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 .
Response to Amendment
Applicant’s “Response to Amendment and Reconsideration” filed on 01/23/2026 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 04/10/2026 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; 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 integrate the abstract idea into a practical application.
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)), 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) 1-17 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 01/23/2026 have been fully considered but they are moot in view of the new grounds of rejection necessitated by amendments.
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 8-9. Examiner respectfully disagrees. Optimizing safety stock for a network of nodes using models with Inventory techniques, see specification Publication para. 59, falls under the grouping of “Certain Methods of organizing Human Activities” and “Mathematical concepts”; and thus, are concepted considered commercial and fundamental economic known and practice in the retail and supply chain industry. Further, it also falls under grouping “Mathematical concepts”, specifically because SO and GSM are known to be mathematical models. Therefore, using demand as input, generating output for each node (i.e.; safety stock) recites abstracted idea.
Applicant argues Step 2A Prong 2, see Remarks pages 9-10. Examiner respectfully disagrees. Reducing computational latency by using two techniques for using less computational latency is not considered an improvement of how the computer latency functions and works, and neither an improvement of the techniques; instead, it is considered merely using two techniques to determine outputs using less computational latency. Therefore, the claimed invention does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application.
For at least those reasons, the rejection under 35 USC 101 has been maintained, see complete rejection above.
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 extension fee 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 date of this final action.
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
Prosecution Insights