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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 07/27/2026 has been entered.
Response to Amendment
Applicant’s “Response to Amendment and Reconsideration” filed on 07/27/2026 has been considered.
Applicant’s response by virtue of amendment to claim(s) 1-20 have NOT overcome the Examiner’s rejection under 35 USC § 101.
Claim(s) 1 and 12 are amended.
Claim(s) 1-20 are pending in this application and an action on the merits follows.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 07/27/2026 is being considered by the examiner.
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.
Claim(s) 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 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 and thus do not satisfy the criteria for subject matter eligibility.
Step 1
Claim(s) 1 and 12 fall(s) in two of the four statutory categories of invention.
Step 2A Prong One
The limitations of claims 1 and 12:
A method comprising:
generating, based on demand data, using a first optimization technique, first output that comprises a first plurality of output values, each output value corresponding to a node in a multi-echelon system;
while using the first optimization technique, generating a plurality of variable values, each variable value corresponding to a different node in a set of nodes in the multi-echelon system, wherein the plurality of variable values includes (a) a first variable value that corresponds to a first node in the set of nodes and (b) a second variable value that corresponds to a second node in the set of nodes;
generating, based on the demand data and the plurality of variable values, using a second optimization technique that is different than the first optimization technique, second output that comprises a second plurality of output values, each output value corresponding to a different node in the set of nodes in the multi-echelon system, wherein the second plurality of output values includes (i) a first output value that corresponds to the first node in the set of nodes and (ii) a second output value that corresponds to the second node in the set of nodes;
claim 1 wherein
Claim(s) 1 and 12 disclose(s) an abstract idea of inventory optimization, which falls under the “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activities”. More specifically, the claims limitations A-D listed above have concepts related to: generation of data (A-C) using demand and variables on techniques see specification publication par. 59, 69, 74; thus, are considered commercial and fundamental economic principle and practice known in the retail and supply chain industry.
Additionally, the identified abstracted idea also falls under the grouping of “Mathematical concepts”. Using technical models to generated output and variables are considered mathematical concepts, see specification publication par. 59, 69, 74.
Claims 1-12 recite an abstract idea.
Step 2A Prong Two
The identified additional elements are:
Claim 1 “one or more computing devices”,
Claim 12 “One or more non-transitory storage media storing instructions which, when executed by one or more computing devices, cause:”;
The claimed additional elements that perform limitation A-C are claimed at a high level of generality and are considered data generation without the recitation of an improvement, and thus are considered generality linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment and/or field of use (i.e. supply chain).
When view in combination, the additional elements merely describe how to generally “apply” the abstract idea in a generic or general-purpose computer, and generality links the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use, and thus do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application, and claim(s) 1 and 12 are directed to the judicial exception.
Claims 1-20 are directed to an abstract idea.
Step 2B
Claim 1-20 are not including additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed with respect to Step 2A Prong Two, to generally “apply” the abstract idea in a generic or general-purpose computer, and generally links the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use, and thus do not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
In addition, the courts have found computer functions claimed at high level of generality as not sufficient to show an improvement in computer-functionality (see MPEP 2106.05(a)), and well‐understood, routine, and conventional functions (see MPEP 2106.05(d) - ii. Performing repetitive calculations, Flook, 437 U.S. at 594, 198 USPQ2d at 199 (recomputing or readjusting alarm limit values); Bancorp Services v. Sun Life, 687 F.3d 1266, 1278, 103 USPQ2d 1425, 1433 (Fed. Cir. 2012) ("The computer required by some of Bancorp’s claims is employed only for its most basic function, the performance of repetitive calculations, and as such does not impose meaningful limits on the scope of those claims."); i. Receiving or transmitting data over a network, e.g., using the Internet to gather data, Symantec, 838 F.3d at 1321, 120 USPQ2d at 1362), 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).
Even when viewed as a whole, nothing in the claims adds significantly more to the abstract idea.
Claims 1-20 are not patent eligible.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-20 are allowed over prior art.
With respect to the prior arts of record, the Examiner substantially agrees with applicant’s arguments, specifically first paragraph in the Remarks filed on 01/23/2026.
Therefore, claim(s) 1-20 are allowable over the prior art, however, the rejection under 35 USC 101 should be overcome in order to have the current application allowable.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed on 07/16/2026 have been fully considered but they are moot.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to U.S.C 103 rejection have been considered and are persuasive.
USC 101 Rejection
Applicant’s arguments made with respect to the rejection set forth under 35 USC 101 have been fully considered but are not persuasive.
Applicant argues Step 2A prong 1, see Remarks pages 7-8. Examiner respectfully disagrees. Applicant argues the Examiner did not response to the abstract idea arguments in the Advisory Action. Generating output values using different optimization technique (Mathematical formulas being used, see specification 4-5, 16-19, 26-30, 45, 48-50, 55-65) for the same set of nodes in a multi-echelon is considered abstract idea that falls into the grouping of “Certain Methods of organizing Human Activities” and “Mathematical concepts”. MPEP clearly state that mathematical concepts and formulas are considered abstract idea, see 2160.04(a)(2)(I), further, and inventory related decisions are considered commercial activities and practice and Fundamental Economic practice concepts known in the supply chain industry, see specification 2, 4-5, 16-19, 26-30, 45, 48-50, 55-65.
Applicant argues Step 2A Prong 2, see Remarks pages 9-10 and the Advisory Action arguments, see Remarks page 15-17. Examiner respectfully disagrees. In Enfish, the improvement was a self-referential database table that improved how a computer stored and retrieved data; this is not the case in the current application. The current application uses an optimization technique to generate an output and variable values that corresponds to set of nodes; that are provide to a second optimization technique that is different from the first optimization technique to output values that corresponds to set of nodes; input data, output data are not considered an improvement of computer technology, the computer itself, or a computer functionality like the one found in Enfish; further, in view of the specification, the claim still not improving a computer functionality as argued by applicant, the current application uses GSM technique as the first optimization technique and SO as the second optimization technique, where GSM technique do not search the entire search space as the SO, and therefore is less computational expensive than SO technique, see para. 4-5, 16-17 of the specification. When the GSM technique is used as an initial seed for SO technique such as that the variables derived from GSM technique such as safety stock, inventory level, service level, inventory costs are established and logged and then used on SO technique therefore, reducing search space area use to refine the policy. When the amount of data processed is reduced, the computer latency needed also will be reduced, and therefore, this is not an improvement of computer functionality, and neither similar to Enfish, McRO, Core Wireless computer functionalities that was considered patentable, and therefore, does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Further, the GSM optimization technique is an existent technique and SO technique is existent technique as well, see specification paragraph 4-18.
Examiner is not sure but it appears applicant representative is also arguing the step 2 B, see page 11 first paragraph. Examiner respectfully disagrees. Examiner does not see any unconventional arrangement in the claimed invention. Further, ii. Performing repetitive calculations, Flook, 437 U.S. at 594, 198 USPQ2d at 199 (recomputing or readjusting alarm limit values); Bancorp Services v. Sun Life, 687 F.3d 1266, 1278, 103 USPQ2d 1425, 1433 (Fed. Cir. 2012) ("The computer required by some of Bancorp’s claims is employed only for its most basic function, the performance of repetitive calculations, and as such does not impose meaningful limits on the scope of those claims."); i. Receiving or transmitting data over a network, e.g., using the Internet to gather data, Symantec, 838 F.3d at 1321, 120 USPQ2d at 1362. Further, the claimed language also is not considered an improvement of the computer functioning as pointed out in the paragraph above of the arguments related to Step 2A prong 2.
For at least those reasons, the rejection under 35 USC 101 has been maintained, see complete rejection above.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to VANESSA DELIGI whose telephone number is (571)272-0503. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday 07:30AM-5PM.
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 (Ryan) Zeender can be reached on (571) 272-6790. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from Patent Center. Status information for published applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Patent Center to authorized users only. Should you have questions about access to the USPTO patent electronic filing system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free).
/VANESSA DELIGI/Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3627
/FLORIAN M ZEENDER/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3627
Prosecution Insights