DETAILED ACTION
1. Claims 1-20 are currently pending. The effective filing date of the present application is 1/30/2024.
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
2. The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
3. 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.
4. Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed a judicial exception (i.e., an abstract idea) without significantly more.
Step 1 – Statutory Categories
As indicated in the preamble of the claim, the examiner finds the claim is directed to a process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter. Claims 9-16 are processes (methods), and claims 1-8 and 17-20 are machines (systems or devices).
Step 2A – Prong 1: was there a Judicial Exception Recited
Claim 1 (similarly claims 9 and 17) recites the following bolded abstract concepts that are found to include “abstract idea”:
1. A system, comprising:
a non-transitory memory;
a processor communicatively coupled to the non-transitory memory, wherein the processor is configured to read a set of instructions to:
receive a resource buffer optimization request for at least one distribution node and a plurality of demand nodes associated with the at least one distribution node for a selected resource;
determine a demand probability distribution including probabilities of one or more marginal stockout events for each of the plurality of demand nodes;
rank the one or more marginal stockout events for each of the plurality of demand nodes in a combined ranking;
determine a constraint cutoff threshold;
generate a resource buffer data structure including demand node resource buffer allocations for each of the plurality of demand nodes, wherein each of the demand node resource buffer allocations include a marginal stockout event having a probability greater than or equal to the constraint cutoff threshold; and
store the resource buffer data structure in a data store.
Claim 1 (similarly claims 9 and 17) is directed to a series of steps for determining resource distribution within a large-scale network, and more particularly, to determining target-specific resource distributions based on corresponding target demand within the large-scale network, which is a commercial/legal interaction (sales activity) and thus grouped as a certain method of organizing human interactions and/or mathematical relationships (probabilities, ranking, etc.). Thus, the claim recites an abstract idea. See MPEP §2106.4(a).
Step 2A – Prong 2: Can the Judicial Exception Recited be integrated into a practical application
Limitations that are indicative of integration into a practical application:
Improvements to the functioning of a computer, or to any other technology or technical field - see MPEP 2106.05(a)
Applying or using a judicial exception to effect a particular treatment or prophylaxis for a disease or medical condition – see Vanda Memo
Applying the judicial exception with, or by use of, a particular machine - see MPEP 2106.05(b)
Effecting a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing - see MPEP 2106.05(c)
Applying or using 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 claim as a whole is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception - see MPEP 2106.05(e) and Vanda Memo
Limitations that are not indicative of integration into a practical application:
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)
Adding insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception - see MPEP 2106.05(g)
Generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use – see MPEP 2106.05(h)
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because non-transitory memory, processor, data store, and non-transitory computer-readable medium are merely generically recited computer elements that do not add a meaningful limitation to the abstract idea because they amount to simply the abstract idea on a generic computer. Accordingly, alone and in combination, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. See Specification [0047] discussing the data store as of memory or drive devices that could be used; thus, replaceable generic computer components. The claim is directed to an abstract idea.
Step 2B – Significantly More Analysis
The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because, when considered separately and in combination non-transitory memory, processor, data store, and non-transitory computer-readable medium m 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. Thus, claims 1, 9, and 17 are not patent eligible.
Dependent claims 2-8, 10-16, and 18-20 fail to provide additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. The dependent claims only further the abstract idea. Therefore, claims 22-8, 10-16, and 18-20 are rejected for the same reasons as stated in the rejection from independent claim from which they depend.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
5. The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
6. Claims 1, 6-9, and 14-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by WO 2007029824 A1 to Shota et al. (“Shota”)1.
7. With regards to claim 1 (similarly claim 9), Shota disclosed the limitations of,
a non-transitory memory (See [0008] discussing the computer architecture and Fig. 1.);
a processor communicatively coupled to the non-transitory memory, wherein the processor is configured to read a set of instructions (See [0008] discussing the computer architecture and Fig. 1. ) to:
receive a resource buffer optimization request for at least one distribution node and a plurality of demand nodes associated with the at least one distribution node for a selected resource (See [0027] discussing data received here is data necessary for starting production plan creation, such as specifying items and information on processes to be used.);
determine a demand probability distribution including probabilities of one or more marginal stockout events for each of the plurality of demand nodes (See claim [19] discussing the percentage considering the safety stock amount.);
rank the one or more marginal stockout events for each of the plurality of demand nodes in a combined ranking (See [0007] discussing marginal stock minimums rates and determining a comparison and [0032] discussing indexing the data.);
determine a constraint cutoff threshold (See [0007] discussing marginal stock minimums rates and determining a comparison with a rate less than 1. Examiner is interpreting 1 as the threshold cut off.);
generate a resource buffer data structure including demand node resource buffer allocations for each of the plurality of demand nodes, wherein each of the demand node resource buffer allocations include a marginal stockout event having a probability greater than or equal to the constraint cutoff threshold (See [0027] discussing in the process of the production plan output program, the data stored in the distribution result table is output to the display device and the use of margin inventory rates. See also [0007] discussing marginal stock minimums rates and determining a comparison with a rate less than 1. Examiner is interpreting 1 as the threshold cut off.); and
store the resource buffer data structure in a data store (See [0008] discussing the storage of the plan and resulting data structures in the storage device.).
8. With regards to claim 6 (similarly claims 14), Shota disclose the limitation of,
wherein the resource buffer data structure is generated, in part, by applying marginal reduction analysis to the probability associated with each of the one or more marginal stockout events (See [14] discussing implementing a minimum marginal inventory rate determination program and [0032] discussing reducing the probability of the ratio to find maximum safety stock take-in rate. See also [0027] discussing in the process of the production plan output program, the data stored in the distribution result table is output to the display device and the use of margin inventory rates.).
9. With regards to claim 7 (similarly claims 15), Shota disclose the limitation of,
wherein the constraint cutoff threshold is determined, at least in part, based on historical stockout data for each of the plurality of demand nodes (See [0007] discussing marginal stock minimums rates and determining a comparison with a rate less than 1. Examiner is interpreting 1 as the threshold cut off and [0032] discussing the estimated production item calculation table being a factor in the minimum margin inventory ratio. See also [0003] discussing estimated production referring to past production.).
10. With regards to claim 8 (similarly claims 16), Shota disclose the limitation of,
wherein the constraint cutoff threshold is determined, at least in part, by one of a network-wide parameter, a distribution-node specific parameter, or each of the network-wide parameter and the distribution-node specific parameter(See [0007] discussing marginal stock minimums rates and determining a comparison with a rate less than 1. Examiner is interpreting 1 as the threshold cut off and [0032] discussing the capacity allocation candidate table being a factor in the margin inventory ratio.).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
11. The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
12. Claims 2-5, 9-13, and 17-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatenable by Shota in view of U.S. Pat. Pub. No. 20220358436 to Vakhutinsky et al. (“Vakhutinsky”).
13. With regards to claim 17 (similarly claims 2 and 9), Shota disclosed the limitations of,
receiving a resource buffer optimization request for at least one distribution node and a plurality of demand nodes associated with the at least one distribution node for a selected resource (See [0027] discussing data received here is data necessary for starting production plan creation, such as specifying items and information on processes to be used.);
determining a demand probability distribution including probabilities of one or more marginal stockout events for each of the plurality of demand nodes (See claim [19] discussing the percentage considering the safety stock amount.);
ranking the one or more marginal stockout events for each of the plurality of demand nodes in a combined ranking (See [0007] discussing marginal stock minimums rates and determining a comparison and [0032] discussing indexing the data.);
determining a constraint cutoff threshold (See [0007] discussing marginal stock minimums rates and determining a comparison with a rate less than 1. Examiner is interpreting 1 as the threshold cut off.);
generating a resource buffer data structure including demand node resource buffer allocations for each of the plurality of demand nodes, wherein each of the demand node resource buffer allocations include a marginal stockout event having a probability greater than or equal to the constraint cutoff threshold (See [0027] discussing in the process of the production plan output program, the data stored in the distribution result table is output to the display device and the use of margin inventory rates. See also [0007] discussing marginal stock minimums rates and determining a comparison with a rate less than 1. Examiner is interpreting 1 as the threshold cut off.)); and
storing the resource buffer data structure in a data store (See [0008] discussing the storage of the plan and resulting data structures in the storage device.).
Shota is silent on the limitation of,
comprising a probability mass function
However, Vakhutinsky teaches that it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the inventory art to include the ability to use a probability mass function (See [0064]-[0065] discussing using a Poisson to estimate prediction demand distribution.).
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the inventory art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the teachings of Shota to include the ability to use a probability mass function, as disclosed by Vakhutinsky. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order estimating the demand model parameters (Vakhutinsky [0064]).
14. With regards to claim 3 (similarly claims 11 and 18), Shota is silent on the limitation of,
wherein a first probability distribution is applied when a first set of parameters are met and a second probability distribution is applied when the first set of parameters are not met.
However, Vakhutinsky teaches that it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the inventory art to include a first probability distribution is applied when a first set of parameters are met and a second probability distribution is applied when the first set of parameters are not met (See [0092] discussing using different calculation for demand model parameters when they can be computed.).
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the inventory art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the teachings of Shota to include a first probability distribution is applied when a first set of parameters are met and a second probability distribution is applied when the first set of parameters are not met, as disclosed by Vakhutinsky. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order estimating the demand model parameters (Vakhutinsky [0064]).
15. With regards to claim 4 (similarly claims 12), Shota is silent on the limitation of,
wherein the first probability distribution is a negative binomial distribution and the second probability distribution is a Poisson distribution.
However, Vakhutinsky teaches that it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the inventory art to include the first probability distribution is a negative binomial distribution and the second probability distribution is a Poisson distribution (See [0064]-[0065] discussing using a Poisson or a negative binomial as known alternatives to estimate prediction demand distribution.).
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the inventory art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the teachings of Shota to include the first probability distribution is a negative binomial distribution and the second probability distribution is a Poisson distribution, as disclosed by Vakhutinsky. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this as simple substitution (Vakhutinsky [0064]).
16. With regards to claim 5 (similarly claims 13), Shota is silent on the limitation of,
wherein the first set of parameters comprises a comparison of a mean and a variance.
However, Vakhutinsky teaches that it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the inventory art to include the first set of parameters comprises a comparison of a mean and a variance (See [0083] discussing variance of the parameter estimations can be computed as the negative of their diagonal elements in the inverse of the Hessian, which provides the means for building the confidence interval by assuming the normal distribution around the estimation.).
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the inventory art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the teachings of Shota to include the first set of parameters comprises a comparison of a mean and a variance, as disclosed by Vakhutinsky. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order estimating the demand model parameters (Vakhutinsky [0064]).
17. With regards to claim 19, Shota is silent the limitation of,
wherein the first probability distribution is a negative binomial distribution and the second probability distribution is a Poisson distribution, and wherein the first set of parameters comprises a comparison of a mean and a variance.
However, Vakhutinsky teaches that it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the inventory art to include the first probability distribution is a negative binomial distribution and the second probability distribution is a Poisson distribution, and wherein the first set of parameters comprises a comparison of a mean and a variance (See [0064]-[0065] discussing using a Poisson or a negative binomial as known alternatives to estimate prediction demand distribution, [0069]-[0072] discussing using the sample mean and relative deviation from the average.).
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the inventory art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the teachings of Shota to include the first probability distribution is a negative binomial distribution and the second probability distribution is a Poisson distribution, and wherein the first set of parameters comprises a comparison of a mean and a variance, as disclosed by Vakhutinsky. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this as simple substitution (Vakhutinsky [0064]).
18. With regards to claim 20, Shota disclose the limitation of,
wherein the resource buffer data structure is generated, in part, by applying marginal reduction analysis to the probability associated with each of the one or more marginal stockout events (See [14] discussing implementing a minimum marginal inventory rate determination program and [0032] discussing reducing the probability of the ratio to find maximum safety stock take-in rate. See also [0027] discussing in the process of the production plan output program, the data stored in the distribution result table is output to the display device and the use of margin inventory rates.).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. See Notice of References Cited, PTO form 892.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MICHAEL JARED WALKER whose telephone number is (303)297-4407. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday 9:00 AM -5:00 PM CT.
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 (571)270-3324. 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.
/MICHAEL JARED WALKER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3627 Michael.walker@uspto.gov
1 Examiner notes that the translation is missing some paragraph numbers. Examiner has treated these numbers as section numbers covering multiple paragraphs.
Prosecution Insights