DETAILED ACTION
This Office Action is in reply to Applicants response after Non-Final rejection received on October 20, 2025. Claim(s) 1-18 is/are currently pending in the instant application.
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 .
Response to Amendment
The Examiner acknowledges the amendments to claims 1-18 in the response on October 20, 2025. No claims are amended or canceled at this time.
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 1-18 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.
Claims 1-18 are directed to one of the four statutory classes of invention (e.g. process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter). The claims include a system, method, or product and is a method of balancing safety stock in a distribution network which is a process (Step 1: YES).
The Examiner has identified independent method Claim 1 as the claim that represents the claimed invention for analysis and is similar to independent system Claim 7 and product Claim 13. Claim 1 recites the limitations of (abstract ideas highlighted in italics and additional elements highlighted in bold)
collecting, by a processor, allotments to demands at a hub of a distribution network having an available date before a need date;
generating, by the processor, a plurality of events for a schedule for releasing supplies allocated at the hub associated with the allotments, the plurality of generated events comprising one or more supply available events; one or more supply pending events; one or more demand need events; and one or more target change events;
sequentially processing, by the processor, each of the plurality of generated events by a plurality of respective subroutines until at least event of the day is reached to delay transfer actions from the hub, the sequential processing comprising processing: the one or more supply available events with a Supply Available Event subroutine, the one or more supply pending events with a Supply Pending Event subroutine, the one or more demand need events with a Demand Need Event subroutine, and the one or more target change events with a Target Change Event subroutine;
identifying, by the processor, a first date for releasing supplies associated with one of: the one or more supply available events, the one or more supply pending events, the one or more demand need events, and the one or more target change events;
determining, by the processor, a second date later than the first date for releasing the supplies based on maintaining a safety stock of the supplies between the first date and the second date; and
determining, by the processor, the last event of the day from the sequentially processed plurality of events, and triggering the Last Event of the Day subroutine,
updating the schedule, by the processor, after releasing the supplies on the second date and the last event of the day has been determined,
wherein the updating of the schedule only once after the sequentially processing the respective subroutines until the last event of the day is reached to delay the transfer actions from the hub reduces memory usage and increase computer speed by reduced storage of schedules receipts and algorithmic processing of a core planning process with less version resolution.
These limitations, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, cover performance of the limitation as certain methods of organizing human activity. Collecting data, generating a schedule of events, processing said events, identifying supplies and updating the schedule recites a commercial interaction. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation as a commercial interaction, then it falls within the “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea. The processor and a memory storing instructions in Claim 7 is just applying generic computer components to the recited abstract limitations. The non-transitory computer-readable storage medium including instructions in Claim 13 appears to be just software. Claims 7 and 13 are also abstract for similar reasons. (Step 2A-Prong 1: YES. The claims are abstract)
These limitations, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, cover performance of the limitation as mental processes. Collecting data, generating a schedule of events, processing said events, identifying supplies and updating the schedule recites a concept performed in the human mind. But for the “by a processor”, “[event] subroutines” language, the claim encompasses a user simply collecting and reviewing supply and safety stock data and making determinations when supply should be sent downstream from distribution locations to store levels using his/her mind and/or pen and paper. The mere nominal recitation of generic computer hardware does not take the claim out of the mental processes grouping. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation as a commercial interaction, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea. The processor and a memory storing instructions in Claim 7 is just applying generic computer components to the recited abstract limitations. The non-transitory computer-readable storage medium including instructions in Claim 13 appears to be just software. Claims 7 and 13 are also abstract for similar reasons. (Step 2A-Prong 1: YES. The claims are abstract)
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claims only recite computer (Claim 1) a processor and a memory storing instructions (claim 7) and/or non-transitory computer-readable storage medium including instructions (Claim 13). The computer hardware is recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as a generic processor performing a generic computer function) such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Accordingly, these additional elements, when considered separately and as an ordered combination, do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. Therefore claims 1, 7, and 13 are directed to an abstract idea without a practical application. (Step 2A-Prong 2: NO. The additional claimed elements are not integrated into a practical application)
The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because, when considered separately and as an ordered combination, they do not add significantly more (also known as an “inventive concept”) to the exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional element of using a computer hardware amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. See Applicant’s specification para. [0078] about implantation using general purpose or special purpose computing devices [Database server 104 can also communicate with client devices 112 and 114 via interfaces 120 and 118, respectively. Client devices 112 and 114 can be different types of client devices; for example, client device 112 can be a desktop or laptop, whereas client device 114 can be a mobile device such as a smartphone or tablet with a smaller display.] and MPEP 2106.05(f) where applying a computer as a tool is not indicative of significantly more. Accordingly, these additional elements, when considered separately and as an ordered combination, do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. Thus claims 1, 7, and 13 are not patent eligible. (Step 2B: NO. The claims do not provide significantly more)
Dependent claims 2-6, 8-12, and 14-18 further define the abstract idea that is present in their respective independent claims 1, 7, and 13 and thus correspond to Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity and/or Mental Processes and hence are abstract for the reasons presented above. The dependent claims do not include any additional elements that integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception when considered both individually and as an ordered combination.
Claims 2-6, 8-12, and 14-18 all include the different subroutines which under MPEP 2106.05(f)(2) Requiring the use of software to tailor information and provide it to the user on a generic computer Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Capital One Bank (USA) was one example the courts found to be mere instructions to apply an exception, because they do no more than merely invoke computers or machinery as a tool to perform an existing process.
Therefore, the claims 2-6, 8-12, and 14-18 are directed to an abstract idea. Thus, the claims 1-18 are not patent-eligible.
Response to Arguments
The remarks (pages 14-35) begin with the rejection under 35 U.S.C § 101. The applicants start with a request for reconsideration and withdrawal in the of the present amendment to facilitate prosecution.
The Examiner points out that there are not amendments to the claims at this time.
The arguments regarding the rejection under 35 U.S.C § 101 start with a Legal Standard (Remarks pages 14-16) citing several of the precedential court cases. On page 16, the arguments move to the two-prong inquiry. Applicant also returns to previous argument that the claims cite features rooted in computer technology to solve the problem of conventional, computationally expensive accroaches to scheduling in systems which take a brute force approach. Applicant argues the problem arises in the realm of computer networks. Applicant cites several section of the specification in support and argues that the increased memory usage is the very specific problem arising in the computer networks.
Additionally the arguments include that the slow performance comes from re-executing the whole core algorithm at every level and having to handle over one million scheduled receipts. The arguments point out that the core algorithm only has to be executed once and with less scheduling receipts the memory usage required is decreased.
The Examiner is not in agreement. The argued problem and solution is that the computer improvements are simply related to the computer having to store and processes less data. By running the core algorithm once rather than multiple times and eliminating schedule receipts there are less computing cycles and less memory usage which accounts for the alleged improvement. In this instance the computer is not being improved beyond the mere reduction in computation processing and memory storage. Further, the actions of processing and storing are not wholly different than the conventional steps, rather they have simply eliminated or optimized the elements to reach the same conclusion.
The arguments move to Step 2A Prong 2, where the Applicant argues that the claims are eligible under Prong 2 (remarks page 23-24). Specifically the argument is that the exception is used in a meaningful way beyond generally linking the exception to a technological environment. The Applicant evaluates the claim under MPEP 2106.05(e) going through each step of the claim stating that the steps are not extra solution activity, but integral to improve computer performance based on the execution of the core planning process to modify the schedule when the supplies are released at the very end without need to execute the core planning process more than once.
Applicant also cites Enfish for improvements to software that may not be defined by physical features but rather logical structures and processes (remarks page 25).
Applicant also cites BASCOM and compares it to claim 1 (remarks pages 25-27) where the assertion is that claim includes features which do not merely invoke machinery as a tool to perform the existing process. The argument alleges the claim improves computer capabilities to improve existing technology by integrating the judicial exception into a practical application or to provide significantly more. Applicant also cites McRO and Enfish for improvements to the functions of a computer, or improvements to other technologizes or technological fields. Further citing Amdocs, for unconventional technical solution to a technical problem (remarks page 27-30). The argument is that the current claims and supporting specification recite an improvement in more detail than the claims at issue in Amdocs.
Lastly, the arguments (remarks page 30) cite specific improvements over prior art systems, resulting in improved user interface. Applicant further points to amended claim 1 for expressly clarifying the subroutine execution of implemented rules providing improvements to the computer for allowing computational advantages from the streamlined updates after supplies are released. The Applicant again cites McRO regarding specific algorithms which streamline the human steps (hand animation) and producing intangible results.
The Examiner is not convinced. The Examiner does not find clear improvement rather the use of a computer as a tool. Further, the alleged improvement is simply less computing cycles and less data storage based on a reduced amount of data computed. This is not a particular improvement, rather simply optimization of data calculations. Running the core algorithm one time rather than a plurality of times is not a technical improvement, rather it’s a optimization of the process which uses less resources.
Additionally, regarding McRO, the case was about having a computer do something which it could not previously perform related the computer animation. In the instant claims the computer is not performing a new action, rather it’s simply a different performance of the same action it already performed in order to find the same solution where the resource demand is not as heavy. In this case the increased speed and reduced memory usage is simply based on less data computation and less stored receipts.
Regarding BASCOM the Examiner does not agree. The steps in BASCOM included a filtering tool at a specific location, and remote from the user in which the filter was customizable. The instant claims are remarkable different and do not have such additional elements which would, when evaluated separately or as a whole, would constitute significantly more. The claims simply have a processor executing the steps in the process for updating a schedule.
Regarding claim amendments, the Examiner strongly disagrees as the Applicant has not provided any claim amendments in the response filed on October 20, 2025. For that reason, the argument is moot.
Arguments move to the response in the prior Office Action. Applicants disagree with the Examiners statements. Applicant relies on the comparison to Amdocs where the federal circuit found the claims, which the Applicant states were less detailed than those in the present case, were eligible based on proper claim construction. Applicants position is that reduction of bottlenecks, specifically reducing record flows reduces the volume of data through the system which resulted in an eligible improvement. The Applicant compares the claims to U.S. Patent 7,631,065 (remarks pages 33-36). Applicants position is that the processing of data, and the data being lesser in size, saves computing cycles is equivalent to the reduction of bottlenecks in a network environment.
The Examiner does not agree. In Amdocs the claims were drawn to an unconventional technological solution (enhancing data in a distributed fashion) to a technological problem (massive record flows which previously required massive databases). The enhancing limitation requires generic components to operate in an unconventional manner to achieve an improvement in computer functionality. The current claims do not purport to have an unconventional technological solution to a technological problem nor do they require generic components to operate in an unconventional manner to improve computer functionality. In this case, the claims are simply relying on generic processors and memory in their ordinary intended functions to process the core algorithm and store the scheduling receipts.
In summary, the claims remain rejected under 35 U.S.C § 101 as the amendments and corresponding arguments are not persuasive. The claims are not in condition for allowance at this time.
Conclusion
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 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 DYLAN C WHITE whose telephone number is (571)272-1406. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7:30-4:00 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, Beth Boswell can be reached on (571)272-6737. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
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.
/DYLAN C WHITE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3683 February 4, 2026.