CTNF 19/077,373 CTNF 83105 DETAILED ACTION Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status 07-03-aia AIA 15-10-aia The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA. 07-30-03-h AIA Claim Interpretation 07-30-03 AIA The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f): (f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof. The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph: An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof. 07-30-06 This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: “section” in claims 1, 3, 6-7, 9. Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof. If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101 07-04-01 AIA 07-04 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. 07-103 AIA The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action. Claims 1-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e. abstract idea) without anything significantly more. Step 1: Claims 1-7 are directed to an apparatus, claim 8 is directed to a method, and claims 9-11 are directed to a system. Therefore, claims 1-11 are directed to patent eligible categories of invention. Step 2A, Prong 1: The claim(s) recite(s) (mathematical relationships/formulas, mental process or certain methods of organizing human activity). Specifically the independent claims recite: mental process : as drafted, the claim recites the limitations collecting data, selecting relevant data based on a predefined criteria, and evaluating risk based on the selected data which is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components. That is, other than reciting “ an apparatus ,” nothing in the claim precludes the determining step from practically being performed in the human mind. For example, but for the apparatus language, the claim encompasses the user gathering information about the supply chain risks, a user weighting information, and making a decision. The mere nominal recitation of a generic computing device does not take the claim limitation out of the mental processes grouping. This limitation is a mental process. certain methods of organizing human activity: The claim as a whole recites a method of organizing human activity. The claimed invention is a method for supply chain management which is a business/commercial activity. The claims involve coordinating data from multiple sources to make business risk decisions. Thus, the claim recites an abstract idea. Dependent claims 2-7 are directed to mathematical concepts, namely mathematical relationships and calculations which are also abstract ideas. Dependent claims 2-7 do not introduce further additional elements for consideration. Dependent claims 10, 11, will be evaluated under Step 2A, Prong 2 below. Step 2A, Prong 2: Independent claims 1, 8, 9, do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. Claim 1 is an apparatus comprising “ a data acquisition section… target data selection section… risk assessment section .” Claim 8 is a method that recites limitations “ causing a processor to execute a program recorded in a memory.” Claim 9 is a system that comprises “ a supply chain management apparatus…a visualization apparatus... a data acquisition section… target data selection section… risk assessment section. ” These additional elements are mere instructions to implement an abstract idea using a computer in its ordinary capacity, or merely uses the computer as a tool to perform the identified abstract idea. Use of a computer or other machinery in its ordinary capacity for performing the steps of the abstract idea or other tasks (e.g., to acquire, select, and assess ) or simply adding a general purpose computer or computer components after the fact to an abstract idea (e.g., certain methods of organizing human activity) does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application. See MPEP 2106.05(f). Therefore, the additional elements of the independent claims, when considered both individually and in combination, are not sufficient to prove integration into a practical application. Dependent claims 2-7 do not introduce further additional elements for consideration. Claims 2-7 further narrow the abstract idea identified above and do not introduce further additional elements for consideration, which does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. Dependent claim 10 introduces the additional element of “ according to wherein the visualization apparatus displays points that may affect the supply chain and also displays the assessment of the risks to the supply chain in association with the points .” Use of a computer or other machinery in its ordinary capacity for performing the steps of the abstract idea or other tasks (e.g., to receive, store, or display data) or simply adding a general purpose computer or computer components after the fact to an abstract idea (e.g., certain methods of organizing human activity) does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application. See MPEP 2106.05(f). Dependent claim 11 introduces the additional element of “ according to wherein the visualization apparatus receives, as feedback, the user's assessment of the assessment of the risks to the supply chain. ” Use of a computer or other machinery in its ordinary capacity for performing the steps of the abstract idea or other tasks (e.g., to receive, store, or display data) or simply adding a general purpose computer or computer components after the fact to an abstract idea (e.g., certain methods of organizing human activity) does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application. See MPEP 2106.05(f). Therefore, the additional elements of the dependent claims, when considered both individually and in the context of the independent claims, are not sufficient to prove integration into a practical application. Step 2B: Independent claims 1, 8, 9, do not comprise anything significantly more than the judicial exception. As can be seen above with respect to Step 2A, Prong 2, 1 is an apparatus comprising “ a data acquisition section… target data selection section… risk assessment section .” Claim 8 is a method that recites limitations “ causing a processor to execute a program recorded in a memory.” Claim 9 is a system that comprises “ a supply chain management apparatus…a visualization apparatus... a data acquisition section… target data selection section… risk assessment section. ” These additional elements are mere instructions to implement an abstract idea using a computer in its ordinary capacity, or merely uses the computer as a tool to perform the identified abstract idea. Use of a computer or other machinery in its ordinary capacity for performing the steps of the abstract idea 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., certain methods of organizing human activity) is not anything significantly more than the judicial exception. See MPEP 2106.05(f). The additional elements of the independent claims, when considered both individually and in combination, do not comprise anything significantly more than the judicial exception. Dependent claims 2-7 do not introduce further additional elements for consideration. Claims 2-7 further narrow the abstract idea identified above and do not introduce further additional elements for consideration, which is not anything significantly more than the judicial exception. Dependent claim 10 introduces the additional element of “ according to wherein the visualization apparatus displays points that may affect the supply chain and also displays the assessment of the risks to the supply chain in association with the points .” Use of a computer or other machinery in its ordinary capacity for performing the steps of the abstract idea or other tasks (e.g., to receive, store, or display data) or simply adding a general purpose computer or computer components after the fact to an abstract idea (e.g., certain methods of organizing human activity) is not anything significantly more than the judicial exception. See MPEP 2106.05(f). Dependent claim 11 introduces the additional element of “ according to wherein the visualization apparatus receives, as feedback, the user's assessment of the assessment of the risks to the supply chain. ” Use of a computer or other machinery in its ordinary capacity for performing the steps of the abstract idea or other tasks (e.g., to receive, store, or display data) or simply adding a general purpose computer or computer components after the fact to an abstract idea (e.g., certain methods of organizing human activity) is not anything significantly more than the judicial exception. See MPEP 2106.05(f). The additional elements of the dependent claims, when considered both individually and in the context of the independent claims, are not anything significantly more than the judicial exception. Accordingly, claims 1-11 are rejected under 35 USC 101. Therefore based on the above analysis as conducted based on MPEP 2106 from the United States Patent and Trademark Office the claims are viewed as a court recognized abstract idea, are viewed as a judicial exception, does not integrate the claims into a practical application, does not provide significantly more, and does not provide an inventive concept, therefore the claims are ineligible. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102 07-06 AIA 15-10-15 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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA) 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. 07-07-aia AIA 07-07 The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action: A person shall be entitled to a patent unless – 07-08-aia AIA (a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention. 07-15-aia AIA Claim(s) 1-3, 5, 6, 8-11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102 (a)(1) as being anticipated by Bajaj et al. (US 20230325749 A1) . Regarding claim 1, Bajaj teaches a supply chain management apparatus comprising (¶ 10-11, 126): a data acquisition section that acquires data sources as data related to risks that affect a supply chain (¶ 61, discloses acquiring supply chain related data, ¶ 71-75, disclose the risks and risk management related to the supply chain, ¶ 77, 89, 106); a target data selection section that selects target data for assessing the risks from the data sources according to significance of the data sources and user's acceptance of the data sources (¶ 77, discloses significant data being available to the platform. ¶ 105-106, discloses the importance of the data. ¶ 131, 133, 140, 146); and a risk assessment section that assesses the risks to the supply chain according to the target data (¶ 72, discloses supply chain risk assessments. ¶ 104-106, disclose analyzing the supply chain risk. ¶ 107-113, disclose risk assessment modules and analysis. ¶ 116, 137, 140). Regarding claim 2, Bajaj teaches wherein the significance of the data sources and the user's acceptance of the data sources are expressed by weights that are defined for the data sources (¶ 105-107, discloses weighted attributes. The weights are controlled by user input. ¶ 109, discloses weighting based on the data. ¶ 111, 138). Regarding claim 3, Bajaj teaches wherein the target data selection section selects, as the target data, items corresponding to the user's acceptance that have a large weight expressing the significance of the data sources, from among the data sources (¶ 86, discloses accelerating data related to the weight of priority. ¶ 111-112, discloses that the items with the highest risk have the largest weight associated with them. ¶ 106, 109, 116, 145). Regarding claim 5, Bajaj teaches wherein the user's acceptance expresses, as priority, the weight of items that are considered to be important, among the data sources (¶ 86, discloses accelerating data related to the weight of priority. ¶ 111-112, discloses that the items with the highest risk have the largest weight associated with them. ¶ 106, 109, 116, 145). Regarding claim 6, Bajaj teaches wherein the risk assessment section assesses the risks to the supply chain according to a score calculated from the weights (¶ 105-107, discloses a risk in supply chain value (RISC), the weights are controlled by user input. ¶ 108-109, discloses weighting based on the data. ¶ 110-116, 138-140). Regarding claim 8, Bajaj teaches a supply chain management method of causing a processor to execute a program recorded in a memory (¶ 10-11, 62-64, 126): acquiring data sources as data related to risks affecting a supply chain (¶ 61, discloses acquiring supply chain related data, ¶ 71-75, disclose the risks and risk management related to the supply chain, ¶ 77, 89, 106); selecting target data for assessing the risks from the data sources according to significance of data sources and the user's acceptance of the data sources (¶ 77, discloses significant data being available to the platform. ¶ 105-106, discloses the importance of the data. ¶ 131, 133, 140, 146); and assessing the risks to the supply chain according to the target data (¶ 72, discloses supply chain risk assessments. ¶ 104-106, disclose analyzing the supply chain risk. ¶ 107-113, disclose risk assessment modules and analysis. ¶ 116, 137, 140). Regarding claim 9, Bajaj teaches a supply chain management apparatus that assesses risks to a supply chain (¶ 10-11, 60-64, 104-105, Fig. 1, Fig. 3A) ; and a visualization apparatus that visualizes the risks to the supply chain (¶ 110-112, Fig. 12, Fig. 20A) ; wherein the supply chain management apparatus includes a data acquisition section that acquires data sources as data related to the risks affecting the supply chain (¶ 61, discloses acquiring supply chain related data, ¶ 71-75, disclose the risks and risk management related to the supply chain, ¶ 77, 89, 106); a target data selection section that selects target data for assessing the risks from the data sources according to significance of the data sources and user's acceptance of the data sources (¶ 77, discloses significant data being available to the platform. ¶ 105-106, discloses the importance of the data. ¶ 131, 133, 140, 146); and a risk assessment section that assesses the risks to the supply chain according to the target data (¶ 72, discloses supply chain risk assessments. ¶ 104-106, disclose analyzing the supply chain risk. ¶ 107-113, disclose risk assessment modules and analysis. ¶ 116, 137, 140). Regarding claim 10, Bajaj teaches wherein the visualization apparatus displays points that may affect the supply chain and also displays the assessment of the risks to the supply chain in association with the points (¶ 135, discloses a visual that displays points that could affect the supply chain. ¶ 138, 110, Fig. 20A, 23). Regarding claim 11, Bajaj teaches wherein the visualization apparatus receives, as feedback, the user's assessment of the assessment of the risks to the supply chain (¶ 135, discloses a visual that displays points that could affect the supply chain. ¶ 102-104, Fig. 8B discloses user feedback/input. ¶ 110, 138, Fig. 20A, 23) . 07-20-aia AIA 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, 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. 07-21-aia AIA Claim (s) 4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bajaj et al. (US 20230325749 A1) in view of Yoon et al. (US 20170004128 A1) . Regarding claim 4, Bajaj teaches the limitations of claim 2, Bajaj teaches wherein the weight expressing the significance of the data sources and the weight expressing the user's acceptance each represent a proportion of the data sources that contain descriptions (¶ 77, discloses significant data being available to the platform. ¶ 105-106, discloses the importance of the data. ¶ 131, 133, 140, 146); Bajaj does not teach the predetermine keywords. Yoon teaches wherein the weight expressing the significance of the data sources and the weight expressing the user's acceptance each represent a proportion of the data sources that contain descriptions related to predetermined keywords (¶ 9, 16, discloses a word sensitivity related to a weight. ¶ 65-66, 74-78, disclose the frequency of the sensitive words. ¶ 79, 82, 104, 105, the risk score is related to a weight value). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to modify Bajaj to include/perform the data sources that contain descriptions related to predetermined keywords, as taught/suggested by Yoon. This known technique is applicable to the system of Bajaj as they both share characteristics and capabilities, namely, they are directed to analyzing the risk weight of data and data sources. One of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that applying the known technique of Yoon would have yielded predictable results and resulted in an improved system. It would have been recognized that applying the technique of Yoon to the teachings of Bajaj would have yielded predictable results because the level of ordinary skill in the art demonstrated by the references applied shows the ability to incorporate such keyword features into similar systems. Further, applying predetermined keywords would have been recognized by those of ordinary skill in the art as resulting in an improved system that would allow the user to define the keywords/terms to get more useful data points . 07-21-aia AIA Claim (s) 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bajaj et al. (US 20230325749 A1) in view of Bajaj et al. (US 20200097869 A1) in the future referred to as Bajaj2 . Regarding claim 7, Bajaj teaches a risk assessment and feedback (¶ 109) but does not specifically teach wherein the risk assessment section corrects the score according to feedback inputted by the users. However, Bajaj2 teaches wherein the risk assessment section corrects the score according to feedback inputted by the users as the user's assessment of the assessment of the risks to the supply chain (¶ 118-119, 124, discloses feedback based risk modification). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to modify Bajaj to include/perform risk assessment section corrects the score according to feedback, as taught/ suggested by Bajaj2. This known technique is applicable to the system of Bajaj as they both share characteristics and capabilities, namely, they are directed to analyzing risks in a supply chain management system. One of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that applying the known technique of Bajaj2 would have yielded predictable results and resulted in an improved system. It would have been recognized that applying the technique of Bajaj2 to the teachings of Bajaj would have yielded predictable results because the level of ordinary skill in the art demonstrated by the references applied shows the ability to incorporate such feedback features into similar systems. Further, applying risk assessment section corrects the score according to feedback would have been recognized by those of ordinary skill in the art as resulting in an improved system that would allow the user to create a more accurate and useful set of data. Other pertinent prior art includes Bajaj et al. (US 20230325749 A1) which discloses a SCM operating platform is operatively coupled to SCM modules for collecting, storing, distributing and processing SCM data to determine statistical opportunities and risk in a SCM hierarchy. Ahmed et al. (US 20180260769 A1) which discloses inventory management tools and, in particular, to prioritized data acquisition and analytics in a supply chain system. Sharma et al. (US 20230351322 A1) which discloses a resolution flow to be executed in the supply chain for managing the predicted state associated with the event in the supply chain. Conclusion Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JAMIE H AUSTIN whose telephone number is (571)272-7363. The examiner can normally be reached Monday, Tuesday, Thursday, Friday 7am-2pm. 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. JAMIE H. AUSTIN Examiner Art Unit 3625 /JAMIE H AUSTIN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3625 Application/Control Number: 19/077,373 Page 2 Art Unit: 3625 Application/Control Number: 19/077,373 Page 3 Art Unit: 3625 Application/Control Number: 19/077,373 Page 4 Art Unit: 3625 Application/Control Number: 19/077,373 Page 5 Art Unit: 3625
Prosecution Insights