DETAILED ACTION
Claims 1-20 are pending and have been examined.
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Drawings
The drawings are objected to because figures 9A, 9B, and 10A-C contain shaded black and grey areas, illegible text, and/or lines that are not uniformly thick and well defined. See MPEP §608.02, 37 CFR 1.84 (I), and 37 CFR 1.84 (m).
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121 (d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as "amended." If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either "Replacement Sheet" or "New Sheet" pursuant to 37 CFR 1.1 21 (d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
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 non-statutory subject matter. The claims are directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Here, under step 1 of the Alice analysis, method claims 1-20 are directed to a series of steps. Thus the claims are directed to a process.
Under step 2A Prong One of the analysis, the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claims recite managing just-in-time bagel production, including receiving, generating, and providing steps.
The limitations of receiving, generating, and providing, are a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers organizing human activity concepts, but for the recitation of generic computer components.
Specifically, independent claim 1 recites receiving daily bagel inventory predictions for one or more future dates including a target date from historical inventory data, the daily bagel inventory predictions including bagel types and corresponding quantities for the target date; generating an initial bagel production plan for the target date based on the daily bagel inventory predictions, a consumption function, and oven bagel capacity, wherein the initial bagel production plan includes sets of bagels to be cooked at designated times on the target date; generating one or more updated bagel production plans during the target date based on receiving real-time bagel inventory data; and providing an updated bagel production plan for preparing and cooking bagels in one or more ovens at the designated times on the target date according to the updated bagel production plan.
Independent claim 9 recites providing historical inventory data to generate bagel inventory predictions for one or more future dates including a target date, the bagel inventory predictions including bagel types and corresponding quantities for the target date; generating based on the bagel inventory predictions: a bagel preparation plan for the target date that includes a quantity of standard bagel dough; and a bagel production plan for the target date that includes: a first set of bagels of one or more bagel types to begin processing at a first time on the target date for oven-fresh distribution; and a second set of bagels of different bagel types to begin processing at a second time on the target date for oven-fresh distribution, wherein the bagel production plan is generated based on the bagel inventory predictions, a consumption function, future orders for bagels on the target date, and oven bagel capacity; and providing the bagel production plan for preparing and cooking bagels according to the bagel production plan in one or more ovens.
Independent claim 18 recites generating bagel inventory predictions for a target date based on historical inventory data, the bagel inventory predictions including a bagel type and a bagel quantity for the target date, wherein the target date is a future day when the bagel inventory predictions are received; generating based on the bagel inventory predictions: a bagel preparation plan for the target date that includes a quantity of standard bagel dough; and a bagel production plan for the target date that includes: a first number of bagels of the bagel type to begin processing at a first time on the target date for oven-fresh distribution; and a second number of bagels of the bagel type to begin processing at a second time on the target date for oven-fresh distribution, wherein the bagel production plan is generated based on the bagel inventory predictions of the bagel type, a consumption function for the bagel type, future orders for bagels of the bagel type, and oven capacity for bagels; and providing the bagel production plan for preparing and cooking bagels of the bagel type according to the bagel production plan.
That is, other than reciting an inventory prediction machine learning model, a dynamic production system, a baking automation system, and a client device, the claim limitations merely cover managing personal behavior, including following rules or instructions, thus falling within the “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claims recite an abstract idea.
Under Step 2A Prong Two, the eligibility analysis evaluates whether the claim as a whole integrates the recited judicial exception into a practical application of the exception. This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. The claims include an inventory prediction machine learning model, a dynamic production system, a baking automation system, and a client device. The inventory prediction machine learning model, dynamic production system, baking automation system, and client device in the steps is recited at a high-level of generality, such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Accordingly, this additional element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. As a result, the claims are directed to an abstract idea.
The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional element of an inventory prediction machine learning model, a dynamic production system, a baking automation system, and a client device 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.
Additionally, when reading the preamble in the context of the entire claim, the recitation “computer-implemented” is not limiting because the body of the claim describes a complete invention and the language recited solely in the preamble does not provide any distinct definition of any of the claimed invention’s limitations. Thus, the preamble of the claim(s) is not considered a limitation and is of no significance to claim construction. See Pitney Bowes, Inc. v. Hewlett-Packard Co., 182 F.3d 1298, 1305, 51 USPQ2d 1161, 1165 (Fed. Cir. 1999). See MPEP § 2111.02.
None of the dependent claims recite additional limitations that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. Claims 2-5 recite additional receiving, updating and providing steps. Claims 6-8 recite an additional updating step, and further describe the dynamic production system and the bagel preparation plan. Similarly, dependent claims 10-17, 19 and 20 recite additional details that further restrict/define the abstract idea. A more detailed abstract idea remains an abstract idea.
Under step 2B of the analysis, the claims include, inter alia, an inventory prediction machine learning model, a dynamic production system, a baking automation system, and a client device.
As discussed with respect to Step 2A Prong Two, the additional elements in the claim amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. The same analysis applies here in 2B, i.e., mere instructions to apply an exception on a generic computer cannot integrate a judicial exception into a practical application at Step 2A or provide an inventive concept in Step 2B.
There isn’t any improvement to another technology or technical field, or the functioning of the computer itself. Moreover, individually, there are not any meaningful limitations beyond generally linking the abstract idea to a particular technological environment, i.e., implementation via a computer system. Further, taken as a combination, the limitations add nothing more than what is present when the limitations are considered individually. There is no indication that the combination provides any effect regarding the functioning of the computer or any improvement to another technology.
In addition, as discussed in paragraph 0180 of the specification, “In various implementations, the computer system 1200 represents one or more of the client devices, server devices, or other computing devices described above. For example, the computer system 1200 may refer to various types of network devices capable of accessing data on a network, a cloud computing system, or another system. For instance, a client device may refer to a mobile device such as a mobile telephone, a smartphone, a personal digital assistant (PDA), a tablet, a laptop, or a wearable computing device (e.g., a headset or smartwatch). A client device may also refer to a non-mobile device such as a desktop computer, a server node (e.g., from another cloud computing system), or another non-portable device.”
As such, this disclosure supports the finding that no more than a general purpose computer, performing generic computer functions, is required by the claims.
Viewed as a whole, these additional claim element(s) do not provide meaningful limitation(s) to transform the abstract idea into a patent eligible application of the abstract idea such that the claim(s) amounts to significantly more than the abstract idea itself. Therefore, the claim(s) are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 as being directed to non-statutory subject matter. See Alice Corporation Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank Int’l et al., No. 13-298 (U.S. June 19, 2014).
Conclusion
With respect to independent claim 1, none of the prior art of record, taken individually or in any combination, teach inter alia, receiving daily bagel inventory predictions for one or more future dates including a target date from an inventory prediction machine learning model that generates the daily bagel inventory predictions from historical inventory data, the daily bagel inventory predictions including bagel types and corresponding quantities for the target date; generating an initial bagel production plan for the target date by a dynamic production system based on the daily bagel inventory predictions, a consumption function, and oven bagel capacity, wherein the initial bagel production plan includes sets of bagels to be cooked at designated times on the target date; and generating one or more updated bagel production plans during the target date based on receiving real-time bagel inventory data.
With respect to independent claim 9, none of the prior art of record, taken individually or in any combination, teach inter alia, providing historical inventory data to an inventory prediction machine learning model to generate bagel inventory predictions for one or more future dates including a target date, the bagel inventory predictions including bagel types and corresponding quantities for the target date; generating, by a baking automation system (BAS), based on the bagel inventory predictions: a bagel preparation plan for the target date that includes a quantity of standard bagel dough; and a bagel production plan for the target date that includes: a first set of bagels of one or more bagel types to begin processing at a first time on the target date for oven-fresh distribution; and a second set of bagels of different bagel types to begin processing at a second time on the target date for oven-fresh distribution, wherein the bagel production plan is generated based on the bagel inventory predictions, a consumption function, future orders for bagels on the target date, and oven bagel capacity.
With respect to independent claim 18, none of the prior art of record, taken individually or in any combination, teach inter alia, generating bagel inventory predictions for a target date using an inventory prediction machine learning model based on historical inventory data, the bagel inventory predictions including a bagel type and a bagel quantity for the target date, wherein the target date is a future day when the bagel inventory predictions are received; generating based on the bagel inventory predictions: a bagel preparation plan for the target date that includes a quantity of standard bagel dough; and a bagel production plan for the target date that includes: a first number of bagels of the bagel type to begin processing at a first time on the target date for oven-fresh distribution; and a second number of bagels of the bagel type to begin processing at a second time on the target date for oven-fresh distribution, wherein the bagel production plan is generated based on the bagel inventory predictions of the bagel type, a consumption function for the bagel type, future orders for bagels of the bagel type, and oven capacity for bagels.
The prior art made of record and not relied upon, listed in the PTO-892, considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure, discloses food production management.
-PraveenaSri et al (Business Challenges of Forecasting Sales in Bakery Industry: Applications of Machine Learning Algorithms) disclose machine learning (ML) strategies in the area of sales forecasting for the purpose of easing production planning as an integral part of Business Management.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ANDRE D BOYCE whose telephone number is (571)272-6726. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 10a-6:30p.
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, Rutao (Rob) Wu can be reached at (571) 272-6045. 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.
/ANDRE D BOYCE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3623 January 10, 2026