEP 2106.05(d), (f), (g), and/or (h) which include activities and functions the courts have determined to be well-understood, routine, and conventional when claimed in a generic manner, or as insignificant extra solution activity, or as merely indicating a field of use or technological environment in which to apply the judicial exception.
Claims 2 are similar to MPEP 2106.05(d)(2) i. Receiving or transmitting data over a network, e.g., using the Internet to gather data, buySAFE, Inc. v. Google, Inc., 765 F.3d 1350, 1355, 112 USPQ2d 1093, 1096 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (computer receives and sends information over a network); and MEPE 2106.05(f)(2) i. A commonplace business method or mathematical algorithm being applied on a general purpose computer, Alice Corp. Pty. Ltd. V. CLS Bank Int’l, 573 U.S. 208, 223, 110 USPQ2d 1976, 1983 (2014); Gottschalk v. Benson, 409 U.S. 63, 64, 175 USPQ 673, 674 (1972); Versata Dev. Group, Inc. v. SAP Am., Inc., 793 F.3d 1306, 1334, 115 USPQ2d 1681, 1701 (Fed. Cir. 2015);
Claims 3 and 13 are similar to MPEP 2106.05(d)(2) ii. Performing repetitive calculations, Bancorp Services v. Sun Life, 687 F.3d 1266, 1278, 103 USPQ2d 1425, 1433 (Fed. Cir. 2012) ("The computer required by some of Bancorp’s claims is employed only for its most basic function, the performance of repetitive calculations, and as such does not impose meaningful limits on the scope of those claims.") and iv. Storing and retrieving information in memory, Versata Dev. Group, Inc. v. SAP Am., Inc., 793 F.3d 1306, 1334, 115 USPQ2d 1681, 1701 (Fed. Cir. 2015); OIP Techs., 788 F.3d at 1363, 115 USPQ2d at 1092-93;
Claims 4, 5, and 13 are similar to MPEP 2106.05(f)(2) v. Requiring the use of software to tailor information and provide it to the user on a generic computer, Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Capital One Bank (USA), 792 F.3d 1363, 1370-71, 115 USPQ2d 1636, 1642 (Fed. Cir. 2015);
Claim 6 and 15 are similar to MPEP 2106.05(f)(2) i. A commonplace business method or mathematical algorithm being applied on a general purpose computer, Alice Corp. Pty. Ltd. V. CLS Bank Int’l, 573 U.S. 208, 223, 110 USPQ2d 1976, 1983 (2014); Gottschalk v. Benson, 409 U.S. 63, 64, 175 USPQ 673, 674 (1972); Versata Dev. Group, Inc. v. SAP Am., Inc., 793 F.3d 1306, 1334, 115 USPQ2d 1681, 1701 (Fed. Cir. 2015); and MPEP 2106.05(g) iii. Selecting information, based on types of information and availability of information in a power-grid environment, for collection, analysis and display, Electric Power Group, LLC v. Alstom S.A., 830 F.3d 1350, 1354-55, 119 USPQ2d 1739, 1742 (Fed. Cir. 2016);
Claims 7, 8, 16, and 17 are similar to MPEP 2106.05(d)II. i. A commonplace business method or mathematical algorithm being applied on a general purpose computer, Alice Corp. Pty. Ltd. V. CLS Bank Int’l, 573 U.S. 208, 223, 110 USPQ2d 1976, 1983 (2014); Gottschalk v. Benson, 409 U.S. 63, 64, 175 USPQ 673, 674 (1972); Versata Dev. Group, Inc. v. SAP Am., Inc., 793 F.3d 1306, 1334, 115 USPQ2d 1681, 1701 (Fed. Cir. 2015);
Claims 9-11 are similar to MPEP 2106.05(f)(2) v. Requiring the use of software to tailor information and provide it to the user on a generic computer, Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Capital One Bank (USA), 792 F.3d 1363, 1370-71, 115 USPQ2d 1636, 1642 (Fed. Cir. 2015);
Claims 19 and 20 are similar to MPEP 2106.05(d)II. vi. Arranging a hierarchy of groups, sorting information, eliminating less restrictive pricing information and determining the price, Versata Dev. Group, Inc. v. SAP Am., Inc., 793 F.3d 1306, 1331, 115 USPQ2d 1681, 1699 (Fed. Cir. 2015).
Therefore, the claims 2-11, 13-17, and 19-20 are directed to an abstract idea. Thus, the claims 1-20 are not patent-eligible.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. The cited prior art generally refers to rules related to product relationships and associated methods and systems.
WO 2013/109457 A3 - The content optimization method involves generating (1120) two content configurations each including content elements and one or more relationships among the content elements, the relationships in accordance with a set of rules defining permissible relationships. A processing unit assembles (1125) the two content configurations to two pieces of content. An experiment is conducted to obtain effectiveness data of the two pieces of content on reaching an optimization objective. Relative effectiveness of the two content configurations is determined based on the effectiveness data.
U.S. Publication 2021/0142385 A1 - A device may receive customer data associated with customers of items, and may identify customer characteristics based on the customer data. The device may process the customer characteristics, with a first model, to group the customers into groups of customers, and may process item data and data identifying the groups of customers, with a second model, to determine associations between the item data and the groups of customers. The device may receive, from a user device associated with a particular customer, particular customer data, and may identify particular customer characteristics based on the particular customer data. The device may assign the particular customer to a particular group, of the groups of customers, based on the particular customer characteristics, and may generate an item recommendation, for the particular customer, based on the item data associated with the particular group. The device may provide the item recommendation to the user device.
U.S. Publication 2022/0263497 A1 - In accordance with an embodiment, described herein is a system and method for delivery of content based on matching of user profiles with content metadata. The system enables delivery of personalized content, without the overhead of managing segment targeting rules, while providing content publishers or marketers with complete control over such personalization. A recommendation service or application program interface, provided by a computer, cloud computing environment, or other type of computer system, enables receipt and processing of requests, from client devices, for personalized content. A recommendation engine delivers content assets in response to a request from a client device. The recommendation engine determines a content channel and a user identity associated with the request, and then delivers content assets based on rules governing the matching of content asset metadata with the user profile. While content classification evolves over time, so also does the personalization of delivered content.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DYLAN C WHITE whose telephone number is (571)272-1406. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7:30-4:00 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, 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.
/DYLAN C WHITE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3625 3/30/2026