DETAILED ACTION
This communication is a first Office Action Non-Final rejection on the merits. Claims 1-8 as originally filed are currently pending and are considered below.
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 .
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant’s claim for foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. 119 (a)-(d).
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on December 16, 2024 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-8 recite subject matter allowable over the prior art of record.
Reasons for Allowance
The most remarkable prior arts on record are to Kataoka U.S. Patent Application Publication 2004/0186765 and Ranagarajan et al., U.S. Patent Application Publication 2009/0063251.
Kataoka is directed to a business profit improvement support system, which prompts a user to perform a market analysis evaluation of business and supports profit improvement of the business, comprises an input part for inputting prescribed information, a processing part for calculating a value of a prescribed parameter based on the prescribed information inputted by the input part and determining a ranking of the prescribed parameter based on the value calculated, and a display part for prompting the user to input the prescribed information by the input part, displaying the ranking of the prescribed parameter determined by the processing part in a graph, and prompting the user to perform the market analysis evaluation of the business. Kataoka., Abstract.
Ranagarajan et al., is directed to a system and method for simultaneous price optimization and asset allocation to maximize manufacturing profits. In one embodiment, a set of price points for the item and a set of expected demand values for each price point are determined. A supply-side constraint which models inventory, replenishment, and capacities associated with replenishment and a joining constraint, which requires that the set of expected demand values be equal to a planned supply of the item, are determined. A demand-side constraint is determined. Further, an objective function to maximize profits is determined, based on the set of price points, the set of expected demand values, and subject to the supply-side, joining, and demand-side constraints. Based on the objective function, an optimal price profile for the item is provided. Ranagarajan et al., Abstract.
Kataoka nor Ranagarajan et al. teach the limitations of the claimed invention, an inventory management cost calculator:
that acquires the master information from the database according to an instruction from the user terminal;
that identifies item categories for all items being handled according to the item characteristics of the characteristic data and to the gradient distribution data;
that calculates, for items belonging to the item category including the inventory management cost item of the identified item category, a multiplied value by multiplying items of the item characteristic data with items of the inventory management actual result data causing the inventory management cost items in the relevance data;
that calculates a proportion of the multiplied value with respect to a total sum of the multiplied values for all items, thereby calculating an allocation ratio for the item concerned with the multiplied value. Moreover, none of the prior art of record remedies the deficiencies found in Kataoka and Ranagarajan et al. or could be combined with any other reference to produce the claimed invention.
Any comments considered necessary by applicant must be submitted no later than the payment of the issue fee and, to avoid processing delays, should preferably accompany the issue fee. Such submissions should be clearly labeled “Comments on Statement of Reasons for Allowance.”
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 1-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
The claim(s) recite(s): a user terminal constructed by a computer;
an inventory assessment device constructed by a server computer that is connected to the user terminal via a network and that calculates an assessment index as an index of optimization level of inventory; and
a database that stores master information for calculating the assessment index, wherein the database stores:
inventory management cost data including inventory management cost items and a sum of each of the cost items;
item characteristic data that describes, as item characteristics, a type of a transportation route for each of items of component; gradient distribution data that defines an inventory management cost that occurs for each of item categories;
inventory management actual result data for each of items; and relevance data that defines occurrence cause items for the inventory management cost items, wherein the inventory assessment device comprises:
an inventory management cost calculator:
that acquires the master information from the database according to an instruction from the user terminal;
that identifies item categories for all items being handled according to the item characteristics of the characteristic data and to the gradient distribution data;
that calculates, for items belonging to the item category including the inventory management cost item of the identified item category, a multiplied value by multiplying items of the item characteristic data with items of the inventory management actual result data causing the inventory management cost items in the relevance data;
that calculates a proportion of the multiplied value with respect to a total sum of the multiplied values for all items, thereby calculating an allocation ratio for the item concerned with the multiplied value; and
that calculates an inventory management cost for the item concerned with the multiplied value by multiplying the allocation ratio with a total sum of cost items of the inventory management cost items;
an index calculator that calculates a ratio of profit to inventory and an order fill rate of the item as the assessment index, from the inventory management cost for each item calculated by the inventory management cost calculator and from the inventory management actual result data,
wherein the ratio of profit to inventory being a proportion of profit with respect to inventory value for each item; and
an outputting unit that outputs, to the user terminal as the assessment index, the ratio of profit to inventory and the order fill rate calculated by the index calculator, wherein the user terminal displays on a screen the assessment indexes for each of item.
The steps of the method, as drafted, provide a process that, under its broadest reasonable
interpretation, covers mathematical calculations for example calculating an assessment index of inventory optimization level of inventory.
If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers mathematical relationships, formulas, equations or calculations, then it falls within the “Mathematical Concepts” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. The claim recites multiple additional elements.
A user terminal, defined by generic computer performing generic computer functions that amount to mere instructions to execute the abstract idea.
An assessment device, comprising a server computer connected via a network to a user terminal performing the generic computer function of sending and receiving data over a network.
A database, performing generic computer functions of storing data.
A management cost calculator, performing repetitive calculations using generic computer components.
To the extent that outputting may be interpreted as an additional element (as defined by a
display monitor or screen), then this additional element would also fail to integrate the abstract idea
into a practical application. The outputting step includes a computer monitor or screen, that is recited at a high‐level of generality (i.e., as a generic device performing a generic function of displaying) such that it amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component.
Accordingly, these 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. Similarly, a
computer monitor or screen would not be 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 a display (such as a computer screen) 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.
The claim is patent ineligible.
Similarly, the claim does 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 elements of the user terminal, database computer server and inventory assessment device amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components. Mere instructions to apply an exception
using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. When considering the claim
as a whole, the claim is not patent eligible.
The dependent claims also are patent ineligible. For example, claims 2 and 6 include the step
of displaying a graph and outputting KPIs respectively, which further describes the
mathematical calculations. Claims 3, 4, 5, 6, 7 and 8 further describe the abstract idea with limitations directed to storing data within a database, describing data, calculating KPIs, receiving instructions for a virtual scenario and generating a scenario.
Claim 3 includes the additional elements of a inventory management cost calculator. However, the inventory management cost calculator is recited at a high‐level of generality such that
they amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer
components. Accordingly, this 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.
Claim 6 includes the additional elements of a KPI calculation unit. However, the KPI calculation unit is recited at a high‐level of generality such that they amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components. Accordingly, this 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.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Srinivasan et al., U.S. Patent Application Publication 20087/0083413 discusses allocating inventory across a plurality of locations in a supply chain. In one embodiment, a method comprises determining a total time-phased inventory and target safety stock level for each of the items at each location based on the baseline inventory as determined from expected demand and lead times for each item at each location, a target service level, a demand uncertainty level, a lead time uncertainty level, carrying costs in the supply chain and user constraints on budget, capacity and inventory.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ASHFORD S HAYLES whose telephone number is (571)270-5106. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 6AM-4PM with Flex.
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 5712703324. 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.
/ASHFORD S HAYLES/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3627
Prosecution Insights