DETAILED ACTION
Applicant’s Restriction/Election Response filed on 05/11/2026 has been considered.
Claims 1-28 are withdrawn.
Claims 29-32 are currently rejected and have been examined.
Claims 1-32 are currently pending.
Information Disclosure Statement
Information Disclosure Statement received 09/04/2024 has been reviewed and considered.
Priority
This patent Application claims priority to U.S. Provisional Patent Application No. 63/322,399 filed 03/22/2022. This benefit has been received and acknowledged and therefore, the instant claims receive the effective filing date of 03/22/2022.
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Invention V (claims 29-32) in the reply filed on 05/11/2026 is acknowledged.
Claim 1-28 withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected Inventions I-IV, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 05/11/2026.
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 .
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 29-32 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more.
Under Step 1 of the Subject Matter Eligibility Test for Products and Processes, the claims must be directed to one of the four statutory categories (see MPEP 2106.03). All the claims are directed to one of the four statutory categories (YES).
Under Step 2A of the Subject Matter Eligibility Test, it is determined whether the claims are directed to a judicially recognized exception (see MPEP 2106.04). Step 2A is a two-prong inquiry.
Under Prong 1, it is determined whether the claim recites a judicial exception (YES). Taking Claim 29 as representative, the claim recites limitations that fall within the certain methods of organizing human activity groupings of abstract ideas, including:
-an enterprise resource planning (ERP) platform [that] provides procurement planning, production planning, inventory planning, sales planning, and distribution and logistics planning;
-a point-of-sale (POS) system provides inventory management, sales data, and customer analytics;
-a sales modeling platform facilitates production, ordering, and logistical planning using intelligent algorithms that predict future needs; and
-a dashboard interface coupled with the sales modeling platform as a means of communication between producers and retailers
The above limitations recite the concept of managing and facilitating order fulfillment. The above limitations fall within the “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity” groupings of abstract ideas, enumerated in MPEP 2106.04(a).
Certain methods of organizing human activity include:
fundamental economic principles or practices (including hedging, insurance, and mitigating risk)
commercial or legal interactions (including agreements in the form of contracts; legal obligations; advertising, marketing or sales activities or behaviors; and business relations)
managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people (including social activities, teaching, and following rules or instructions)
The limitations of an enterprise resource planning (ERP) platform [that] provides procurement planning, production planning, inventory planning, sales planning, and distribution and logistics planning; a point-of-sale (POS) system provides inventory management, sales data, and customer analytics; a sales modeling platform facilitates production, ordering, and logistical planning using intelligent algorithms that predict future needs; and a dashboard interface coupled with the sales modeling platform as a means of communication between producers and retailers are processes that, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, cover a commercial interaction. That is, other than reciting that the ERP is a ERP platform, that the providing is by a POS system, that the facilitating is by a sales modeling platform, the algorithms being intelligent algorithms and that the communication is by a dashboard interface coupled with the sales modeling platform, nothing in the claim element precludes the step from practically being performed by people. For example, but for the “an enterprise resource planning (ERP) platform,” “a point-of-sale (POS) system,” “a sales modeling platform,” “intelligent algorithms,” and “a dashboard interface coupled with the sales modeling platform” language, “provides,” “provides,” “facilitates,” and “communication” in the context of this claim encompasses advertising, and marketing or sales activities.
Under Prong 2, it is determined whether the claim recites additional elements that integrate the exception into a practical application of the exception. This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application (NO).
-an enterprise resource planning (ERP) platform provides procurement planning, production planning, inventory planning, sales planning, and distribution and logistics planning;
-a point-of-sale (POS) system provides inventory management, sales data, and customer analytics;
-a sales modeling platform facilitates production, ordering, and logistical planning using intelligent algorithms that predict future needs; and
-a dashboard interface coupled with the sales modeling platform as a means of communication between producers and retailers
These limitations are not indicative of integration into a practical application because:
The additional elements of claim 29 are recited at a high level of generality (i.e. as generic computing hardware) such that they amount to nothing more than mere instructions to implement or apply the abstract idea on a generic computing hardware (or, merely use a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea). Specifically, the additional elements of automating, an enterprise resource planning (ERP) platform, a point-of-sale (POS) system, a sales modeling platform, and a dashboard interface coupled with the sales modeling platform are recited at a high-level of generality (i.e. as a generic processor performing the generic computer functions of providing data, facilitating data, and communicating data) such that they amount do no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components. Accordingly, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to an abstract idea. Further, the additional elements do no more than generally link the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use (such as computers or computing networks). Employing well-known computer functions to execute an abstract idea, even when limiting the use of the idea to one particular environment, does not integrate the exception into a practical application.
Additionally, the additional elements are insufficient to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because the claim fails to i) reflect an improvement in the functioning of a computer or an improvement to another technology or technical field, ii) apply the judicial exception with, or use the judicial exception in conjunction with, a particular machine or manufacture that is integral to the claim, iii) effect a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing, or iv) apply or use the judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment.
Accordingly, the judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application.
Under Step 2B, it is determined whether the claims recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. The claims of the present application do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception (NO).
In the case of claim 29, taken individually or as a whole, the additional elements of claim 29 do not provide an inventive concept. As discussed above under step 2A (prong 2) with respect to the integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements used to perform the claimed functions amount to no more than a general link to a technological environment.
Even considered as an ordered combination (as a whole), the additional elements do not add anything significantly more than when considered individually.
Dependent claims 30-32, when analyzed as a whole, are held to be patent ineligible under 35 U.S.C. § 101 because they do not add “significantly more” to the abstract idea. More specifically, dependent claims 30-32 further fall within the “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity” grouping of abstract ideas in that they recite commercial interactions. Dependent claims 30-32 recite the additional elements of the POS system, a kiosk-based system, a delivery app-based system, the sales modeling platform, machine learning, and dynamic prediction, but similar to the analysis under prong two of Step 2A these additional elements are used as a tool to perform the abstract idea. As such, under prong two of Step 2A, claims 30-32 are not indicative of integration into a practical application for at least similar reasons as discussed above. Thus, dependent claims 30-32 are “directed to” an abstract idea. Next, under Step 2B, similar to the analysis of claim 29, dependent claims 30-32 when analyzed individually and as an ordered combination, merely further define the commonplace business method (i.e. managing and facilitating order fulfillment) being applied on a general-purpose computer and, therefore, do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself. Accordingly, the Examiner concludes that there are no meaningful limitations in the claims that transform the judicial exception into a patent eligible application such that the claims amount to significantly more than the judicial exception itself. The analysis above applies to all statutory categories of invention.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
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 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 29-31 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rosenfeld et al. (US 2020/0184417 A1), hereinafter Rosenfeld, in view of Nanda et al. (US 2016/0364684 A1), hereinafter Nanda.
Regarding claim 29, Rosenfeld discloses a system for automating and optimizing order fulfillment of products comprising:
-an enterprise resource planning (ERP) platform provides procurement planning, production planning, inventory planning, sales planning, and distribution and logistics planning (Rosenfeld, see at least: “ERP systems [i.e. an enterprise resource planning (ERP) platform] are typically suites of integrated applications that an entity can use to collect, store, manage, and interpret product data from departments of the organization, such as purchasing, sales [i.e. sales planning], manufacturing [i.e. provides production planning], human resources, services, and inventory [i.e. provides inventory planning]” [0030] and “WMS systems help manage day-to-day operations in a warehouse. WMS software guides inventory receiving [i.e. provides procurement planning] and put-away, optimizes picking and shipping of orders, and advises on inventory replenishment [i.e. provides procurement planning and distribution and logistics planning]. A warehouse management system can be a standalone application or part of an ERP system, among other implementations” [0031] Examiner notes that, while art is applied, ‘provides procurement planning, production planning, inventory planning, sales planning, and distribution and logistics planning’ is an intended result and provides little patentable weight);
-a point-of-sale (POS) system provides inventory management and sales data (Rosenfeld, see at least: “POS systems [i.e. a point-of-sale (POS) system], which are typically used by product distribution entities that are retailers, are combinations of hardware and software built to centralize business operations. POS systems can manage the transactions of a business (including credit card processing and the post-transaction operations that lead to fulfillment of the transactions), store, maintain, and update product data as transactions are processed, track inventory and sales (and other product) data at individual retail locations [i.e. provides inventory management, sales data], and aggregate inventory and sales data for multiple retail locations owned or controlled by a particular retailer, for example” [0032] Examiner notes that, while art is applied, ‘provides inventory management, sales data, and customer analytics’ is an intended result and provides little patentable weight);
-a sales modeling platform facilitates production, ordering, and logistical planning using intelligent algorithms that predict future needs (Rosenfeld, see at least: “The analytical component [i.e. a sales modeling platform] can be configured and used by participants in participant users through web communications and also by users associated with the server or the hosting party through a user interface provided by the server. Among other things, the analytical component can be used to develop, train, and apply models, algorithms, and other analytical tools for understanding, recording, interpreting, and predicting [i.e. using intelligent algorithms that predict future needs] inventories, demands, supplies, [i.e. facilitates production, ordering, and logistical planning] consumer behaviors, behaviors of product distribution entities and groups of them, behaviors of product distribution markets and sub- markets, prices and pricing and values of product units, product models, product manufacturers, time periods, geographical areas, and other parameters and factors useful to product distribution entities and other participants” [0094] Examiner notes that, while art is applied, ‘facilitates production, ordering, and logistical planning’ is an intended result and provides little patentable weight); and
-a dashboard interface coupled with the sales modeling platform as a means of communication between producers and retailers (Rosenfeld, see at least: “By providing retailers (and other product distribution entities) with product data, predictions, analyses, and insights into behavior of retail customers within a local area, the retailers will have the capability to stock their shelves with the exact products that match local retail customers' needs and wants. The local online retail marketplaces will collect, aggregate, and anonymize product data indicative of which products local retail customers shop for and how they shop for them. By providing that product data, predictions, analyses, and insights back to retailers in a useful format (e.g., through a real-time dashboard) [i.e. a dashboard interface coupled with the sales modeling platform], offline retailers will have the same capabilities to curate and match products to local retail customer demand as traditional large online marketplaces have done” [0138] and “The analytical component can be configured and used by participants in participant users through web communications and also by users associated with the server or the hosting party through a user interface provided by the server [i.e. a dashboard interface coupled with the sales modeling platform]” [0094] and “the product data, analyses, and insights provided by the platform through the dashboards are driven from and based on transactions at the final stage of the distribution chain, that is, information derived from the retail customers. The platform then provides corresponding product data at upstream stages of the distribution chain in real-time [i.e. as a means of communication between producers and retailers]” [0140] and “The platform enables the retailer to determine which products to sell and when and at which retail locations to sell them to retail customers in a local area, enables the supplier or wholesaler to determine which products to deliver and when and to which retail locations to deliver them across its retailer customers, e.g., a set of retailers, and enables the manufacturer to know which products to make and when and where to make them [i.e. as a means of communication between producers and retailers]” [0139]).
Rosenfeld does not explicitly disclose that the point-of-sale (POS) system provides inventory management, sales data, and customer analytics.
Nanda, however teaches a probabilistic forecaster in inventory management (i.e. abstract), including the known technique of a point-of-sale (POS) system providing customer analytics (Nanda, see at least: “A point-of-sale (POS) 104 [i.e. a point-of-sale (POS) system] entity may represent retail locations, for example, that receive inventory, observe and report demand, [i.e. provides customer analytics] and receive management services from the enterprise management service 106” [0024]). This known technique is applicable to the system of Rosenfeld as they both share characteristics and capabilities, namely, they are directed to a probabilistic forecaster in inventory management.
It would have been recognized that applying the known technique of a point-of-sale (POS) system providing customer analytics, as taught by Nanda, to the teachings of Rosenfeld would have yielded predictable results because the level of ordinary skill in the art demonstrated by the references applied shows the ability to incorporate such references into similar systems. Further, adding the modification of a point-of-sale (POS) system providing customer analytics, as taught by Nanda, into the system of Rosenfeld would have been recognized by those of ordinary skill in the art as resulting in an improved system that would provide accurate demand forecasting with inventory management (Nanda, [0056]).
Regarding claim 30, Rosenfeld in view of Nanda teaches the system of claim 29. Rosenfeld further discloses:
-wherein the POS system is a brick-and- mortar based system, a kiosk-based system, or a delivery app-based system (Rosenfeld, see at least: “As a retail location sells products in inventory (in an in-stock state) to retail customers 416, the polling and product mapping software 408 will update the inventory items associated with those products in an inventory table 508 as stored in a central database 410. The software integrates with the retail location POS systems 402, 404, 40 [i.e. wherein the POS system is a brick-and- mortar based system] directly or indirectly through an API call or similar method to poll all active inventory (product data) at the retail locations” [0167]).
Regarding claim 31, Rosenfeld in view of Nanda teaches the system of claim 29. Rosenfeld further discloses:
-wherein the sales modeling platform provides logistics and routing solutions for on-time inventory maintenance driven by real time inventory view and sell-through (Rosenfeld, see at least: “By providing that product data, predictions, analyses, and insights back to retailers in a useful format (e.g., through a real-time dashboard), offline retailers will have the same capabilities to curate and match products to local retail customer demand as traditional large online marketplaces have done. By enabling suppliers to provide just-in-time delivery, the platform ensures that retail customers' favorite products will be in stock [i.e. logistics and routing solutions for on-time inventory maintenance driven by real time inventory view and sell-through] based directly on known retail customers' shopping behavior. In essence, the platform [i.e. the sales modeling platform provides] can enable a completely efficient distribution chain based on product data about real-time retail customer behavior across different incompatible POS and other inventory management systems, retailers, and geographies” [0138] and “The platform can be hosted on a central server or servers 104 that are located at the site of the hosting party or are hosted by a cloud service or a combination of those approaches. Software running on hardware (including processors) at the central server or servers can include … an analytical component 112 [i.e. the sales modeling platform]” [0068]).
Claim 32 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rosenfeld, in view of Nanda, in further view of Lawrence et al. (US 10,853,808 B1), hereinafter Lawrence.
Regarding claim 32, Rosenfeld in view of Nanda teaches the system of claim 29. Rosenfeld further discloses:
-wherein the sales modeling platform uses machine learning and predictive analytics to dynamically predict inventory needs and sell- through for the products, thereby allowing the retailers to optimize inventory levels and avoid overstocking (Rosenfeld, see at least: “The analytical component [i.e. a sales modeling platform] can be configured and used by participants in participant users through web communications and also by users associated with the server or the hosting party through a user interface provided by the server. Among other things, the analytical component can be used to develop, train, and apply models, algorithms, and other analytical tools for understanding, recording, interpreting, and predicting [i.e. uses machine learning and predictive analytics to dynamically predict] inventories, demands, supplies, [i.e. inventory needs and sell-through for the products] consumer behaviors, behaviors of product distribution entities and groups of them, behaviors of product distribution markets and sub- markets, prices and pricing and values of product units, product models, product manufacturers, time periods, geographical areas, and other parameters and factors useful to product distribution entities and other participants” [0094] and “Retailer and retail location participants in the platform and the local online retail marketplaces and dashboards may be motivated by the ability to share real-time product data through the platform with their distributors or wholesalers in exchange for access to fully-automated local online retail marketplaces, just-in-time inventory fulfillment, and the ability to know exactly what products and the number of units of each product to stock on retail location shelves for the population of retail customers in the local area (as well as where and when to stock those products) [i.e. thereby allowing the retailers to optimize inventory levels and avoid overstocking]” [0147] Examiner notes that, while art is applied, ‘thereby allowing the retailers and dispensaries to optimize inventory levels and avoid overstocking’ is an intended result and provides little patentable weight).
Rosenfeld in view of Nanda does not teach allowing dispensaries to optimize inventory levels and avoid overstocking.
Lawrence, however, teaches forecasting and aggregate demand (i.e. Col. 5 Ln. 53-54), including the known technique of allowing dispensaries to optimize inventory levels and avoid overstocking (Lawrence, see at least: “The authentication system enables a user to authenticate whether the customer is permitted to purchase a controlled product. For example, a doctor can register information about a prescription with the authentication system. This enables the dispensary vendor [i.e. allowing dispensaries] to verify the legitimacy of a customer's order with the authentication system prior to completing the payment process” Col. 6 Ln. 64-67 & Col. 7 Ln. 1-3 and “The workflow management system 214 is operatively coupled to the CCS. The workflow management system enables the vendor to specify and execute the preferred procedure to complete specific business functions, such as inventory management. For example, a vendor can define a workflow that analyzes orders from customers then estimates and executes bulk orders from suppliers to optimize inventory [i.e. to optimize inventory levels and avoid overstocking]” Col. 7 Ln. 28-35). This known technique is applicable to the system of Rosenfeld in view of Nanda as they both share characteristics and capabilities, namely, they are directed to forecasting and aggregate demand.
It would have been recognized that applying the known technique of allowing dispensaries to optimize inventory levels and avoid overstocking, as taught by Lawrence, to the teachings of Rosenfeld in view of Nanda would have yielded predictable results because the level of ordinary skill in the art demonstrated by the references applied shows the ability to incorporate such references into similar systems. Further, adding the modification of allowing dispensaries to optimize inventory levels and avoid overstocking, as taught by Lawrence, into the system of Rosenfeld in view of Nanda would have been recognized by those of ordinary skill in the art as resulting in an improved system that would optimize inventory (Lawrence, Col. 7 Ln. 32-35).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
-Krishnamoorthy et al. (US 2022/0327599 A1) teaches a retail store management system.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ARIELLE E WEINER whose telephone number is (571)272-9007. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:30-5:00.
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, Maria-Teresa (Marissa) Thein can be reached at 571-272-6764. 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.
/ARIELLE E WEINER/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3689
Prosecution Insights