DETAILED 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 final office action is responsive to Applicant’s submission filed 11/17/2025. Currently, claims 1-3, 5, 7-13, 15 and 17-24 are pending. Claims 1, 11 and 20 have been amended. No newly added claim(s). Claims 4, 6, 14 and 16 have been cancelled.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-3, 5, 7-13, 15 and 17-24 are allowed over prior art.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
None of the cited and/or relevant prior art teaches or suggests the combination:
“compare the predicted first amount of the item type to store as inventory at the first site and the predicted second amount of the item type to store as inventory at the second site to historical data associated with a historical first amount of the item type stored as inventory at the first site and a historical second amount of the item type stored as inventory at the second site to one of validate and reject the predictions based on a similarity of the comparison;
train the third machine learning algorithm based on the similarity of the comparison to identify instances of overspend and instances of shortage and to modify the weightage and the one or more percentage divisions based on the identified instances of overspend and instances of shortage: and modify, using the trained third machine learning algorithm, the given demand forecast to adjust the first amount of the item type to store as inventory at the first site and the second amount of the item type to store as inventory at the second site“,
as recited in claim 1.
Claims 11 and 20 recite similar limitations as set forth in claim 1, and therefore are patentable over prior art.
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 1-3, 5, 7-13, 15 and 17-24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., abstract idea) without significantly more.
Claims 1-3, 5, 7-13, 15 and 17-24 are directed to method, system and computer program product for dynamic inventory management.
Exemplary claim 1 recites in part,
“classify a given item type of a given demand forecast obtainable from one or more sources and storable as inventory at one of a first site or a second site… classifying the item… based on historical data associated with obtaining the item type from the one or more sources…; (sorting or organizing item type based on demand forecast and historical data)
compute a risk factor value for the given item type… based on inputting the classification of the given item type output… and data associated with one or more risk factors…; and (determining a risk factor based on classification result and one or more risk factors)
predict… for the given demand forecast and based on inputting the computed risk factor value and data associated with the given demand forecast, a first amount of the item type to store as inventory at the first site and a second amount of the item type to store as inventory at the second site, (determining a first and second amount using risk factor value output and demand forecast)
compare the predicted first amount of the item type to store as inventory at the first site and the predicted second amount of the item type to store as inventory at the second site to historical data associated with a historical first amount of the item type stored as inventory at the first site and a historical second amount of the item type stored as inventory at the second site to one of validate and reject the predictions based on a similarity of the comparison; (comparing the determined amount values with historical data)
train… based on the similarity of the comparison to identify instances of overspend and instances of shortage and to modify the weightage and the one or more percentage divisions based on the identified instances of overspend and instances of shortage”. (adjusting input parameters used to determine amount values)
The above steps describe the steps of determining optimal inventory at one or more location based on one or more parameters. The steps are directed to inventory management process. The above limitations, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, encompass "Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity," (sales activities or behaviors) enumerated in MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(II)(B). If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers sales activities or behaviors, then it falls within the “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. The claim recites additional elements in the form of a computer having a processor and memory (with one or more machine learning algorithms that configure the processor) to perform the limitations encompassing the abstract idea identified above. The recited computer serves as a tool to implement the judicial exception. See MPEP 2106.05(f)(2). In addition, the claim recites “the historical data associated with the obtaining the item type comprising…” and “wherein computing the risk factor is comprised of setting a weightage and percentage(s)”. These features simply describe data type(s)/content(s), which amounts to insignificant extra-solution activities, and does not impose meaningful limits on the abstract idea. See MPEP 2106.05(g).
Further, the step of “modifying the given demand forecast in order to adjust the predicted first and second inventory amounts” simply updates the demand forecast (input parameter) used in determining the inventory amounts. This amounts to insignificant post-solution activity that does not impose meaningful limits on the abstract idea. See MPEP 2106.05(g).
Also, the claim recites the limitation, “wherein one or more of the classify, compute, predict, compare, train an modify operations improve a computation burden on an information processing system implementing an inventory system” simply recites only the idea of a solution or outcome but fails to recite details on how the solution is accomplished. In other words, the claims as a whole fail to describe specifically how the limitations or each of the limitations improve an information processing system. See MPEP 2106.05(f).
When considered both individually and as a whole, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application.
The recitation of additional elements in the recited claim is acknowledged as identified above. The discussion with respect to the practical application is equally applicable to consideration of whether the claims amount to significantly more. The recited computer elements represent using a computer as a tool to perform the judicial exception. See MPEP 2106.05(f)(2).
In addition, the recited feature, “the historical data associated with the obtaining the item type comprising…” and “wherein computing the risk factor is comprised of setting a weightage and percentage(s)”, simply describe data type/content, which amounts to insignificant extra-solution activities, and does not impose meaningful limits on the abstract idea. See MPEP 2106.05(g).
Further, the step of “modifying the given demand forecast in order to adjust the predicted first and second inventory amounts”, while amounting to post-solution activity, also amounts to appending with well-understood, routine, conventional activity. See MPEP 2106.05(d).
Also, the claim recites the limitation, “wherein one or more of the classify, compute, predict, compare, train and modify operations improve a computation burden on an information processing system implementing an inventory system” simply recites only the idea of a solution or outcome but fails to recite details on how the solution is accomplished. See MPEP 2106.05(f).
Therefore, under Step 2B, there are no meaningful recitations, considered in combination, that transform the judicial exception into a patent eligible application such that the claim amounts to significantly more than the judicial exception itself.
Accordingly, claim 1 is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., abstract idea) without significantly more.
Claims 11 and 20 recite similar limitations as set forth in claim 1, and therefore are rejected based on similar rationale.
Dependent claims 2, 3, 5, 7-10, 12, 13, 15, 17-19 and 21-24 recite limitations directed to the abstract idea, and do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application nor amount to significantly more.
For example, claim 2 recites in part, “… configured to re-execute at least one of the one of the classifying, the risk factor value computing, and the first amount and the second amount…”. This amounts to performing repetitive calculations (recomputing or readjusting values) which has been recognized by the courts to be well-understood, routine, conventional computer function. See MPEP 2106.05(d).
Response to Arguments
101 Rejection
Applicant's arguments filed 11/17/2025 with respect to the rejection of claims 1-3, 5, 7-13, 15 and 17-24 under 35 U.S.C. §101 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
In response to Applicant’s arguments, Examiner respectfully disagrees.
As discussed above under section 101, the claimed invention(s) is/are directed to a judicial exception (i.e., abstract idea) without significantly more. The steps describe the process of determining optimal inventory amount(s) at one or more location(s) based on one or more parameters. The claim limitations are directed to an inventory management process. Under their broadest reasonable interpretation, the limitations encompass "Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity," (sales activities or behaviors) enumerated in MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(II)(B). The additional elements fail to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or amount to significantly more than the abstract idea.
In Ex Parte Desjardins et al., The Appeals Review Panel (ARP) held that the claims overall credited benefits including reduced storage, reduced system complexity and streamlining, and preservation of performance attributes associated with earlier tasks during subsequent computational tasks as technological improvements that were disclosed in the patent application specification. Specifically, the ARP explained that the specification identified improvements as to how the machine learning model itself operates, including training a machine learning model to learn new tasks while protecting knowledge about previous tasks to overcome the problem of “catastrophic forgetting” encountered in continual learning systems. Importantly, the ARP evaluated the claims as a whole in discerning at least the limitation “adjust the first values of the plurality of parameters to optimize performance of the machine learning model on the second machine learning task while protecting performance of the machine learning model on the first machine learning task” reflected the improvement disclosed in the specification.
In the present claims, the additional limitations of “training the third machine learning based on the similarity of the comparison to identify instances of overspend and instances of shortage and to modify the weightage and the one or more percentage divisions based on the identified instances of overspend and instances of shortage” and “modifying… the given demand forecast to adjust the first amount of the item type to store inventory at the first site and second amount of the item type to store as inventory at the second site” describes identifying overspend and shortage, adjusting one or more values associated with third machine learning algorithm, and updating the inventory amount at a first and second site.
The additional steps amount to post-solution activities that does not impose meaningful limits on the claim. See MPEP 2106.05(g). In addition, the courts have held “performing repetitive calculations (recomputing or readjusting alarm limit values)” to be well-understood, routine, and conventional functions. See MPEP 2106.05(d).
When considered as a whole, the additional elements fail to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or amount to significantly more than the abstract idea.
Applicant's filed specification teaches that, "...the OEM typically attempts to determine how many parts will be needed when obtaining parts from the one or more sources. If the inventory management estimate is inaccurate, the OEM will be left with unnecessary inventory. Unfortunately, conventional inventory item management techniques are manual and reactive in nature leading to significant negative technical consequences." Page 1, lines 17-20.
In addition, Applicant's filed specification teaches that, "...in existing approaches, while the decision on what percentage of total demand should be OEM-owned versus vendor-owned is manually made by the manufacturing/procurement teams, illustrative embodiments systematically derive a risk factor from a risk factor scale (e.g., 1-5 for all items). Next, process flow 500 in step 516 determines the final percentages based, for example, on risk factors, the current backlog, and forecasted items." Page 9, lines 20-24.
Thus, the claimed invention is directed to using computer technology to provide mere automation to one or more manual processes. The claimed invention fails to improve the functioning of a computer or any other technical field.
Applicant’s filed specification teaches that “[[t]]his automated computation of percentage distribution helps to reduce the risk of parts shortage, overspending, expected technology variations, and added burden on underlying information processing and communication systems (e.g., lessens compute cycles, storage units, and/or network overhead.” Page 7, lines 4-7.
Unlike Desjandins, the claim recites only the idea of a solution or outcome but fails to recite details on how the solution is accomplished. The claims as a whole fail to describe specifically how the limitations or each of the limitations improve an information processing system. The claims as a whole fails to discerning at least the limitation(s) that reflects the improvement disclosed in the specification.
The "August 4, Kim Memo" (Kim Memo), reminds Examiners that if it is a “close call” as to whether a claim is eligible, they should only make a rejection when it is more likely than not (i.e., more than 50%) that the claim is ineligible under 35 U.S.C. 101. In the present case, under broadest reasonable interpretation (BRI), the claimed invention recites a judicial exception (i.e., abstract idea) without significantly more.
Accordingly, the claimed invention(s) is/are directed to a judicial exception (i.e., abstract idea) without significantly more.
Conclusion
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 OLUSEGUN GOYEA whose telephone number is (571)270-5402. The examiner can normally be reached M-F: 9am-5pm 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 5712703324. 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.
/OLUSEGUN GOYEA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3627
Prosecution Insights