DETAILED ACTION
This communication is a Final Rejection Office Action in response to the 4/10/2026 submission filed in Application 18/934,358. Claims 1-3, 5-9, 11-15, 17-18 are now presented.
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments files 4/10/2026 with respect to the prior art have been fully considered and are persuasive. The prior art rejections have been withdrawn.
Applicant's remaining arguments have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. The Examiner points the Applicant to the instant rejection that explains why the amended claims remain rejected under 101.
Further, regarding the rejection under 101, the Applicant argues “independent amended claim 1, 7, and 13 are patent-eligible as they integrate a judicial exception into a practical application in terms of improvement to other technology or technical field (MPEP §§ 2106.04(d)(1) and 2106.05(a)) i.e., the soft-sensing of the FDT is utilized to monitor and predict physical conditions of each food item at various points within the food supply chain network during transition including warehouses, distribution centers (DCs). Continuously ingesting real-time sensor data via a food digital twin (soft sensing).”
The Examiner respectfully disagrees. The claims have been amended to recite “obtaining, via the one or more hardware processors, a plurality of data associated with each of a plurality of food items at one or more instances in the virtual representation of the food supply chain network using a food digital twin the FDT” and wherein the FDT is an artificial intelligence based cloud-native internet of things (IoT) technology for soft-sensing, wherein the FDT is configured as a sensor to collect the plurality of data at various points within the food supply chain network, and wherein the soft-sensing of the FDT monitors and predict physical conditions of each food item at various points within the food supply chain network during transition including warehouses, distribution centers (DCs). However, the claims do not recite how the FDT is an artificial intelligence based cloud-native internet of things (IoT) technology for soft-sensing works. It is unclear how the artificial intelligence is applied or how the soft-sensing works. The claims recite the FDT is configured as a sensor to collect the plurality of data at various points within the food supply chain network, and wherein the soft-sensing of the FDT monitors and predict physical conditions of each food item at various points, but the claims does not state how this sensing and monitoring accomplished. As such, under the broadest reasonable interpretation of the cloud-native internet of things (IoT) technology for soft-sensing amounts to insignificant and well known and conventional data gathering.
Regarding the rejection under 101, the Applicant further argues “Similar to the above-referenced Federal Circuit decision, Applicant's claimed subject matter includes the step of evaluating sustainability of a food supply chain network using digital twin. The sustainability is evaluated based on quantified spoilage, wastage reduction, and shelf life preservation, not economic scores alone. Thereby output reflects physical improvements to food preservation, not abstract metrics. The step includes determine in real time, efficacy of modeling abstractions by running simulations of the stock-and-flow based model using a simulator, and comparing simulated perishability states with sensor-derived perishability states. Furthermore, computing dynamics of aggregated remaining shelf-life of the food items based on an average remaining shelf-life of the food items in the one or more storage points at time t+1 and t, respectively, inflows to a storage stock, corresponding average remaining shelf-life of the food items when they enter into the storage stock, and a degradation rate of the food items. The value '0' indicates no degradation, and value '1' indicates sudden wastage due to environmental factor, and thereby the degradation rate of the food items is controlled. Food supply chain control systems by dynamically computing spoilage and shelf-life degradation. Evaluating the sustainability of the food supply chain network based on the efficacy of each of the set of modelling abstractions. However, Applicant asserts that the mathematical concepts considered for computing dynamics of aggregated remaining shelf-life of the food items, analyzing the plurality of dynamics of the food supply chain network.”
The Examiner respectfully disagrees. The amendments that are directed to computing dynamics of aggregated remaining shelf-life of the food items based do not save the claim because this analysis can be performed mentally. Further, the limitation of wherein value '0' indicates no degradation, and value '1' indicates sudden wastage due to environmental factor does not save the claim. The claims do not state how these values on “1” and “0” are applied to the analysis. Under the broadest reasonable interpretation this can also be performed mentally. As such, the limitation argued by the Applicant remain Abstract.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1-3, 5-9, 11-15, 17-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter.
When considering subject matter eligibility under 35 U.S.C. 101, in step 1 it must be determined whether the claim is directed to one of the four statutory categories of invention, i.e., process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter. If the claim does fall within one of the statutory categories, in step 2A prong 1 it must then be determined whether the claim is recite a judicial exception (i.e., law of nature, natural phenomenon, and abstract idea). If the claim recites a judicial exception, under step 2A prong 2 it must additionally be determined whether the recites additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. If a claim does not integrate the Abstract idea into a practical application, under step 2B it must then be determined if the claim provides an inventive concept.
In the Instant case, Claims 1-3, 5-6 are directed toward a method for managing a supply chain. Claims 7-9, 11-12 are directed toward an system for managing a supply chain. Claims 13-15, 17-18 are directed toward an system for managing a supply chain. As such, each of the Claims is directed to one of the four statutory categories of invention.
MPEP 2106.04 II. A. explains that in step 2A prong 1 Examiners are to determine whether a claim recites a judicial exception. MPEP 2106.04(a) explains that:
To facilitate examination, the Office has set forth an approach to identifying abstract ideas that distills the relevant case law into enumerated groupings of abstract ideas. The enumerated groupings are firmly rooted in Supreme Court precedent as well as Federal Circuit decisions interpreting that precedent, as is explained in MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2). This approach represents a shift from the former case-comparison approach that required examiners to rely on individual judicial cases when determining whether a claim recites an abstract idea. By grouping the abstract ideas, the examiners’ focus has been shifted from relying on individual cases to generally applying the wide body of case law spanning all technologies and claim types.
The enumerated groupings of abstract ideas are defined as:
1) Mathematical concepts – mathematical relationships, mathematical formulas or equations, mathematical calculations (see MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2), subsection I);
2) Certain methods of organizing human activity – 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) (see MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2), subsection II); and
3) Mental processes – concepts performed in the human mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion) (see MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2), subsection III).
As per step 2A prong 1 of the eligibility analysis, claim 1 recites the abstract idea of analyzing
the plurality of dynamics of the food supply chain network and analyzing the plurality of dynamics of the food supply chain network by simulating the stock-and-flow based model using a simulator; and evaluating sustainability of the food supply chain network based on the efficacy of each of the set of modelling abstractions which falls into the abstract idea categories of certain methods of organizing human activity and mental processes. The elements of Claim 1 that represent the Abstract idea include:
A method of evaluating sustainability of a food supply chain network using a food digital twin (FDT), comprising:
providing, a virtual representation of a food supply chain network using a stock-and-flow based model, wherein the stock-and-flow based model represents a plurality of dynamics of the food supply chain network, wherein the dynamics from the plurality of dynamics of the food supply chain network includes dynamics of storage;
determining, a status of a plurality of attributes associated with each of the plurality of food items using the plurality of data, wherein the plurality of attributes are indicative of a perishability aspect of each food item from the plurality of food items;
analyzing, the plurality of dynamics of the food supply chain network based on the status of the plurality of attributes associated with each of the plurality of food items using a set of modelling abstractions, wherein the dynamics of storage is analyzed based on a computed quantity of storage stock, an aggregated remaining shelf-life, a spoilage rate, a purchase rate, one or more variables representing storage-to-storage movements, one or more cost associated factors, and a donation parameter at one or more storage points,
wherein the dynamics of the aggregated remaining shelf-life of the food items is computed based on an average remaining shelf-life of the food items in the one or more storage points at t+1 and t, respectively, inflows to a storage stock, corresponding average remaining shelf-life of the food items when they enter into the storage stock, and a degradation rate of the food items, and wherein value '0' indicates no degradation, and value '1' indicates sudden wastage due to environmental factor, and thereby the degradation rate of the food items is controlled;
determining in real time, efficacy of each of the set of modelling abstractions for analyzing the plurality of dynamics of the food supply chain network by simulating the stock-and-flow based model using a simulator; and
evaluating, the sustainability of the food supply chain network based on the efficacy of each of the set of modelling abstractions.
MPEP 2106.04(a)(2) II. states:
The phrase "methods of organizing human activity" is used to describe concepts relating to:
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, and business relations); and
managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people, (including social activities, teaching, and following rules or instructions).
The Supreme Court has identified a number of concepts falling within the "certain methods of organizing human activity" grouping as abstract ideas. In particular, in Alice, the Court concluded that the use of a third party to mediate settlement risk is a ‘‘fundamental economic practice’’ and thus an abstract idea. 573 U.S. at 219–20, 110 USPQ2d at 1982. In addition, the Court in Alice described the concept of risk hedging identified as an abstract idea in Bilski as ‘‘a method of organizing human activity’’. Id. Previously, in Bilski, the Court concluded that hedging is a ‘‘fundamental economic practice’’ and therefore an abstract idea. 561 U.S. at 611–612, 95 USPQ2d at 1010.
In the instant case, the limitations of:
A method of evaluating sustainability of a food supply chain network using a food digital twin (FDT), comprising:
providing, a virtual representation of a food supply chain network using a stock-and-flow based model, wherein the stock-and-flow based model represents a plurality of dynamics of the food supply chain network, wherein the dynamics from the plurality of dynamics of the food supply chain network includes dynamics of storage;
determining, a status of a plurality of attributes associated with each of the plurality of food items using the plurality of data, wherein the plurality of attributes are indicative of a perishability aspect of each food item from the plurality of food items;
analyzing, the plurality of dynamics of the food supply chain network based on the status of the plurality of attributes associated with each of the plurality of food items using a set of modelling abstractions, wherein the dynamics of storage is analyzed based on a computed quantity of storage stock, an aggregated remaining shelf-life, a spoilage rate, a purchase rate, one or more variables representing storage-to-storage movements, one or more cost associated factors, and a donation parameter at one or more storage points,
wherein the dynamics of the aggregated remaining shelf-life of the food items is computed based on an average remaining shelf-life of the food items in the one or more storage points at t+1 and t, respectively, inflows to a storage stock, corresponding average remaining shelf-life of the food items when they enter into the storage stock, and a degradation rate of the food items, and wherein value '0' indicates no degradation, and value '1' indicates sudden wastage due to environmental factor, and thereby the degradation rate of the food items is controlled;
determining in real time, efficacy of each of the set of modelling abstractions for analyzing the plurality of dynamics of the food supply chain network by simulating the stock-and-flow based model using a simulator; and
evaluating, the sustainability of the food supply chain network based on the efficacy of each of the set of modelling abstractions.
are directed fundamental economic principles or practices and business relations in a food supply chain.
MPEP 2106.04(a)(2) states:
The courts consider a mental process (thinking) that "can be performed in the human mind, or by a human using a pen and paper" to be an abstract idea. CyberSource Corp. v. Retail Decisions, Inc., 654 F.3d 1366, 1372, 99 USPQ2d 1690, 1695 (Fed. Cir. 2011). As the Federal Circuit explained, "methods which can be performed mentally, or which are the equivalent of human mental work, are unpatentable abstract ideas the ‘basic tools of scientific and technological work’ that are open to all.’" 654 F.3d at 1371, 99 USPQ2d at 1694 (citing Gottschalk v. Benson, 409 U.S. 63, 175 USPQ 673 (1972)). See also Mayo Collaborative Servs. v. Prometheus Labs. Inc., 566 U.S. 66, 71, 101 USPQ2d 1961, 1965 (2012) ("‘[M]ental processes[] and abstract intellectual concepts are not patentable, as they are the basic tools of scientific and technological work’" (quoting Benson, 409 U.S. at 67, 175 USPQ at 675)); Parker v. Flook, 437 U.S. 584, 589, 198 USPQ 193, 197 (1978) (same).
Accordingly, the "mental processes" abstract idea grouping is defined as concepts performed in the human mind, and examples of mental processes include observations, evaluations, judgments, and opinions
The instant claims recite mental processes including observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion. For example, the steps directed to mental processes
A method of evaluating sustainability of a food supply chain network using a food digital twin (FDT), comprising:
providing, a virtual representation of a food supply chain network using a stock-and-flow based model, wherein the stock-and-flow based model represents a plurality of dynamics of the food supply chain network, wherein the dynamics from the plurality of dynamics of the food supply chain network includes dynamics of storage;
determining, a status of a plurality of attributes associated with each of the plurality of food items using the plurality of data, wherein the plurality of attributes are indicative of a perishability aspect of each food item from the plurality of food items;
analyzing, the plurality of dynamics of the food supply chain network based on the status of the plurality of attributes associated with each of the plurality of food items using a set of modelling abstractions, wherein the dynamics of storage is analyzed based on a computed quantity of storage stock, an aggregated remaining shelf-life, a spoilage rate, a purchase rate, one or more variables representing storage-to-storage movements, one or more cost associated factors, and a donation parameter at one or more storage points,
wherein the dynamics of the aggregated remaining shelf-life of the food items is computed based on an average remaining shelf-life of the food items in the one or more storage points at t+1 and t, respectively, inflows to a storage stock, corresponding average remaining shelf-life of the food items when they enter into the storage stock, and a degradation rate of the food items, and wherein value '0' indicates no degradation, and value '1' indicates sudden wastage due to environmental factor, and thereby the degradation rate of the food items is controlled;
determining in real time, efficacy of each of the set of modelling abstractions for analyzing the plurality of dynamics of the food supply chain network by simulating the stock-and-flow based model using a simulator; and
evaluating, the sustainability of the food supply chain network based on the efficacy of each of the set of modelling abstractions.
A human with the aid of a pen and paper can providing a virtual representation of a food supply chain network using a stock-and-flow based model. Further, the determining, analyzing and evaluating steps are directed to observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion. Further, the amendments that are directed to the food digital twin do not save the claim because the claims not define how the virtual representation is provided. Under the broadest reasonable interpretation, a human can provide a virtual representation of a food supply chain. Further, the limitation of wherein value '0' indicates no degradation, and value '1' indicates sudden wastage due to environmental factor does not save the claim. The claims do not state how these values on “1” and “0” are applied to the analysis. Under the broadest reasonable interpretation this can be performed mentally. There is nothing is nothing the claims that preclude these steps from being performed mentally. As such, the claims recite abstract ideas.
Under step 2A prong 2 the examiner must then determine if the recited abstract idea is integrated into a practical application. MPEP 2106.04 states:
Limitations the courts have found indicative that an additional element (or combination of elements) may have integrated the exception into a practical application include:
• An improvement in the functioning of a computer, or an improvement to other technology or technical field, as discussed in MPEP §§ 2106.04(d)(1) and 2106.05(a);
• Applying or using a judicial exception to effect a particular treatment or prophylaxis for a disease or medical condition, as discussed in MPEP § 2106.04(d)(2);
• Implementing a judicial exception with, or using a judicial exception in conjunction with, a particular machine or manufacture that is integral to the claim, as discussed in MPEP § 2106.05(b);
• Effecting a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing, as discussed in MPEP § 2106.05(c); and
• 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, as discussed in MPEP § 2106.05(e)
The courts have also identified limitations that did not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application:
• 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, as discussed in MPEP § 2106.05(f);
• Adding insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception, as discussed in MPEP § 2106.05(g); and
• Generally linking the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use, as discussed in MPEP § 2106.05(h).
In the instant case, this judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, Claim 1 recites the additional elements of:
A processor to implement the method;
obtaining, via the one or more hardware processors, a plurality of data associated with each of a plurality of food items at one or more instances in the virtual representation of the food supply chain network using a food digital twin the FDT, wherein the plurality of data is inputted to the stock-and-flow based model, wherein the FDT is an artificial intelligence based cloud-native internet of things (IoT) technology for soft-sensing, wherein the FDT is configured as a sensor to collect the plurality of data at various points within the food supply chain network, and wherein the soft-sensing of the FDT monitors and predict physical conditions of each food item at various points within the food supply chain network during transition including warehouses, distribution centers (DCs);
However, the computer elements are recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as a generic processor performing the abstract idea) such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component.
Further MPEP 2105.05(g) explains that data gathering and data output can be considered pre-solution activity and post-solution activity. See MPEP 2106.05(g) that states:
An example of pre-solution activity is a step of gathering data for use in a claimed process, e.g., a step of obtaining information about credit card transactions, which is recited as part of a claimed process of analyzing and manipulating the gathered information by a series of steps in order to detect whether the transactions were fraudulent. An example of post-solution activity is an element that is not integrated into the claim as a whole, e.g., a printer that is used to output a report of fraudulent transactions, which is recited in a claim to a computer programmed to analyze and manipulate information about credit card transactions in order to detect whether the transactions were fraudulent.
In the instant case, the claims recite “obtaining, via the one or more hardware processors, a plurality of data associated with each of a plurality of food items at one or more instances in the virtual representation of the food supply chain network using a food digital twin the FDT” and wherein the FDT is an artificial intelligence based cloud-native internet of things (IoT) technology for soft-sensing, wherein the FDT is configured as a sensor to collect the plurality of data at various points within the food supply chain network, and wherein the soft-sensing of the FDT monitors and predict physical conditions of each food item at various points within the food supply chain network during transition including warehouses, distribution centers (DCs). However, the claims do not recite how the FDT is an artificial intelligence based cloud-native internet of things (IoT) technology for soft-sensing works. It is unclear how the artificial intelligence is applied or how the soft-sensing works. The claims recites the FDT is configured as a sensor to collect the plurality of data at various points within the food supply chain network, and wherein the soft-sensing of the FDT monitors and predict physical conditions of each food item at various points, but the claims does not state how this is accomplished. As such, the broadly recited obtaining a plurality of data associated with each of a plurality of food items amounts to insignificant pre-solution activity.
Viewing the generic data gathering in combination with the generic computer does not add more than when viewing the elements individually. Accordingly, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
In step 2B, the examiner must be determine whether the claim adds a specific limitation other than what is well-understood, routine, conventional activity in the field - see MPEP 2106.05(d). As discussed with respect to Step 2A Prong Two, the processing circuitry in the claim amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. The same analysis applies here in 2B, i.e., mere instructions to apply an exception on a generic computer cannot integrate a judicial exception into a practical application at Step 2A or provide an inventive concept in Step 2B.
Further, nothing in the specification indicates that the retrieving of data is anything other than conventional. Further, MPEP 2106.05(d) states “Receiving or transmitting data over a network, e.g., using the Internet to gather data, Symantec, 838 F.3d at 1321, 120 USPQ2d at 1362 (utilizing an intermediary computer to forward information); TLI Communications LLC v. AV Auto. LLC, 823 F.3d 607, 610, 118 USPQ2d 1744, 1745 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (using a telephone for image transmission); OIP Techs., Inc., v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363, 115 USPQ2d 1090, 1093 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (sending messages over a network); buySAFE, Inc. v. Google, Inc., 765 F.3d 1350, 1355, 112 USPQ2d 1093, 1096 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (computer receives and sends information over a network); but see DDR Holdings, LLC v. Hotels.com, L.P., 773 F.3d 1245, 1258, 113 USPQ2d 1097, 1106 (Fed. Cir. 2014) ("Unlike the claims in Ultramercial, the claims at issue here specify how interactions with the Internet are manipulated to yield a desired result‐‐a result that overrides the routine and conventional sequence of events ordinarily triggered by the click of a hyperlink."” Further, MPEP 2106.05(d) also states that creating output data has been identified as conventional (see Return Mail, Inc. v. U.S. Postal Service, -- F.3d --, -- USPQ2d --, slip op. at 32 (Fed. Cir. August 28, 2017)).
Viewing the generic data gathering in combination with the generic computer does not add more than when viewing the elements individually. Accordingly, the additional elements do provide and inventive concept.
Further Claims 2-6 further limit the mental processes and business practices recited in the parent claim, but fail to remedy the deficiencies of the parent claim as they do not impose any additional elements that amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself.
Accordingly, the Examiner concludes that there are no meaningful limitations in claims 1-6 that transform the judicial exception into a patent eligible application such that the claim amounts to significantly more than the judicial exception itself.
The analysis above applies to all statutory categories of invention. The presentment of claim 1 otherwise styled as a computer program product, or system, for example, would be subject to the same analysis. As such, claims 7-18 are also rejected.
Relevant Art Not Relied Upon in a Rejection
Rai US 20200250531 A1 - This disclosure relates generally to a system and method for monitoring and quality evaluation of perishable food items in quantitative terms. Current technology provides limited capability for controlling environmental conditions surrounding the food items in real-time or any quantitative measurement for the degree of freshness of the perishable food items. The disclosed systems and methods facilitate in quantitative determination of freshness of food items by utilizing sensor data and visual data obtained by monitoring the food item. In an embodiment, the system utilizes a pre-trained CNN model and a RNN model, where the pertained CNN model is further fine-tined while training the RNN model to provide robust quality monitoring of the food items. In another embodiment, a rate kinetic based model is utilized for determining reaction rate order of the food item at a particular post-harvest stage of the food item so as to determine the remaining shelf life thereof.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 DEIRDRE D HATCHER whose telephone number is (571)270-5321. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8-4:30.
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, Brian Epstein can be reached at 571-270-5389. 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.
/DEIRDRE D HATCHER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3625
Prosecution Insights