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 .
Response to Arguments
Argument:
PNG
media_image1.png
340
660
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Response:
The examiner disagrees. The examiner identified elements considered part of the abstract idea and considered additional elements and explained why the abstract idea was considered a method of organizing human activity.
Argument:
PNG
media_image2.png
202
698
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Response:
The examiner disagrees. The examiner identified elements considered part of the abstract idea and considered additional elements and explained why the abstract idea was considered a method of organizing human activity.
Argument:
PNG
media_image3.png
323
656
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Response:
The examiner disagrees. The examiner identified elements considered part of the abstract idea and considered additional elements and explained why the abstract idea was considered a method of organizing human activity. This is sufficient for Prong 1 which is a simple inquiry. “Prong One asks does the claim recite an abstract idea, law of nature, or natural phenomenon?” Problem/solution considerations fall under Prong 2.
Argument:
PNG
media_image4.png
264
630
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Response:
Per MPEP 2111.01 “Under a broadest reasonable interpretation (BRI), words of the claim must be given their plain meaning, unless such meaning is inconsistent with the specification.” It’s unclear what terms if any are present that cannot be taken at face value.
Argument:
PNG
media_image5.png
178
644
media_image5.png
Greyscale
Response:
Paragraphs 51-56 illustrate an improved in a business process (supply chain planning) and not an improvement in technology. The computer elements of the claims are used in their ordinary capacity.
Per MPEP 2106.05(a): However, it is important to keep in mind that an improvement in the abstract idea itself (e.g. a recited fundamental economic concept) is not an improvement in technology.
Per MPEP 2106.05(f): Use of a computer or other machinery in its ordinary capacity for economic or other tasks (e.g., to receive, store, or transmit data) or simply adding a general purpose computer or computer components after the fact to an abstract idea (e.g., a fundamental economic practice or mathematical equation) does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more. See Affinity Labs v. DirecTV, 838 F.3d 1253, 1262, 120 USPQ2d 1201, 1207 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (cellular telephone); TLI Communications LLC v. AV Auto, LLC, 823 F.3d 607, 613, 118 USPQ2d 1744, 1748 (Fed. Cir. 2016)
It’s unclear to the examiner how [51]-[56] set forth an improvement to technology as opposed to an improved abstract idea.
Argument:
PNG
media_image6.png
192
668
media_image6.png
Greyscale
Response:
The examiner disagrees. Background paragraphs 2-7 describe the prior art problems and give no indication that the issue relates to computer processing.
Again it’s unclear to the examiner how there is an improvement to technology as opposed to an improved abstract idea.
Argument:
PNG
media_image7.png
138
672
media_image7.png
Greyscale
…
PNG
media_image8.png
138
662
media_image8.png
Greyscale
Response:
The examiner disagrees. Paragraphs 51-56 do not mention “computer” at all and there is no indication that the claimed steps improve the performance of a computer. The computer elements are used as a tool to implement the solution of [51]-[56]. Per MPEP 2106.05(f) use of additional elements as a tool to implement an abstract idea does not provide a practical application or significantly more.
Argument:
PNG
media_image9.png
339
646
media_image9.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image10.png
484
646
media_image10.png
Greyscale
Response:
Applicant is intending to refer to MPEP 2106.05(f) not MPEP 2106.05(e).
The cited portions refer to how to interpret additional elements not how to interpret an alleged judicial exception (“When determining whether a claim simply recites a judicial exception with the words "apply it" (or an equivalent), such as mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, examiners may consider the following:”).
The examiner does not dispute an improved algorithm, but asserts that the improvement is a planning improvement untethered to the computer elements executing it. Per MPEP 2106.05(f): Use of a computer or other machinery in its ordinary capacity for economic or other tasks (e.g., to receive, store, or transmit data) or simply adding a general purpose computer or computer components after the fact to an abstract idea (e.g., a fundamental economic practice or mathematical equation) does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more.
Iterative planning processes could be done manually. Thus the examiner maintains the position that the computer implements of the claims have involvement at the “apply it” level.
Argument:
PNG
media_image11.png
412
638
media_image11.png
Greyscale
Response:
The examiner disagrees. Iterative planning processes could be done manually. It is unclear how the computer technology is improvement. It seems to the examiner that planning is improved. Computer components are not inherently improved by executing planning algorithms. Contrary to Amdocs case, the instant claims do not reduce network congestion.
Argument:
PNG
media_image12.png
211
669
media_image12.png
Greyscale
Response:
Paragraphs 2-7 and 51-56 in the opinion of the examiner describe a solution to a planning problem. This solution is an improved abstract idea and not a technical improvement.
Argument:
PNG
media_image13.png
468
636
media_image13.png
Greyscale
Response: The examiner disagrees. Animation is inextricably linked to computer technology. Supply chain planning on the other hand can be done on a white board.
Argument:
PNG
media_image14.png
522
585
media_image14.png
Greyscale
Response:
The examiner doesn’t see the similarity between a planning algorithm and a website solution.
Argument:
PNG
media_image15.png
387
593
media_image15.png
Greyscale
Response:
The examiner disagrees. A novel abstract idea is still an abstract idea. Berkheimer is only a consideration with respect to additional elements (MPEP 2106.05(d): “In addition, examiners should keep in mind the following points when determining whether additional elements define only well-understood, routine, conventional activity.”).
Argument:
PNG
media_image16.png
126
612
media_image16.png
Greyscale
Response: The examiner disagrees. All claims were considered with identical findings made.
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 1-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Claims 1-9 recite:
1. A computing apparatus for Multi-Level Search supply cross-pegging comprising: a processor; a MLS supply cross pegging tracker database; and a memory storing instructions that, when executed by the processor, configure the apparatus to execute an MLS algorithm to: process, by the processor, a new demand; consume, by the processor, one or more input supplies; mark, by the processor, a supply exchange for the new demand in a plurality of passes, wherein the apparatus is configured so that the supply exchange postpones creation of one or more planned orders until the processor executes the plurality of passes; create, by the processor, the one or more planned orders; execute, by the processor, one or more trials to determine if the one or more planned orders are available for the supply exchange and finalize the supply exchange; execute, by the processor, the supply exchange; and update the MLS cross-pegging tracker database.
2. The computing apparatus of claim 1, wherein when marking the supply exchange in the plurality of passes, the apparatus is further configured to: execute, by the processor, a first-pass supply exchange; execute, by the processor, a cascading supply exchange; and consume, by the processor, the one or more input supplies.
3. The computing apparatus of claim 1, wherein executing of the supply exchange, the apparatus is further configured to: execute, by the processor, consumption of input supplies and/or planned orders by one or more previous demands; execute, by the processor, consumption of remaining input supplies and/or planned orders by one or more new demands; and update, by the processor, the MLS cross-pegging tracker database.
4. A non-transitory computer-readable storage medium, the computer-readable storage medium including instructions that when executed by a computer to execute a MLS algorithm, cause the computer to: process, by a processor, a new demand; consume, by the processor, one or more input supplies; mark, by the processor, a supply exchange for the new demand in a plurality of passes, wherein the apparatus is configured so that the supply exchange postpones the creation of one or more planned orders until the processor executes the plurality of passes; create, by the processor, the one or more planned orders; execute, by the processor, one or more trials to determine if the one or more planned orders are available for the supply exchange and finalize the supply exchange; execute, by the processor, the supply exchange; and update an MLS cross-pegging tracker database.
5. The computer-readable storage medium of claim 4, wherein when marking of the supply exchange in the plurality of passes, the computer is further configured to: execute, by the processor, a first-pass supply exchange; execute, by the processor, a cascading supply exchange; and consume, by the processor, the one or more input supplies.
6. The computer-readable storage medium of claim 4, wherein when executing of the supply exchange, the computer is further configured to: execute, by the processor, consumption of input supplies and/or planned orders by one or more previous demands; execute, by the processor, consumption of remaining input supplies and/or planned orders by one or more new demands; and update, by the processor, the cross-pegging tracker database.
7. A computer-implemented method for MLS supply cross pegging comprising: processing, by a processor, a new demand; consuming, by the processor, one or more input supplies; marking, by the processor, a supply exchange for the new demand in a plurality of passes, wherein the apparatus is configured so that the supply exchange postpones the creation of one or more planned orders until the processor executes the plurality of passes; creating, by the processor, one or more planned orders; executing, by the processor, one or more trials to determine if the one or more planned orders are available for the supply exchange and finalize the supply exchange; executing, by the processor, the supply exchange; and update an MLS cross-pegging tracker database.
8. The computer-implemented method of claim 7, wherein the marking of the supply exchange in the plurality of passes comprises: executing, by the processor, a first-pass supply exchange; executing, by the processor, a cascading supply exchange; and consuming, by the processor, the one or more input supplies.
9. The computer-implemented method of claim 7, wherein the executing of the supply exchange comprises: executing, by the processor, consumption of input supplies and/or planned orders by one or more previous demands; executing, by the processor, consumption of remaining input supplies and/or planned orders by one or more new demands; and updating, by the processor, the MLS cross-pegging tracker.
All claims recite subject matter falling within one of the four categories of invention (Step 1->YES).
But for the recitation of the underlined additional elements claims 1-9 recite steps for organizing a supply chain. Per MPEP 2106.04(a)(2), methods of organizing human activity include “commercial interactions” or “legal interactions” includ[ing] agreements in the form of contracts, legal obligations, advertising, marketing or sales activities or behaviors, and business relations. Under the broadest reasonable interpretation claims 1-9 recite commercial activity falling under the scope of commercial or legal interactions, Claims 1-9 thus recite an abstract idea-Method of organizing human activity (Step 2A_1 YES).
Claims 1-9 include high level computer components to execute the judicial exception.
Claims 1-3: computing apparatus, processor, memory, instructions, database
Claims 4-6: non-transitory CRM, instructions, processor, computer, database
Claims 7-9: computer, processor, database
The additional elements are recited at a high degree of generality such that they amount to mere instructions to implement the abstract idea, which per MPEP 2106.05(f) means they do not provide a practical application or significantly more (Step 2A_2, Step 2B No).
Thus claims 1-9 are ineligible.
Claim Status
Claims 1-9 are considered to distinguish over the cited art.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Milne (US 20070239299 A1), Uttam (US 20200226536 A1), Kamath (US 20190114567 A1), Grichnik (US 20160300169 A1) and Rhodes (US 20090150208 A1) disclose supply chain planning systems.
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 NATHAN A MITCHELL whose telephone number is (571)270-3117. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9-5.
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, Ryan Zeender can be reached at 571-272-6790. 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.
/NATHAN A MITCHELL/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3627
Prosecution Insights