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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 05/11/2026 has been entered.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 05/11/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that the claims are not directed to an abstract idea. The Examiner disagrees. The claims remain direct to routing a shipment mix through a supply chain which falls squarely into certain methods of organizing human activity, namely marketing or sales activities or behaviors; business relations.
Applicant argues that the recited claims recite an improvement to technology. The Examiner disagrees. The claims as recited merely recite additional elements being used as tools to perform the abstract steps. This supposed improvement comes from the use of the model and does not apply an improvement to the model itself.
Applicant argues that the claims of instant Application are similar to those of Example 40. The Examiner disagrees. Example 40 provided a technical solution to a problem was rooted in technology. Providing supply chain routing is not a problem rooted in technological, as it existed in a pre-internet world. For this reason, the claims of Example 40 are not analogous to those of the instant invention.
Applicant further argues that the claims are like those of Example 36. The Examiner disagrees. Example 36 described, “After an item is recognized, it is tracked in real‐time throughout the warehouse using a tracking algorithm that takes advantage of the overlapping camera views to confirm the location of the item (thus improving retrieval time and accuracy). Specifically, the item is tracked in the image sequence of one camera using a known method, such as Kalman filtering, and once that item enters the field of vision of a second camera, its position in the first camera’s view is used to quickly locate the item in the second camera’s view. The item can then be tracked similarly in the image sequence of the second and subsequent cameras. The computer then reconstructs the 3‐D coordinates of the item based upon the item’s location in multiple overlapping images and prior knowledge of the location and field of view of the camera(s) that are tracking the item.” Claim 1 of example 36 was found to be ineligible. Applicant’s claims share the deficiencies of claim 1. Applicant’s claims do not share similar additional elements/functionality as those of Example 36. Accordingly, Applicant’s arguments are not persuasive and the rejections are maintained.
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 1-13 and 21-28 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter 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.
MPEP 2106 Step 2A-Prong 1
The claims recite:
extracting, first data from at least one local facility management of a set of local facility management, wherein each of the set of local facility management is associated with at least one of a plurality of facilities located at different locations, wherein the first data comprises a first location and a second location associated with a shipment mix, wherein the shipment mix comprises a plurality of products and is to be transported amongst the plurality of facilities;
acquiring, second data associated with a product amongst the plurality of products and comprising hierarchical information of the product and a historical movement route information of the product;
determining, a derived inventory of the plurality of products available within each facility amongst the plurality of facilities based on the second data associated with the product;
generating, a reconciled output by inputting the derived inventory and an actual inventory of each facility into an inventory model, wherein the actual inventory of each facility is obtained corresponding to each facility, and
wherein the reconciled output is indicative of an inventory related discrepancy has occurred;
generating, a set of feasible movement route layouts by inputting the reconciled output and the second data;
selecting, a recommended movement route from the set of feasible movement route layouts for transporting the shipment mix; and
outputting, the recommended movement route, wherein the reconciled output is further indicative of a time instant of the inventory related discrepancy, and
wherein the dynamically updates the reconciled output to generate the set of feasible movement route layouts in real time based on a current status of the product.
The claims falls into the abstract idea groupings of (b) Certain Methods Of Organizing Human Activity ** fundamental economic principles or practices (including hedging, insurance, mitigating risk) commercial or legal interactions (including agreements in the form of contracts; legal obligations; advertising, marketing or sales activities or behaviors; business relations) managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people (including social activities, teaching, and following rules or instructions)**
The limitations under their broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of, marketing or sales activities or behaviors; business relations, but for the recitation of generic computer components. That is, other than recited, “remote central management system, processor, computing device, route optimizing module, non-transitory computer-readable medium, inventory database, facility and product”, nothing in the claim element precludes the step from practically being Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity. Accordingly, the claims recite an abstract idea.
MPEP 2106 Step 2A-Prong 2
The recited limitations are not indicative of integration into a practical application. In particular, the claims only recite the following additional elements, “remote central management system, processor, computing device, route optimizing module, non-transitory computer-readable medium, inventory database, facility and product”. These additional elements are recited at a high-level of generality such that in conjunction with the abstract limitations, they amount to no more than:
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 - see MPEP 2106.05(f);
- (remote central management system, processor, inventory database, computing device, route optimizing module, apparatus, memory, non-transitory computer-readable medium)
iv. Generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use, -(facility and product)
The claims do not include additional elements individually or in an ordered combination that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. Integration into a practical application requires the additional element(s) to apply, rely on, or use the judicial exception in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on the judicial exception, such that the claim is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception. This is not the case in the instant application. Further, as discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements amount to no more than: mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component and generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use.
MPEP 2106 Step 2B
Eligibility requires that the claim recites additional elements that amount to an inventive concept (aka “significantly more”) than the recited judicial exception. As discussed above, this is where the instant application falls short. The claims do not include additional elements individually or in an ordered combination that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception
Dependent Claims Step 2A:
The limitations of the dependent claims but for those addressed below merely set forth further refinements of the abstract idea without changing the analysis already
presented (that is, they further limit the organizing of human activities at step 2A —
Prong One without adding any new additional elements other than those already
analyzed above with respect to the independent claims at 2A — Prong Two.
Dependent Claims Step 2B:
The dependent claims merely use the same general technological environment
and instructions to implement the abstract idea as the independent claims without
adding any new additional elements. Accordingly, they are not directed to significantly
more than the exception itself, and are not eligible subject matter under § 101.
Conclusion
All claims are identical to or patentably indistinct from, or have unity of invention with claims in the application prior to the entry of the submission under 37 CFR 1.114 (that is, restriction (including a lack of unity of invention) would not be proper) and all claims could have been finally rejected on the grounds and art of record in the next Office action if they had been entered in the application prior to entry under 37 CFR 1.114. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL even though it is a first action after the filing of a request for continued examination and the submission under 37 CFR 1.114. See MPEP § 706.07(b). 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.
/TONYA JOSEPH/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3628
Prosecution Insights