DETAILED ACTION
This action is in reply to the submission filed on 4/27/2026.
Status of Claims
Applicant’s cancellation of claim 3 and 16, amendments to claims 1, 2, 4-15 and 17-20, and addition of claim 21 are acknowledged.
Claims 1-2, 4-15 and 17-21 are currently pending and have been examined.
Response to Remarks
Applicant's remarks filed 4/27/2026 have been fully considered and have been found not persuasive in full. Examiner thanks Applicant for summarizing claim changes in remarks. Regarding pages 11-13 of remarks, the claimed additional elements are part of said abstract idea(s), as the only additional element in these limitations are the at least one processor. Extracting information, allocating parts based on data (which is seen as data analysis), determining a quantity based on quantities, and generating a plan based on a quantity are all seen as part of order fulfillment and inventory management, which are fundamental economic activities. Whether or not the limitations reduce the likelihood of component stock depletion, this improvement is not an improvement to technology, the functioning of a computer, nor is it solving a technical problem with a technical solution. The claims are performed using a general-purpose processor.
Regarding page 14 of remarks, additional citations and/or prior art have been relied upon to teach the added limitations. Regarding page 16 of remarks, paragraph 94 of Hegemier teaches a shift in production to reduce lead time to accommodate a schedule for limited edition or release products in sync with theatrical releases. Examiner submits this reads on determination of a priority mode and time period. Further, clarifying citations in Hegemier are introduced for claims 11 and 12. Paragraph 117 of Hegemier teaches priority determination and parts allocation for priority jobs.
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 1-2, 4-15 and 17-21 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: obtaining a number of parts in inventory for a component, obtaining demand and/or priority data for component of an object that has multiple components, each component with one or more parts, extracting a component configuration master from a bill of materials, the master indicating parts in each component variation, allocation a quantity of part to each variation based on the master, inventory data, and demand and/or priority information, obtaining number of available supplies of each variation based on quantities of allocated parts, and generating a parts replenishment plan based on available supply quantity. These limitations, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers certain methods of organizing human activity, specifically fundamental economic behavior, including order fulfillment and 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: a memory, program, process, and associated device, individually and in combination, merely use a computer or other machinery as a tool to perform the abstract idea (see MPEP 2106.05f.) 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.
Claims 2 and 15 recite obtaining demand and priority data for multiple components. Claims 4 and 17 recite the demand data includes number of order for component, and the part quantity’s allocation is adjusted based on the amount of orders and amount of parts in inventory.
Claims 5 and 18 recite demand including user selection of component and part allocation is based on part viewing/selection times, or viewing duration, and number of parts in inventory.
Claims 6 and 19 recite priority information is a model designation of “limited”, and part allocation for limited components is greater than other components.
Claims 7 and 20 recite priority includes promotion release date, and part allocation is greater for said priority starting from said date.
Claim 8 recites priority includes engraving support, and part allocation is greater for engravable components.
Claim 9 recites priority including best-selling status/top sales in a period, and part allocation is greater to the best-selling component.
Claim 10 recites priority including new product status, and allocation of parts is greater to the new component.
Claim 11 recites part quantity adjustment is made without using priority status, called demand mode, and said mode’s allocation is based on configuration master, demand, and number of parts in inventory, and priority mode is adjusting with priority information, based on configuration master, demand, priority and number of parts in inventory.
Claim 12 recites priority including a time when a priority should be used, and a priority usage period, and adjusting the part quantity in priority mode during said usage period, and in demand mode when not.
Claim 21 recites further details of demand information and allocating parts based on said information.
These claims recite said abstract idea and are not subject matter eligible.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that forms the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-5, 13-18 and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Horne (US 7,058,587).
Claims 1, 13 and 14. Horne teaches an inventory management method to be implemented by an inventory management device including a memory storing a program and at least one processor to execute the program, the inventory management method comprising: (column 46 lines 56-67 showing computer embodiment)
obtaining, by the at least one processor, inventory information of each part of a component of an object, the object comprising a plurality of components, each component comprising one or more parts, and the inventory information of each part indicating a quantity of each part in inventory; (Column 8, Table 1, lines 25-30 showing on hand inventory of parts) . (column 18, line 59 through column 19, line 6 showing configuration data of existing parts for components based on demand and existing inventory) (column 10, lines 17-51 showing parts, components and products)
obtaining, by the at least one processor, at least one of demand information and priority information of the object; and (column 8, Table 3, line 331 showing demand forecast on master schedule; column 19, lines 53-63 showing priority scheme)
extracting, by the at least one processor, a component configuration master from a bill of materials, the component configuration master indicating the one or more parts comprised in each variation of each component; (column 10, lines 37-50 showing modeling a configurable assembly using the bill of materials, said model includes variations in components)
allocating, by the at least one processor, a quantity of each part to each variation based on the component configuration master, the inventory information of each part, and at least one of the demand information and the priority information; (column 11, lines 38-64 showing allocation of part quantity based on the model (master), inventory amount, and lead time (priority))
determining, by the at least one processor, a quantity of available supplies of each variation based on quantities of the one or more parts allocated to each variation. (column 18, line 59 through column 19, line 6 showing configuration data of existing parts for components based on demand and existing inventory)
and generating, by the at least one processor, a parts replenishment plan based on the quantity of available supplies. (column 16 lines 16-38 showing parts replenishment based on in-stock availability)
Claim 13 additionally: a non-transitory computer readable medium storing a program causing a computer of an inventory management device to execute processing. (column 46 lines 56-67 showing computer embodiment)
Claim 14 additionally: an inventory management device comprising a memory storing a program and a processor to execute the program. (column 46 lines 56-67 showing computer embodiment)
Claims 2 and 15. Horne teaches the inventory management method according to claim 1, further comprising:
obtaining, by the at least one processor at least one of the demand information and the priority information for each of a plurality of objects. (column 8, Table 3, line 331 showing demand forecast on master schedule; column 19, lines 53-63 showing priority scheme)
Claims 4 and 17. Horne teaches the inventory management method according to claim 1, wherein
the demand information includes a number of orders for the object, and the method further comprising: (column 4, lines 56-62 as demand in terms of orders)
adjusting, by the at least one processor, quantities of the one or more parts to be allocated to each variation based on the number of orders and the inventory information of each part. (column 23, lines 4-36 showing allocation of parts based on order demand and available inventory)
Claims 5 and 18. Horne teaches the inventory management method according to claim 1, wherein
the demand information includes a behavior history of a user with regard to the object, (column 5, lines 54-59 showing demand as sales data)
the behavior history includes the user's viewing or selection of the component constituting the object, and the method further comprising: (column 5, lines 54-59 showing demand as sales data)
adjusting, by the at least one processor quantities of the one or more parts to be allocated to each variation based on at least any of a number of times viewed, a viewing duration, or a number of times selected and the number of the parts in inventory. (column 5 lines 30-40 showing inventory reservation for demand, which is based on sales data, corresponding to customer selection)
Claim 21. Horne teaches the inventory management method according to claim 1, wherein
the demand information includes information relating to a confirmed order, an order under inquiry, and a demand forecast, and the method further comprising: (Horne column 19, line 52 through column 21, line 3 showing demand planning including forecast of orders and expected orders)
allocating, by the at least one processor, based on the inventory information of each part, a quantity of each part to the confirmed order, the order under inquiry, and the demand forecast, and obtaining a quantity of available supplies of each of the plurality of the components. (column 20 lines 23-48 showing supply orders to meet demand, taking into account existing inventory (see lines 11-22)) (column 12, lines 8-28 showing allocation of parts based on demand and available inventory, and (in column 11, lines 38-62 showing component configuration) part requirements)
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 6-7, 10-12 and 19-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Horne (US 7,058,587) in view of Hegemier (US 2011/0282476).
Claims 6 and 19. Horne teaches the inventory management method according to claim 1. It does not, but Hegemier teaches wherein
the priority information includes information on whether or not the object is a limited model, and the method further comprises: (para. 90 showing demand allocation for limited edition products)
adjusting, by the at least one processor quantities of the one or more parts to be allocated to each variation of each component of the limited model to be greater than the quantities of the one or more parts to be allocated to each variation of each component of an object other than the limited model. (para. 94 showing shift of parts from standard model to special edition model)
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 part allocation in Horne, with the known technique of priority shifting in Hegemier because applying the known technique would have yielded predictable results and resulted in an improved system by allowing faster order fulfillment. (Hegemier para. 94.)
Claims 7 and 20. Horne teaches the inventory management method according to claim 1. It does not, but Hegemier teaches wherein
the priority information includes information on whether or not the object is a released product to be released on a promotion release date, and the method further comprises: (para. 90 showing promotional products)
adjusting, by the at least one processor quantities of the one or more parts to be allocated to each variation of each component of the released product to be greater than the quantities of the one or more parts allocated to each variation of each component of an object other than the released product during a predetermined period starting from the promotion release date. (para. 94 showing limited run of products during a time period and shifting demand for said run)
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 part allocation in Horne, with the known technique of priority shifting in Hegemier because applying the known technique would have yielded predictable results and resulted in an improved system by allowing faster order fulfillment. (Hegemier para. 94.)
Claim 10. Horne teaches the inventory management method according to claim 1. It does not, but Hegemier teaches wherein
the priority information includes information on whether or not the object is a new product, and the method further comprises: (para. 94 showing limited run products based on new items)
adjusting, by the at least one processor, quantities of the one or more parts to be allocated to each variation of each component of the new product to be greater than the quantities of the one or more parts to be allocated to each variation of each component of an object other than the new product. (para. 94 showing limited run of products during a time period and shifting demand for said run)
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 part allocation in Horne, with the known technique of priority shifting in Hegemier because applying the known technique would have yielded predictable results and resulted in an improved system by allowing faster order fulfillment. (Hegemier para. 94.)
Claim 11. Horne teaches the inventory management method according to claim 1. It does not, but Hegemier teaches further comprising:
determining, by the at least one processor, whether to adjust the quantities of the one or more parts to be allocated to each variation in a demand mode in which the adjustment is made without using the priority information or in a priority mode in which the adjustment is made using the priority information, (paragraphs 93-94 showing in box models and alternatively customized products being allocated parts)
when determining to use the demand mode, adjusting the quantities of the one or more parts to be allocated to each variation based on the component configuration master, the demand information, and the inventory information of each part, and (para. 93 showing “in box” models as the standard product that is not priority, said model allocated parts based on product design, demand, and available parts. See para. 6 regarding part in inventory and demand for said product.)
when determining to use the priority mode, adjusting the quantities of the one or more parts to be allocated to each variation based on the component configuration master, the demand information, the priority information, and the inventory information of each part. (para. 94 showing allocation of parts to priority product, said allocation based on product design, quantity ordered, and available parts to be shifted) (para. 117 showing priority determination and reprioritization, including assigning parts)
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 part allocation in Horne, with the known technique of priority shifting in Hegemier because applying the known technique would have yielded predictable results and resulted in an improved system by allowing faster order fulfillment for specific items. (Hegemier para. 94.)
Claim 12. Horne teaches the inventory management method according to claim 1. It does not, but Hegemier teaches wherein
the priority information includes a priority usage time that is a time when a priority should be used, and (para. 94 showing priority demand time periods)
the method further comprises:
determining by the at lease one processor, whether or not the object has entered a priority usage period including the priority usage time included in the priority information, (para. 94 showing reflected production based on priority period)
when determining that the object has entered the priority usage period, adjusting the quantities of the one or more parts to be allocated to each variation in a priority mode based on the component configuration master, the demand information, the priority information, and the inventory information of each part, and (para. 94 showing allocation of parts to priority product, said allocation based on product design, quantity ordered, and available parts to be shifted) (para. 117 showing priority determination and reprioritization, including assigning parts)
when determining that there is no object that has entered the priority usage period, adjusting the quantities of the one or more parts to be allocated to each variation in a demand mode based on the component configuration master, the demand information, and the inventory information of each part. (para. 93 showing “in box” models as the standard product that is not priority, said model allocated parts based on product design, demand, and available parts. See para. 6 regarding part in inventory and demand for said product.)
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 part allocation in Horne, with the known technique of priority shifting in Hegemier because applying the known technique would have yielded predictable results and resulted in an improved system by allowing faster order fulfillment for specific items. (Hegemier para. 94.)
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Horne in view of Hegemier, and in further view of Baker (US 2008/0245695).
Claim 8. Horne teaches the inventory management method according to claim 1. Horne does not, but Hegemier teaches wherein
the priority information includes information on whether or not the object is a customizable product capable of supporting a customization service, and (para. 293 showing said custom products in priority including pattern stitching) the method further comprises:
adjusting, by the at least one processor, the quantities of the one or more parts to be allocated to each variation of each component of the customized product to be greater in a given period of time than the quantities of the one or more parts to be allocated to each variation of each component of an object other than the customized product. (para. 94 showing shift of parts from standard model to special edition model)
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 part allocation in Horne, with the known technique of priority shifting in Hegemier because applying the known technique would have yielded predictable results and resulted in an improved system by allowing faster order fulfillment. (Hegemier para. 94.)
Horne as modified by Hegemier does not teach, but Baker teaches: customizing a product using engraving. (para. 30)
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 part allocation and priority shifting for customized products in Horne as modified by Hegemier, with the known technique of engraving in Baker, because applying the known technique would have yielded predictable results and resulted in an improved system by allowing for accommodation of additional product types. See para. 30 of Baker for multiple types of customizations.
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Horne in view of Hegemier, and in further view of Yesh (US 2021/0240202).
Claim 9. Horne teaches the inventory management method according to claim 1. Horne does not, but Hegemier teaches wherein
the priority information includes information on whether or not the object is a popular trend, and (para. 88 showing adjusting for demand of trending products) the method further comprises:
adjusting, by the at least one processor, quantities of the one or more parts to be allocated to each variation of each component of the trending product to be greater in a given period of time than the quantities of the one or more parts to be allocated to each variation of each component of an object other than the trending product. (para. 94 showing allocation of parts to priority product, said allocation based on product design, quantity ordered, and available parts to be shifted)
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 part allocation in Horne, with the known technique of priority shifting in Hegemier because applying the known technique would have yielded predictable results and resulted in an improved system by allowing faster order fulfillment. (Hegemier para. 94.)
Horne as modified by Hegemier does not teach, but Yesh teaches: identifying a best- selling product with top sales in a certain past sales period. (Paras. 61-62 showing shifting demand to top-selling products)
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 part allocation and priority shifting for customized products in Horne as modified by Hegemier, with the known technique of identifying a top selling product, because applying the known technique would have yielded predictable results and resulted in an improved system by allowing for accommodation of specific demand types. See para. 61 of Yesh.
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