DETAILED ACTION
This Final Office Action is in response Applicant communication filed on
8/6/2025. Claims 1-20 are currently pending and have been rejected as follows.
Response to Amendments
Rejections under 35 USC 101 are maintained.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s 35 USC 101 rebuttal arguments have been fully considered but they are not persuasive to overcome the rejection.
Applicant asserts on p. 13-18 that the specification was not reviewed for improvements and that paragraphs 61, 64, 71, 73, 128-130, 134, and 225-226 support the conclusion that the claims are directed to an improvement of an existing technology in the way the computer manipulates data in memory in combination with the local table data structure by achieving increased flexibility, faster processing times, and smaller memory requirements. The alleged solution is reflected in the claims by the elements “for each of the runs of consecutive time units, (i) identifying a set of maximal excess configurations of met and unmet demands... (ii) storing the maximal excess configurations in table entries in a local table data structure... and (iii) reducing the configurations in the current output set from the local table data structure to reduce memory used by the local table data structure by removing, from the current output set of configurations, associated table entries for configurations...that meets or exceeds a total supply deficit of remaining runs within the timeframe.”Examiner respectfully disagrees. The alleged improvements in speed or memory requirements is based on the abstract idea. From the claim elements highlighted above by applicant, the ‘identifying’ and ‘reducing … by removing’ limitations are mathematical concepts for defining output sets, “for each of the runs of consecutive time units, (i) identifying a set of maximal excess configurations of met and unmet demands... (ii) storing the maximal excess configurations in table entries in a local table data structure... and (iii) reducing the configurations in the current output set from the local table data structure to reduce memory used by the local table data structure by removing, from the current output set of configurations, associated table entries for configurations...that meets or exceeds a total supply deficit of remaining runs within the timeframe.” The local table data structure is merely recited for storing output sets. The reduction in memory use and alleged improvement in speed is the result of the reduction in data that is processed by “(iii) reducing the configurations in the current output set,” which is directed to the abstract idea. Applicant’s claimed local table data structure is not analogous to the self-referential table in Enfish. In Enfish, the invention improved the way the computer stores and retrieves data in memory in combination with the specific data structure recited in the claims that demonstrated eligibility. In the present claims, the local table data structure is merely recited for storing output sets. As stated above, it is the mathematical step of “reducing the configurations in the current output set from the local table data structure” that provides the alleged improved results, not an improvement in the functioning of a computer, or an improvement to other technology or technical field.
Applicant submits on p. 18 that the claims are eligible under Step 2B for the same reasons provided under Step 2A, Prong 2. Examiner respectfully disagrees for the reasons set forth above.
Applicant argues on p. 19 that the present claims recite a combination of elements that is a non-conventional and non-generic arrangement of elements because there is no evidence in the record that the present arrangement of elements is conventional. Examiner respectfully disagrees. The previous office action provides the Berkheimer analysis on p. 7-8 and again below. Applicant's claims mimic conventional, routine, and generic computing by their similarity to other concepts already deemed routine, generic, and conventional [Berkheimer Memorandum, Page 4, item 2] by the following [MPEP § 2106.05(d) Part (II)]. The claims recite steps like: “Receiving or transmitting data over a network, e.g., using the Internet to gather data,” Symantec, “Performing repetitive calculations,” Flook, and “storing and retrieving information in memory,” Versata Dev. Group, Inc. v. SAP Am., Inc. (citations omitted), by performing steps of “identifying” runs, “identifying” a set of maximal excess configurations, “creating” a current output set of configurations, “removing” configurations, “assigning” supply units, and “transmitting” an instruction to fulfill demands in accordance with the assignments (example Claim 1).
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 clearly drawn to at least one of the four categories of patent eligible subject matter recited in 35 U.S.C. 101 (system, method, and non-transitory computer readable medium). Claims 1-20 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 integrating the abstract idea into a practical application or amounting to significantly more than the abstract idea.
Regarding Step 1 of the 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance (‘2019 PEG”), Claims 1-10 are directed toward the statutory category of a process (reciting a “method”). Claims 11-15 are directed toward the statutory category of an article of manufacturer (reciting a “non-transitory computer readable medium”). Claims 16-20 are directed toward the statutory category of a machine (reciting a “system”).
Regarding Step 2A, prong 1 of the 2019 PEG, Claims 1, 11 and 16 are directed to an abstract idea by identifying … one or more runs of consecutive time units within a timeframe, wherein (i) supplies of a product are added to a stock of the product and demands for the product are fulfilled from the stock of the product during the timeframe, and (ii) a run begins with a time unit that includes an addition of supply to the stock and includes subsequent consecutive time units that do not include another addition of supply to the stock; for each of the runs of consecutive time units, (i) identifying a set of maximal excess configurations of met and unmet demands from a set of demands for the product during the run, (ii) storing the maximal excess configurations in table entries in … and creating a current output set of configurations for the run based on the set of maximal excess configurations identified, and (iii) reducing the configurations in the current output set from the … to reduce memory used by … by removing, from the current output set of configurations, associated table entries for configurations, with an excess supply greater than an excess supply of a configuration with a smallest amount of excess supply that meets or exceeds a total supply deficit of remaining runs within the timeframe for at least one configuration selected from a final current output set in the … for a final run within the timeframe, assigning supply units from a specific supply to satisfy a demand quantity of each met demand; and … (Example claim 1).
The claims are considered abstract because these steps recite certain methods of organizing human activity like commercial interactions (including sales activities or behaviors; business relations) and Mathematical concepts such as mathematical calculations. The claims identify distributions, identify excess configurations, create output sets of configurations, assign supply units and transmit instruction to fulfill demands in accordance with the assignments which fall under fundamental economic principles or practices and commercial interactions for supply chain management.
Regarding Step 2A, prong 2 of the 2019 PEG, the judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the claims (the judicial exception and the additional elements such as a computing system; a processor; a memory operably connected to the processor; a non-transitory computer-readable medium operably connected to the processor and memory and storing computer-executable instructions that when executed by at least a processor of a computer cause the computer to; a local table data structure; transmitting an instruction to fulfill demands over the timeframe in accordance with the supply units assigned) are not an improvement to a computer or a technology, the claims do not apply the judicial exception with a particular machine, the claims do not effect a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing nor do the claims apply the judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment such that the claims as a whole is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception (see MPEP §§ 2106.05(a-c, e)).
Dependent claims 4, 8, 13, 15, and 18-20 recite a user interface accepting input, however these limitations merely use the user interface as a tool to perform the abstract idea.
Dependent claims 2-10, 12-15, and 17-20 do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the limitations recite mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea ‐ see MPEP 2106.05(f).
Regarding Step 2B of the 2019 PEG, the additional elements have been considered above in Step 2A Prong 2. The claim limitations do not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because they are directed to limitations referenced in MPEP 2106.05I.A. that are not enough to qualify as significantly more when recited in a claim with an abstract idea because the limitations recite mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea ‐ see MPEP
2106.05(f). Applicant's claims mimic conventional, routine, and generic
computing by their similarity to other concepts already deemed routine, generic,
and conventional [Berkheimer Memorandum, Page 4, item 2] by the following
[MPEP § 2106.05(d) Part (II)]. The claims recite steps like: “Receiving or
transmitting data over a network, e.g., using the Internet to gather
data,” Symantec, “Performing repetitive calculations,” Flook, and “storing and
retrieving information in memory,” Versata Dev. Group, Inc. v. SAP Am., Inc. (citations omitted), by performing steps of “identifying” runs, “identifying” a set of maximal excess configurations, “creating” a current output set of configurations, “removing” configurations, “assigning” supply units, and “transmitting” an instruction to fulfill demands in accordance with the assignments (example Claim 1).
By the above, the claimed computing “call[s] for performance of the claimed information collection, analysis, and display functions ‘on a set of generic computer components' and display devices” [Elec. Power Group, 830 F.3d at 1355] operating in a “normal, expected manner” [DDR Holdings, LLC v. Hotels.com, L.P., 773 F.3d at 1245, 1258 (Fed. Cir. 2014)].
Conclusively, Applicant's invention is patent-ineligible. When viewed both individually and as a whole, Claims 1-20 are directed toward an abstract idea without integration into a practical application and lacking an inventive concept.
Prior Art Considerations
Examiner conducted a thorough search of the body of available prior art (see attached documents regards PTO-892 Notice of Reference Cited and PE2E search History). Notably, Examiner discovered patent literature documents that most closely taught aspects of the invention, but no single disclosure taught “every element required by the claims under its broadest reasonable interpretation” [MPEP 2131] to make a 35 USC 102 rejection of claims 1-20. Further, Examiner considered the individual elements of the recited claims taught across the prior art, but did not find it obvious to combine such disclosures [MPEP 2142] to make a 35 USC 103 rejection.
Summarily, Examiner found it novel and non-obvious to limit the independently claimed method, system, and non-transitory computer-readable medium for minimizing unmet demands due to short supply to include “identifying one or more runs of consecutive time units within a timeframe, wherein (i) supplies of a product are added to a stock of the product and demands for the product are fulfilled from the stock of the product during the timeframe, and (ii) a run begins with a time unit that includes an addition of supply to the stock and includes subsequent consecutive time units that do not include another addition of supply to the stock; for each of the runs of consecutive time units, (i) identifying a set of maximal excess configurations of met and unmet demands from a set of demands for the product during the run, (ii) creating a current output set of configurations for the run based on the set of maximal excess configurations identified, and (iii) removing from the current output set of configurations those configurations with an excess supply greater than an excess supply of a configuration with a smallest amount of excess supply that meets or exceeds a total supply deficit of remaining runs within the timeframe; for at least one configuration selected from a final current output set for a final run within the timeframe, assigning supply units from a specific supply to satisfy a demand quantity of each met demand; and transmitting an instruction to fulfill demands over the timeframe in accordance with the supply units assigned.
In particular, none of the references found, individually or in combination, disclose “removing from the current output set of configurations those configurations with an excess supply greater than an excess supply of a configuration with a smallest amount of excess supply that meets or exceeds a total supply deficit of remaining runs within the timeframe.”
As such, claims 1-20 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the 35 USC 101 rejections above.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. US 11142399 B2; EP 3665627 B1; Beddoe et al., Decision Making Simulator for Supply Allocation Under Uncertainty, 2019.
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 extension fee 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 MOHAMED EL-BATHY whose telephone number is (571)270-5847. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F 8AM-4:30PM.
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, PATRICIA MUNSON can be reached on (571) 270-5396. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
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 http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. 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.
/MOHAMED N EL-BATHY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3624
Prosecution Insights