DETAILED ACTION
1. This Final Office Action is in response to Applicant’s Amendments filed 7/15/2026. Claims 1, 3-11, and 13-20 are currently pending. The earliest effective filing date of the present application is 7/31/2023.
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, 3-11, and 13-20 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 1 and 3-10 are machines (systems or devices) and claims 11 and 13-20 are processes (methods).
Step 2A – Prong 1: was there a Judicial Exception Recited
Claim 1 (similarly claims 11) recites the following abstract concepts that are found to include “abstract idea”:
1. An inventory optimization device, comprising:
a memory, storing a plurality of modules; and
a processor, coupled to the memory, an enterprise database, and an electronic device, and executing the plurality of modules,
wherein the plurality of modules execute genetic programming according to business data from the enterprise database to transform the business data into tree data (evaluation) to generate an objective function (judgment), adjust a function weight associated with the objective function according to an adjustment instruction from the electronic device to provide the adjusted function weight in parameter data, and recalculate the objective function according to the parameter data to generate the fitness function (evaluate) (math calculations), and execute a genetic algorithm according to the fitness function to generate a recommendation result, so that the electronic device manages the enterprise database according to the recommendation result (opinion)
wherein the plurality of modules comprise a business module and an algorithm module,
wherein the business module performs a pre-processing operation on the business data to generate operation data,
wherein the algorithm module executes the genetic programming according to algorithm data associated with the genetic programming in the operation data to generate the objective function,
wherein the plurality of modules perform a prediction operation according to input parameter data to generate an initial population having data less than the input parameter data.
Claim 1 (similarly claim 11) is directed to a series of steps for optimizing inventory, which is a commercial/legal interaction (sales activity) and thus grouped as a certain method of organizing human interactions, mathematical concepts (see notation above), and/or a mental process (see above notations). 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 the enterprise database, memory, business module, algorithm modules, modules, processor, electronic device, and modules 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 [0018] discussing the multiple types of generic computers that could be used for the additional elements. 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 the enterprise database, business module, algorithm modules, modules, memory, processor, electronic device, and modules 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 and 11 are not patent eligible.
Dependent claims 3-9 and 13-20 fail to provide additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. Dependent claims’ additional elements not previously addressed include business module, algorithm module, first algorithm database, second algorithm database, prediction module, parameter module, fitness function module, and user interface. However, considered separately or in ordered combination these addition elements amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Therefore, claims 3-10 and 13-20 are rejected for the same reasons as stated in the rejection from independent claim from which they depend.
Allowable Subject Matter
6. The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
The reason for allowable subject matter of claims 1, 3-11, and 13-20 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 (1/16/2026), Applicant argues:
PNG
media_image1.png
188
663
media_image1.png
Greyscale
The examiner agrees that the amendment now requires the preprocessing to be performed by a genetic programming and that neither Grichnik 2007/0203810 nor To 8,499,001 this. 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
7. Applicant's arguments filed 7/15/2026 as to §101 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that the claim is not merely a mental process or abstract mathematical concept. Examiner agrees. However, the question for Prong I is whether the claim recites a judicial exception. Here, it does, see above analysis.
Applicant argues that the claims cannot practically be performed in the human mind. Examiner disagrees. Humans can intake data, organize the data in to depicted structure with pen and paper (tree structure), and manage or give opinions based on that data.
Applicant argues the claims are directed to a practical application through a improvement in computer functioning and algorithmic efficiency. Examiner disagrees. The computer itself is not improved but the abstract idea is. Thus, not a technical improvement. Having access to a database/memory and reducing data inputs based on prior implementations is not improving the processor but the process/abstract idea.
Applicant argues under Step 2B and Berkheimer that the additional elements are not well-understood, routine, and conventional activity. Examiner disagrees, in that a Berkheimer analysis is required when additional elements are identified as extra-solution activity. Here, the additional elements were identified as merely applying the abstract idea on a generic computer.
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