DETAILED ACTION
This action is in response to the Application filed 10/16/2024.
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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted by Applicant is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Continuation
This application is a continuation application of U.S. application no. 18/244,072 filed on 09/08/2023 (Pat. No. 12,248,896), which is a continuation of U.S. application no. 15/968,352 (Pat. No. 11,769,092). See MPEP §201.07. In accordance with MPEP §609.02 A. 2 and MPEP §2001.06(b) (last paragraph), the Examiner has reviewed and considered the prior art cited in the Parent Application. Also in accordance with MPEP §2001.06(b) (last paragraph), all documents cited or considered ‘of record’ in the Parent Application are now considered cited or ‘of record’ in this application. Additionally, Applicant(s) are reminded that a listing of the information cited or ‘of record’ in the Parent Application need not be resubmitted in this application unless Applicants desire the information to be printed on a patent issuing from this application. See MPEP §609.02 A. 2. Finally, Applicants are reminded that the prosecution history of the Parent Application is relevant in this application. See e.g., Microsoft Corp. v. Multi-Tech Sys., Inc., 357 F.3d 1340, 1350, 69 USPQ2d 1815, 1823 (Fed. Cir. 2004) (holding that statements made in prosecution of one patent are relevant to the scope of all sibling patents).
Status of Claims
Claims 1-20 are currently pending in the application and have been examined.
Claim Objections
Claims 3/10/17 are objected to because of the following informalities: the claims recites the acronym SKU without priorly spelling out its definition. Appropriate correction is required.
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.
Claim(s) 1-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-patentable subject matter. The claims are directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
With respect to claims 1-20, the independent claims (claims 1, 8 and 15) are directed, in part, to a system, a method and a non-transitory computer-readable medium for modeling campaign planning in a supply chain network.
Step 1 – Independent claims 1 (system), 8 (method), 15 (non-transitory computer-readable medium), and 17 and their dependent claims 2-7, 9-14, and 18-20, respectively, fall within at least one of the four statutory categories of 35 U.S.C. 101: (i) process; (ii) machine; (iii) manufacture; or (iv) composition of matter. Claim 1 is directed to a system (i.e. machine), claim 8 is directed to a method (i.e. process), and claim 15 is directed to a non-transitory computer-readable medium (i.e. article of manufacture).
However, these claim elements are considered to be abstract ideas because they are directed to a mental process which includes observations or evaluations.
As per Step 2A - Prong 1 of the subject matter eligibility analysis, the claims are directed, in part, to performing planning for a campaign… perform the planning in memory without exporting intermediate output…; reverting… a static structure of a supply chain model back to an original state; reverting… a bucket structure to daily, weekly and monthly buckets; formulating… a supply chain problem and solve a linear programming optimization planning objective; performing… lotsizing without campaign planning; generating… a supply chain plan from the solved linear programming optimization planning objective; and combining… the generated supply chain plan with a campaign plan to generate an optimized supply chain plan.
determining…target ratios for segments of users that indicate an estimated percentage of users in each segment that belong to a defined demographic…and for each segment assigning the ratio for the segment as the target ratio for each user identifier in the segment; generating, by the at least one computing device, a demographic probability value for each user identifier…using the target ratios for the user identifiers, and inputting user data for the set of users…to generate each demographic probability value as indicating a probability that each user identifier belongs to the defined demographic; generating…a target segment by sorting the user identifiers based on their respective demographic probabilities and selecting user identifiers with the highest probability values until the selected user identifiers correlate to a specified user count for the target segment; causing…the instance of digital content to be delivered to users in the target segment; calculating…a revisit probability for each user of the set of users which indicates a probability that each user will revisit the digital content platform, and associating a resulting revisit probability value with a user identifier for each user; generating… different segments of users from the set of users by determining content viewing patterns for the set of users on the digital content platform, comparing the content viewing patterns for each user of the set of users, and assigning user identifiers for users with similar content viewing patterns into common segments such that each segment includes user identifiers for users with a similar content viewing pattern, each user identifier being correlated to a corresponding revisit probability value. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation covers an observation or evaluation, then it falls under the “mental process” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
As per Step 2A - Prong 2 of the subject matter eligibility analysis, this judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the independent claims recite additional elements: system, server, processor, memory, database, model, non-transitory computer-readable medium, software. These additional elements are recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as a generic device performing a generic computer function of receiving and storing data) such that these elements amount no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Examiner looks to Applicant’s specification in at least figures 1 and 2 and related text and [0029-0031] to understand that the invention may be implemented in a generic environment that “As shown in FIGURE 1, supply chain network 100 comprising supply chain planner 110, one or more imaging devices 120, inventory system 130, transportation network 140, and one or more supply chain entities 150 may operate on one or more computers 160 that are integral to or separate from the hardware and/or software that support supply chain planner 110, one or more imaging devices 120, inventory system 130, transportation network 140, and one or more supply chain entities 150. Computers 160 may include any suitable input device 162, such as a keypad, mouse, touch screen, microphone, or other device to input information. Output device 164 may convey information associated with the operation of supply chain network 100, including digital or analog data, visual information, or audio information. Computer 160 may include fixed or removable computer-readable storage media, including a non-transitory computer readable medium, magnetic computer disks, flash drives, CD-ROM, in-memory device or other suitable media to receive output from and provide input to supply chain network 100. Computer 160 may include one or more processors 166 and associated memory to execute instructions and manipulate information according to the operation of supply chain network 100 and any of the methods described herein. In addition, or as an alternative, embodiments contemplate executing the instructions on computer 160 that cause computer 160 to perform functions of the method. Further examples may also include articles of manufacture including tangible non-transitory computer-readable media that have computer-readable instructions encoded thereon, and the instructions may comprise instructions to perform functions of the methods described herein. In addition, and as discussed herein, supply chain network 100 may comprise a cloud-based computing system having processing and storage devices at one or more locations, local to, or remote from supply chain planner 110, one or more imaging devices 120, inventory system 130, transportation network 140, and one or more supply chain entities 150. In addition, each of the one or more computers 160 may be a work station, personal computer (PC), network computer, notebook computer, tablet, personal digital assistant (PDA), cell phone, telephone, smartphone, wireless data port, augmented or virtual reality headset, or any other suitable computing device. In an embodiment, one or more users may be associated with the inventory planner 110, one or more imaging devices 120, inventory system 130, transportation network 140, and one or more supply chain entities 150. These one or more users may include, for example, a “manager” or a “planner” handling supply chain planning, campaign planning, and/or one or more related tasks within the system. In addition, or as an alternative, these one or more users within the system may include, for example, one or more computers programmed to autonomously handle, among other things, one or more supply chain processes such as demand planning, supply and distribution planning, inventory management, allocation planning, order fulfilment, adjustment of manufacturing and inventory levels at various stocking points, and/or one or more related tasks within supply chain network 100.” Accordingly, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they are mere instructions to implement the abstract idea on a computer.
As per Step 2B of the subject matter eligibility analysis, the claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. The additional elements are mere instructions to apply the abstract idea on a computer. When considered individually, these claim elements only contribute generic recitations of technical elements to the claims. It is readily apparent, for example, that the claim is not directed to any specific improvements of these elements and the invention is not directed to a technical improvement. When the claims are considered individually and as a whole, the additional elements noted above, appear to merely apply the abstract concept to a technical environment in a very general sense – i.e. a generic computer receives information from another generic computer, processes the information and then sends information back. In addition, when taken as an ordered combination, the ordered combination adds nothing that is not already present as when the elements are taken individually. Their collective functions merely provide generic computer implementation. Therefore, when viewed as a whole, these additional claim elements do not provide meaningful limitations to transform the abstract idea into a practical application of the abstract idea or that amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself. The most significant elements of the claims, that is the elements that really outline the inventive elements of the claims, are set forth in the elements identified as an abstract idea. The fact that the generic computing devices are facilitating the abstract concept is not enough to confer statutory subject matter eligibility.
The dependent claims further refine the abstract idea. These claims do not provide a meaningful linking to the judicial exception. Rather, these claims offer further descriptive limitations of elements found in the independent claims and addressed above – such as by describing the nature and content of the data that is received/sent. While these descriptive elements may provide further helpful context for the claimed invention these elements do not serve to confer subject matter eligibility to the invention since their individual and combined significance is still not significantly more than the abstract concepts at the core of the claimed invention.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-20 are allowable over prior art but have other pending rejections as indicated above. Although the prior art made of record discloses campaign planning for supply chain planning, the prior art does not specifically disclose the sequence of steps as recited in the claims: “…perform the planning in memory without exporting intermediate output to a database, wherein the server comprises a processor and the memory; reverting, by the server, a static structure of a supply chain model back to an original state; reverting, by the server, a bucket structure to daily, weekly and monthly buckets; formulating, by the server, a supply chain problem and solve a linear programming optimization planning objective; performing, by the server, lotsizing without campaign planning…”
The claims would be allowable if rewritten or amended to overcome the rejection(s) set forth in this Office Action.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to FRANCIS Z SANTIAGO-MERCED whose telephone number is (571)270-5562. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7am-4:30pm EST.
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, BRIAN EPSTEIN can be reached at 571-270-5389. 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.
/FRANCIS Z. SANTIAGO MERCED/Examiner, Art Unit 3625
Prosecution Insights