DETAILED ACTION
This action is in reply to the submission filed on 1/20/2026.
Status of Claims
Applicant’s amendments to claims 1, 9, 17 and 20 are acknowledged.
Claims 1-20 are currently pending and have been examined.
Response to Remarks
Applicant's remarks filed 1/20/2026 have been fully considered and have been found not persuasive in full. The addition of the limitations concerning fulfillment of physical object requests is seen as MPEP 2106.05(h), generally linking the use of the exception to a field of use – product fulfillment. That, in combination with applying the exception to general purpose computing technology, is not significantly more nor a practical application of the abstract idea.
Regarding page 11 of remarks, taking away the “simultaneous” factor/ embodiment of computing technology, and the affecting a real-life transfer of goods/linking the exception to a field of use, the claims are directed to a fulfillment request for products using a selected location, and simulating data to identify a possible different location for a future fulfillment/request of products. The scope of this limitation is considered to include at least a mental process of a judgment to identify a location, and fundamental economic activity of inventory management. Further, data simulation may include certain mathematical processes, such as formulae for data modeling.
Additional art is cited to teach the limitations concerning picking the most optimal of optimal candidate locations.
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.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1: the claims fall under statutory categories of processes and/or machines.
Step 2A Prong 1: the claims recite: execute a process including: receive a request for a quantity of an item for a target location, identify locations where the quantity is at based on records, select a location via an algorithm on attributes of the locations, identify other locations without enough quantity to satisfy target amount, generate simulated data by adjusting quantity levels at the other locations to satisfy quantity request, determine one or more optimal locations having requested and simulated adjusted quantity of the object based on adjusted quantities, record the optimal location and selected location, identify a most optimal location from the optimal locations, and generate a future fulfillment path with the most optimal location. These limitations, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers mathematics, mental processes, and certain methods of organizing human activity, specifically fundamental economic behavior, including inventory management.
Step 2A Prong 2: Said judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the claims as a whole, looking at the additional elements: fulfill the request for the quantity of the physical object using the selected location, memory, processor, a computing system, website page, storage device, background process, and computer-readable storage medium individually and in combination, merely use a computer (see MPEP 2106.05f.), as well as generally linking the idea to a field of use. The claims use these machines in their ordinary capacity for the purpose of applying the abstract idea(s). Therefore, these limitations are invoking computers or other machinery merely as a tool to perform an existing process, such that it amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception. Then, 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, and the claim is directed to an abstract idea.
Step 2B: Said claims recite additional elements as listed above, which are not sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because, as mentioned in Step 2A Prong 2, they use computers or other machinery to perform an abstract idea in such a way that amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using computers or other machinery. Mere instructions to apply an exception using computers or other machinery cannot provide an inventive concept. Therefore, the claim is not patent eligible.
Claim 2 recites a user interface and user input of a general-purpose computer. Claim 3 recites generally claimed multicore processor performance. Claim 4 recites an additional input for the broadly claimed algorithm. Claim 5 recites further mental and mathematical processes/ideas. Claim 6 recites a delivery and replenishment command. This is seen as part of the abstract idea of inventory management. Claim 7 recites database operations on table data. This is seen as part of mental processes. Claim 8 recites executing key performance indicators (KPIs) on runtime data from locations to generate data. This is seen as quantifiable measures of progress toward a desired result, as well as data analysis including a mental process.
For these reasons the claims are not subject matter eligible.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
The factual inquiries set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied 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 nonobviousness.
Claims 1-2, 4-10, 12-18 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wu (US 2012/0054076) in view of Harsha (US 2018/0075401,) and in further view of Wintz (US 2021/0150461).
Claims 1, 9 and 17. Wu teaches a computing system comprising:
a memory configured to store distribution attributes of geographic locations; and (Paragraph 5 of Wu showing memory devices that include receiving information relating to inventory locations and inventory amounts)
a processor configured to (para. 5 of Wu showing processor)
execute a process, wherein the execution of the process comprises receiving a request for a quantity of a physical object for a target geographic location, (para. 16 of Wu showing ordering goods; para. 18 showing order with quantities)
identify a plurality of different geographic locations where the quantity of the physical object is currently located based on data records stored within a storage device; (para. 14 of Wu showing multiple suppliers’ locations)
select a location from among the plurality of different geographic locations, (para. 19 showing primary supplier as chosen location in comparison to secondary locations, using optimization system; para. 20 also showing identification of locations using historical data analysis)
wherein, during execution of the process, the processor is configured to:
identify other geographic locations which do not have enough quantity of the physical object to satisfy the quantity for the target location from the storage device; (para. 3 showing determining locations with shortages; para. 21 showing identification of inventory to move to other locations with shortages)
generate simulated data by adjusting quantity values of the physical object at the other geographic locations in the storage device to satisfy the request, and (para. 143 showing lateral shipments to satisfy shortage problems; para. 17 showing fulfillment plan generation)
determine one or more optimal geographic locations from among the plurality of different geographic locations and the other geographic locations having the requested quantity of the physical object based on the simulated adjusted quantity values of the physical object in the storage device, (para. 22 showing optimal shipments to downstream location; para. 68 showing determination of location’s suitability for fulfilling an order)
store a record that comprises the optimal geographic location and the selected geographic location in the storage device; (para. 114 showing updating plan with location information; paragraphs 20 and 21 showing updating data to include new locations’ inventory information; para. 142 showing storing information in database)
generate a future fulfillment path with the most optimal geographic location. (para. 17 showing fulfillment plan generation)
Wu does not teach using a website, or using an algorithm to determine a location. It teaches using algorithms to identify the inventory movements’ details, as seen in para. 27 of Wu.
Harsha teaches using an algorithm to select the best location to source orders from via execution of a predefined algorithm on attributes of the different geographic locations. (Harsha para. 21 showing selection of location for fulfillment based on factors; para. 25 showing advanced analytics for selection of location.)
Wu does not, but Harsha teaches: fulfill the request for the quantity of the physical object using the selected location. (Para. 17 showing fulfillment of orders using a specific location.)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the system of inventory sourcing optimization in Wu, with the known technique of rule-based decision making in Harsha, because applying the known technique would have yielded predictable results and resulted in an improved system by allowing for minimization of costs. (See para. 21 of Harsha showing cost minimizing for order fulfillment.)
Wu does not, but Wintz teaches: identify a most optimal geographic location from the one or more optimal geographic locations, and (para. 82 showing optimal candidate locations for products, with ranking locations including best optimal candidate)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the system of inventory sourcing optimization in Wu, with the known technique of ranked choice candidates in Wintz, because applying the known technique would have yielded predictable results and resulted in an improved system by allowing for more granularity in data analysis. See para. 82 of Wintz.
Wintz teaches executing the process via a page of a website using a web browser as a front-end component for clients to access the system of ordering goods. (para. 110 showing front end web browser for system)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the system of inventory sourcing optimization in Wu, with the known technique of web-based systems in Wintz because applying the known technique would have yielded predictable results and resulted in an improved system by allowing for more options in customer ordering (See para. 110 of Wintz showing different options for ordering/product access.)
Wu does not teach background processes, but Wintz teaches, execute a background process simultaneously with execution of the process. (para. 113 showing parallel processing)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the system of inventory sourcing optimization in Wu, with the known technique of parallel processing in Wintz, because applying the known technique would have yielded predictable results and resulted in an improved system by allowing for a benefits including enhanced abilities for difficult problem solving. (See para. 114 of Wintz.)
Claim 17 additionally: a computer-readable storage medium comprising instructions, and a computer. (See claim 1 of Wu showing computer-readable mediums and processor)
Claims 2, 10 and 18. Said modified Wu teaches the computing system of claim 1. Wu teaches user inputs at para. 18. Wu does not teach back ground processes or web-based systems. Harsha teaches wherein the processor is configured to start execution of the background process in response to a user inputting commands into a user interface (paras. 36 and 63 showing parallel system operation on a computer) of the page of the website. (Paragraphs 81 and 82 showing web server-based system and user interface for operations of system.)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the system of inventory sourcing optimization in Wu, with the known technique of web-based systems in Harsha because applying the known technique would have yielded predictable results and resulted in an improved system by allowing for flexible computerized embodiments. (Paragraph 82 of Harsha showing said embodiments.)
Claims 4, 12 and 20. Said modified Wu teaches the computing system of claim 1. Wu does not teach the following, but Harsha does: wherein the processor is configured to execute the predefined algorithm based on distribution attributes of the optimal geographic location and distribution attributes of the selected geographic location to generate a value for the optimal geographic location and to generate a value for the selected geographic location. (Harsha paragraphs 65-67 showing algorithmic analysis using location attributes for selection of location-based fulfillment; para. 74 showing at least one value-based comparison of locations.)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the system of inventory sourcing optimization in Wu, with the known technique of rule-based decision making in Harsha, because applying the known technique would have yielded predictable results and resulted in an improved system by allowing for minimization of costs. (See para. 21 of Harsha showing cost minimizing for order fulfillment.)
Claims 5 and 13. Said modified Wu teaches the computing system of claim 4. Wu does not teach using an algorithm for choosing the best location. Harsha teaches wherein the processor is configured to determine that the value for the optimal geographic location is greater than the value for the selected geographic location, and in response to the determination, store the record that comprises the optimal geographic location and the selected geographic location in the storage device. (para. 74 showing highest profit value generated by algorithmic analysis using location qualities, as basis for selection of location-based fulfillment.)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the system of inventory sourcing optimization in Wu, with the known technique of rule-based decision making in Harsha, because applying the known technique would have yielded predictable results and resulted in an improved system by allowing for minimization of costs. (See para. 21 of Harsha showing cost minimizing for order fulfillment.)
Claims 6 and 14. Said modified Wu teaches the computing system of claim 1, wherein the processor is configured to trigger a delivery of the physical object from the selected geographic location to the target location, and trigger a replenishment of the physical object at the optimal geographic location instead of the selected geographic location. (Wu paragraph 152 showing delivery of order from primary source, and replenishment of suggested source.)
Claims 7 and 15. Said modified Wu teaches the computing system of claim 1, wherein the processor is configured to execute database operations on table data associated with the physical object in the storage device to adjust the quantity values of the physical object at the other geographic locations in the storage device, prior to determination of the optimal geographic location. (para. 142 of Wu showing analytically-planned inventory at each location and forecasting inventory for purposes of choosing optimal location for fulfillment)
Claims 8 and 16. Said modified Wu teaches the computing system of claim 1. Wu teaches wherein the processor is further configured to execute key performance indicators (KPIs) on runtime data from the geographic locations to generate the distribution attributes of the geographic locations. (Wu para. 24 showing use of KPUs for generating location attribute for inventory fulfillment planning)
Claims 3, 11 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wu in view of Harsha, Wintz, and in further view of Devarakonda (US 2020/0210947).
Claims 3, 11 and 19. Said modified Wu teaches the computing system of claim 1. It does not teach multicore processing. Devarakonda teaches wherein the processor is a multicore processor, and the processor is configured to execute the process of the website via a first core of the multicore processor and execute the background process via a second core of the multicore processor. (para. 209 showing multicore processing for executing instructions contemporaneously)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the system of inventory sourcing optimization in Wu, with the known technique of multicore processing in Devarakonda, because applying the known technique would have yielded predictable results and resulted in an improved system by allowing for parallel processing. (See para. 209 of Devarakonda.)
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 mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Aaron Tutor, whose telephone number is 571-272-3662. The examiner can normally be reached Monday through Friday, 9 AM to 5 PM.
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 number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-5266.
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.
/AARON TUTOR/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3627
Prosecution Insights