DETAILED ACTION
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 12/23/2025 has been entered.
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 .
Disposition of Claims
Claims 1-21 are pending in the instant application. Claims 1 and 17 have been amended. Claim 12 has previously been cancelled. No claims have been added. The rejection of the pending claims is hereby made non-final.
Response to Remarks
Examiner has considered Applicant’s amendments and remarks regarding the pending rejection of claims 1-11, 13-16, and 21 under 35 USC 101 and finds said arguments to be persuasive. The rejection of claims 1-11, 13-16, and 21 under 35 USC 101 is withdrawn. Examiner has considered Applicant’s amendments and remarks regarding the pending rejection of claims 117-20 under 35 USC 101, but finds them to be unpersuasive. As cited in the previous rejection, the examiner submits that when is asserted that the invention improves upon conventional functioning of a computer, or upon conventional technology or technological processes, a technical explanation as to how to implement the invention should be present in the specification. That is, the disclosure must provide sufficient details such that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize the claimed invention as providing an improvement. The specification need not explicitly set forth the improvement, but it must describe the invention such that the improvement would be apparent to one of ordinary skill in the art. Conversely, if the specification explicitly sets forth an improvement but in a conclusory manner (i.e., a bare assertion of an improvement without the detail necessary to be apparent to a person of ordinary skill in the art), the examiner should not determine the claim improves technology. An indication that the claimed invention provides an improvement can include a discussion in the specification that identifies a technical problem and explains the details of an unconventional technical solution expressed in the claim, or identifies technical improvements realized by the claim over the prior art. For example, in McRO, the court relied on the specification’s explanation of how the particular rules recited in the claim enabled the automation of specific animation tasks that previously could only be performed subjectively by humans, when determining that the claims were directed to improvements in computer animation instead of an abstract idea. McRO, 837 F.3d at 1313-14, 120 USPQ2d at 1100-01. In contrast, the court in Affinity Labs of Tex. v. DirecTV, LLC relied on the specification’s failure to provide details regarding the manner in which the invention accomplished the alleged improvement when holding the claimed methods of delivering broadcast content to cellphones ineligible. 838 F.3d 1253, 1263-64, 120 USPQ2d 1201, 1207-08 (Fed. Cir. 2016). The examiner submits that Applicant’s specification (in particular paragraphs [0052] and [0053]) describe generic computer hardware structure (see at least “general purpose computer” in paragraph [0053]). The modules as pointed to by Applicant, are also described in paragraph [0053] as “compris[ing] instructions stored on one or more memories and executed by one or more processors. One of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that Applicant’s disclosure points to the performance of a method of organizing human activity (i.e., inventory analysis and forecasting of products) as implemented on generic computing devices, and taught in at least paragraphs [0052] and [0053] of Applicant’s specification. The examiner submits that the claimed invention and its associated disclosure fails to disclose any technical improvements what was already standard within the art at the time of filing. Regarding Applicant’s assertions pertaining to the disclosure of at least paragraph [0028] of Applicant’s specification, the examiner submits that the SSM as recited in the pending claims, and as disclosed in Applicant’s specification teaches wherein the SSM can provide “visual or graphical illustration of data” by “generat[ing] scatter plots” (see at least paragraph [0032] of Applicant’s specification). One of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that the creation or generation of a scatter plot or graph on a display for presentation to a user, based on information that has been input by a user is considered well-understood, routine, conventional activity in the field. Simply appending well-understood, routine, conventional activities previously known to the industry, specified at a high level of generality, to the judicial exception, e.g., a claim to an abstract idea requiring no more than a generic computer to perform generic computer functions that are well-understood, routine and conventional activities previously known to the industry, as discussed in Alice Corp., 573 U.S. at 225, 110 USPQ2d at 1984 (see MPEP § 2106.05(d)) is not enough to qualify as significantly more when recited in a claim with a judicial exception. As such, the claimed invention fails to meet the threshold of significantly more as required in the 2B analysis to overcome a rejection under 35 USC as being an abstract idea. Regarding Applicant’s assertions pertaining to the ability of the system to exclude data while viewing both demand data points and supplier data points on the user interface at the same time, the examiner submits that such a limitation is insufficient to show improvement in computer functionality (see at least MPEP 2106.05(a)(1) wherein vi. Instructions to display two sets of information on a computer display in a non-interfering manner, without any limitations specifying how to achieve the desired result, Interval Licensing LLC v. AOL, Inc., 896 F.3d 1335, 1344-45, 127 USPQ2d 1553, 1559-60 (Fed. Cir. 2018 and viii. Arranging transactional information on a graphical user interface in a manner that assists traders in processing information more quickly, Trading Technologies v. IBG LLC, 921 F.3d 1084, 1093-94, 2019 USPQ2d 138290 (Fed. Cir. 2019) were both found by the court to be insufficient to show an improvement to computer functionality). Similar to the aforementioned cases, the language of the pending claims seeks merely to organize the information on a graphical user interface to make it easier to process and view information more quickly. For at least the reasoning provided above, the rejection of the pending claims is hereby maintained.
103
Applicant’s arguments and amendments have been considered by the examiner, but are found to be moot in view of the new grounds of rejection presented below.
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 17-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more.
In sum, claims 17-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. §101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception to patentability (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) and do not include an inventive concept that is something “significantly more” than the judicial exception under the MPEP 2106 patentable subject matter eligibility guidance analysis which follows.
Under the MPEP 2106 step 1 analysis, it must first be determined whether the claims are directed to one of the four statutory categories of invention (i.e., process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter). Applying step 1 of the analysis for patentable subject matter to the claims, it is determined that the claims are directed to the statutory category of a process (claims 17-20) (See, e.g., MPEP §2106.03). Therefore, we proceed to step 2A, Prong 1.
Under the MPEP 2106 step 2A, Prong 1 analysis, it must be determined whether the claims recite an abstract idea that falls within one or more designated categories of patent ineligible subject matter (i.e., organizing human activity, mathematical concepts, and mental processes) that amount to a judicial exception to patentability. Here, the claims recite the abstract idea of providing a safety stock recommendation to a user by:
storing information related to a plurality of medical products in a database;
generating with an engine an interactive graphical display illustrating demand data in a demand coordinate system and supplier data in a source lead time coordinate system, wherein a user interface is configured to allow a user to manipulate the interactive graphical display an optimal safety stock recommendation based on included data points in the demand coordinate system and included data points in the sourcing lead time coordinate system Here, the recited abstract idea falls within one or more of the three enumerated MPEP 2106 categories of patent ineligible subject matter, to wit: the category of certain methods of organizing human activity, which includes fundamental economic practices or principles and commercial or legal interactions (e.g., generating optimal safety stock recommendation data for display to a user).
Under the MPEP 2106 step 2A, Prong 2 analysis, the identified abstract idea to which the claim is directed does not include limitations that integrate the abstract idea into a practical application, since the recited features of the abstract idea are being applied on a computer or computing device or via software programming that is simply being used as a tool (“apply it”) to implement the abstract idea. (See, e.g., MPEP §2106.05(f)). Therefore, the claim is directed to an abstract idea.
Under the MPEP 2106 step 2B analysis, the additional elements are evaluated to determine whether they amount to something “significantly more” than the recited abstract idea. (i.e., an innovative concept). Here, the additional elements, such as: an “engine,” and “database” do not amount to an innovative concept since, as stated above in the step 2A, Prong 2 analysis, the claims are simply using the additional elements as a tool to carry out the abstract idea (i.e., “apply it”) on a computer or computing device and/or via software programming. (See, e.g., MPEP §2106.05(f)). The additional elements are specified at a high level of generality to simply implement the abstract idea and are not themselves being technologically improved. (See, e.g., MPEP §2106.05 I.A.); (see also, paragraphs [0053-0054] of the specification).
18-20 have all been considered and do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application.
The additional elements of the dependent claims merely refine and further limit the abstract idea of the independent claims and do not add any feature that is an “inventive concept” which cures the deficiencies of their respective parent claim under the MPEP 2106 analysis. None of the dependent claims considered individually, including their respective limitations, include an “inventive concept” of some additional element or combination of elements sufficient to ensure that the claims in practice amount to something “significantly more” than patent-ineligible subject matter to which the claims are directed.
The elements of the instant process steps when taken in combination do not offer substantially more than the sum of the functions of the elements when each is taken alone. The claims as a whole, do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself because the claims do not effect an improvement to another technology or technical field (e.g., the field of computer coding technology is not being improved); the claims do not amount to an improvement to the functioning of an electronic device itself which implements the abstract idea (e.g., the general purpose computer and/or the computer system which implements the process are not made more efficient or technologically improved); the claims do not perform a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing (i.e., the claims do not use the abstract idea in the claimed process to bring about a physical change. See, e.g., Diamond v. Diehr, 450 U.S. 175 (1981), where a physical change, and thus patentability, was imparted by the claimed process; contrast, Parker v. Flook, 437 U.S. 584 (1978), where a physical change, and thus patentability, was not imparted by the claimed process); and the claims do not move beyond a general link of the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment (e.g., simply claiming the use of a computer and/or computer system to implement the abstract idea). Appropriate correction and/or clarification is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
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.
Claim(s) 1-11 and 13-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over UTECH et al (US 2014/0350952) in view of Zimmermann (US 2008/0103874), and further in view of Duncker et al (US 2017/0206684), and further in view of Cheung et al(US 2015/0348295).
Regarding claim 1, the prior art discloses a system for providing safety stock modeling for a medical product, the system comprising: a database of information related to a plurality of medical products (see at least paragraph [0033] to UTECH et al); an engine comprising a demand module (see at least paragraph [0035] to UTECH et al “utilization data”), a sourcing lead time module, and at least one analytic module for calculating a trend in data points from the database of information (see at least paragraph [0037 to UTECH et al “lead time”); (see at least paragraph [0067] to UTECH et al “graphical user interface…through which a user can interact with an implementation of the subject matter described in the specification), wherein the engine is configured to update the optimal safety stock recommendation as the user changes the included data points not excluded in the demand coordinate system(see at least paragraph [0031] to UTECH et al “the inventory management system 130 may evaluate a listing of items to be loaded into a particular ADM 110 and then generate a recommended list of MAX and MIN values for items on the list that have exceeded a threshold (set by a user) number of doses dispensed in a month or a threshold (set by a user) number of patients in a month”).
UTECH et al does not appear to explicitly disclose exclud[ing] demand data points from the database of information related to a single product in a demand coordinate system and a sourcing lead time coordinate system. However, Zimmermann discloses a method and system for forecasting future inventory demand wherein there are data points from the database of information related to a single product in a demand coordinate system and a sourcing lead time coordinate system (see at least paragraph [0023] to Zimmermann “system 110 may be configured to perform statistical analysis processes to predict or forecast future demand associated with one or more products associated with inventory environment 100”), and select[ing] a data point in the demand coordinate system or the source lead time coordinate system to exclude while viewing both the demand points in the demand coordinate system and supplier data points in the sourcing lead time coordinate system on the interactive graphical display (see at least paragraph [0036] to Zimmermann wherein “system 110 may filter the historical demand data to exclude certain part numbers from further analysis (Step 220). These part number may include predetermined (i.e., user-selected) part numbers or part numbers that conform to certain predetermined exclusions”).
The applied prior art references UTECH et al and Zimmerman do not appear to teach or suggest a user interface comprising an interactive graphical display configured to illustrate demand data in a demand coordinate system and supplier data in a source lead time coordinate system, wherein the user interface is configured to allow a user to manipulate data displayed on the interactive graphical display and wherein the engine is configured to output an optimal safety stock recommendation based on included data points in a demand coordinate system and included data points in a sourcing lead time coordinate system, wherein the interactive graphical display illustrates both demand data in the demand coordinate system and supplier data in the source lead time coordinate system within the same visual space a side-by-side format to allow the user to manipulate data displayed on the interactive graphical display, wherein demand data points in the demand coordinate system, the supplier data points in the sourcing lead time coordinate system, and the safety stock recommendation are displayed on the interactive graphical display simultaneously.
However, Duncker et al discloses a data manipulation cues system and method, further comprising a user interface comprising an interactive graphical display configured to illustrate demand data in a demand coordinate system and supplier data in a source lead time coordinate system, wherein the user interface is configured to allow a user to manipulate data displayed on the interactive graphical display and wherein the engine is configured to output an optimal safety stock recommendation based on included data points in a demand coordinate system and included data points in a sourcing lead time coordinate system, wherein the interactive graphical display illustrates both demand data in the demand coordinate system and supplier data in the source lead time coordinate system within the same visual space a side-by-side format to allow the user to manipulate data displayed on the interactive graphical display, and wherein demand data points in the demand coordinate system, the supplier data points in the sourcing lead time coordinate system, and the safety stock recommendation are displayed on the interactive graphical display simultaneously (see at least paragraph [0047] to Duncker et al wherein “The interactive interface 135 may receive inputs from a viewer of the portal 125 related to the analytic visualization 110 displayed in the container 130. For example, a viewer may use the interactive interface 135 in order to request a filtering of the data in the analytic visualization 110 (e.g., to display sales data from only the United States if the analytic visualization 110 initially showed sales data worldwide). A viewer may use the interactive interface 135 in order to request a change of the data in the analytic visualization 110 (e.g., to display sales data from France if the analytic visualization 110 initially showed sales data from the United States). A viewer may use the interactive interface 135 in order to request a change in a display format of the analytic visualization 110 (e.g., to display sales data formatted as a pie chart if the analytic visualization 110 initially showed sales data formatted as a line graph) or a change in composite analytic visualization type (see FIG. 9). A viewer may use the interactive interface 135 in order to request two or more data sets (some of which may initially be displayed in one or more other containers 190), or two or more subsets of the same dataset, be compared either by displaying them side-by-side or by performing a mathematical operation (e.g., difference, sum, ratio, average) and displaying the result (e.g., to display difference data between sales data in the United States and sales data in France)” and paragraph [0048] to Duncker et al, wherein “The analytic visualization 110 may be any type of visualization useful in analyzing data. For example, the analytic visualization 110 may be line graph, a bar chart, a pie chart, an area graph, a scatter plot, a volume graph, a surface graph, a doughnut chart, a bubble chart, a box plot, a radar chart, a sparkline chart, a cone chart, a pyramid chart, a stock chart, a histogram, a Gantt chart, a waterfall chart, a binary chart (e.g., win/loss), a pictograph, an organizational chart, a flow chart, a map, a gauge, a table, or another type of chart, graph, or indicator. The analytic visualization 110 may include data from the data sources 170, which may be stored at the data server(s) 145 and/or the external server(s) 150.”).
The previously applied prior art does not appear to explicitly disclose wherein a data point may be selected by clicking on the data point or drawing a perimeter around two or more points.
However, the applied prior art reference Cheung et al discloses a data manipulation cues system and method wherein a data point may be selected by clicking on the data point or drawing a perimeter around two or more points (see at least paragraph [0027] to Cheung et al, wherein Concentric circles 520 represent selection of a point on the graph 320, for example based on touch on a tough screen or click of a mouse. The concentric circles 520 need not be shown but are presented here to indicate selection visually. Upon selection of a point on the graph, cue 530 can be presented that indicates another point, by way of a dashed circle, to which to move to at least improve or maximize data correlation. Further, the cue 530 can indicate the percentage match or correlation that would be achieved if the selected point were moved to the suggested point by shifting the graph 320 to the left a particular distance).
The examiner recognizes that obviousness may be established by combining or modifying the teachings of the prior art to produce the claimed invention where there is some teaching, suggestion, or motivation to do so found either in the references themselves or in the knowledge generally available to one of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Fine, 837 F.2d 1071, 5 USPQ2d 1596 (Fed. Cir. 1988), In re Jones, 958 F.2d 347, 21 USPQ2d 1941 (Fed. Cir. 1992), and KSR International Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007). The examiner submits that the combination of the teaching of the system and method for automated utilization driven inventory management, as disclosed by UTECH et al and the method for forecasting future inventory demand as taught by Zimmermann, and further in view of the system and method of analytic visualization as disclosed by Duncker et al and the data visualization system and method of Cheung et al, in order to enable the user to accurately predict the minimum amount of inventory to keep on hand in a medical setting over a predetermined period of time, could have been readily and easily implemented, with a reasonable expectation of success. As such, the aforementioned combination is found to be obvious to try, given the state of the art at the time of filing.
Regarding claim 2, the prior art discloses the system of claim 1, wherein the database of information comprises data over at least two years (see at least paragraph [0029] to Zimmermann “multiple 12 month periods”).
Regarding claim 3, the prior art discloses the system of claim 1, wherein the engine is configured adjust the optimal safety stock recommendation based on the trend calculated by the at least one analytic module (see at least paragraph [0045] to Zimmermann “For example, software associated with system 110 may set a fixed control points in the inventory database for a future twelve month period, with three month fixed requirements established to compensate for increases in demand during any out of control three month portions of the future twelve month period”).
Regarding claim 4, the prior art discloses the system of claim 1, wherein the trend is a cyclic demand (see at least paragraph [0035] to Zimmermann “historic demand data may include annual or yearly data corresponding with the fiscal year cycle of an organization”).
Regarding claim 5, the prior art discloses the system of claim 1, wherein the interactive graphical display is updated in real-time when the user changes the included data points (see at least paragraph [0040] to Zimmermann “The high variability test may include determining a coefficient of variation associated with the historical demand data for a plurality of historical demand periods as:
c v = .sigma. .mu. ##EQU00001##
where c.sub.v is the coefficient of variation for the demand of the part number over a particular portion of the demand period, .sigma. is the standard deviation of the historical demand calculated for the portion of the demand period, and .mu. is the demand mean for a given portion of the demand period. The size of the portion of the demand period may be predetermined and/or user-specified”).
Regarding claim 6, the prior art discloses the system of claim 1, wherein the interactive graphical display provides information from the database of information on a selected data point (see at least paragraph [0041] to Zimmermann “the software may store the statistical analysis data for each part number in database 115 associated with system 110 for further analysis”).
Regarding claim 7, the prior art discloses the system of claim 1, wherein the engine is configured to provide a demand threshold in the demand coordinate system and a sourcing threshold in the sourcing lead time coordinate system (see at least paragraphs [0046]] to Zimmermann wherein “For part numbers with a part cost greater than the cost threshold (Step 245: No), but with estimated customer orders greater than an order threshold (Step 247: Yes), system 110 may also establish a monthly fixed requirement as twice the estimated demand for each month in a future demand period (Step 246)”).
Regarding claim 8, the prior art discloses the system of claim 7, wherein the optimal safety stock recommendation is updated when the user excludes one or more data points above the demand threshold or the sourcing threshold (see at least paragraph [0036] to Zimmermann wherein “system 110 may filter the historical demand data to exclude certain part numbers from further analysis (Step 220). These part number may include predetermined (i.e., user-selected) part numbers or part numbers that conform to certain predetermined exclusions”).
Regarding claim 9, the prior art discloses the system of claim 7, wherein the optimal safety stock recommendation is updated when the engine excludes one or more data points above the demand threshold or the sourcing threshold (see at least paragraph [0036] to Zimmermann wherein “system 110 may filter the historical demand data to exclude certain part numbers from further analysis (Step 220). These part number may include predetermined (i.e., user-selected) part numbers or part numbers that conform to certain predetermined exclusions”).
Regarding claim 10, the prior art discloses the system of claim 1, wherein the engine is configured to create a report from the included data points (see at least paragraph [0023] to Zimmermann, wherein “The inventory management database may then provide notify an inventory management network or procurement system when the inventory has fallen below the threshold value.” The examiner submits that the applied prior art reference Zimmerman discloses wherein the system and method include a display including a graphic user interface and a printer (see at least paragraph [0021]. It is clear that the output of data that has been analyzed in the form of a report on a display or in paper would have been routine and conventional within the state of the art at the time of filing, and therefore the examiner submits that the display of the data in the form of a report for viewing by a user is implicit within the disclosure of Zimmerman).
Regarding claim 11, the prior art discloses the system of claim 1, wherein the optimal safety stock recommendation is updated when the service level is adjusted (see at least paragraph [0023] to Zimmermann wherein “system 110 may be configured to perform statistical analysis processes to predict or forecast future demand associated with one or more products associated with inventory environment 100. In particular, system 110 may be configured to identify and/or classify certain seasonal and/or predictably variable patterns in historical demand. Based on the classification, system 110 may establish certain fixed requirements for one or more part numbers associated with inventory environment. Fixed requirement, as the term is used herein, refers to any value or requirement that may be placed in an inventory record that specifies an inventory level that may be required to maintain an appropriate stock level associated with a part number. For instance, a fixed requirement may include a minimum inventory level associated with a particular part to meet an expected increase in demand, due to historical seasonal increases” The examiner submits that the term “service level” is interpreted in view of paragraph [0004] of Applicant’s specification as originally filed, which states “The service level is the probability of meeting demand during the source lead time without a shortfall”).
Regarding claim 13 the prior art discloses the system of claim 1, wherein the user interface is configured to allow the user to interactively exclude data points in the demand coordinate system and the sourcing lead time coordinate system simultaneously (see at least paragraph [0037] to Zimmermann “Upon excluding historical demand data associated with certain non-qualifying part numbers, system 110 may statistically analyze the remaining (qualifying part numbers) (Step 230). This statistical analysis may include one or more seasonality tests which may be performed sequentially or simultaneously”).
Regarding claim 14, the prior art discloses the system of claim 1, wherein the user interface is configured to allow the user to interactively exclude data points in the demand coordinate system and the sourcing lead time coordinate system independently (see at least paragraph [0036] to Zimmermann “Once the historical demand data has been received, system 110 may filter the historical demand data to exclude certain part numbers from further analysis (Step 220). These part number may include predetermined (i.e., user-selected) part numbers or part numbers that conform to certain predetermined exclusions”).
Regarding claim 15, the prior art discloses the system of claim 1, wherein the engine is configured to output the optimal safety stock recommendation based on the mean and standard deviation of the included data points (see at least paragraph [0040] to Zimmermann “where c.sub.v is the coefficient of variation for the demand of the part number over a particular portion of the demand period, .sigma. is the standard deviation of the historical demand calculated for the portion of the demand period, and .mu. is the demand mean for a given portion of the demand period”).
Regarding claim 16, the prior art discloses the system of claim 1, wherein the engine is configured to output an optimal safety stock recommendation for a family of related medical products (see at least paragraph [0020] to Zimmermann “PU 111 may also analyze current and previous inventory count records to identify trends in historical demand data. These trends may then be recorded and analyzed to adjust one or more aspects associated with an inventory control process, such as inventory fixed requirements and minimum stock levels one or more part numbers”).
Claims 17-20 each contain recitations substantially similar to those addressed above and, therefore, are likewise rejected.
Regarding claim 21, the prior art discloses the system of Claim 1, wherein the engine is configured to display the contribution of each of the demand data points and the supplier data points to the optimal safety stock recommendation (see at least paragraph [0043] to Zimmerman et al, wherein demand associated with the historical demand period has been estimated, system 110 may establish a monthly fixed requirement for a future demand period (Step 242). For instance, software associated with system 110 may set fixed control points associated with inventory database 103 for the next twelve month period based on the estimated seasonal demand. Accordingly, a monthly fixed requirement of 25 pieces may be established for each of January, February, and March, corresponding to additional supply (in addition to an expected demand of 75) required to meet the estimated seasonal demand).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
The examiner has considered all references listed on the Notice of References Cited, PTO-892.
The examiner has considered all references cited on the Information Disclosure Statement submitted by Applicant, PTO-1449.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to TALIA F CRAWLEY whose telephone number is (571)270-5397. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday thru Thursday; 8:30 AM-4:30 PM EST.
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, Fahd A Obeid can be reached on 571-270-3324. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/TALIA F CRAWLEY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3627