DETAILED ACTION
The following is a Final Office action. In response to Non-Final communications received 12/31/2025, Applicant, on 3/31/2026, amended Claims 1, 8, and 15, and cancelled Claims 2, 9, and 16. Claims 1, 3, 5-8, 10, 12-15, 17, and 19-20 are pending in this action, have been considered in full, and are rejected below.
Response to Arguments
Arguments regarding 35 USC §101 Alice – Applicant states the limitations of the amended Claims, asserts that the claims are not directed towards any abstract idea, such as “mathematical concepts, certain methods of organizing human activity, mental processes” etc., as the claims do not recite a matter that falls within the enumerated groupings of abstract idea, and that the claims are integrated into an abstract idea, by reciting the amended limitations of the claims, reciting paragraphs [0029], [0043], [0087], and [0046], and stating that this is beneficial as the claims are directed to developing omni-channel capabilities for a retailer that provides competencies, such as online and brick and mortar stores and that this solves the problem arising in a retailer’s use of computer to transact products online alongside having an existing infrastructure of stores, and thus eligible. Applicant also states that this is similar to DDR and that is solves a problem arising from the use of computer systems in performing retail transactions. Examiner disagrees as first DDR has nothing to do with the case at hand, as the fact patterns are different in the cases, and the limitations of the current invention are not necessarily rooted in computer technology, but rather utilize current technologies such as a computer comprising a memory and processor, to perform the abstract limitations of the Claims. As per the rejection below, the claims recite limitation which describe abstract processes of both a “Mental Process” and a “Certain Method of Organizing Human Activity”, as the claims recite limitations for the purposes of adjusting inventory, which is inherently a commercial process.
Applicant asserts the claims are integrated as they are directed to solving a problem particular in the use of computers in developing omni-channel competency, stating that these limitations are used for both online and brick and mortar stores, and solves a real-time problem of engaging customers with their mobile technology, and thus similar to DDR the claims are eligible as they solve the problem arising from the use of computer systems. Examiner disagrees as the claims are not practically integrated, as the claim limitations merely utilize current technologies to perform the abstract limitations of the claims, similar to that of Alice, essentially “Applying It” for adjusting of inventory. The fact patterns of DDR and the current invention are different, and the implementation of accelerated technology transition projects to provide real-time engagement with consumers via their mobile technology and providing instantaneous response and real time information to one or more channels is at best a transmission of information as described in application shown here:
“[0082] Furthermore, in one embodiment, one or more transition projects 1002a-1002q must be implement before another transition project 1002a-1002q is implemented. For example, a financial plan would be required to be implemented prior to the start of a performance dashboard, such that, the financial plan can be measured in the dashboard.”
Which shows that these are displayed projects on a dashboard. There is no improvement to a technology or any technological process, as any inventive concept as well as the amendment of “… and provide instantaneous response and real time information to one or more channels” would be contained wholly within the abstraction. There is no improvement to the computer, memory, system processor, or any other additional element, as per Applicant’s Specification shown in the rejection below, nor is there any controlling of how the inventory would be adjusted, or any improvement to any other additional element within the claim nor is there any novel combination. This is “Applying It”, similar to Alice, on a generic computing system.
Therefore, the arguments are non-persuasive, the Claims are ineligible as there is no inventive concept, and the rejection of the Claims and their dependents are maintained under 35 USC 101.
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.
Alice - Claims 1, 3, 5-8, 10, 12-15, 17, and 19-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Claim 1 is directed to the limitations to generate a retail process methodology hierarchy comprising one or more high-level process markers, the one or more level-one process markers, and one or more level-two process markers (Analyzing the Information, an evaluation, a Mental Process; a Commercial Interaction, i.e. Adjusting Inventory; a Certain Method of Organizing Human Activity), assess the one or more retailers according to the one or more level-two process markers according to one or more competencies (Analyzing the Information, an evaluation, a Mental Process; a Commercial Interaction, i.e. Adjusting Inventory; a Certain Method of Organizing Human Activity), determine one or more maturity gaps associated with one or more competencies of one or more retailers and according to a difference between an initial maturity level and a final desired maturity level, wherein the one or more competencies correspond to an omni-channel retail environment and wherein the one or more competencies further comprise brand excellence, consumer centricity, supply chain focus, accelerated technology, and organization alignment (Analyzing the Information, an evaluation, a Mental Process; a Commercial Interaction, i.e. Adjusting Inventory; a Certain Method of Organizing Human Activity); perform strategic alignment of the one or more retailers by aligning the one or more maturity gaps of the one or more retailers with one or more transition projects (Analyzing the Information, an evaluation, a Mental Process; a Commercial Interaction, i.e. Adjusting Inventory; a Certain Method of Organizing Human Activity) by: map the one or more transition projects on a computer display using a bubble chart, wherein the bubble chart is mapped according to a value versus complexity with bubbles in the bubble chart sized according to resource needs corresponding to the one or more transition projects (Analyzing the Information, an evaluation, a Mental Process; a Commercial Interaction, i.e. Adjusting Inventory; a Certain Method of Organizing Human Activity); roadmap one or more transition activities that generate the one or more identified transition projects that fill the one or more determined maturity gaps, the one or more transition activities to achieve omni-channel competency for the one or more retailers, wherein the omni- channel competency is based at least in part on one or more available in-store services being replicated online and point of purchase selection of diverse delivery mechanisms (Analyzing the Information, an evaluation, a Mental Process; a Commercial Interaction, i.e. Adjusting Inventory; a Certain Method of Organizing Human Activity), implement accelerated technology transition projects to provide real-time engagement with consumers via their mobile technology and provide instantaneous response and real time information to one or more channels (Transmitting the Information, judgment, a Mental Process; a Commercial Interaction, i.e. Adjusting Inventory; a Certain Method of Organizing Human Activity), and provide a seamless shopping experience to the one or more channels and adjust the inventory of the one or more products of the one or more retailers based on the one or more roadmapped transition activities (Analyzing/Transmitting the Information, an evaluation and judgment, a Mental Process; a Commercial Interaction, i.e. Adjusting Inventory; a Certain Method of Organizing Human Activity), which under their broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind for the purposes of adjusting inventory, a Commercial Interaction, but for the recitation of generic computer components. That is, other than reciting a system, by an assessment interface comprising selection boxes ,a supply chain network comprising one or more retailers comprising an inventory of one or more products at one or more locations and a computer comprising a memory and a processor, nothing in the claim element precludes the step from practically being performed or read into the mind for the purposes of Organizing and Tracking information for a Commercial Interaction, i.e. adjusting inventory. For example, determining one or more maturity gaps associated with one or more competencies of one or more retailers and according to a difference between an initial maturity level and a final desired maturity level encompasses what a CEO, COO, or marketing manager would do with data of retailers to determine a maturity level for decision making, an observation, evaluation, and judgment. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas, an observation and evaluation. Further, as described above, the claims recite limitations for a Commercial Interaction, a “Certain Method of Organizing Human Activity”. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim recites the above stated additional elements to perform the abstract limitations as above. The system, supply chain network, computer, memory, and processor are recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as a generic software/module performing a generic computer function of storing, retrieving, sending, and processing data) such that they amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components. Even if taken as an additional element, the transmission steps above are insignificant extra-solution activity as these are receiving, storing, and transmitting data as per the MPEP 2106.05(d). Accordingly, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to an abstract idea.
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception, when considered both individually and as an ordered combination. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional element being used to perform the abstract limitations stated above amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components. Mere instructions to apply an exception using generic computer components cannot provide an inventive concept. The claim is not patent eligible. Applicant’s Specification states:
“[0031] FIGURE 2 illustrates retail process manager 110 of FIGURE 1 in greater detail in accordance with an embodiment. As discussed above, retail process manager 110 comprises one or more computers 130 at one or more locations including associated input devices, output devices, non-transitory computer-readable storage media, processors, memory, or other components for receiving, processing, storing, and communicating information according to the operation of supply chain network 100. According to some embodiments, retail process manager 110 comprises computer 130, server 210, and database 220. Although the depiction in FIGURE 2 includes computer 130 internal to retail process manager 110, computer 130 may be externally coupled with retail process manager 110 by any wireless or wireline connection..”
Which shows that any type of computer can be used, such as any personal computer, smart phone, tablet, etc., to perform the abstract limitations, and from this interpretation, one would reasonably deduce the aforementioned steps are all functions that can be done on generic components, and thus application of an abstract idea on a generic computer, as per the Alice decision and not requiring further analysis under Berkheimer, but for edification the Applicant’s specification has been used as above satisfying any such requirement. This is “Applying It” by utilizing current technologies. For the transmitting steps that were considered extra-solution activity in Step 2A above, if they were to be considered additional elements, they have been re-evaluated in Step 2B and determined to be well-understood, routine, conventional, activity in the field. The background does not provide any indication that the additional elements, such as the system, processors, etc., nor the transmitting steps as above, are anything other than a generic, and the MPEP Section 2106.05(d) indicates that mere collection or receipt, storing, or transmission of data is a well‐understood, routine, and conventional function when it is claimed in a merely generic manner (as it is here). For these reasons, there is no inventive concept. The claim is not patent eligible.
Independent Claims 8 and 15 contains the identified abstract ideas, with the additional elements of a computer readable medium which is highly generic when considered as part of a practical application or under prong 2, and thus not integrated into a practical application, nor significantly more for the same reasons and rationale as above.
Claims 2-3, 5-7, 9-10, 12-14, 16-17, and 19-20 contain the identified abstract ideas, further narrowing them, with no additional elements to be considered as part of a practical application or under prong 2 of the Alice Analysis of the MPEP, thus not integrated into a practical application, nor are they significantly more for the same reasons and rationale as above.
After considering all claim elements, both individually and in combination, Examiner has determined that the claims are directed to the above abstract ideas and do not amount to significantly more. Therefore, the claims and dependent claims are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 as being directed to non-statutory subject matter. See Alice Corporation Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank International, No. 13–298.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 1-3, 5-10, 12-17 and 19-20 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if the independent claims were amended in such a way as to overcome the 35 USC 101 rejection and any other rejections.
The closest prior art of record is Jaligama (U.S. Publication No. 2007/002,1967), Evolution (NPL – The Evolution of Asset Management, 2007, IBM Global Business Services, p. 1-24), and Linton (U.S. Publication No. 2014/001,9471). Jaligama, a system and method for providing framework for business process improvement, teaches a supply chain network comprising one or more retailers, comprising an inventory, a computer comprising a memory and a processor, the computer configured to identify one or more competencies of the one or more retailers in the supply chain network, to determine an initial maturity level for the one or more retailers according to the one or more level-one process markers and receive a final maturity level for the one or more level-one process markers and determine one or more maturity gaps associated with the one or more competencies of the one or more retailers according to the difference between the initial maturity level and the final maturity level, to identify one or more transition projects that fill the one or more determined maturity gaps, to roadmap one or more transition activities that generate the one or more identified transition projects that fill the one or more determined maturity gaps, and a supply chain management and optimization of product lines which shows an adjustment of product lines to cut down the cost of support and maintenance for vendor/retailer management, which is based on data, with road-mapped transition activities, it does not explicitly state it is configured to adjust an inventory of one or more products nor the bubble charts with different size bubbles based on the size of the activity. Evolution, a method for road-mapping assets in a business, teaches one or more entities which adjust an inventory of one or more products of the entities based on data, information, and road-mapped transition activities as in the tables where project planning in a transformational roadmap is used for linking of inventory systems to asset management and where parts inventories and materials are used in the road-mapping to optimize the system, but does not teach multiple products with different inventory levels at different networked facilities, nor does it teach the bubble charts and sizes of bubbles being augmented. Linton, a method and system for managing multiple supply chains, teaches multiple products with multiple inventory levels and in multiple locations of these networked facilities, road-mapping as in Applicant’s specification [0040] where there is a timeline for transformative processes for optimization of a retailer for inventory, used to transform the WIP progress of inventories, and inventories which are adjusted for rapid response to product changes based on the plan. None of the above prior art explicitly teaches mapping according to a value versus complexity with bubbles with the bubbles sized according to a value versus complexity with bubbles in the bubble chart sized according to resource needs corresponding to the one or more transition projects as determined by the system, and these are the reasons which adequately reflect the Examiner's opinion as to why Claims 1-3, 5-10, 12-17 and 19-20 are allowable over the prior art of record.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
US 20140019471 A1
Linton; Thomas K. et al.
METHOD AND SYSTEM FOR MANAGING MULTIPLE SUPPLY CHAINS
US 20070021967 A1
Jaligama; Prasad et al.
System and method for providing framework for business process improvement
US 20170337506 A1
Wise; Melonee et al.
System and Method Using Robots to Assist Humans in Order Fulfillment
US 20160048938 A1
Jones; Robert Glenn et al.
METHOD FOR DETERMINING AND ANALYZING IMPACT SEVERITY OF EVENT ON A NETWORK
US 20160048789 A1
Jones; Robert Glenn et al.
GRAPH DATABASE FOR DETERMINING AND ANALYZING IMPACT SEVERITY OF EVENT ON A NETWORK
US 20160048788 A1
Martin; Dana Burrows et al.
METHOD FOR DETERMINING AND PROVIDING DISPLAY ANALYZING OF IMPACT SEVERITY OF EVENT ON A NETWORK
US 20150046363 A1
McNamara; Michael M. et al.
Method and Apparatus for Managing, Displaying, Analyzing, Coordinating, and Optimizing Innovation, Engineering, Manufacturing, and Logistics Infrastructures
US 20140122182 A1
CHERUSSERI; Suresh et al.
SYSTEM AND METHOD FOR ASSESSING PRODUCT MATURITY
US 20140018949 A1
Linton; Thomas K. et al.
METHOD AND SYSTEM FOR COLLECTING SUPPLY CHAIN PERFORMANCE INFORMATION
US 20130277425 A1
SHARMA; Satya Prakash et al.
SYSTEM FOR AND METHOD OF SECURING ARTICLES ALONG A SUPPLY CHAIN
US 20120143643 A1
Gil; Reynaldo et al.
Policy Based Automation for a Supply Chain
US 20120041851 A1
Tan; Thomas
METHOD AND APPARATUS FOR ENHANCED SUPPLY CHAIN MANAGEMENT
US 20090144125 A1
Bandyopadhyay; Satadal et al.
SYSTEM AND METHOD FOR RECONNAISSANCE FOR SPEND MANAGEMENT PROCUREMENT
US 20090138341 A1
Mohan; S. Raj et al.
Web Enabled Method for Managing Life Cycle of Human Capital Related Dynamic Requirement of Organization
US 20080021930 A1
Eisaman; John E. et al.
SYSTEMS AND METHODS FOR TRACKING AND ASSESSING A SUPPLY MANAGEMENT SYSTEM
US 20070156584 A1
Barnes; Robert L. et al.
Supply Chain Financing Systems and Methods
US 20070143159 A1
Dillard; Robin A. Robison et al.
System and method for outcomes-based delivery of services
US 20050209732 A1
Audimoolam, Srinivasaragavan et al.
Decision support system for supply chain management
US 20050027550 A1
Pritchard, Thomas P. et al.
Process and method for lifecycle digital maturity assessment
US 20030135399 A1
Ahamparam, Soori et al.
System and method for project optimization
US 20030097317 A1
Burk, Michael James et al.
System, method and computer program product for electronic invoice auditing in a supply chain management framework
US 20030093307 A1
Renz, Alexander et al.
Adaptive networks
US 7925594 B2
Jaligama; Prasad et al.
System and method for providing framework for business process improvement
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JOSEPH M WAESCO whose telephone number is (571)272-9913. The examiner can normally be reached on 8 AM - 5 PM M-F.
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, BETH BOSWELL can be reached on (571) 272-6737. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-1348.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see https://ppair-my.uspto.gov/pair/PrivatePair. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). 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.
/JOSEPH M WAESCO/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3625B 7/6/2026
Prosecution Insights