DETAILED ACTION
Claims 1-20 are pending. Claims 1-20 are considered in this Office 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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 12/4/2024 has been acknowledged. The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner. The initialed and dated copy of Applicant’s IDS form 1449 is attached to the instant 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.
Alice - Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Claims 1, 9, and 17 recite the limitations to determine a first projection of a current install base based on an execution date of a first order of the plurality of orders, the first order including at least one change to the current install base, and the plurality of orders being configured to be executed in a sequence (Collecting and Analyzing the Information, an Observation and Evaluation, a Mental Process; a Commercial Interaction, a Certain Method of Organizing Human Activity), determine whether the first order is valid based on the determined first projection of the current install base (Analyzing the Information, an Evaluation, a Mental Process; a Commercial Interaction, a Certain Method of Organizing Human Activity), and one of reject and queue the first order for execution on the execution date of the first order based on the determination of whether the first order is valid (Analyzing and Transmitting the Information, an Evaluation and Judgment, a Mental Process; a Commercial Interaction, a Certain Method of Organizing Human Activity), which under their broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind for the purposes of accepting or rejecting an order, but for the recitation of generic computer components. That is, other than reciting a management node, processing circuitry, and a computer-readable medium, nothing in the claim element precludes the step from practically being performed or read into the mind for the purposes of a Commercial Interaction. For example, determining whether the first order is valid based on the determined first projection of the current install base encompasses a manager, data analyst, etc. determining a projection for the customer base using order information, an observation, evaluation, and judgement, which is also Mathematical Concept/Relationship. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas, an observation, evaluation, and judgment. Further, as described above, the claims recite limitations for a Commercial Interaction, a “Certain Method of Organizing Human Activity”. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim recites the above stated additional elements to perform the abstract limitations as above. The management node, processing circuitry, and medium are recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as a generic software/module performing a generic computer function of storing, retrieving, sending, and processing data) such that they amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components. Even if taken as an additional element, the collecting and transmitting steps above are insignificant extra-solution activity as these are receiving, storing, and transmitting data as per the MPEP 2106.05(d). Accordingly, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to an abstract idea.
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception, when considered both individually and as an ordered combination. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional element being used to perform the abstract limitations stated above amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components. Mere instructions to apply an exception using generic computer components cannot provide an inventive concept. The claim is not patent eligible. Applicant’s Specification states:
“The processing circuitry 32 may include a processor 36 and a memory 34 (e.g., computer readable medium, non-transitory computer readable medium, etc.). In particular, in addition to or instead of a processor, such as a central processing unit, and memory, the processing circuitry 32 may comprise integrated circuitry for processing and/or control,”
Which shows that any generic computer using a processor and memory can be used to perform the abstract limitations, such as a laptop, phone, desktop, etc., and from this interpretation, one would reasonably deduce the aforementioned steps are all functions that can be done on generic components, and thus application of an abstract idea on a generic computer, as per the Alice decision and not requiring further analysis under Berkheimer, but for edification the Applicant’s specification has been used as above satisfying any such requirement. This is “Applying It” by utilizing current technologies. For the collecting and transmitting steps that were considered extra-solution activity in Step 2A above, if they were to be considered additional elements, they have been re-evaluated in Step 2B and determined to be well-understood, routine, conventional, activity in the field. The background does not provide any indication that the additional elements, such as the node, medium, etc., nor the collecting and transmitting steps as above, are anything other than a generic, and the MPEP Section 2106.05(d) indicates that mere collection or receipt, storing, or transmission of data is a well‐understood, routine, and conventional function when it is claimed in a merely generic manner (as it is here). For these reasons, there is no inventive concept. The claim is not patent eligible.
Claims 2-8, 10-16, and 18-20 contain the identified abstract ideas, further narrowing them, with no new additional elements to be considered as part of a practical application or under prong 2 of the Alice analysis of the MPEP, thus not integrated into a practical application, nor are they significantly more for the same reasons and rationale as above.
After considering all claim elements, both individually and in combination, Examiner has determined that the claims are directed to the above abstract ideas and do not amount to significantly more. Therefore, the claims and dependent claims are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 as being directed to non-statutory subject matter. See Alice Corporation Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank International, No. 13–298.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 of this title, 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.
The factual inquiries set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 1-4, 6-12, and 14-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Vasudevan (U.S. Publication No. 2016/010,5372) in view of Berk (U.S. Publication No. 2021/014,2274).
Regarding Claims 1, 9, and 17, Vasudevan, a system and method for a customizable model for throttling and prioritizing orders in a cloud environment, teaches a management node ([0066] a module/node for order management) comprising:
processing circuitry ([0226] processing units configured to perform the processes of the system) configured to:
and the plurality of orders being configured to be executed in a sequence ([0066] install base module where customer orders/first order includes new services/upgrades which add new order information and [0174] the customer order/first order is sent to a queue which is a sequence);
determine whether the first order is valid based on the determined first projection of the current install base ([0077] orders a validated based on the customer orders and status) and
one of reject and queue the first order for execution on the execution date of the first order based on the determination of whether the first order is valid ([0164] based on rules when a threshold limit has been reached, an or can be paused and thus rejected)
Vasudevan does not teach to determine a first projection of a current install base based on an execution date of a first order of the plurality of orders, the first order including at least one change to the current install base.
Berk, a system for dynamic effort-based delivery value predictive updates, teaches [0049] a determined estimated time, which is an execution date, of an order and a plurality of orders, in order to change services or add value to the service as in [0143].
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the ordering system of Vasudevan with the value added ordering system of Berk as they are both analogous art along with the claimed invention which all teach solutions in the realm of customers ordering products/services, and the combination would lead to an improved system which would increase acceptance rates and thus improve overall efficiency of service as taught in [0043] of Berk.
Examiner notes Vasudevan teaches a computer-readable medium ([0228] computer-readable storage medium).
Regarding Claims 2, 10, and 18, the combination of Vasudevan and Berk teaches to determine a first projection of the current install bas based on an execution date of a first order of the plurality of orders, the first order includes at least one change to the current install base as in Claim 1 above.
Berk further teaches multiple orders being estimated and projected as in [0041] and the projections as in [0049] and in Claim 1 above.
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the ordering system of Vasudevan with the value added ordering system of Berk as they are both analogous art along with the claimed invention which all teach solutions in the realm of customers ordering products/services, and the combination would lead to an improved system which would increase acceptance rates and thus improve overall efficiency of service as taught in [0043] of Berk.
Regarding Claims 3, 11, and 19, the combination of Vasudevan and Berk teaches the validation of orders as in Claim 1 above.
Vasudevan does not teach, but
Berk teaches wherein the second order precedes the first order in the sequence, and the determination of whether the first order is valid is further based on the determined second projection of the current install base as in [0041] where the orders are adjusts based on a projection as in [0048].
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the ordering system of Vasudevan with the value added ordering system of Berk as they are both analogous art along with the claimed invention which all teach solutions in the realm of customers ordering products/services, and the combination would lead to an improved system which would increase acceptance rates and thus improve overall efficiency of service as taught in [0043] of Berk.
Regarding Claims 4, 12, and 20, the combination of Vasudevan and Berk teaches the validation of orders as in Claim 1 above.
Vasudevan does not teach, but
Berk teaches wherein the second order precedes the first order in the sequence, and the determination of whether the first or second order is valid is further based on the determined second or first projection of the current install base as in [0041] where the orders are adjusts based on a projection as in [0048].
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the ordering system of Vasudevan with the value added ordering system of Berk as they are both analogous art along with the claimed invention which all teach solutions in the realm of customers ordering products/services, and the combination would lead to an improved system which would increase acceptance rates and thus improve overall efficiency of service as taught in [0043] of Berk.
Regarding Claims 6 and 14, Vasudevan does not teach projections.
Berk teaches to determine a projection for each of the plurality of orders, each of the projections for each of the plurality of orders including at least one change to the current install base ([0143] value is added based on changed the order based on the projection.
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the ordering system of Vasudevan with the value added ordering system of Berk as they are both analogous art along with the claimed invention which all teach solutions in the realm of customers ordering products/services, and the combination would lead to an improved system which would increase acceptance rates and thus improve overall efficiency of service as taught in [0043] of Berk.
Regarding Claims 7 and 15, the combination of Vasudevan and Berk teaches the validation of orders as in Claim 1 above.
Vasudevan does not teach projections.
Berk teaches to determine a projection for each of the plurality of orders, each of the projections for each of the plurality of orders including at least one change to the current install base ([0143] value is added based on changed the order based on the projection.
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the ordering system of Vasudevan with the value added ordering system of Berk as they are both analogous art along with the claimed invention which all teach solutions in the realm of customers ordering products/services, and the combination would lead to an improved system which would increase acceptance rates and thus improve overall efficiency of service as taught in [0043] of Berk.
Regarding Claims 8 and 16, the combination of Vasudevan and Berk teaches the validation of orders as in Claim 1 above.
wherein determining whether the first order is valid is further based on an evaluation of each of the determined projections of each of the plurality of orders, the evaluation being based on the sequence of execution of the plurality of orders.
Vasudevan teaches a sequence of steps which are evaluated as in [0110], but it does not teach projections.
Berk teaches to determine a projection for each of the plurality of orders, each of the projections for each of the plurality of orders including at least one change to the current install base ([0143] value is added based on changed the order based on the projection.
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the ordering system of Vasudevan with the value added ordering system of Berk as they are both analogous art along with the claimed invention which all teach solutions in the realm of customers ordering products/services, and the combination would lead to an improved system which would increase acceptance rates and thus improve overall efficiency of service as taught in [0043] of Berk.
Claims 5 and 13are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Vasudevan (U.S. Publication No. 2016/010,5372) in view of Berk (U.S. Publication No. 2021/014,2274) in further view of Prakash (U.S. Publication No. 2021/022,4464).
Regarding Claims 5 and 13, the combination of Vasudevan and Berk teaches an execution date of each of the plurality of orders as in Claim 1 above.
Although Vasudevan teaches a sequence of orders as in [0076], it does not explicitly state this is in chronological order.
Neither does Berk.
Prakash, a collaboration mechanism system and method, teaches wherein the sequence is chronological as in [0173].
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the ordering system with order dates and times of the combination of Vasudevan and Berk with the chronological ordering of Prakash as they are all analogous art along with the claimed invention which all teach solutions in the realm of customers ordering products/services, and the combination would lead to an improved system which would improve the user experience of those in a queue and thus improve customer satisfaction as taught in [0061] of Prakash
Conclusion
The prior art made of record is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
US 20240027208 A1
TAMAR; AVIV et al.
NEURAL NETWORK-BASED ROUTING USING TIME-WINDOW CONSTRAINTS
US 20210224464 A1
Prakash; Sai et al.
COLLABORATION MECHANISM
US 20210142274 A1
Berk; Jonathan et al.
SYSTEM FOR DYNAMIC EFFORT-BASED DELIVERY VALUE PREDICTIVE UPDATES
US 20200304384 A1
Ward, JR.; David John
Flexible Capacity Reservations For Network-Accessible Resources
US 20160105372 A1
Vasudevan; Ramesh et al.
CUSTOMIZABLE MODEL FOR THROTTLING AND PRIORITIZING ORDERS IN A CLOUD ENVIRONMENT
US 20240249297 A1
Dickinson; Miles et al.
METHOD AND SYSTEM FOR WEB-BASED MANAGEMENT OF CONSUMER PACKAGED GOODS
US 20240086803 A1
Lopez; David
Platform for Cross-Enterprise Project Monitoring, Management, and Reporting
US 20230334221 A1
LEFEBVRE; Martin C. et al.
Method and Apparatus for Inbound Message Summarization
US 20230161368 A1
Forbes, JR.; Joseph W.
System, method, and data packets for messaging for electric power grid elements over a secure internet protocol network
US 20230031872 A1
Bewley; Alex et al.
ENHANCED PLATFORM AND PROCESSES FOR SCALABILITY
US 20220201368 A1
Borok; Jay L. et al.
APPARATUS AND METHODS FOR AUTOMATED SECONDARY CONTENT MANAGEMENT IN A DIGITAL NETWORK
US 20210350442 A1
AMRON; Scott
DISTRIBUTED INVENTORY SYSTEM
US 20210263945 A1
Siebel; Thomas M. et al.
SYSTEMS, METHODS, AND DEVICES FOR AN ENTERPRISE AI AND INTERNET-OF-THINGS PLATFORM
US 20210019699 A1
Bornski; Matthew Timothy et al.
UNMANNED AERIAL VEHICLE (UAV) DELIVERY WITH DROP BEACON
US 20200160263 A1
Kuettner; Marcus
System, Method, And Packaging For Secure Food Delivery
US 20200117151 A1
McKeag; Tory et al.
OUTAGE AND SWITCH MANAGEMENT FOR A POWER GRID SYSTEM
US 20190364157 A1
OHTA; Takeomi et al.
WEB CATALOG GENERATOR, PRINT ORDER PROCESSOR INCLUDING THE WEB CATALOG GENERATOR, PRINTING SYSTEM INCLUDING THE PRINT ORDER PROCESSOR, AND NON-TRANSITORY COMPUTER-READABLE STORAGE MEDIUM
US 20180091868 A1
Borok; Jay L. et al.
APPARATUS AND METHODS FOR AUTOMATED SECONDARY CONTENT MANAGEMENT IN A DIGITAL NETWORK
US 20150163206 A1
McCarthy; Kevin L. et al.
CUSTOMIZABLE SECURE DATA EXCHANGE ENVIRONMENT
US 20140222610 A1
Mikurak; Michael G.
INCREASED VISIBILITY DURING ORDER MANAGEMENT IN A NETWORK-BASED SUPPLY CHAIN ENVIRONMENT
US 20050289013 A1
Goldberg, Nathan D.
Order management system
US 7469219 B2
Goldberg; Nathan D.
Order management system
US 10552774 B2
Shih; Kathryn Marie et al.
Cost-minimizing task scheduler
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JOSEPH M WAESCO whose telephone number is (571)272-9913. The examiner can normally be reached on 8 AM - 5 PM M-F.
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 on (571) 272-6737. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-1348.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/JOSEPH M WAESCO/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3625B 2/22/2026