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 .
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 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. Claims 1 and 15 recite “generate procurement contracts” (Human activity), “associating the generated procurement contracts with corresponding IDs and the specified data types and PTCs in each procurement contract with correspondingly identified data types and PTCs in the databases” (Human activity, Mental process), “identify received offers” (Human activity, Mental process), “associate the vendors with the identified groups” (Human activity, Mental process), “generate a cyberhygiene score”, “calculate an offer evaluation factor” (Mental process), “calculate a cyberhygiene evaluation factor” (Mental process), “calculate a final offer value” (Mental process), and “select an identified offer” (Human activity, Mental process), which fall into the “Mental Process” and “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity” groupings of the step 2A, prong one analysis for subject matter eligibility (MPEP 2106.04(a)). Additionally, MPEP 2106.04(a)(2), section III, explains that courts do not distinguish between mental processes that are performed entirely in the human mind and mental processes that require a human to use a physical aid (e.g., pen and paper) to perform the limitation (See Benson, 409 U.S. at 67, 65, 175 USPQ at 674-75, 674 (noting that the claimed "conversion of [binary-coded decimal] numerals to pure binary numerals can be done mentally," i.e., "as a person would do it by head and hand."); Synopsys, Inc. v. Mentor Graphics Corp., 839 F.3d 1138, 1139, 120 USPQ2d 1473, 1474 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (holding that claims to a mental process of "translating a functional description of a logic circuit into a hardware component description of the logic circuit" are directed to an abstract idea, because the claims "read on an individual performing the claimed steps mentally or with pencil and paper"). Nor do the courts distinguish between claims that recite mental processes performed by humans and claims that recite mental processes performed on a computer. As the Federal Circuit has explained, "[c]ourts have examined claims that required the use of a computer and still found that the underlying, patent-ineligible invention could be performed via pen and paper or in a person’s mind." Versata Dev. Group v. SAP Am., Inc., 793 F.3d 1306, 1335, 115 USPQ2d 1681, 1702 (Fed. Cir. 2015). See also Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Symantec Corp., 838 F.3d 1307, 1318, 120 USPQ2d 1353, 1360 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (‘‘[W]ith the exception of generic computer-implemented steps, there is nothing in the claims themselves that foreclose them from being performed by a human, mentally or with pen and paper.’’); Mortgage Grader, Inc. v. First Choice Loan Servs. Inc., 811 F.3d 1314, 1324, 117 USPQ2d 1693, 1699 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (holding that computer-implemented method for "anonymous loan shopping" was an abstract idea because it could be "performed by humans without a computer").
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the additional elements include storing various data items in one or more databases, “using the network of computing devices to convey the identified survey questions in the database to the identified vendors before receiving answers to the survey questions at the data processing units”. The identified additional elements are not sufficient to show improvement in the functioning of a computer or an improvement to other technology or technical field, implement the judicial exception with a particular machine, a transformation, or applying or using the judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond general linking.
The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because he additional elements amount to well-understood, routine, and conventional computer functionality. Therefore, the claims do not include an inventive concept that is significantly more than the abstract idea.
Claims 2-14 and 16-20 include limitations similar to the above-mentioned limitations that were not sufficient to integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. Nor would the additional elements be considered to be sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 15-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim limitation “classification module”, “cyberhygience scoring module”, “offer review module”, “vendor evaluation module”, “offer valuation module”, and “vendor selection module” invoke 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function. No association between the structure and the function can be found in the specification. Therefore, the claim is indefinite and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph.
Applicant may:
(a) Amend the claim so that the claim limitation will no longer be interpreted as a limitation under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph;
(b) Amend the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites what structure, material, or acts perform the entire claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(c) Amend the written description of the specification such that it clearly links the structure, material, or acts disclosed therein to the function recited in the claim, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)).
If applicant is of the opinion that the written description of the specification already implicitly or inherently discloses the corresponding structure, material, or acts and clearly links them to the function so that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize what structure, material, or acts perform the claimed function, applicant should clarify the record by either:
(a) Amending the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function and clearly links or associates the structure, material, or acts to the claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(b) Stating on the record what the corresponding structure, material, or acts, which are implicitly or inherently set forth in the written description of the specification, perform the claimed function. For more information, see 37 CFR 1.75(d) and MPEP §§ 608.01(o) and 2181.
Allowable Subject Matter
The prior art does not disclose or make obvious the claimed contract procurement that utilizes a final offer value for each identified vendor to award the contract such that the final offer value is calculated based on an offer evaluation factor, calculated based for the vendor based on the offered terms and conditions relative to identified performance terms and conditions that define performance requirements, and a cyberhygiene evaluation factor. The cyberhygiene evaluation factor calculated for each vendor based upon that vendor’s cyberhygiene score relative to the corresponding cyberhygiene scores of the other identified vendors. The cyberhygiene scores are generated based on each vendors answers to survey questions specific to data access level that assess a vendor’s ability to meet access criteria to identified data types associated with identified data access levels.
The closest prior art, Barday (US Publication No. 2022/0309416), discloses a vetting procedure for potential contract vendors wherein a risk rating for the vendor is calculated using a privacy awareness score ([0450]) such that the privacy awareness score is calculated using vendor answers from a questionnaire regarding the vendor’s handling of personal user information ([0438]-[0441]). However, Barday does not specify that the vendor risk rating is calculated using an offer evaluation factor that is calculated based on the vendor based on the offered terms and conditions relative to identified performance terms and conditions that define performance requirements.
Any comments considered necessary by applicant must be submitted no later than the payment of the issue fee and, to avoid processing delays, should preferably accompany the issue fee. Such submissions should be clearly labeled “Comments on Statement of Reasons for Allowance.”
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Johnson, WO 2024/059844, discloses a contract procurement system wherein bids are awarded using a bid proposal system.
Subramaniam, U.S. Publication No. 2023/0419224, discloses calculating risk scores specific to the awarding of drug contracts to drug vendors. Risk factors information is utilized to generate this risk score.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BENJAMIN E LANIER whose telephone number is (571)272-3805. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th: 5:30-4:00.
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, Alexander Lagor can be reached at 5712705143. 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.
/BENJAMIN E LANIER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2437
