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 .
Priority
Applicant claims priority to 371 of international Application No. PCTIB2023000141, filed 4/19/2023 which claims priority to CN Application No. 202210422805.X, filed 4/21/2022.
Information Disclosure Statement
The IDSs submitted on 10/19/2024 has been considered.
Status of Claims
Applicant’s amended claims, filed 15/13/2026, have been entered. Claims 10, 12, and 14 have been amended. Claims 1-15 are currently pending in this application and have been examined.
Terminal Disclaimer
The terminal disclaimer filed on 5/13/2026 disclaiming the terminal portion of any patent granted on this application which would extend beyond the expiration date of application 18/858,311 has been reviewed and has been disapproved (see noticed filed 5/20/2026). The applicant cited on the terminal disclaimer must be cited exactly as it is cited on the application data sheet and/or filing recipient and also int its entirety.
Interview
Examiner invites the representative of this application to contact the Examiner to schedule an interview to expedite prosecution of this application.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1-15 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-16 of copending Application No. 18/858,311 (reference application). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because claims 1-15 of the present application are anticipated by claims 1-16 of the reference application.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 10 and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 10 recites the limitation “in the case of a statistically significant deviation” in line 5. The term “a statistically significant deviation” is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “a statistically significant deviation” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. While the Specification recites “A significant difference can be determined by means of statistical methods, which are well-known to the person skilled in the art” in paragraph [0050], this description does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree. For purposes of compact prosecution, Examiner will examine the limitation to read as any deviation. Claim 11 depends from claim 10 and inherits the rejections of claim 10. Appropriate correction is required.
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 1-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claim(s) recite(s) an abstract idea. This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Under Step 1 of the Alice/Mayo test the claims are directed to statutory categories. Specifically, the method, as claimed in claims 1-12, are directed to a process, the system, as claimed in claims 13 and 15 (see MPEP 2106.03). As noted above, claim 14 is non-statutory. However, for compact prosecution, Examiner will interpret claim 14 as if it were statutory for the 2A and 2B 101 analysis.
Under Step 2A (prong 1), claim 1, taken as representative, recites at least the following limitations (emphasis added) that recite an abstract idea:
A method for assessing spinning mills (2) producing yarn packages (93), comprising the steps of:
receiving from a spinning mill (2) having produced a yarn package (93) a set of measured values for at least one yarn-quality parameter measured for yarn (92) on the yarn package (93);
assigning to the set of measured values a mill identifier for the respective spinning mill (2);
storing the set of measured values together with the assigned mill identifier;
repeating the preceding steps for at least one other spinning mill (2);
producing a ranking of the spinning mills (2) according to the sets of measured values and the mill identifiers assigned to them; and
transmitting the ranking.
These limitations recite certain methods of organizing human activity, such as performing commercial interactions (see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(II)). Certain methods of organizing human activity are defined by MPEP 2106.04 as including “fundamental economic principles or practices (including hedging, insurance, mitigating risk); commercial or legal interactions (including agreements in the form of contracts; legal obligations; advertising, marketing or sales activities or behaviors; business relations); managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people (including social activities, teaching, and following rules or instructions).” In this case, the abstract ideas recited in representative claim 1 are certain methods of organizing human activity because ranking spinning mills according to sets of measured values is a commercial or legal interaction because it is a advertising, marketing or sales activity, or business relations (see also Specification ¶0007 and ¶0027). Thus, claim 1 recites an abstract idea.
Independent claims 13-15 recite the same abstract idea as recited in independent claim 1. As such, the analysis under Step 2A, Prong 1 is the same for independent claims 13-15 as described above for independent claim 1.
Under Step 2A (prong 2), if it is determined that the claims recite a judicial exception, it is then necessary to evaluate whether the claims recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application of that exception (see MPEP 2106.04). As stated in the MPEP, when “an additional element merely recites the words ‘apply it (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea,” the judicial exception has not been integrated into a practical application.
In this case, claim 1 includes additional elements such as (additional elements are bolded):
A computer-implemented method for assessing spinning mills (2) producing yarn packages (93) on yarn-winding machines (3), comprising the steps of:
receiving by a server computer system (1) via a global communication network (6) from a spinning mill (2) having produced a yarn package (93) on a yarn- winding machine (3) a set of measured values for at least one yarn-quality parameter measured for yarn (92) on the yarn package (93) by at least one sensor (41) on the yarn-winding machine (3);
assigning by the server computer system (1) to the set of measured values a mill identifier for the respective spinning mill (2);
storing in a database (12) on the server computer system (1) the set of measured values together with the assigned mill identifier;
repeating the preceding steps for at least one other spinning mill (2);
producing by the server computer system (1) a ranking of the spinning mills (2) according to the sets of measured values and the mill identifiers assigned to them; and
transmitting the ranking from the server computer system (1) via a global communication network (7) to a client computer (8).
In this case, claim 13 includes additional elements such as (additional elements are bolded):
A server computer system (1) comprising means for carrying out the method according to claim 1.
In this case, claim 14 includes additional elements such as (additional elements are bolded):
A computer program disposed on a non-transitory computer readable storage medium, the computer program having instructions which when executed by a server computer system (1) cause the server computer system (1) to perform the method according to claim 1.
In this case, claim 15 includes additional elements such as (additional elements are bolded):
A server computer system (1) for assessing spinning mills (2) producing yarn packages (93) on yarn-winding machines (3), comprising:
a receiver (11) for receiving via a global communication network (6) from at least two spinning mills (2) having produced yarn packages (93) on yarn winding machines (3) sets of measured values for at least one yarn-quality parameter measured for yarn (92) on each of the yarn packages (93) by at least one sensor (41) on the respective yarn-winding machine (3);
a processor configured to assign to each set of measured values a mill identifier for the respective spinning mill (2);
a memory for storing in a database (12) the sets of measured values together with the assigned mill identifiers;
a processor configured to produce a ranking of the at least two spinning mills (2) according to the sets of measured values and the mill identifiers assigned to them; and
a transmitter for transmitting the ranking via a global communication network (7) to a client computer (8).
Although reciting these additional elements, taken alone or in combination these elements are not sufficient to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. These additional elements merely amount to the general application of the abstract idea to a technical environment (“computer-implemented”, “by a server computer system (1) via a global communication network (6)”, “in a database (12) on the server computer system (1)“, “to a client computer (8)”, “yarn-winding machines”, “computer program having instructions which when executed by a server computer system”, “a receiver (11)”, “a processor”, “a memory”, and “a transmitter”) and insignificant pre-and-post solution activity (receiving information, storing information, transmitting information). The specification makes clear the general-purpose nature of the technological environment. This is because the additional elements of claims 1 and 13-15 are recited at a high level of generality (i.e., as generic computing hardware) such that they amount to nothing more than the mere instructions to implement or apply the abstract idea on generic computing hardware (or, merely uses a computer as a tool to perform the abstract idea) (see Fig. 1; paragraphs [0024]-[0025], [0032]-[0035]). The specification indicates that while exemplary general-purpose systems may be specific for descriptive purposes, any elements capable of implementing the claimed invention are acceptable. That is, the technology used to implement the invention is not specific or integral to the claim. The description demonstrates that these additional elements are merely generic devices such as a generic computer and generic yarn-winding machines (see ¶0024 [describing “typical” stand-alone winding machines and are “any machine” in a spinning mill that winds yarn onto a yarn package larger than a cop] and ¶¶0034-0035 [describing the “typical” winding machines as having a sensor for monitoring properties of the yarn]). Further, the additional elements do no more than generally link the use of a judicial exception to a particular environment or field of use (such as the Internet or computing networks).
Therefore, considered both individually and as an ordered pair, the additional elements do no more than generally link the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use. That is, given the generality with which the additional elements are recited, the limitations do not implement the abstract idea with, or use the abstract idea in conjunction with, a particular machine or manufacture that is integral to the claim. Additionally, the claims do not reflect an improvement in the functioning of a computer, or an improvement to other technology or technical field, do not transform or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing; and do not apply or use the abstract idea in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the abstract idea to a particular technology environment, such that the claim as a whole is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the abstract idea into a practical application, and is therefore “directed to” the abstract idea.
In addition to the above, the recited receiving, storing, and transmitting steps (even assuming arguendo they do not form part of the abstract idea, which the Examiner does not acquiesce), are at best little more than extra-solution activity (e.g., data gathering, presentation of data) that contributes nominally or insignificantly to the execution of the claimed system (see MPEP 2106.05(g)).
In view of the above, under Step 2A (prong 2), claims 1 and 13-15 do not integrate the recited exception into a practical application.
Under Step 2B, examiners should evaluate additional elements individually and in combination to determine whether they provide an inventive concept (i.e., whether the additional elements amount to significantly more than the exception itself). In this case, the claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Returning to representative claims 1 and 13-15, taken individually or as a whole the additional elements of claims 1 and 13-15 do not provide an inventive concept (i.e. they do not amount to “significantly more” than the exception itself). As discussed above with respect to the integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements used to perform the claimed process amount to no more than the mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer and/or no more than a general link to a technological environment.
Furthermore, the additional elements fail to provide significantly more also because the claim simply appends well-understood, routine, conventional activities previously known to the industry, specified at a high level of generality, to the judicial exception. For example, the additional elements of claims 1 and 13-15 utilize operations the courts have held to be well-understood, routine, and conventional (see: MPEP 2106.05(d)(II)), including at least:
receiving or transmitting data over a network,
storing or retrieving information from memory,
presenting offers
Additionally, the Specification recites yarn-winding machines that winds yarn onto a yarn package with sensors for monitoring properties of the yarn are well-understood, routine, and conventional activities previously known to the industry (Fig. 1; see ¶0024 [describing “typical” stand-alone winding machines and are “any machine” in a spinning mill that winds yarn onto a yarn package larger than a cop] and ¶¶0034-0035 [describing the “typical” winding machines as having a sensor for monitoring properties of the yarn]).
Even considered as an ordered combination (as a whole), the additional elements of claims 1 and 13-15 do not add anything further than when they are considered individually.
In view of the above, representative claims 1 and 13-15 do not provide an inventive concept (“significantly more”) under Step 2B, and is therefore ineligible for patenting.
Regarding claims 2-12
Dependent claim(s) 2-12, when analyzed as a whole, are held to be patent ineligible under 35 U.S.C. 101 because they do not add “significantly more” to the abstract idea. More specifically, dependent claim(s) 2-12 merely further define the abstract limitations of claim(s) 1 or provide further embellishments of the limitations recited in independent claim claim(s) 1.
Claims 2-12 set forth:
wherein the set of measured values is for at least one parameter from the following set: coefficient of variation of the yarn mass, coefficient of variation of the yarn diameter, hairiness, number of thick places, number of thin places, number of periodic yarn defects, number of yarn count variations, number of foreign matters, number of splices.
further comprising the steps of: receiving by the server computer system (1) via the global communication network (6) from the spinning mill (2) further information on the yarn package (93);assigning by the server computer system (1) to the further information the mill identifier for the respective spinning mill (2); and storing in the database (12) the further information together with the assigned mill identifier.
wherein the further information is from the following set: yarn count, yarn material, fiber processing system, spinning system, envisaged application, amount of yarn packages available, temporal availability of the yarn package, price of the yarn package.
further comprising the steps of: assigning by the server computer system (1) to the received set of measured values a package identifier for the respective yarn package (93); and storing in the database (12) the package identifier together with the set of measured values and the mill identifier.
further comprising the steps of: receiving by the server computer system (1) via the global communication network (7) from the client computer (8) a purchase request (71) containing yarn specifications; retrieving from the database (12), using the package identifiers and the mill identifiers, sets of yarn packages such that the further information matches the yarn specifications for all packages of each of the retrieved sets of yarn packages; and producing by the server computer system (1) the ranking only of those spinning mills (2) that produced the retrieved sets of yarn packages.
wherein the ranking is produced based on all sets of measured values stored in the database (12), based on a certain number of most recent sets of measured values, or based on most recent sets of measured values measured in a certain period.
wherein the ranking is produced on an ordinal scale or on a metric scale.
wherein the ranking is in the form of measured values assigned to the spinning mills (2), in the form of quantiles or percentiles assigned to the spinning mills (2), in the form of ordinal numbers assigned to the spinning mills (2), and/or in the form of classes into which the spinning mills (2) are classified.
wherein, before storing the set of measured values in the database (12), the set of measured values is compared by the server computer system (1) with sets of measured values having the same assigned mill identifier, and in case of a statistically significant deviation, the set of measured values is marked as an outlier and is not considered in the ranking.
wherein upon occurrence of an outlier, an outlier message identifying the outlier is transmitted from the server computer system (1) via the global communication network (6) to the respective spinning mill (2).
further comprising the steps of: receiving by the server computer system (1) via the global communication network from the spinning mill (2) values of at least one ambient parameter characteristic for an ambient condition of a location and a time of winding the yarn package (93); correcting by the server computer system (1) the received set of measured values to predefined ambient conditions based on the received value of the at least one ambient parameter, thus generating a set of corrected values; and replacing the set of measured values with the set of corrected values.
Such recitations merely embellish the abstract idea of ranking spinning mills according to sets of measured values. The claims do not set forth any further additional limitations, and therefore such abstract embellishments are applied to the additional limitations recited in claim(s) 1, which do no more than generally link the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment, do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application, and do not provide an inventive concept. Accordingly, the claims do not confer eligibility on the claimed invention and is ineligible for similar reasons to claim(s) 1.
Thus, dependent claims 2-12 are ineligible.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claim(s) 1-9 and 12-15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Narayanan (WO 2014/172796 A1 [previously recited]) in view of O’Keeffe et al. (US 2019/0043071 A1 [previously recited]).
Regarding claim 1, Narayanan discloses a computer-implemented method for assessing spinning mills (2) producing yarn packages (93) on yarn-winding machines (3) (Figs. 1-2; page 9, lines 9-30), comprising the steps of:
receiving by a server computer system (1) via a global communication network (6) from a spinning mill (2) having produced a yarn package (93) on a yarn- winding machine (3) a set of measured values for at least one yarn-quality parameter measured for yarn (92) on the yarn package (93) by at least one sensor (41) on the yarn-winding machine (3) (Figs. 1-2; page 9, line 9 to page 10, line 14);
assigning by the server computer system (1) to the set of measured values a mill identifier for the respective spinning mill (2) (Figs. 1-2; page 10, lines 15-25 in view of page 5, lines 24-28, page 8, lines 13-21, and page 9, line 9 to page 10, line 14);
storing in a database (12) on the server computer system (1) the set of measured values together with the assigned mill identifier (Figs. 1-2; page 10, lines 15-31);
repeating the preceding steps for at least one other spinning mill (2) (Figs. 1-2; page 9, line 9 to page 10, line 31);
producing by the server computer system (1) a benchmark of the spinning mills (2) according to the sets of measured values and the mill identifiers assigned to them (Figs. 1-2; page 11, lines 1-25); and
transmitting the a benchmark from the server computer system (1) via a global communication network (7) to a client computer (8) (Figs. 1-2; page 11, lines 15-25).
While Narayanan discloses producing and transmitting a benchmark (Figs. 1-2; page 11, lines 15-25), Narayanan does not explicitly disclose producing and transmitting a ranking of the spinning mills. In the field of identifying sellers for a product (abstract) O’Keeffe et al., hereinafter O’Keeffe teaches producing a ranking of sellers of a product and transmitting the ranking (Fig. 2; ¶¶0056-0058). The step of O’Keeffe is applicable to the method of Narayanan as they share characteristics and capabilities, namely, they are directed to providing information about products for sale. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to modify the benchmark of Narayanan to include the ranking of O’Keeffe. One of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing would have been motivated to expand the method of Narayanan in order to optimize the processing of information based on the likelihood of a user purchasing the product (¶0002).
Regarding claim 2, Narayanan in view of O’Keeffe teaches the computer-implemented method according to claim 1, Narayanan further discloses wherein the set of measured values is for at least one parameter from the following set: coefficient of variation of the yarn mass, coefficient of variation of the yarn diameter, hairiness, number of thick places, number of thin places, number of periodic yarn defects, number of yarn count variations, number of foreign matters, number of splices (Fig. 4; page 12, lines 17-29 and claim 5).
Regarding claim 3, Narayanan in view of O’Keeffe teaches the computer-implemented method according to claim 1, Narayanan further discloses further comprising the steps of:
receiving by the server computer system (1) via the global communication network (6) from the spinning mill (2) further information on the yarn package (93) (Figs. 1-2; page 9, line 9 to page 10, line 31 and claims 11-12);
assigning by the server computer system (1) to the further information the mill identifier for the respective spinning mill (2) (Figs. 1-2; page 9, line 9 to page 10, line 31 and claims 11-12); and
storing in the database (12) the further information together with the assigned mill identifier (Figs. 1-2; page 9, line 9 to page 10, line 31 and claims 11-12).
Regarding claim 4, Narayanan in view of O’Keeffe teaches the computer-implemented method according to claim 3, Narayanan further discloses wherein the further information is from the following set: yarn count, yarn material, fiber processing system, spinning system, envisaged application, amount of yarn packages available, temporal availability of the yarn package, price of the yarn package (Figs. 1-2; page 9, line 9 to page 10, line 31 and claims 11-12).
Regarding claim 5, Narayanan in view of O’Keeffe teaches the computer-implemented method according to claim 1, Narayanan further discloses further comprising the steps of:
assigning by the server computer system (1) to the received set of measured values a package identifier for the respective yarn package (93) (Fig. 4; page 12, line 18 to page 14, line 24); and
storing in the database (12) the package identifier together with the set of measured values and the mill identifier (Fig. 4; page 12, line 18 to page 14, line 24).
Regarding claim 6, Narayanan in view of O’Keeffe teaches the computer-implemented method according to claim 5, Narayanan further discloses further comprising the steps of:
receiving by the server computer system (1) via the global communication network (7) from the client computer (8) a request (71) containing yarn specifications (Figs. 1-4; page 11, line 15 to page 14, line 25);
retrieving from the database (12), using the package identifiers and the mill identifiers sets of yarn packages such that the further information matches the yarn specifications for all packages of each of the retrieved sets of yarn packages (Figs. 1-4; page 11, line 15 to page 14, line 25); and
producing by the server computer system (1) those spinning mills (2) that produced the retrieved sets of yarn packages (Figs. 1-4; page 11, line 15 to page 14, line 25).
While Narayanan discloses receiving a request, retrieving information from the database that matches the request, and producing the spinning mills that matched (Figs. 1-4; page 11, line 15 to page 14, line 25), Narayanan does not explicitly disclose receiving a purchase request and producing the ranking only of the sellers that produced the request specifications. However, O’Keeffe further teaches receiving a search request and ranking only sellers that produced the request specifications (Fig. 2; ¶¶0056-0058 in view of ¶¶0016-0017). The motivation for making this modification to the teachings of Narayanan are the same as that set forth above, in the rejection of claim 1.
Regarding claim 7, Narayanan in view of O’Keeffe teaches the computer-implemented method according to claim 1, O’Keeffe further teaches wherein the ranking is produced based on all sets of measured values stored in the database (12), based on a certain number of most recent sets of measured values, or based on most recent sets of measured values measured in a certain period (¶¶0056-0098 in view of ¶¶0016-0017). The motivation for making this modification to the teachings of Narayanan are the same as that set forth above, in the rejection of claim 1.
Regarding claim 8, Narayanan in view of O’Keeffe teaches the computer-implemented method according to claim 1, O’Keeffe further teaches wherein the ranking is produced on an ordinal scale or on a metric scale (Fig. 2; ¶0009 [a ranked list of candidate vendors sorted by the probability that a particular dealer will consummate a transaction with the consumer and (b) suppress presentation of those dealers that are unlikely to be selected by the consumer since their characteristics are less consistent with those needed by the consumer and, therefore, are unlikely to result in a sale] in view of ¶¶0016-0017). The motivation for making this modification to the teachings of Narayanan are the same as that set forth above, in the rejection of claim 1.
Regarding claim 9, Narayanan in view of O’Keeffe teaches the computer-implemented method according to claim 1, O’Keeffe further teaches wherein the ranking is in the form of measured values assigned to the spinning mills (2), in the form of quantiles or percentiles assigned to the spinning mills (2), in the form of ordinal numbers assigned to the spinning mills (2), and/or in the form of classes into which the spinning mills (2) are classified (Fig. 2; ¶¶0026-0032 and ¶¶0061-0067 in view of ¶¶0016-0017; Examiner notes dealers are comparable to spinning mills). The motivation for making this modification to the teachings of Narayanan are the same as that set forth above, in the rejection of claim 1.
Regarding claim 12, Narayanan in view of O’Keeffe teaches the computer-implemented method according to claim 1, Narayanan further discloses further comprising the steps of:
receiving by the server computer system (1) via the global communication network from the spinning mill (2) values of at least one ambient parameter characteristic for an ambient condition of a location and a time of winding the yarn package (93) (Figs. 1-2; page 10, lines 15-24);
correcting by the server computer system (1) the received set of measured values to predefined ambient conditions based on the received value of the at least one ambient parameter, thus generating a set of corrected values (Figs. 1-2; page 10, line 15 to page 11, line 14); and
replacing the set of measured values with the set of corrected values (Figs. 1-2; page 10, line 15 to page 11, line 14).
Regarding claims 13-15, the claim discloses substantially the same limitations, as claim 1, except claim 1 is directed to a process while claims 13 and 15 are directed to a machine and claim 14 is directed to an article of manufacture. The added elements of “a computer program disposed on a non-transitory computer readable storage medium, the computer program having instructions executed by a server”, “a server computer system”, “a receiver”, “a processor”, “memory”, and a “transmitter” are also taught by Narayanan (Figs. 1-2; page 9, line 9 to page 10, line 31, claims 15, 18-21). Therefore, claims 13-15 are rejected for the same rational over the prior art.
Claim(s) 10 and 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Narayanan in view of O’Keeffe and Hockett (US 2019/0354915 A1 [previously recited]).
Regarding claim 10, Narayanan in view of O’Keeffe teaches the computer-implemented method according to claim 1. While Narayanan further discloses the set of measured values is compared by the server computer system (1) with sets of measured values (page 13, lines 11-21), Narayanan in view of O’Keeffe does not explicitly teach the set of measured values is compared by the server computer system (1) with sets of measured value having the same assigned mill identifier before storing the set of measured values in the database (12), and in case of a statistically significant deviation, the set of measured values is marked as an outlier and is not considered in the ranking. In the field of inspection data of manufactured physical parts (abstract) Hockett teaches analyzing data associated with a particular machine and in the case of a significant deviation the measured values are marked as an outlier and not considered in the normal data set (Fig. 6; ¶¶0144-0156). The step of Hockett is applicable to the method of Narayanan in view of O’Keeffe as they share characteristics and capabilities, namely, they are directed to providing information about manufactured products. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to modify the process of Narayanan in view of O’Keeffe to include the outlier detection of Hockett. One of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing would have been motivated to expand the method of Narayanan in view of O’Keeffe in order to provide an alert that the machine requires recalibration and/or that operation of the machine should be halted (¶0153).
Regarding claim 11, Narayanan in view of O’Keeffe and Hockett teaches the computer-implemented method according to claim 10, Hockett further teaches wherein upon occurrence of an outlier, an outlier message identifying the outlier is transmitted from the server computer system (1) via the global communication network (6) to the respective spinning mill (2) (Fig. 6; ¶¶0144-0156). The motivation for making this modification to the teachings of Narayanan in view of O’Keeffe are the same as that set forth above, in the rejection of claim 10.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, on page 6 of the Remarks filed 5/13/2026, with respect to the previous double patenting rejections have been fully considered but are not persuasive in view of the disapproved Terminal Disclaimer filed 5/20/2026. The applicant cited on the Terminal Disclaimer must be cited exactly as it is cited on the Application Data Sheet and/or filing receipt and also in its entirety. If more space for applicant section is required, please use smaller fonts or submit an attachment page to the Terminal Disclaimer. Accordinlgy, the previous double patenting rejections are maintained.
Applicant’s arguments, on page 6 of the Remarks filed 5/13/2026, with respect to the previous 35 USC §112(b) rejections have been fully considered. Due to the amendments, the previous 35 USC §112(b) rejection of claim 12 has been withdrawn. Although claim 10 has been amended, the arguments are not persuasive and the 35 USC §112(b) rejections of claims 10-11 have been maintained. The term “a statistically significant deviation” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. While the Specification recites “A significant difference can be determined by means of statistical methods, which are well-known to the person skilled in the art” in paragraph [0050], this description does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree. Accordingly the previous 35 USC §112(b) rejections of claims 10-11 are maintained.
Applicant’s arguments, on page 6 of the Remarks filed 5/13/2026, with respect to the previous non-statutory subject matter 35 USC §101 rejection of claim 14 have been fully considered and are persuasive in view of the claim amendments. Accordingly, the previous non-statutory subject matter 35 USC §101 rejection of claim 14 has been withdrawn.
Applicant’s arguments, on pages 7-8 of the Remarks filed 5/13/2026, with respect to the previous claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more 35 USC §101 rejection of claims 1-15 have been fully considered and are not persuasive.
Applicant argues on page 7 that the analysis of the claims improperly considers whether the additional elements are “well-understood, routine, and conventional” in step 2A, prong 2. Examiner respectfully disagrees. As noted previously and in the rejection above, in 2A, prong 2 of the rejection, the additional elements of the claims were found to merely amount to the general application of the abstract idea to a technical environment and insignificant pre-and-post solution activity. See MPEP 2106.04(d). As outlined in the MPEP, in step 2A, prong two a relevant consideration for evaluation whether additional elements do not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application 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 (see MPEP 2106.05(f)), adding insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception (see MPEP 2106.05(g)), and generally linking the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use (see MPEP 2106.04(h)). The courts have indicated that using “generic” computing components and/or technology to perform an abstract idea may not be sufficient to show an improvement in computer-functionality. Accordingly, the Step 2A, Prong 2 analysis did not improperly consider whether the additional elements are “well-understood, routine, and conventional” as the analysis determined the additional elements (which were claimed at a high level of generality (i.e., as generic computing hardware)), individually and as a combination, did not reflect an improvement in the functioning of a computer, or an improvement to other technology or technical field, did not transform or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing; and did not apply or use the abstract idea in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the abstract idea to a particular technology environment, such that the claim as a whole is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the abstract idea into a practical application. The specification makes clear the general-purpose nature of the technological environment because the additional elements of the claims are recited at a high level of generality (i.e., as generic computing hardware) such that they amount to nothing more than the mere instructions to implement or apply the abstract idea on generic computing hardware (or, merely uses a computer as a tool to perform the abstract idea) (see Fig. 1; paragraphs [0024]-[0025], [0032]-[0035]). The claims therefore are “directed to” the abstract idea.
Accordingly, Examiner maintains (unlike the claims identified in the argued Ex parte Martineau) the claims are directed to an abstract idea.
Applicant argues on pages 7-8 that the claims recite a specific technical configuration and provides a technical solution to assessing yarn production quality- an improvement in the field of textile machinery. Examiner respectfully disagrees. While the Examiner agrees that the limitations including “at least one sensor (41) on the yarn-winding machine (3)” do not fall within the abstract idea, the Examiner disagrees that these elements impose meaningful limits on the judicial exception. As claimed, these elements represent the mere use of generic computing components to facilitate the abstract idea. Notably, the specification provides only a brief description of the sensors on the yarn-winding machine (see ¶0024 [describing “typical” stand-alone winding machines and are “any machine” in a spinning mill that winds yarn onto a yarn package larger than a cop] and ¶¶0034-0035 [describing the “typical” winding machines as having a sensor for monitoring properties of the yarn]). If it is asserted that the invention improves upon conventional function of a computer, or upon conventional technology or technological processes, a technical explanation as to how to implement the invention should be present in the specification. That is, the disclosure must provide sufficient details such that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize the claimed invention as providing an improvement. Although the specification need not explicitly set forth the improvement, it must describe the invention such that the improvement would be apparent to one of ordinary sill in the art. Conversely, if the specification explicitly sets forth an improvement but in a conclusory manner (i.e., a bare assertion of an improvement without the detail necessary to be apparent to a person of ordinary skill in the art), the examiner should not determine the claim improves technology (see MPEP 2106.05(a); MPEP 2106.04(d)(1)).
Applicant’s specification does not provide the requisite detail necessary such that one of ordinary skill in the art could recognize the claimed invention as providing an improvement. Applicant’s specification does not provide sufficient detail with respect to textile machinery including a yarn-winding machine and/or sensor, and is specific only in their use in facilitating the abstract idea of ranking spinning mills according to sets of measured values.
The manner in which the currently pending claims are written is akin to ineligible decisions such as Affinity Labs of Texas v. DirecTV, LLC (Fed. Cir. 2016) (the court relied on the specification’s failure to provide details regarding the manner in which the invention accomplished the alleged improvement when holding the claimed methods of delivering broadcast content to cellphones ineligible), or, Internet Patents Corp. v. Active Network, Inc. (Fed. Cir. 2015) (claims contained no restriction on the manner in which the additional elements perform these claimed functions). The alleged improvement by Applicant is at best a bare assertion of an improvement sans sufficient detail to demonstrate that Applicant has provided the alleged improvement to the technical field.
There is no indication from either the claims or the specification that the invention seeks to modify conventional operation of any such technology (as that in DDR Holdings). Here again, the Examiner emphasizes the failure of the disclosure to set forth or describe the amended features, or any improvements that are achieved from or made relative to another technology or technical field. Contrary to Applicant’s assertion, the improvements manifested by the claimed invention are improvements to the abstract idea itself, not the computer or another technology or technical field.
The character of the claims as a whole is not directed to improving computer performance and do not recite any such benefit. The claims of the instant application, however, merely represent the use of generic computing technology used as a tool to perform the abstract idea in an online environment. The claims lack any restriction on the manner in which the computing operations are to be performed. The manner in which the currently pending claims are written is much more akin to the myriad of ineligible court decisions that employed generic computer components at a high-level to achieve improvements in commercial processes.
In review of the claimed invention, and in consideration of the specification as originally filed, the Examiner asserts that:
(i) the claimed invention does not reflect an improvement in the functioning of a computer, or an improvement to other technology or technical field, but instead improves an abstract, commercial process, and,
(ii) the specification, as originally filed, does not provide sufficient discloser or technical explanation such that one of ordinary skill in the art would have determined that the disclosed invention provided an improvement to the functioning of a computer or another technology or technical field.
Even assuming a relationship of the claimed invention to another technology or technical field, if it is asserted that the invention improves upon conventional functioning of a computer, or upon conventional technology or technological process, a technical explanation as to how to implement the invention should be present in the specification. That is, the disclosure most provide sufficient details such that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize the claimed invention as providing an improvement (see MPEP 2106.05(a)). Even when a specification explicitly asserts an improvement, examiner should not determine a claim improves technology when only a bare assertion of an improvement is present without the detail necessary to be apparent to a person of ordinary skill in the art (see MPEP 2106.04(d)(1)).
Further, the instant claims are not directed to improving “the existing technological process” requiring the generic components to operate in an unconventional manner to achieve an improvement in computer functionality or requiring the non-conventional and non-generic arrangement of known, conventional pieces to improve a technical process. As currently recited, the instant claims are directed to improving the business task of “ranking spinning mills according to sets of measured values”(i.e., the abstract idea).
Therefore, the Examiner maintains the claims do not recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application of that exception and maintains the rejection Step 2A, Prong Two.
Applicant argues on page 8 that the rejection under Step 2B must be reversed because the “requisite factual determinations” as required by Berkheimer are not provided. Examiner respectfully disagrees. As noted above in the full rejection of the claims, the claimed additional elements were evaluated individually and in combination to determine whether they provide an inventive concept (i.e., whether the additional elements amount to significantly more than the exception itself). In this case, the claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. Taken individually or as a whole the additional elements of the claims do not provide an inventive concept (i.e. they do not amount to “significantly more” than the exception itself). As discussed above with respect to the integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements used to perform the claimed process amount to no more than the mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer and/or no more than a general link to a technological environment. While Applicant contents that the Examiner has failed to provide factual evidence addressing Berkheimer, the Examiner respectfully disagrees. The Examiner points specifically to the previous rejection, as well as that updated above referencing the MPEP and the Applicant’s specification. As referenced to both previously and above, with respect to receiving information, storing information, and transmitting information, the Examiner underscores that these limitations are being performed by a generic processor and merely confines the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment and thus fails to add an inventive concept to the claims. See MPEP 2106.05(h). The background also states that the generic processor performs these limitations at a high level of generality. This description demonstrates that these additional elements are merely generic devices such as a generic computer.
Further, as referenced to both previously and above, MPEP 2106.05(d)(II) outlines various computer functions that he courts have recognized as well-understood, routine, and conventional functions. Most notably, the Examiner pointed out that the claimed invention utilized receiving or transmitting data over a network, storing and retrieving information in memory, and presenting offers. As these operations have been expressly noted by the courts, the Examiner has indeed provided factual evidence to the Examiner’s findings. Additionally, the Examiner pointed out that the Specification recites yarn-winding machines that winds yarn onto a yarn package with sensors for monitoring properties of the yarn are well-understood, routine, and conventional activities previously known to the industry (Fig. 1; see ¶0024 [describing “typical” stand-alone winding machines and are “any machine” in a spinning mill that winds yarn onto a yarn package larger than a cop] and ¶¶0034-0035 [describing the “typical” winding machines as having a sensor for monitoring properties of the yarn]). Berkheimer is thereby satisfied.
Even considered as an ordered combination (as a whole), the additional elements of the claims do not add anything further than when they are considered individually and do not provide an inventive concept (“significantly more”) under Step 2B, and is therefore ineligible for patenting.
Accordingly, the Examiner maintains the 101 rejection of the claims.
Applicant’s arguments, on pages 8-10 of the Remarks filed 5/13/2026, with respect to the 35 USC §103 rejections have been fully considered but are not persuasive.
On page 8 Applicant argues Narayanan’s disclosure does not disclose a method for assessing spinning mills. Examiner respectfully disagrees. 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. See MPEP 2111. As noted on page 1, lines 1-32 of Narayanan, Narayanan discloses a process for “comparing the quality level of one textile mill with another’s”. Examiner notes “comparing the quality level of one textile mill with another’s” is one way to assess spinning mills. Further, Narayanan discloses the provider (1) receiving the measured parameters and/or data derived from the textile mills (users 21-25) measurement devices (Fig. 2) in order for the provider to perform statistical processing or evaluation of a plurality of measurement data (Figs. 1-2; page 9, line 9 to page 10, line 31). Accordinlgy, Examiner maintains Narayanan discloses a method for assessing spinning mills.
On page 8 Applicant argues Narayanan’s disclosure does not disclose assigning to the set of measured values a mill identifier for the respective spinning mill. Examiner respectfully disagrees. 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. See MPEP 2111. Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993). As previously recited, Narayanan in Figs. 1-2 and on page 9, line 9 to page 10, line 31 discloses the provider receiving descriptive metadata from users 21-24 (e.g. textile mills), which can include geographic location. As further described in Narayanan on page 5, lines 24-28, page 8, lines 13-21, and page 9, lines 9-17, each textile mill is located at a different geographic location, making the “geographic location” associated with the measurement data unique to each location and comparable to a “mill identifier”. Examiner further notes, the name of the user (e.g., user 21, user 22, user 23, etc.) can also be considered a mill identifier. As Narayanan discloses a provider (1) receiving information from each mill (users 21-25) which can include the measurement data and descriptive metadata and the provider (1) and this information is uploaded into a database stored there by the provider for statistical processing (page 9, line 9 to page 10, line 31), Examiner maintains, given their broadest reasonable interpretation, Narayanan discloses assigning to the set of measured values a mill identifier for the respective spinning mill.
On page 9 Applicant argues Narayanan’s disclosure does not disclose storing the set of measured values together with the assigned mill identifier. Examiner respectfully disagrees. Narayanan discloses the transmitted data, including the measurement data and the corresponding metadata are uploaded into database and stored there by the provider (see Figs. 1-2; page 9, line 9 to page 10, line 31). Accordingly, given their broadest reasonable interpretation, Narayanan discloses storing the set of measured values together with the assigned mill identifier.
On pages 9-10 Applicant argues Narayanan’s disclosure does not disclose producing a benchmark of the spinning mills. Examiner respectfully disagrees. As noted on page 1, lines 1-32 of Narayanan, Narayanan discloses a process for “comparing the quality level of one textile mill with another’s”. This is achieved by producing by the server computer system a benchmark of the spinning mills according to the sets of measured values and the mill identifiers assigned to them and transmitting the benchmark from the server computer system via a global communications network to a client computing device (see Figs. 1-2; page 11, lines 15-25). Narayanan discloses statistically processing or evaluating a plurality of received measurement data from different geographically located users (e.g., textile mills) (Figs. 1-4; page 11, lines 1-19 and page 12, line 4 to page 13, line 15) and Narayanan was used to disclose producing and transmitting benchmark data (Figs. 1-2; page 11, lines 15-25). While Narayanan discloses that it was preferable, when transmitting the results to the individual spinning mills, to restrict and filter the benchmark results to anonymize the identities of the individual spinning mills (page 11, lines 15-25), this information is not anonymized when being transmitted to, stored by, and processed by the provider (see at least Figs. 1-2; page 9, line 9 to page 10, line 31). Accordingly, Narayanan discloses that the resulting benchmark data includes the benchmarking of the spinning mills according to the sets of measured values and the mill identifiers assigned to them (Figs. 1-4; page 11, line 15 to page 13, line 15).
As currently claimed, the ranking of the spinning mills and the transmitting of the ranking does not require the identities of each of the ranked spinning mills to be displayed to other spinning mills. Accordingly, as currently claimed, Narayanan does not teach away from the present invention. In response to applicant's arguments against the references individually, one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986). While Narayanan discloses generating, transmitting, and displaying a diagram showing the quality data received form the different spinning mills and a frequency distribution that includes percentiles (Figs. 3-4; page 11, line 15 to page 13, line 15), Narayanan did not explicitly disclose producing and transmitting a ranking of the spinning mills. O’Keeffe was used to teach producing a ranking of sellers (i.e., manufactures) of a product and transmitting the ranking (Fig. 2; ¶¶0056-0058). In response to applicant's argument that O’Keeffe is nonanalogous art to Narayanan, it has been held that a prior art reference must either be in the field of the inventor’s endeavor or, if not, then be reasonably pertinent to the particular problem with which the inventor was concerned, in order to be relied upon as a basis for rejection of the claimed invention. See In re Oetiker, 977 F.2d 1443, 24 USPQ2d 1443 (Fed. Cir. 1992). In this case, Narayanan is analogous art as it pertains to a system gathering information from spinning mills and processing the information to produce a benchmark (i.e., results) (see page 2, lines 20-29 [Expert systems for single textile mills are known. Such an expert system is a computer- implemented system which collects textile production data, including quality data, from the mill and statistically evaluates them. The results of the statistical evaluations are output in reports with clearly arranged graphical representations and/or numerical values. These reports help the mill managers to make informed choices about production processes, to guarantee quality and to reduce costs.]). O’Keeffe is analogous art as it pertains to a system gathering information from a plurality of sources and processing the information to produce a ranking (i.e., results). Both Narayanan and O’Keeffe teach a system that collects data, processes the data, and transmits the processed data. While the data may represent different types of data (as argued on page 9 of the Remarks that Narayanan collects and evaluates measured values while O’Keeffe uses business data), the processing of the data does not require different handling. Further, both Narayanan and O’Keeffe are directed to processing information and providing information about products. Accordingly, It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to modify the processing of the received data from each mill to generate the benchmark of Narayanan to include ranking of the processed data of O’Keeffe as it is merely processing data using a specific model to generate results (O’Keeffe Fig. 2; ¶¶0056-0058). The processing of the data does not differ if the data relates to the automotive business and/or the textile industry. One of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing would have been motivated to expand the method of Narayanan to include ranking the information within the processing and transmitting of the ranked information as it is merely processing data using a specific model to generate results (O’Keeffe Fig. 2; ¶¶0056-0058) and it allows for optimizing the processing of information based on the likelihood of the user purchasing the product (O’Keeffe ¶0002).
Accordingly, Examiner maintains Narayanan in view of O’Keeffe teach claims 1-9 and 12-15 for the reasons stated above. Examiner further maintains claims 10 and 11 are taught by Narayanan in view of O’Keeffe and Hockett. As noted above, collecting and evaluating data is not dependent upon what type of data is collected and/or evaluated. "The rationale to support a conclusion that the claim would have been obvious is that all the claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods with no change in their respective functions, and the combination yielded nothing more than predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art. KSR, 550 U.S. at 416, 82 USPQ2d at 1395; Sakraida V. AG Pro, Inc., 425 U.S. 273, 282, 189 USPQ 449, 453 (1976); Anderson's-Black Rock, Inc. V. Pavement Salvage Co., 396 U.S. 57, 62-63, 163 USPQ 673, 675 (1969); Great Atl. & P. Tea Co. V. Supermarket Equip. Corp., 340 U.S. 147, 152, 87 USPQ 303, 306 (1950). '[I]t can be important to identify a reason that would have prompted a person of ordinary skill in the relevant field to combine the elements in the way the claimed new invention does.' KSR, 550 U.S. at 418, 82 USPQ2d at 1396." (see MPEP 2143(I)(A)). Narayanan, Hockett, and O’Keeffe teach systems that collect data, process the data, and transmit the processed data. The argued reference O’Keeffe is analogous art as it pertains to a system gathering information from a plurality of sources and processing the information to produce a ranking (i.e., results). While the data may represent different types of data (as argued on pages 9 and 10 of the Remarks that Narayanan collects and evaluates measured values while O’Keeffe uses business data), the processing of the data does not require different handling. Further, Narayanan, Hockett, and O’Keeffe are directed to processing information and providing information about products. Accordingly, It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to modify the processing of the received data from each mill to generate the benchmark of Narayanan in view of Hackett to include ranking of the processed data of O’Keeffe as it is merely processing data using a specific model to generate results (O’Keeffe Fig. 2; ¶¶0056-0058).
Accordingly, the Examiner maintains the 103 rejection of the claims.
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 LINDSEY B SMITH whose telephone number is (571)272-0519. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 9-6 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, Jeff Smith can be reached at 571-272-6763. 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.
LINDSEY B. SMITH
Examiner
Art Unit 3688
/LINDSEY B SMITH/ Examiner, Art Unit 3688
/Jeffrey A. Smith/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3688
Prosecution Insights