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 .
Detailed Action
This Final Office Action is in response to Applicant’s Amendment/Request for Reconsideration filed 04/27/2026.
Claims 1, 3 – 6, 10, and 20 – 33, are pending; claims 2, 7 – 9, and 11 – 19 being presently cancelled; claims 21 – 33 are new.
Response to Amendment
Applicant's arguments and remarks of 04/30/2026 have been entered.
Applicant’s cancellation of certain claims has rendered a previous interpretation under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, of claims 11 ,12, and 14 – 18, as moot; therefore, this interpretation is no longer proper.
The examiner will address applicant's remarks at the end of this office action.
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, 3 – 6, 10, and 20 – 33, are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
At Step 1 of eligibility analysis, the instant claims are directed towards a method and a system; thus, all claims fall within one of the four statutory categories and are considered eligible subject matter.
At Step 2A, Prong One, of analysis, the amended claims set forth a method for managing a product recall within a supply chain. Therefore, this method describes the social activities of notifying interested entities who operate within the supply chain (distributors or third-partes) as well as end-users and regulatory bodies. The method also describes social activities, including following rules or instructions, (based on audit actions to locate a product or notify and acknowledge a recall). Both of these descriptions describe managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people.
Further, the claims describe marketing or sales activities or behaviors, and the business relations among these supply chain entities and end users and the regulatory bodies. This is descriptive of commercial interactions. Both commercial interactions and managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people are sub-groupings of certain methods of organizing human activity, and are abstract ideas.
Claim 1, which is illustrative of claims 20 and 26, contains those elements that define this abstract ideas (and are highlighted below):
A method comprising;
identifying a product within a supply chain having at least one quality issue;
performing a recall of the identified product in the supply chain by:
generating a remote computing device list comprising information associated with one or more remote computing devices based on the identified product marked for recall, wherein the one or more remote computing devices comprise at least one of a regulatory body related computing device, a distributor related computing device, or an end-user related computing device;
categorizing the identified product into a first category of a set of categories based on a current location and status associated with the identified product, wherein the set of categories comprises at least one of a products located within the supply chain category, a products with distributors or third-party logistics providers category, a products at end-user locations category, or a products that are not traceable category, wherein the first category comprises the products that are not traceable category;
performing an audit action to locate the identified product;
in response to locating the identified product, recategorizing the identified product into a second category of the set of categories, wherein the second category is different from the first category;
sending a notification to a remote computing device of the one or more remote computing devices included in the remote computing device list, wherein the remote computing device corresponds to the identified product; and
tracking the recall of the identified product based on an acknowledgement associated with the corresponding remote computing device; and
updating a status of the recall to a closed status in response to confirming that the identified product has been recalled.
At Step 2A, Prong Two, of analysis, the Examiner has determined that the identified abstract idea (judicial exception) is not integrated into a practical application because the additional elements are merely instructions to apply the abstract idea to a computer, as described in MPEP 2106.05(f). Further, in MPEP 2106.05(f) it is noted that simply adding a general-purpose computer or computer components after the fact to an abstract idea does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more. Therefore, according to the MPEP, this is not solely limited to computers but includes other technology that, recited in an equivalent to “apply it,” is a mere instruction to perform the abstract idea on that technology.
Claims 1, 20, and 26 recite only the following additional elements:
one or more remote computing devices;
non-transitory computer-readable medium having stored thereon computer-readable instructions;
an apparatus comprising memory and one or more processors communicatively coupled to the memory.
These elements are merely instructions to apply the abstract idea to a computer, per MPEP 2106.05(f). Applicant has described these computing elements generically in their disclosure, at Specification [0039 and 0120], and Figures 8 and 9, as filed. Alone and in combination, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. The claims are directed to an abstract idea.
At Step 2B, of eligibility analysis, the Examiner has determined that the claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because they do not amount to more than simply instructing one to practice the abstract idea within a computer environment to perform the steps that define the abstract idea. As discussed above, the additional elements of: (one or more remote computing devices; non-transitory computer-readable medium having stored thereon computer-readable instructions; an apparatus comprising memory and one or more processors communicatively coupled to the memory), amounts to no more than mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer. “The computer-readable instructions, when executed by a processor, cause the processor to identify and trace products within the supply chain having at least one quality issue.” Specification [0018]. Mere instructions to apply an exception within a computer environment cannot provide an inventive concept. See MPEP 2106.05(f).
Dependent claims 3 – 6, 10, 21 – 25, and 27 – 33, contain limitations that are further refinements to the same abstract ideas found in claims 1, 20, and 26. Recitations to: a recall class and type; information related to the product, or end-users; statuses; notifications and acknowledgements; and tracking, are all the core facts of what product and information to monitor and how to notify interested parties. Further, these claims rely on the device (dashboard and interface) of the apparatus of claims 1, 20, and 26. This amounts to no more than simply instructing one to implement the abstract ideas within a computer environment. This does not render the claims as being patent eligible. See MPEP 2106.04(d) and 2106.05(f).
Therefore, for the reasons cited above, claims 1, 3 – 6, 10, and 20 – 33, are directed to an abstract idea without integration into a practical application and without reciting significantly more.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments, filed 04/27/2026, have been fully considered but they are not fully persuasive. Based on the reasoning that follows, the Examiner respectfully disagrees with Applicant’s certain arguments.
Applicant first argues rejection of prior claims under 35 U.S.C. § 102. See page 10. In view of the amendments to the claims and upon further research, Applicant’s arguments are persuasive. Cited prior art (Hancock) fails to teach or suggest the claimed limitations within the amended claims. For instance, Hancock does not suggest a first or second categorization of product location. Other art teaches of ‘closed’ statuses, (Venkatraman). However, this source also does not suggest the above categorization. Further, the cited prior art fails to teach or suggest the following claimed elements, either alone, or in combination, within claims 1, 20, and 26: categorizing the identified product into a first category of a set of categories based on a current location and status associated with the identified product, wherein the set of categories comprises at least one of a products located within the supply chain category, a products with distributors or third-party logistics providers category, a products at end-user locations category, or a products that are not traceable category, wherein the first category comprises the products that are not traceable category; in response to locating the identified product, recategorizing the identified product into a second category of the set of categories, wherein the second category is different from the first category. Accordingly, the current claim set is distinguished over prior art.
Noting that patentability of any claimed invention under 35 U.S.C. §§102 with respect to the prior art is neither required for, nor a guarantee of, patent eligibility under 35 U.S.C. 101, the Examiner points to other rejections and remarks within this Office Action.
Applicant next argues rejection of prior claims under 35 U.S.C. § 101. See page 12. The Examiner respectfully disagrees with Applicant that the claimed inventions is “not directed to an abstract idea” at Step 2A. Applicant adds that the claimed invention “does not recite a judicial exception” at Step 2A, Prong I. See page 13. In Prong One examiners evaluate whether the claim recites a judicial exception, i.e. whether a law of nature, natural phenomenon, or abstract idea is set forth or described in the claim. As detailed above, the amended claims describe a usual method for managing the recall of a defective product within and throughout a supply chain. As disclosed by Applicant’s Specification, this is a common process in the automotive industry. Further, as claimed, Applicant’s method recites identifying a product within a supply chain having at least one quality issue – this is exemplified by a major auto manufacturer needing to issue a recall for a defective fuel filter. The auto company needs to perform a recall of the identified product by notifying the NHTSA as well as dealers and owners; i.e., the company generates a list of regulatory bodies, distributors, or end-users. Next, the part is identified as being in use (and the owner notified to go to dealer for a repair), at a distributor (and a dealer instructed to replace the part), or out of service, (the car no longer operable). All the while, the auto manufacturer as well as the regulatory body is kept up to date on status of all affected parts. If the part is repaired or out of use, the status can be closed. Thus, as detailed above, at Step 2A, Prong One analysis, Applicant’s amended claims set forth a method for managing a product recall within a supply chain. This method describes the social activities of notifying interested entities who operate within the supply chain (distributors or third-partes) as well as end-users and regulatory bodies. The method also describes social activities, including following rules or instructions, (based on audit actions to locate a product or notify and acknowledge a recall). Both of these descriptions describe managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people.
Further, the claims describe marketing or sales activities or behaviors, (performing a recall), and the business relations among these supply chain entities and end users and the regulatory bodies. This is descriptive of commercial interactions. Both commercial interactions and managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people are sub-groupings of certain methods of organizing human activity, and are abstract ideas. Applicant’s arguments are not persuasive.
Applicant next argues the claimed invention is “integrated into a practical application” at Step 2A, Prong II. See page 13. The Examiner respectfully disagrees with Applicant. Prong Two asks does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application? At Prong Two, examiners evaluate whether the claim as a whole integrates the exception into a practical application of that exception. If the additional elements in the claim integrate the recited exception into a practical application of the exception, then the claim is not directed to the judicial exception. See MPEP 2106.04.
Applicant argues that the amended claims are directed to “a particular improvement in supply chain recall management technology.” See page 14. This is not persuasive. Relevant considerations for evaluating whether additional elements integrate a judicial exception into a practical application are delineated at MPEP 2106.04(d), and further discussed at MPEP 2106.05, and include an improvement in the functioning of a computer, or an improvement to other technology or technical field. Applicant’s amended claims do not contain such additional elements that might provide for improving a computer or technology. As noted above, the amended claims contain only the following additional elements: one or more remote computing devices; non-transitory computer-readable medium having stored thereon computer-readable instructions; and, an apparatus comprising memory and one or more processors communicatively coupled to the memory. As detailed above, these additional elements amount to no more than mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer. See MPEP 2106.05(f). Courts have identified limitations that did not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application to include merely reciting the words "apply it" (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or merely including instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely using a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea. Applicant’s claims recite the components above and are equivalent “instructions that, when executed by a processor, cause the processor to execute a method…”. Mere instructions to apply an exception within a computer environment cannot provide an inventive concept. See MPEP 2106.05(f).
The Examiner further remarks that an improvement to supply chain management is not a consideration that would integrate into a practical application. Supply chain management is an abstract concept that describes human efforts to administer control or organization over products as they move through their lifecycle. It is not a technology to be improved, it is rather an art or science that might be performed more efficient, by those with expertise in it. Therefore, any improvement to supply chain management is an improvement to the abstract idea and not to technology. MPEP notes that use of a computer or other machinery (remote computing devices; non-transitory computer-readable medium having stored thereon computer-readable instructions; and, an apparatus comprising memory and one or more processors communicatively coupled to the memory) 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 does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more. Applicant’s arguments are not persuasive.
Applicant points to Example 42 as reciting eligible claims analogous to the instant amended claims. See page 14. This argument is not persuasive. Certain claim elements within Example 42 included providing remote access to users over a network so any one of the users can update the information about the patient's condition in the collection of medical records in real time through a graphical user interface, wherein the one of the users provides the updated information in a non-standardized format dependent on the hardware and software platform used by the one of the users; and, converting, by a content server, the non standardized updated information into the standardized format. Further, the disclosure therein also described problems such as: difficulty for medical providers to share updated information about a patient's condition with other health care providers using current patient management systems, and incomplete patient's medical records since records in separate locations are not timely or cannot be consolidated due to format inconsistencies. Those additional elements recited a specific improvement over prior art systems by allowing remote users to share information in real time in a standardized format regardless of the format in which the information was input by the user. Key here is an improvement to the technology was used and claimed beyond mere “apply it with a computer”. Applicant’s disclosure details recall management as “cost and labor-intensive” and puts forth an “ an automated solution that can track recalled products can significantly reduce recall costs and ensure compliance with regulatory requirements.” Thus, not offering any improvement to technology or the computer (an apparatus comprising memory and one or more processors communicatively coupled to the memory) employed to automate the process. Applicant’s argument is not persuasive.
Applicant’s final argument remarks that the claimed invention “recites significantly more that any alleged abstract idea”, when analyzed at Step 2B. See page 15. The Examiner respectfully disagrees with Applicant. An inventive concept "cannot be furnished by the unpatentable law of nature (or natural phenomenon or abstract idea) itself." Genetic Techs. Ltd. v. Merial LLC, 818 F.3d 1369, 1376, 118 USPQ2d 1541, 1546 (Fed. Cir. 2016). Limitations that the courts have found not to be enough to qualify as "significantly more" when recited in a claim with a judicial exception include: 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 limitation indicating that a particular function such as creating and maintaining electronic records is performed by a computer, as discussed in Alice Corp., 573 U.S. at 225-26, 110 USPQ2d at 1984 (see MPEP § 2106.05(f)).
As detailed above, at Step 2B of eligibility analysis, the Examiner has determined that the claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because they do not amount to more than simply instructing one to practice the abstract idea within a computer environment to perform the steps that define the abstract idea. The additional elements of: (one or more remote computing devices; non-transitory computer-readable medium having stored thereon computer-readable instructions; an apparatus comprising memory and one or more processors communicatively coupled to the memory), amounts to no more than mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer. Mere instructions to apply an exception within a computer environment cannot provide an inventive concept. See MPEP 2106.05(f). Applicant’s arguments are not persuasive.
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 DON EDMONDS whose telephone number is (571) 272-6171. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8am-4pm 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, Sarah Monfeldt can be reached at (571) 270-1833. 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.
DONALD J. EDMONDS
Examiner
Art Unit 3629
/SARAH M MONFELDT/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3629
Prosecution Insights