DETAILED ACTION
1. This Final Office Action is in response to Applicant’s Amendments filed 6/25/2026. Claims 1-20 are currently pending. The earliest 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 and, in response to the resource buffer optimization request, extract network data and resource data, wherein the network data identifies at least one distribution node and a plurality of demand nodes associated with the at least one distribution node and the resource data identifies a selected resource, wherein the resource buffer optimization request is generated in response to an interaction with a simulation interface;
based on the network data, retrieve, from a data store, demand node specific parameters for each of the plurality of demand nodes;
based on the demand node specific parameters, determine a demand probability distribution including probabilities of one or more marginal stockout events for each of the plurality of demand nodes;
based on the probabilities, 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 based on a number of units available for safety stock allocation across all of the plurality of demand nodes;
based on the combined ranking and the 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 a corresponding fill rate store the resource buffer data structure in the data store for resource allocation utilization within a supply chain network; and
apply the resource buffer data structure to a simulation of the supply chain network to implement resource allocation of the selected resource.
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, simulation interface, 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. See Specification [0049] discussing the simulation interface as a being generated by a web server, workstation, and/or user computing device. 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, simulation interface, 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.
Allowable Subject Matter
5. The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
The reason for allowable subject matter of claims 1-20 in the instant application is because the prior art of record fails to teach the overall combination as claimed. Therefore, it would not have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the prior art to meet the combination above without unequivocal hindsight and one of ordinary skill would have no reason to do so. In Remarks (9/3/2019), Applicant argues that the nearest art, WO 2007029824 A1 to Shota et al. (“Shota”) and U.S. Pat. Pub. No. 20220358436 to Vakhutinsky et al. (“Vakhutinsky”), does not teach the amended limitations, the examiner agrees. Neither Shota nor Vakhutinsky teach particular ranking and simulation of buffer resources. Upon further searching the examiner could not identify any prior art to teach these limitations. The prior art on record, alone or in combination, neither anticipates, reasonably teaches, not renders obvious the Applicant' s claimed invention.
Response to Arguments
6 Applicant’s arguments, see Remarks, filed 6/25/2026, with respect to §102/103 have been fully considered and are persuasive. The §102/103 rejections have been withdrawn.
7. Applicant's arguments with respect to §101 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Examiner notes that commercial interaction is a type of certain methods of organizing human activity.
Applicant argues the analysis oversimplifies the claims. Examiner disagrees. Examiner did not find a technical improvement in the specification; thus, oversimplification in respect of MPEP §2106.05(a) is not an issue.
Applicant argues that the claims do not monopolize the abstract idea. Examiner disagrees. MPEP 2106.04(d)(I) layouts the evaluation used for evaluating monopolization of the abstract idea. Examiner applied this analysis, alone and in combination, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or significantly more because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea because 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.
Applicant argues, like Example 40, that the claim shows specific improvements over prior systems. Examiner disagrees in that the improvement is directed towards a business concern like “efficiency” and not a technical improvement. See Remarks pg. 12 admitting efficiency is the improvement.
Examiner maintains position.
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.
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
Prosecution Insights