DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
1. The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Prosecutorial Standing
2. This communication is in response to the Application filed on 02.01.2024. Claims 1-20 are currently pending in this application. Claims 1-20 will be subject to further examination and evaluation in due course, and will be presented for examination, as detailed below.
Oath/Declaration
3. The Applicant’s oath/declaration has been reviewed by the Examiner and is found to conform to the requirements prescribed in 37 C.F.R. 1.63.
Information Disclosure Statement
4. As required by M.P.E.P. 609(C), the Applicant's submission of the Information Disclosure Statements (IDS) are acknowledged by the Examiner. The cited references have been considered in the examination of the claims. As required by M.P.E.P 609 C (2), a copy of the PTOL-1449 initialed, signed and dated by the Examiner is attached to the instant Office action.
Priority / Filing Date
5. Applicant's claim for priority of Foreign Application: Korea, Republic of 10-2023-0138983 filed on 10.17.2023 is acknowledged. The Examiner takes the FA date of 10.17.2023 into consideration.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
6. 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 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter. When considering subject matter eligibility under 35 U.S.C. 101, it must be determined whether the claim is directed to one of the four statutory categories of invention, i.e., process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter. If the claim does fall within one of the statutory categories, it must then be determined whether the claim is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., law of nature, natural phenomenon, and abstract idea), and if so, it must additionally be determined whether the claim is a patent-eligible application of the exception. If an abstract idea is present in the claim, any element or combination of elements in the claim must be sufficient to ensure that the claim amounts to significantly more than the abstract idea itself. Examples of abstract ideas include fundamental economic practices; certain methods of organizing human activities; an idea itself; and mathematical relationships/formulas.
Alice Corporation Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank International, et al., 573 U.S. (2014).
The claims are directed to the abstract idea for creating an optimal supply plan. The additional element(s) or combination of elements in the claim(s) other than the abstract idea per se amount(s) to no more than:
(i) Mere instructions to implement the idea on a computer, and/or
(ii) Recitation of generic computer structure that serves to perform generic computer functions that are well-understood, routine, and conventional activities previously known to the pertinent industry. Viewed as a whole, these additional claim element(s) do not provide meaningful limitation(s) to transform the abstract idea into a patent eligible application of the abstract idea such that the claim(s) amounts to significantly more than the abstract idea itself. Therefore, the claim(s) are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 as being directed to non-statutory subject matter.
For example, independent claims 1 and 15 as a whole, do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself. This is because the claims do not affect an improvement to another technology or technical field; the claims do not amount to an improvement to the functioning of a computer itself; and the claims do not move beyond a general link of the use of an abstract idea to a particular technological environment.
To overcome this rejection, applicant needs to add the inventive idea, e.g., what amounts to “significantly more” to the claimed limitations. In another words:
creating supply plans for multiple goods demands;
creating a plurality of candidate supply plans by modifying at least a part of the supply plans based on priorities and goods resources information of the multiple goods demands;
selecting a first candidate supply plan from among the plurality of candidate supply plans based on results of evaluation of the plurality of candidate supply plans; and
replacing at least a part of the supply plans with the first candidate supply plan, in order to accomplish what solution, or what is being solved by preforming these steps.
Furthermore, claims 2-14 and 16-20 merely using/applying a given computer environment such as merely using the computer as a tool to apply instructions of the abstract idea do nothing more than provide insignificant extra-solution activity since they amount to data gathering, analysis and outputting.
Additionally, claims 2-14 and 16-20 do not pertain to a technological problem being solved in a meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment, and/or the limitations fail to achieve an actual improvement in computer functionality or improvement in specific technology other than using the computer as a tool to perform the abstract idea.
The instant claims are rejected under 35 USC 101 in view of The Decision in Alice Corporation Ply. Ltd. v. CLS Bank International, et al. in a unanimous decision, the Supreme Court held that the patent claims in Alice Corporation Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank International, et. al. ("Alice Corp.") are not patent-eligible under 35 U.S.C. § 101. To address this rejection, the examiner suggests reviewing the recent Federal Circuit Court decisions and USPTO guidelines related to U.S.C. 101 for guidance on what is considered statutory subject matter.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
7. 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.
8. The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or non-obviousness.
9. Claims 1-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Riepshoff et al., Pub. No.: US 2011/0173034 in view of Allen, Pub. No.: US 2011/0145030.
As per claim 1, Riepshoff discloses a method of creating an optimal supply plan [see at least ¶0032 (e.g., supply plan evaluation and optimization 250 processor may evaluate and select various optimal solutions based on the objectives of one or more supply chain entities)], performed by at least one processor, the method comprising: creating supply plans for multiple goods demands [see at least the abstract (e.g., genetic algorithms are used to optimize the supply plans based on ever changing set of operational demands from in theater and the priority of those demands to the assigned depots)];
creating a plurality of candidate supply plans by modifying at least a part of the supply plans based on priorities and goods resources information of the multiple goods demands [see at least ¶0038 (e.g., supply plan optimizer 310 comprises supply plan creation 320 module and distributed processing 312 module. The supply plan creation 320 module creates a candidate supply plan that models the supply planning problem for the supply chain network based on one or more accumulated performance data, received requirement, and operation demand), and see FIG. 3 below];
PNG
media_image1.png
470
656
media_image1.png
Greyscale
selecting a first candidate supply plan from among the plurality of candidate supply plans based on results of evaluation of the plurality of candidate supply plans [see at least ¶0039 (e.g., candidate supply plan generated by the supply plan creation 320 module is then subjected to fitness module 318. The fitness module 318 determines the effectiveness of a selected set of variables and a selected set of methods for processing those variables in determining an optimized supply plan. A population of candidates is assembled and tested against a fitness function. Then the population of possible solutions (chromosomes) is generated. A function assigns a degree of fitness to each chromosome in every generation in order to use the best individual during the evolutionary process. In accordance to the objective, the fitness function evaluates the individuals. Each chromosome is evaluated using a fitness function and a fitness value is assigned. Then, three different operators (selection, crossover, and mutation) are applied to update the population. A generation refers to an iteration of these three operators. The selection operation is the initial genetic operation that is responsible for the selection of the fittest chromosome for further genetic operations. This is done by offering ranks based on the calculated fitness to each of the prevailing chromosome. On the basis of this ranking, best chromosomes are selected for further proceedings), and as illustrated in FIG. 3 above].
Riepshoff discloses all elements per claimed invention as explained above. Riepshoff does not explicitly disclose replacing at least a part of the supply plans with the first candidate supply plan. However, Allen discloses replacing at least a part of the supply plans with the first candidate supply plan [see at least ¶0124 (e.g., At step 950, the best solution so far (Result B) is replaced with the current potential solution (Result C). That is, the product order quantities and other values for Result B are updated or replaced with the varied order quantities and other values determined in steps 920 and 930), and as illustrated in FIG. 9 above].
PNG
media_image2.png
746
302
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to implement the teachings of Allen to provide determination of optimal or near-optimal quantities of goods or products [see Allen: abstract].
As per claim 2, Riepshoff discloses wherein the goods resources information of a goods demand includes at least one of a production capacity or available materials information of a factory with respect to a corresponding good [see at least ¶0028 (e.g., Operational availability is specified as of the at least one of the following items for an operating time at a geographic location to facilitate mission tasks including manufacturing, maintenance, repair, or overhaul activity: one or more workers, a facility, infrastructure, production of an asset, test equipment, a tool, one or more assets, and a resource)].
As per claim 3, Riepshoff discloses wherein the creating the plurality of candidate supply plans comprises: determining a first goods demand with a highest priority based on the priorities of the multiple goods demands [see at least ¶0055 (e.g., Method 900 begins with action 902. Action 902 receives input about available demands with priority level for each of the received demand. A demand can be an operational demand such as a mission demand, supply demand, maintenance demand, event exception demand, or user defined demand. Action 904 subdivides the demands into jobs. In action 906 an initial jobs assessment and demand priority is performed based on the assignment performed by genetic algorithm 908. The genetic algorithm 908 is used to optimize the supply plans based on ever changing set of operational demands from in theater and the priority of those demands to the assigned depots), and as shown in FIG. 9 below];
PNG
media_image3.png
612
486
media_image3.png
Greyscale
discarding a supply plan for a second goods demand based on a determination that, from analysis of the goods resources information, there is a shortage of goods resources to meet the first goods demand; and creating a candidate supply plan for the first goods demand using goods resources secured from the discarded supply plan [see the rejection of claim 1 above. In light of the preceding examination, claim 3 is hereby rejected on grounds substantially similar to those articulated in the rejection of claim 1. As detailed in the prior rejection, the rationale and basis for rejecting claim 1 are applicable to claim 3. For a comprehensive understanding of the rejection grounds, reference is made to the detailed explanation provided in the rejection of claim 1, which is incorporated herein by reference].
As per claim 4, Riepshoff discloses wherein the determining the first goods demand comprises: classifying the multiple goods demands into a plurality of groups based on categories of priorities [see at least ¶0053 (e.g., FIGS. 9-12 that correspond to methods 900-1200. The figures use the Unified Modeling Language (UML), which is the industry-standard language to specify, visualize, construct, and document the object-oriented artifacts of software systems. In the figures, a hollow arrow between classes is used to indicate that a child class below a parent class inherits attributes and methods from the parent class. In addition, a solid-filled diamond is used to indicate that an object of the class that is depicted above an object of another classes is composed of the lower depicted object. Composition defines the attributes of an instance of a class as containing an instance of one or more existing instances of other classes in which the composing object does not inherit from the object(s) it is composed of)]; assigning weights to the plurality of groups based on priorities of the plurality of groups [see at least ¶0055 (e.g., Action 904 subdivides the demands into jobs. In action 906 an initial jobs assessment and demand priority is performed based on the assignment performed by genetic algorithm 908. The genetic algorithm 908 is used to optimize the supply plans based on ever changing set of operational demands from in theater and the priority of those demands to the assigned depots. The genetic algorithm 908 assigns or ranks the demands that maximize operational availability. The assignment from genetic algorithm 908 is then subjected to efficient constructive heuristics 910)]; selecting a first group from among the plurality of groups based on the assigned weights; and selecting the first goods demand from goods demands belonging to the first group [see the rejection of claim 1 above. In light of the preceding examination, claim 4 is hereby rejected on grounds substantially similar to those articulated in the rejection of claim 1. As detailed in the prior rejection, the rationale and basis for rejecting claim 1 are applicable to claim 4. For a comprehensive understanding of the rejection grounds, reference is made to the detailed explanation provided in the rejection of claim 1, which is incorporated herein by reference].
As per claim 5, Riepshoff discloses wherein the goods resources information includes a goods production capacity of a factory, and the discarding comprises, based on a determination that a goods production capacity of a first factory is insufficient for the first goods demand, discarding the supply plan for the second goods demand for a second factory [see the rejection of claim 1 above. In light of the preceding examination, claim 5 is hereby rejected on grounds substantially similar to those articulated in the rejection of claim 1. As detailed in the prior rejection, the rationale and basis for rejecting claim 1 are applicable to claim 5. For a comprehensive understanding of the rejection grounds, reference is made to the detailed explanation provided in the rejection of claim 1, which is incorporated herein by reference].
As per claim 6, Riepshoff discloses wherein the goods resources information includes a goods production capacity of a factory, and the discarding comprises, based on a determination that there is a shortage of available materials in a first factory to meet the first goods demand, discarding the supply plan for the second goods demand for a second factory [see the rejection of claim 1 above. In light of the preceding examination, claim 6 is hereby rejected on grounds substantially similar to those articulated in the rejection of claim 1. As detailed in the prior rejection, the rationale and basis for rejecting claim 1 are applicable to claim 6. For a comprehensive understanding of the rejection grounds, reference is made to the detailed explanation provided in the rejection of claim 1, which is incorporated herein by reference].
As per claim 7, Riepshoff discloses wherein the creating the candidate supply plan for the first goods demand comprises: not altering goods resources already assigned to the multiple goods demands [see at least ¶0032 (e.g., objectives may include, but are not limited to, maximizing demand satisfaction, minimizing inventory, maximization of mission success, minimization of cost, maximizing use of preferred alternatives, maximization of operational availability, minimization of logistic footprint, production center schedule problem, and an asset routing problem)].
As per claims 8 and 14, Riepshoff discloses wherein the evaluation of the plurality of candidate supply plans is based on return-to-forecast (RTF) fulfillment rates calculated for the plurality of candidate supply plans [as illustrated in FIG. 3 (e.g., ¶0016 supply plan evaluation and optimization system of FIG. 2), and presented below].
PNG
media_image4.png
353
490
media_image4.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image5.png
349
495
media_image5.png
Greyscale
As per claim 9, Riepshoff discloses wherein the replacing comprises calculating scores for the supply plans and the first candidate supply plan and, based on the score for the first candidate supply plan being higher than scores for the at least a part of the supply plans, replacing the at least a part of the supply plans with the first candidate supply plan [see at least ¶0039 (e.g., offering ranks based on the calculated fitness to each of the prevailing chromosome)].
As per claim 10, Riepshoff discloses wherein the replacing comprises replacing the at least a part of the supply plans with the first candidate supply plan only if the first candidate supply plan has been created by a first local search technique [see the rejection of claim 1 above. In light of the preceding examination, claim 10 is hereby rejected on grounds substantially similar to those articulated in the rejection of claim 1. As detailed in the prior rejection, the rationale and basis for rejecting claim 1 are applicable to claim 10. For a comprehensive understanding of the rejection grounds, reference is made to the detailed explanation provided in the rejection of claim 1, which is incorporated herein by reference].
As per claim 11, Riepshoff discloses repeatedly performing the creating the plurality of candidate supply plans, the selecting the first candidate supply plan, and the replacing the at least a part of the supply plans with the first candidate supply plan, until a preset condition is met [see the rejection of claim 1 above. In light of the preceding examination, claim 11 is hereby rejected on grounds substantially similar to those articulated in the rejection of claim 1. As detailed in the prior rejection, the rationale and basis for rejecting claim 1 are applicable to claim 11. For a comprehensive understanding of the rejection grounds, reference is made to the detailed explanation provided in the rejection of claim 1, which is incorporated herein by reference].
As per claim 12, Riepshoff discloses wherein the preset condition is whether an amount of time elapsed since the creating the plurality of candidate supply plans exceeds a reference value [see the rejection of claim 1 above. In light of the preceding examination, claim 12 is hereby rejected on grounds substantially similar to those articulated in the rejection of claim 1. As detailed in the prior rejection, the rationale and basis for rejecting claim 1 are applicable to claim 12. For a comprehensive understanding of the rejection grounds, reference is made to the detailed explanation provided in the rejection of claim 1, which is incorporated herein by reference].
As per claim 13, Riepshoff discloses wherein the preset condition is whether a number of iterations of the creating the plurality of candidate supply plans, the selecting the first candidate supply plan, and the replacing the at least a part of the supply plans with the first candidate supply plan exceeds a reference count [see the rejection of claim 1 above. In light of the preceding examination, claim 13 is hereby rejected on grounds substantially similar to those articulated in the rejection of claim 1. As detailed in the prior rejection, the rationale and basis for rejecting claim 1 are applicable to claim 13. For a comprehensive understanding of the rejection grounds, reference is made to the detailed explanation provided in the rejection of claim 1, which is incorporated herein by reference].
10. Claim 15-20, which are parallel to claims 1-14 in terms of scope, limitations, and share similar characteristics, as discussed and examined above. Consequently, they are rejected based on the same logical and underlying reasoning, and justification that apply to claims 1-14. The similarity between these claims necessitates the same grounds for rejection, as explained in detail above [note the discussion of claims 1-14].
Conclusion
11. The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. The PTO-1449 forms have been reviewed and considered.
US 7,058,587, Horne.: discloses supply of critical components and manufacturing capacity by optimizing critical material planning decisions and dynamically allocating constrained materials using advanced substitution logic that considers alternate suppliers and supports product life cycle from design through end-of-life.
US 2005/0004826, Chen: discloses method of updating a supply plan used to process customer requests in an available-to-promise (ATP) system.
US 2002/0161674, Scheer: discloses method for fulfilling an order in a supply chain.
US 2011/0246249, ABRAHAM: discloses system which can allow a user to make changes to the planning data, generate a new plan.
US 20180260253, NANDA: discloses an apparatus to identify a plurality of tasks, identify a plurality of resources configured to execute the tasks, and decompose the plurality of tasks into multiple groups of tasks based on a plurality of rules applicable to the multiple groups of tasks.
12. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Garcia Ade whose telephone number is (571)272-5586. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday - Friday.
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, Florian Zeender can be reached on 517-272-6790. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
13. Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/Garcia Ade/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3627
/GA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3627
GARCIA ADE
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 3687