DETAILED ACTION
1. This Final Office Action is in response to Applicant’s Amendments filed 10/14/2025. Claims 1-3 and 6-10 are currently pending. Claims 4 and 5 were cancelled. The earliest effective filing date of the present application is 3/20/2024.
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 1-10 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 1-9 are processes (methods), and claim 10 is machines (systems or devices).
Step 2A – Prong 1: was there a Judicial Exception Recited
Claim 1 (similarly claim 10) recites the following bolded abstract concepts that are found to include “abstract idea”:
1. An inventory target-based product restock method, comprising:
obtain data access permission for products from a store and retrieve inventory data of the products, the inventory data comprising inventory, an on-hand quantity, and an in-transit quantity, and an in-transit quantity at current time, set the shipping logistics from a pre-storage warehouse to the warehouse and a corresponding logistics lead time;
set a daily average sales and safety days of the products,
multiply the safety days by the daily average sales to obtain a safety inventory of the products;
estimate intervals days as a time between two consecutive deliveries using a specific logistics service;
set the interval days of the products such that a sum of the interval days and safety days multiplied by the daily average sales equals the target inventory, wherein the interval days is used to adjust the frequency of product restocking, and the target inventory is a constant greater than the safety inventory;
calculate a temporary restock day for the product to be restocked from the pre-storage warehouse to the warehouse based on the product's inventory, the safety inventory, the daily average sales, and the logistics lead time, wherein the temporary restock day refers to the restock time when the product arrives at the warehouse on a day when the inventory decreases to the safety inventory by the daily average sales of the product;
calculate a temporary restock quantity based on the target inventory, the temporary restock day, the daily average sales, and the logistics lead time of the product, wherein the temporary restock quantity is the quantity of product restocked on the temporary restock day so that on the day when the product restocked on the temporary restock day arrive at warehouse, the on-hand quantity equals the target inventory;
determine the suggested restock day based on the temporary restock quantity, then determine the suggested restock quantity based on the suggested restock day and
generate a restock recommendation based on the suggested restock day and suggested restock quantity.
Claim 1 (similarly claim 10) is directed to a series of steps for performing actions in an inventory management control process, which is commercial/legal interaction (sales activity) and thus grouped as a certain method of organizing human interactions. 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 restock recommendation module of an e-commerce ERP system or an e-commerce platform system, which is 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 pg. 8 discussing system implemented on a generic computer. 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 restock recommendation module of an e-commerce ERP system or an e-commerce platform system, which 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 10 are not patent eligible.
Dependent claims 2-3 and 6-9 fail to provide additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. Therefore, claims 2-3 and 6-9 are rejected for the same reasons as stated in the rejection from independent claim from which they depend.
Allowable Subject Matter
5. The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
The reason for allowable subject matter of claims 1-3 and 6-10 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. The nearest art, Chaubard 2023/0306451 and Borjian 11,727,348, does not teach the amended limitations, the examiner agrees. Neither Chaubard nor Borjian teach a system the specific caculation to project restocking recommendations. 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
6. Applicant’s arguments, see Remarks filed , filed 10/14/2025, with respect to claim objections and 112(b) rejections have been fully considered and are persuasive. The claim objections and 112(b) rejections have been withdrawn.
7. Applicant's arguments as to U.S.C. §101 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.1
Applicant argues the claims recite a technical improvement. Examiner disagrees. Applicant’s argument that the claims amount to be “significantly more” under Step 2A Prong 2 and/or Step 2B analysis is not persuasive because an improvement (data) of conventional computer technologies is not a technical solution to a technical problem. Instead, the argued improvement represent improvements to the abstract idea of the certain methods of organizing human activity as discussed above. In contrast, the 2019 PEG cite to “a modification of Internet hyperlink protocol to dynamically produce a dual-source hybrid web page” (i.e., the invention of DDR Holdings) to demonstrate an “improvement in the function of a computer or an improvement to other technology or technical field.” That is, the improvements achieved by the claimed invention appear to be directed towards improvements to business practices (i.e., to save time and effort of deliver, e.g., see [pg. 10] of the Remarks) and/or to commerce (i.e., profitability, e.g., see [pg. 10] of the Remarks) rather than technical/technological improvements to those disclosed in, for example, DDR Holdings and Examples 37-42.
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@ustpo.gov
1 Examiner notes that Applicant’s arguments as to the mathematical nature of the abstract idea has been dropped from the rejection as it has been rendered moot by Applicant’s amendments.