DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Notice for all US Patent Applications filed on or after March 16, 2013
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 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.
Status of the Claims
This communication is in response to communications received on 9/2/26. Claim(s) 1, 13, 18, and 23-25 is/are amended, claim(s) none is/are cancelled, claim(s) none is/are new, and applicant states support can be found at instant specification [0029, 0041]. Therefore, Claims 1-2, 6-14, and 18-25 is/are pending and have been addressed below.
Claims Without Prior Art Rejections
Claim(s) 1-2, 6-14, and 18-25 do not have prior art rejections. The remaining rejections are 101 as noted below.
Closest prior art to the invention claims without rejections include
Linton et al. (US 2014/0018951 A1) in view of Connell et al. (US 2020/0065727 A1), Brown et al. (US 2013/0275176 A1), and Harris et al. (US 2019/0266533 A1) for claims 1-2, 6-7, 11-12, and 21-25, and
Linton in view of Connell, Brown, and Harris as applied to claim(s) 1 and 18 above and further in view of Tam et al. (US 2022/0101113 A1) for claims 8-10, and 20, and
Linton et al. (US 2014/0018951 A1) in view of Connell et al. (US 2020/0065727 A1), Brown et al. (US 2013/0275176 A1), Harris et al. (US 2019/0266533 A1), and Tseng (US 2015/0324445 A1) for claims 18-20.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see applicant’s remarks, filed 9/2/26, with respect to rejections under 35 USC 103 for claim(s) 13-14 have been fully considered and are persuasive. The Examiner respectfully withdraws rejections under 35 USC 112 for claim(s) 13-14.
Applicant’s arguments, see applicant’s remarks, filed 9/2/26, with respect to rejections under 35 USC 101 for claim(s) 1-2, 6-14, and 18-25 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive as far as they apply to the amended 101 rejection(s) below.
Applicant respectfully traversed the rejection on pg. 10-17.
The Examiner respectfully disagrees because the claims here are not like those the Federal Circuit found patent eligible in Enfish because the claimed steps are a process that qualifies as an abstract idea for which computers are invoked merely as a tool, rather than being directed to a specific asserted improvement in computer capabilities..
Applicant is relying on 2106.05(d) “well understood, routine, and conventional” however Examiner is relying on 2106.05(f) “apply it.” Examiner relied on “apply it” because of item (2) Whether the claim invokes computers or other machinery merely as a tool to perform an existing process of 2106.05(f).
Thus, the argument(s) are unpersuasive.
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.
Claim(s) 1-2, 6-14, and 18-25 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter. The claim(s) does/do not fall within at least one of the four categories of patent eligible subject matter as noted below.
The limitation(s) below for representative claim(s) 1, 13, and 18 that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, is directed to supplier risk assessment.
Step 1: The claim(s) as drafted, is/are a process (claim(s) 1-2, 6-12 recites a series of steps) and system (claim(s) 13-14 and 18-25 recites a series of components).
Step 2A – Prong 1: The claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claim(s) recite(s) (emphasis added):
Claim 1: receiving a first indication of a supplier, the received indication including an identification tag;
implementing a trained first machine-learning (ML) model to generate an impact score for the supplier, wherein the trained first ML model is trained by tuning the first ML model to err toward identifying the supplier as a high risk and mitigate a determination of a false negative;
implementing a trained second ML model to generate a likelihood score for the supplier, wherein the trained second ML model is trained by tuning the second ML model to err toward identifying the supplier as a high risk and mitigate a determination of a false negative;
generating a likelihood score for the supplier;
generating an initial combined risk score based on the generated impact score and the generated likelihood score;
evaluating the generated initial combined risk score relative to a dynamic risk threshold, the dynamic risk threshold based on organization-focused dynamics and one or more supplier-focused dynamics;
based on the evaluation, generating first output including the generated initial combined risk score;
storing the generated initial combined risk score and the generated first output in a data storage location, the stored generated initial combined risk score and the generated first output including the received identification tag;
receiving a second indication of the supplier, the second received indication including the identification tag;
based on the second identification tag matching the first identification tag stored the data storage location, determining the supplier is an existing supplier;
based on the determination the supplier is the existing supplier, retrieving, from the data storage location, the generated initial combined risk score and the generated first output;
based on a determination the generated impact score and the generated likelihood score are not materially changed, generating a second output including the generated initial combined risk score; and
triggering at least one of i) a first automatic response to the received first indication based on the generated first output, or ii) a second automatic response to the received second indication based on the generated second output, wherein the first automatic response and the second automatic response are selected from one or more of a full approval of the supplier, a limited approval of the supplier, a denial of the supplier, a notification of availability of the generated first output or the generated second output, and an action reducing a risk of the supplier.
Claim(s) 13 and 18: same analysis as claim(s) 1.
Claim 13 and 18 additionally: the generated likelihood score indicating a likelihood the new supplier will be a victim of one or more of a cyber-attack or an operational failure;
the generated initial combined risk score indicating an overall risk of the supplier based on an impact of the supplier and the generated likelihood score.
Claim 13 additionally: based on a determination the generated impact score and the generated likelihood score are materially changed, generate at least one of an updated impact score or an updated likelihood score for the supplier;
based on the generated at least one of the updated impact score or the updated likelihood score, generate an updated combined risk score for the supplier;
evaluate the updated combined risk score relative to the dynamic risk threshold;
and based on the evaluation of the updated combined risk score relative to the dynamic risk threshold, generate a second output including the generated initial combined risk score.
Claim 18 additionally: based on the generated initial combined risk score being greater than a dynamic risk threshold, triggering a questionnaire to be transmitted to the supplier;
based on a response received from the supplier in response to the transmitted questionnaire, identifying a second identification tag included in the response, matching the second identification tag to the first identification tag to associate the received response with the triggered questionnaire, and updating the combined risk score;
evaluating the updated combined risk score relative to the dynamic risk threshold; and
based on the evaluation, generating an output including the updated combined risk score.
Dependent claims 2, 6-12, 14, and 19-25 recite the same or similar abstract idea(s) as independent claim(s) 1, 13, and 18 with merely a further narrowing of the abstract idea(s): .
The identified limitations of the independent and dependent claims above fall well-within the groupings of subject matter identified by the courts as being abstract concepts of:
a method of organizing human activity (commercial or legal interactions including advertising, marketing or sales activities or behaviors, or business relations) because the invention is directed to economic and/or business relationships as they are associated with supplier risk assessment.
Step 2A – Prong 2: This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because:
The additional elements unencompassed by the abstract idea include data storage (claim(s) 1, 13, 18), computer (claim(s) 1), a system comprising: a memory; and a processor coupled to the memory (claim(s) 13), one or more non-transitory computer readable media, a processor (claim(s) 18), machine learning (claim 8-10, 20, 23-25).
The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the additional elements as described above with respect to Step 2A Prong 2 fails to describe:
Improvements to the functioning of a computer, or to any other technology or technical field - see MPEP 2106.05(a)
Applying or using a judicial exception to effect a particular treatment or prophylaxis for a disease or medical condition – see Vanda Memo
Applying the judicial exception with, or by use of, a particular machine – see MPEP 2106.05(b)
Effecting a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing - see MPEP 2106.05(c)
Applying or using the judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment, such that the claim as a whole is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception - see MPEP 2106.05(e) and Vanda Memo.
Thus the additional elements as described above with respect to Step 2A Prong 2 are merely (as additionally noted by instant specification [0077]) invoked as a tool and/or general purpose computer to apply instructions of an abstract idea in a particular technological environment, and/or mere application of an abstract idea in a particular technological environment and merely limiting the use of an abstract idea to a particular technological field do not integrate an abstract idea into a practical application (MPEP 2106.05(f)&(h)).
Step 2B: The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. Thus the additional elements as described above with respect to Step 2A Prong 2 are merely (as additionally noted by instant specification [0077]) invoked as a tool and/or a general purpose computer to apply instructions of an abstract idea in a particular technological environment, and/or mere application of an abstract idea in a particular technological environment and merely limiting the use of an abstract idea to a particular technological field do not integrate an abstract idea into a practical application and thus similarly the combination and arrangement of the above identified additional elements when analyzed under Step 2B also fails to necessitate a conclusion that the claims amount to significantly more than the abstract idea for the same reasons as set forth above (MPEP 2106.05(f)&(h)).
Conclusion
When responding to the office action, any new claims and/or limitations should be accompanied by a reference as to where the new claims and/or limitations are supported in the original disclosure.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JAMES WEBB whose telephone number is (313)446-6615. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F 10-3.
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, Jerry O’Connor can be reached on (571) 272-6787. 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.
/JAMES WEBB/Examiner, Art Unit 3624
