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 .
Introduction
The following is a final Office Action in response to Applicant’s communications received on May 14, 2026. Claims 1, 6, 10, 14 and 18 have been amended.
Currently claims 1-18 are pending, Claims 1, 10 and 18 are independent.
Response to Amendments
Applicant’s amendments necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection in this Office Action.
In response to the Requirement for Information under 73 CFR § 1.105, Applicant indicated that the mathematical equation was developed for the purpose of the claimed apparatus.
The objection to the Abstract as set forth in the previous Office Action is withdrawn in response to Applicant’s amendments.
The objection to the Drawings as set forth in the previous Office Action is withdrawn in response to Applicant’s amendments.
Applicant’s amendments to the Specification received on 05/14/2026 is acknowledged.
The 35 U.S.C. § 112(f) claim interpretation and § 112(b) rejection to claims 10-17 as set forth in the previous Office Action is withdrawn in response to Applicant’s amendments.
Applicant’s amendments to claims 1, 6, 10, 14 and 18 are NOT sufficient to overcome the 35 U.S.C. § 101 rejection as set forth in the previous Office Action. Therefore, the 35 U.S.C. § 101 rejection to claims 1-18 is maintained.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed on 05/14/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
In the Remarks on page 10, Applicant’s arguments regarding the 35 U.S.C. § 101 rejection that similar to Thales, amended independent claim 1 describes a computer-implemented method for providing an indicator of demand by executing computational steps on a processor…This approach improves the functioning of computer systems used in demand analysis and order allocation by enabling the system to computationally classify order relationships based on density and efficiency rather than through heuristic or rule-base grouting which is a resource heavy approach.
In response to Applicant’s argument, the Examiner respectfully disagrees. With respect to Thales, the claims are not directed to an abstract idea of using “mathematical equations for determining the relative position of a moving object to a moving reference frame. Rather, the claims are directed to systems and methods that use inertial sensors in a non-conventional manner to reduce errors in measuring the relative position and orientation of a moving object on a moving reference frame.” The mathematical equations are a consequence of the arrangement of the sensors and the unconventional choice of reference frame in order to calculate position and orientation. See Thales visionix Inc. v. United States. In contrast, Applicant’s claim 1 recites “a computer-implemented method for providing an indicator of demand for a good or service.” That is, utilizing a computer to perform processes including “determining a first efficiency…, determining a second efficiency…, associating the first destination with the first resource…, determining a first vector associated with the first order pair, measuring an angle between the first vector and the second vector, and calculating the indicator of demand based on a function of the first efficiency measure…”. Although the claim recites “by one or more processors”, however, a person can perform the function of each of the limitations by using a pen and paper. Thus, nothing in the claims, asides from the bare instructions to be executed by one or more processors, precludes the steps from practically being performed in the mind (including observation, evaluation, judgement, opinion), and nothing similar to the claims in Thales that improve the technique for measuring movement of an object on a moving platform.
In the Remarks on page 11, Applicant’s arguments regarding the 35 U.S.C. § 101 rejection that assuming arguendo that amended independent claims 1, 10 and 18 are directed to an abstract idea/judicial exception as the Office Action contents, it is submitted that amended independent claims 1, 10 and 18 recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
In response to Applicant’s argument, the Examiner respectfully disagrees. In order for a claim to integrate the exception into a practical application, the additional claimed elements must, for example, improve the functioning of a computer or any other technology or technical field (see MPEP § 2106.05(a)), apply the judicial exception with a particular machine (see MPEP § 2106.05(b)), affect a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing (see MPEP § 2106.05(c)), or apply or use the judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment (see MPEP § 2106.05(e)). See Revised 2019 Guidance. Here, the claims recite the additional elements of “one or more processors”. The Specification describes that “The method 100, may be performed and the various processing or computation units and the devices and computing entities described herein may be implemented by one or more circuits…a “circuit” may be a hard-wired logic circuit or a programmable logic circuit such as a programmable processor, e.g., a microprocessor. A “circuit” may also be software being implemented or executed by a processor, e.g., any kind of computer program, e.g., a computer program using a virtual machine code.” (see ¶ 59). When given the broadest reasonable interpretation and in light of the Specification, the additional elements are no more than generic computer components and are recited at a high level of generality and amount to no more than adding the words “apply it” or using “a particular machine” with an abstract idea, or mere instructions to implement the abstract idea on a computer. Thus, merely adding a generic computer, generic computer components, or programmed computer to perform generic computer functions does not automatically overcome an eligibility rejection. Alice Corp. Pty. Ltd. V. CLS Bank Int’l, 134 S. Ct. 2347, 2358-59, 110 USPQ2d 1976, 1983-84 (2014); see also Bancorp Servs., L.L.C. v. Sun Life Assurance Co. of Canada (U.S.), 687 F.3d 1266, 1278 (Fed. Cir. 2012) (A computer “employed only for its most basic function . . . does not impose meaningful limits on the scope of those claims.”). However, simply implementing the abstract idea on a generic computer does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
Further, Example 40 is directed to tools for monitoring of computer network traffic data by additional elements of collecting network delay, packet loss, or jitter relating to network traffic passing through a network appliance, which addresses a technical problem resulting in a technical improvement. In contrast, the claims here are directed to methods for providing an indicator of demand for a good or service, addresses a business problem related to sources (e.g., goods or services) demand measurement. Even if the additional elements (one or more processors) may help to improve the business process efficiency, the improvement is not to the functioning of a computer itself or other technical field because the focus of the claims is not on such an improvement in computers as tools, but on certain independently abstract ideas that use computers as tools. FairWarning IP, LLC v. Iatric Sys., Inc., 839 F.3d 1089, 1095 (Fed. Cir. 2016).
In the Remarks on page 13, Applicant’s arguments regarding the 35 U.S.C. § 101 rejection that assuming arguendo that amended independent claims 1, 10 and 18 are directed to a judicial exception, amended independent claims 1, 10 and 18 amount to significantly more than an abstract idea.
In response to Applicant’s argument, the Examiner respectfully disagrees. Step 2B is to determine whether any “inventive concept” which can transform the abstract idea into a patent-eligible invention. The “inventive concept” may arise in one or more of the individual claim limitation or in the ordered combination of the limitations. Alice, 134 S. Ct. at 2355. An “inventive concept” that transforms the abstract idea into a patent-eligible invention must be significantly more than the abstract idea itself, and cannot simply be an instruction to implement or apply the abstract idea on a computer. Id. at 2358.
In the present case, the claims recite the additional elements of “one or more processors”. The Specification describes that “The method 100, may be performed and the various processing or computation units and the devices and computing e3ntities described herein may be implemented by one or more circuits…a “circuit” may be a hard-wired logic circuit or a programmable logic circuit such as a programmable processor, e.g., a microprocessor. A “circuit” may also be software being implemented or executed by a processor, e.g., any kind of computer program, e.g., a computer program using a virtual machine code.” (see ¶ 59). When given the broadest reasonable interpretation and in light of the Specification, the additional elements are no more than generic computer components and are recited at a high level of generality and amount to no more than adding the words “apply it” or using “a particular machine” with an abstract idea, or mere instructions to implement the abstract idea on a computer. Thus, merely adding a generic computer, generic computer components, or programmed computer to perform generic computer functions does not automatically overcome an eligibility rejection. Alice Corp. Pty. Ltd. V. CLS Bank Int’l, 134 S. Ct. 2347, 2358-59, 110 USPQ2d 1976, 1983-84 (2014); see also Bancorp Servs., L.L.C. v. Sun Life Assurance Co. of Canada (U.S.), 687 F.3d 1266, 1278 (Fed. Cir. 2012) (A computer “employed only for its most basic function . . . does not impose meaningful limits on the scope of those claims.”). Beyond the abstract idea, claims 10 and 18 recite the additional elements of “at least one processor and memory” storing instructions and executed by the at least one processor. However, these are generic computer functions have been recognized by the courts as merely well-understood, routine, and conventional functions of generic computers. See MPEP 2106.05 (b)-(d) (Use of a machine that contributes only nominally or insignificantly to the execution of the claimed method would not provide significantly more. See Bilski, 561 U.S. at 610, 95 USPQ2d at 1009(citing Parker v. Flook, 437 U.S. 584, 590, 198 USPQ 193, 197 (1978); Storing and retrieving information in memory, Versata Dev. Group, Inc. v. SAP Am., Inc., 793 F.3d 1306, 1334, 115 USPQ2d 1681, 1701 (Fed. Cir. 2015); OIP Techs., 788 F.3d at 1363, 115 USPQ2d at 1092-93). Therefore, the element or combination of elements do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea.
In the Remarks on page 15, Applicant argues that either alone or in combination of Bain, Lee and Nakano fail to teach “calculating, by the one or more processors, the indicator of demand based on a function of the first efficiency measure, the second efficiency measure, and the angle, wherein the indicator of demand is a demand density score that corresponds to an inflection point of a relationship between the first order pair and the second order pair”.
Applicant’s arguments are fully considered and are persuasive. The closest art of Bain et al., (WO 2018/148732 A2) discloses calculating an indicator of demand for a new energy source for a given time interval by analyzing relationships between nodes representing users within a network and by computing distance between those nodes based on weighted user attributes, and utilizing energy usage data and energy efficiency measures of one user relative to another user to determine demand-related indicator. Lee (CN 101689889 B) discloses a system for transmitting power from a source station to a destination station by evaluating the relationships between source stations and destinations based on transmission characteristics such as power, efficiency, and operational constraints, and determining parameters and using a power vector to regulate transmission rate. Nakano et al., (US 2011/0208422) discloses determining vectors associated with trajectory data and measuring angular relationships between vectors to analyze movement or positioning. Cao et al., (CN 114625654 A) discloses determining a parameter of resource allocation based on a low inflection point and the service demand corresponding to a maximum value. However, the combination of references fails to teach or suggest calculating an indicator of demand based on a function of the first efficiency measure, the second efficiency measure, and the angle, wherein the indicator of demand is a demand density score that corresponds to an inflection point of relationship between the first order pair and the second order pair. Therefore, the 35 U.S.C. § 103 rejection as set forth in the previous Office Action is withdrawn.
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 1-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
As per Step 1 of the subject matter eligibility analysis, it is to determine whether the claim is directed to one of the four statutory categories of invention, i.e., process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter.
In this case, claims 1-9 are directed to a method for providing an indicator of demand which falls within the statutory category of a process. Claims 10-17 are directed to a system comprising a module comprises at least one processor and a memory storing instructions, which falls within the statutory category of a machine. Claim 18 is directed to a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium comprising instructions, which falls within the statutory category of a product.
In Step 2A of the subject matter eligibility analysis, it is to “determine whether the claim at issue is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., an abstract idea, a law of nature, or a natural phenomenon). Under this step, a two-prong inquiry will be performed to determine if the claim recites a judicial exception (an abstract idea enumerated in the 2019 Guidance), then determine if the claim recites additional elements that integrate the exception into a practical application of the exception. See 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance (2019 Guidance), 84 Fed. Reg. 50, 54-55 (January 7, 2019).
In Prong One, it is to determine if the claim recites a judicial exception (an abstract idea enumerated in the 2019 Guidance, a law of nature, or a natural phenomenon).
Taking the method as representative, claim 1 recites limitations of “determining a first efficiency measure between a first source and a second source, determining a second efficiency measure between a first destination and a second destination, associating the first destination with the first source to form a first order pair and the second destination with the second source to form a second order pair, determining a first vector associated with the first order pair, and a second vector associated with the second order pair, measuring an angle between the first vector and the second vector, calculating the indicator of demand based on a function of the first efficiency measure, the second efficiency measure, and the angle”, dependent claims 2-9 recite limitations of “calculating a cosine of the angle to derive an indication of directional homogeneity between the first order pair and the second order pair, normalizing the first efficiency measure and/or the second efficiency measure, summing the DD value, estimating a batching efficiency based on the indication of demand density”. None of the limitations recites technological implementation details for any of these steps, but instead recite only results desired by any and all possible means. The limitations of “determining a first efficiency measure between a first source and a second source, determining a second efficiency measure between a first destination and a second destination, associating the first destination with the first source to form a first order pair and the second destination with the second source to form a second order pair, determining a first vector associated with the first order pair, and a second vector associated with the second order pair, measuring an angle between the first vector and the second vector, and estimate a batching efficiency based on the indication of demand density”, as drafted, are directed to processes, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, cover performance of the limitations in the mind, or by a human using a pen and paper. For example, the claim encompasses a person can manually determining, measuring and calculating the indicator of demand in the mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion), or by a human using a pen and paper. Thus, the claims fall within the mental processes grouping. Further, the limitations of “calculating the indicator of demand using the mathematical expression: DD=w1 * first efficiency measure + w2 * second efficiency measure + w3 * cosine of the angle, and calculating a cosine of the angle to derive an indication of directional homogeneity between the first order pair and the second order pair” are mathematical concepts include mathematical algorithms, mathematical relationship, mathematical formulas, and calculations, which fall within the abstract idea of mathematical relationships/formulas grouping. See Revised 2019 Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. 52. Accordingly, the claims recite one or more abstract ideas, and the analysis is proceeding to Prong Two.
Beyond the abstract idea, claim 1 recites the additional elements “one or more processors” for performing the steps. The Specification describes that “The method 100, may be performed and the various processing or computation units and the devices and computing entities described herein may be implemented by one or more circuits…a “circuit” may be a hard-wired logic circuit or a programmable logic circuit such as a programmable processor, e.g., a microprocessor. A “circuit” may also be software being implemented or executed by a processor, e.g., any kind of computer program, e.g., a computer program using a virtual machine code.” (see ¶ 59). When given the broadest reasonable interpretation and in light of the Specification, the additional element is no more than generic computer and is recited at a high level of generality and amount to no more than adding the words “apply it” or using “a particular machine” with an abstract idea, or mere instructions to implement the abstract idea on a computer. Thus, merely adding a generic computer, generic computer components, or programmed computer to perform generic computer functions does not automatically overcome an eligibility rejection. Alice Corp. Pty. Ltd. V. CLS Bank Int’l, 134 S. Ct. 2347, 2358-59, 110 USPQ2d 1976, 1983-84 (2014); see also Bancorp Servs., L.L.C. v. Sun Life Assurance Co. of Canada (U.S.), 687 F.3d 1266, 1278 (Fed. Cir. 2012) (A computer “employed only for its most basic function . . . does not impose meaningful limits on the scope of those claims.”). However, simply implementing the abstract idea on a generic computer does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. Further, nothing in the claims that reflects an improvement to the functioning of a computer itself or another technology, effects a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing, or applies or uses the judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment. Therefore, the additional element of a processor (if recited) does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. The claims are directed to an abstract idea, the analysis is proceeding to Step 2B.
In Step 2B of Alice, it is "a search for an ‘inventive concept’—i.e., an element or combination of elements that is ‘sufficient to ensure that the patent in practice amounts to significantly more than a patent upon the [ineligible concept’ itself.’” Id. (alternation in original) (quoting Mayo Collaborative Servs. v. Prometheus Labs., Inc., 132 S. Ct. 1289, 1294 (2012)).
The claims as described in Prong Two above, nothing in the claims that integrates the abstract idea into a practical application. The same analysis applies here in Step 2B.
Beyond the abstract idea, the claims recite no additional elements for performing the steps, when given the broadest reasonable interpretation, a machine is not required in the claim. Even if claim 1 recites the additional elements of “one or more processors” and “a computer-readable storage medium” as recited in claim 18. The Specification describes that “The method 100, may be performed and the various processing or computation units and the devices and computing e3ntities described herein may be implemented by one or more circuits…a “circuit” may be a hard-wired logic circuit or a programmable logic circuit such as a programmable processor, e.g., a microprocessor. A “circuit” may also be software being implemented or executed by a processor, e.g., any kind of computer program, e.g., a computer program using a virtual machine code.” (see ¶ 59). When given the broadest reasonable interpretation and in light of the Specification, the additional element is no more than generic computer and is recited at a high level of generality and merely invoked as tools to perform the generic computer functions. Taking the claim elements separately and as an ordered combination, the computing system (one or more processors), at best, may perform the generic computer functions including receiving, manipulating, and transmitting information over a network. However, generic computer for performing generic computer functions have been recognized by the courts as merely well-understood, routine, and conventional functions of generic computers. Again, reciting the additional elements of one or more processors are merely adding the words “apply it” or using “a particular machine” with an abstract idea, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. See 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); Collecting information, analyzing it, and displaying certain results of the collection and analysis, Electric Power Group, LLC v. Alstom, S.A., 830 F.3d 1350, 1351-52, 119 USPQ2d 1739, 1740 (Fed. Cir. 2016); RecogniCorp, LLC v. Nintendo Co., 855 F.3d 1322, 1326-27, 122 USPQ2d 1377, 1379-80 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (the manipulation of information through a series of mental steps and a mathematical calculation, was held directed to an abstract idea)). Thus, simply implementing the abstract idea on a generic computer for performing generic computer functions do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. (MPEP 2106.05(a)-(c), (e-f) & (h)).
For the foregoing reasons, claims 1-9 cover subject matter that is judicially-excepted from patent eligibility under § 101 as discussed above, the other system claims 10-17 and medium claim 18 and parallel claims 1-9—similarly cover claimed subject matter that is judicially excepted from patent eligibility under § 101.
Therefore, the claims as a whole, viewed individually and as a combination, do not provide meaningful limitations to transform the abstract idea into a patent eligible application of the abstract idea such that the claims amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself. The claims are not patent eligible.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Gaasch et al., (US 2016/0018835) discloses a method and system for analyzing energy consumption and support demand management of a portfolio of facilities.
Cao et al., (CN 114625654) discloses a system for performing resource allocation based on test scheduling reference information and the current state of the resource pool.
Phang et al., (ID P202306918 A) discloses a system for determining measures of supply-demand balance for transportation related services using the first metric data based on their respective demand data, and the second metric data based on their respective supply data.
Liu et al., “Data-Driven Order Assignment for Last Mile Delivery”, Department of Industrial Engineering and Operations Research, University of California, Berkeley. May 15, 2018.
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 PAN CHOY whose telephone number is (571)270-7038. The examiner can normally be reached 5/4/9 compressed work schedule.
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.
/PAN G CHOY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3624
Prosecution Insights