ETAILED 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 .
Status of Claims
This is in reply to communication filed on 09/08/2025.
Claims 1-2, 11 and 16 have been amended.
Claims 6 and 15 have been cancelled.
Claims 1-5, 7-14 and 16-20 are currently pending and have been examined.
Response to Arguments
In response to Applicant Arguments /Remarks made in an amendment filled on 09/08/2025:
Regarding 35 USC § 101 rejection:
Applicant argument submitted under the title “Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101” in pages 12-20:
Applicant's arguments have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
In response, the examiner respectfully disagrees and emphasizes none of the receiving, clustering, merging, creating, generating, mapping, generating, receiving, generating, storing, updating, solving, receiving, generating, sending steps, whether taken individually or collectively, have not been shown to affect any form of technical change or improvement whatsoever, and are abstract idea. Applicant's claims have not been shown to modify, reconfigure, manipulate, or transform the computer, computer software, or any technical elements in any discernible manner, much less yield an improvement thereto. There is simply no showing of implementing any of the claim steps, individually or in combination, amounts to a technological improvement, nor the alleged “clustering items, assigning attributes to the clusters, creating data frames, generating forecast using time series algorithms, and mapping the forecasts from the data group level back to an item level improve the overall computational accuracy and efficiency” suggested by Applicant. Although Applicant asserts that “the system minimizes unnecessary computations thereby improving the computational efficiency and saving computation resources” the Examiner first notes that managing supply chain for retail and e-commerce is not reasonably understood as a technology, but instead involves organizing of human activity.
The data collection, recognition, and storage concept described in the claim is similar to the data collection and management concepts that were held to be abstract ideas in Content Extraction, TLI Communications, and Electric Power Group. Although the claim enumerates the type of information (i.e., location data) that is acquired, stored and analyzed, the Federal Circuit has explained in Electric Power Group and Digitech that the mere selection and manipulation of particular information by itself does not make an abstract concept any less abstract. Further, the claim is not made any less abstract by the invocation of a programmed computer. Unlike Enfish, where the claims were focused on a specific improvement in how the computer functioned, the claim here merely uses the computer as a tool to perform the abstract concepts.
Furthermore, the recited a first and second computing devices, a plurality of data storages, and a network server in communication with the plurality of data storages, and with the first and second computing devices, a graphical interface of the input device, an unconstrained placement model, an event streaming platform, a database, a constrained placement model, the network server, this recitation to the generic computer technology that is being used as a tool to execute the steps that define the abstract idea do not provide for integration at the 2nd prong and do not provide for significantly more at step 2B. Applicant's Specification acknowledges that nothing more than general purpose computers is needed to implement the invention. Thus, any improvement achieved by automating the claim steps (i.e., using generic computing devices/software) is not a technical improvement, but instead would come from the capabilities of a general-purpose computer rather than the sequence of steps/activities recited in the method itself, which does not materially alter the patent eligibility of the claim.
Even assuming, for the sake of argument, that the claims amount to an improvement over prior art techniques for managing supply chain for retail and e-commerce, such an improvement would be considered, at most, an improvement confined within the abstract idea itself, which is not enough to confer eligibility on the claim. For the reasons above, Applicant’s argument is not persuasive.
Regarding 35 USC § 103 rejection:
Applicant argument submitted under the title “Claim Rejections - 35 USC Q 103” in pages 20-27:
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim rejections - 35 USC § 103 have been fully considered and are persuasive. The reason to withdraw the prior art rejection of claims 1-5, 7-14 and 16-20 in the instant application is because the prior art of record fails to teach the overall combination as claimed. Therefore, it would not have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the prior art to meet the combination above without unequivocal hindsight and one of ordinary skill would have no reason to do so. Upon further searching the examiner could not identify any prior art to teach these limitations. The prior art on record, alone or in combination, neither anticipates, reasonably teaches, not renders obvious the Applicant’s claimed invention. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn.
Claim Interpretation
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.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
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 generic placeholder claim limitations, and coupled functional language, are:
1) Claim 1: recites a generic placeholder of “plan executor” for the following function of “automatically initiate movements of at least a portion of the total quantity of the at least one item among the plurality of shipping locations in accordance with the constrained plan within a retail supply chain”. Further, the generic placeholder “plan executor” is not modified by sufficient structure that is tied to the performance of the claimed function. Accordingly, the “plan executor” invokes 35 USC 112(f) claim interpretation. A review for the specification shows that the following appears to be the corresponding structure described in the specification for the 35 U.S.C. 112(f) limitation: the claimed “plan executor” corresponds to “a virtual or physical computing system 1400. One or more aspects of the computing system 1400 can be used to implement the DPA planning system”, see the specification [0091]. Accordingly, the examiner finds the claim is definite.
2) Claim 11 recites a generic placeholder of “plan executor” for the following function of “automatically initiate movements of at least a portion of the total quantity of the item among the plurality of shipping locations in accordance with the constrained plan within a retail supply chain”. Further, the generic placeholder “plan executor” is not modified by sufficient structure that is tied to the performance of the claimed function. Accordingly, the “plan executor” invokes 35 USC 112(f) claim interpretation. A review for the specification shows that the following appears to be the corresponding structure described in the specification for the 35 U.S.C. 112(f) limitation: the claimed “plan executor” corresponds to “a virtual or physical computing system 1400. One or more aspects of the computing system 1400 can be used to implement the DPA planning system”, see the specification [0091]. Accordingly, the examiner finds the claim is definite.
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
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 1-5, 7-14 and 16-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception without significantly more.
Step 1:
Claims 1-5, 7-10 recite a method, which is directed to a process.
Claims 11-14 recite a system, which is directed to a machine.
Claims 16-20 recite a platform, which is directed to a machine.
Therefore, each claim falls within one of the four statutory categories.
Step 2A, Prong 1 (Is a judicial exception recited?):
The independent claims 1, 11 and 16 recites the abstract idea of managing supply chain management for retail and e-commerce, see specification [001]. This idea is described by the steps of
Receiving digital demand forecasts for at least one item;
clustering, by an order profile forecast job, items, wherein the item clusters are based at least in part on sales velocity and order profile;
merging item data with cluster identifiers by assigning item data to clusters using common attributes of the item clusters;
creating data frames for time series algorithms by including time intervals, wherein the data frames consist of items grouped by a sales velocity cluster and an order profile cluster;
generating order profile forecasts at a data group level, at an order profile forecast job, using the time series algorithms, wherein the order profile forecast job determines an entitlement ratio of items to be allocated to warehouses over retail locations;
mapping the order profile forecasts from the data group level to an item level;
concurrently generating outputs from a ship-to-home demand job, and a node distribution index job, wherein the ship-to-home demand job processes digital demand forecasts for the at least one item, the digital demand forecasts including item quantity, timing, and customer location information for the at least one item during a forecast period and the node distribution index job determines a node distribution index mapping items to shipping locations;
receiving the outputs from the ship-to-home demand job, the order profile forecast job, and the node distribution index job;
generating an unconstrained plan for placing and allocating a total quantity of the at least one item among a plurality of shipping locations including a plurality of warehouse locations and a plurality of retail locations based at least in part on the outputs from the ship-to-home demand job, the order profile forecast job, and the node distribution index job;
storing planning data, wherein the planning data includes at least one of: weeks of supply, warehouse entitlement rules, and constraints;
updating in real-time the planning data;
solving, at a next-best-node service, item shipping constraints;
receiving the solved item shipping constraints;
using the solved item shipping constraints, generating a constrained plan for placing and allocating the total quantity of the at least one item among the plurality of shipping locations including the plurality of warehouse locations and the plurality of retail locations; and
automatically sending the constrained plan to automatically initiate movements of at least a portion of the total quantity of the at least one item among the plurality of shipping locations in accordance with the constrained plan within a retail supply chain.
These claims recite a certain method of organizing human activity. The claims recite to a certain method of organizing human activity as the disclosure is directed to managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people. The Examiner finds the claims to simply recite steps or instructions to be followed to manage item movement in a retail supply chain. The Examiner additionally find the claims to be similar to an example the courts have identified as being a certain method of organizing human activity:
i. filtering content, BASCOM Global Internet v. AT&T Mobility, LLC, 827 F.3d 1341, 1345-46, 119 USPQ2d 1236, 1239 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (finding that filtering content was an abstract idea under step 2A, but reversing an invalidity judgment of ineligibility due to an inadequate step 2B analysis);
ii. considering historical usage information while inputting data, BSG Tech. LLC v. Buyseasons, Inc., 899 F.3d 1281, 1286, 127 USPQ2d 1688, 1691 (Fed. Cir. 2018);
Step 2A, Prong 2 (Is the exception integrated into a practical application?):
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the claims satisfy the following criteria, which indicate that the claims do not integrate the abstract idea into practical application:
The claimed additional limitations are:
Claim 1: a graphical interface of an input device, an unconstrained placement model, an event streaming platform, database, a constrained placement model, a plan executor,
Claim 11: An input device; a database, a data processing device in communication with the database; and an output device, a graphical interface of the input device, an unconstrained placement model, an event streaming platform, a constrained placement model, a plan executor,
Claim 16: a first and second computing devices, a plurality of data storages, and a network server in communication with the plurality of data storages, and with the first and second computing devices, a graphical interface of the input device, an unconstrained placement model, an event streaming platform, a database, a constrained placement model, the network server,
The additional element are directed to using a generic computer to process information and perform the abstract idea. Therefore, the limitations merely amount to adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) to the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea, as discussed in MPEP 2106.05(f).
Step 2B (Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more that the judicial exception?):
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
As for Step 2B analysis, knowing the consideration is overlapping with Step 2A, Prong 2. The Step 2B considerations have already been substantially addressed under Step 2A Prong 2, see Step 2A Prong 2 analysis above. As discussed above, the additional imitations amount to adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea, as discussed in MPEP 2106.05(f).
In addition, the dependent claims recite:
Step 2A, Prong 1 (Is a judicial exception recited?):
Dependent claims 2-5, 7-10, 12-14 and 17-20 recitations further narrowing the abstract idea recited in the independent claims 1, 11 and 16 and therefore directed towards the same abstract idea.
Step 2A, Prong 2 and Step 2B:
The dependent claims 2-5, 7-10, 12-14 and 17-20 further narrow the abstract idea recited in the independent claims 1, 11 and 16 and are therefore directed towards the same abstract idea.
The dependent claims recite the following additional elements:
Claim 2: the unconstrained placement model
Claim 3: a clustering algorithm,
Claim 4: a time series algorithm
Claim 12: data processing device, time series algorithm
Claims 13, 14: data processing device, database,
Claims 17, 18: the first computing device, the network server,
Claims 19, 20: the second computing device, the network server,
However, the examiner finds each of these additional elements to be directed to merely “apply it” or applying a generic technology to perform the recited abstract idea of managing supply chain management for retail and e-commerce, the recitation to the generic computer technology that is being used as a tool to execute the steps that define the abstract idea do not provide for integration at the 2nd prong and do not provide for significantly more at step 2B.
Therefore, the limitations on the invention of claims 1-5, 7-14 and 16-20, when viewed individually and in ordered combination are directed to in-eligible subject matter.
Distinguished Over Prior Art
The claims 1-5, 7-14 and 16-20, in present form, have overcome the prior art rejections and the examiner has been unable to find the claimed limitations in the prior art. Accordingly, the examiner recommends addressing the outstanding rejections above. The reason to withdraw the 35 USC 103 rejection of claims 1-5, 7-14 and 16-20 in the instant application is because the prior art of record fails to teach the overall combination as claimed. Therefore, it would not have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the prior art to meet the combination above without unequivocal hindsight and one of ordinary skill would have no reason to do so. Upon further searching the examiner could not identify any prior art to teach these limitations. The prior art on record, alone or in combination, neither anticipates, reasonably teaches, not renders obvious the Applicant’s claimed invention.
Conclusion
1. 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.
2. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to AVIA SALMAN whose telephone number is (313)446-4901. The examiner can normally be reached Monday thru Friday; 9:00 AM to 5:00 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 OBEID can be reached at (571) 270-3324. 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.
/AVIA SALMAN/Primary Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3627