DETAILED ACTION
This Final Office Action is in response Applicant communication filed on
4/29/2026. In Applicant’s amendment, claims 1, 7, and 8 were amended.
Claims 1-8 are currently pending and have been rejected as follows.
Response to Amendments
Rejections under 35 USC 101 are maintained. Applicant’s amendments necessitated new grounds of rejection under 35 USC 103.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s 35 USC 101 rebuttal arguments and amendments have been fully considered but they are not persuasive to overcome the rejection.
Applicant argues on p. 5-6 that the claims are not directed to an abstract idea because of the specific index design and display logic. Examiner respectfully disagrees. Under Step 2A, Prong 1, examiners should determine whether a claim recites an abstract idea by (1) identifying the specific limitation(s) in the claim under examination that the examiner believes recites an abstract idea, and (2) determining whether the identified limitations(s) fall within at least one of the groupings of abstract ideas. If the identified limitation(s) falls within at least one of the groupings of abstract ideas, it is reasonable to conclude that the claim recites an abstract idea in Step 2A Prong One. The claim then requires further analysis in Step 2A Prong Two, to determine whether any additional elements in the claim integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Incorporating the use of computing components and displays does not preclude the claim from the realm of abstract ideas. The claimed computing components are considered individually and in combination with the limitations directed to the abstract idea at Step 2A, Prong 2. Under Step 2A, Prong 1, the claims recite a plurality of indexes being calculated with use of a predicted or planned value and including two particular indexes, which are mathematical concepts like mathematical relationships and mathematical calculations. The claimed computing and use of indexes is for demand prediction, which is a commercial interaction. The specificity of the abstract idea further narrows the abstract but does not preclude the claim from being directed to the recited abstract ideas.
Applicant argues on p. 6 that the claims integrate the recited concepts into a practical application because of the conversion of raw sales data into a tangible output. Examiner respectfully disagrees. Under Step 2A, Prong 2, examiners should evaluate whether the claim as a whole integrates the recited judicial exception into a practical application of the exception. Limitations the courts have found indicative that an additional element (or combination of elements) may have integrated the exception into a practical application include:
An improvement in the functioning of a computer, or an improvement to other technology or technical field, as discussed in MPEP §§ 2106.04(d)(1) and 2106.05(a);
Applying or using a judicial exception to effect a particular treatment or prophylaxis for a disease or medical condition, as discussed in MPEP § 2106.04(d)(2);
Implementing a judicial exception with, or using a judicial exception in conjunction with, a particular machine or manufacture that is integral to the claim, as discussed in MPEP § 2106.05(b);
Effecting a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing, as discussed in MPEP § 2106.05(c); and
Applying or using the judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment, such that the claim as a whole is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception, as discussed in MPEP § 2106.05(e).
The courts have also identified limitations that did not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application:
Merely reciting the words "apply it" (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or merely including instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely using a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea, as discussed in MPEP § 2106.05(f);
Adding insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception, as discussed in MPEP § 2106.05(g); and
Generally linking the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use, as discussed in MPEP § 2106.05(h).
Here, the claimed additional elements such as at least one processor; a computer recite computing components performing their expected functions. The alleged integration is merely applying the abstract idea to a computing environment. The claims do not recite an improvement to the function of a computer, or an improvement to other technology or technical field. The claims merely use computers as tools to perform the abstract idea.
Applicant argues on p. 6 that the claims recite significantly more than the abstract idea because of the specifically programmed processor and unique operations recited. Examiner respectfully disagrees. Under Step 2B, examiners should evaluate whether the claim recites additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. Although the conclusion of whether a claim is eligible at Step 2B requires that all relevant considerations be evaluated, most of these considerations were already evaluated in Step 2A Prong Two. Thus, in Step 2B, examiners should:
• Carry over their identification of the additional element(s) in the claim from Step 2A Prong Two;
• Carry over their conclusions from Step 2A Prong Two on the considerations discussed in MPEP §§ 2106.05(a) - (c), (e) (f) and (h):
• Re-evaluate any additional element or combination of elements that was considered to be insignificant extra-solution activity per MPEP § 2106.05(g), because if such re-evaluation finds that the element is unconventional or otherwise more than what is well-understood, routine, conventional activity in the field, this finding may indicate that the additional element is no longer considered to be insignificant; and
• Evaluate whether any additional element or combination of elements are other than what is well-understood, routine, conventional activity in the field, or simply append well-understood, routine, conventional activities previously known to the industry, specified at a high level of generality, to the judicial exception, per MPEP § 2106.05(d).
Here, the claim limitations do not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because they are directed to limitations referenced in MPEP 2106.05I.A. that are not enough to qualify as significantly more when recited in a claim with an abstract idea because the limitations recite mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea ‐ see MPEP 2106.05(f). Further, the asserted uniqueness of the operations, are the identified abstract subject matter. Programming a computer to perform the abstract idea does not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea.
Applicant's prior art arguments have been fully considered and they are persuasive to overcome the rejection. In particular, see applicant’s remarks on p. 6-9.
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 clearly drawn to at least one of the four categories of patent eligible subject matter recited in 35 U.S.C. 101 (method, system, and computer readable non-transitory recording medium). Claims 1-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without integrating the abstract idea into a practical application or amounting to significantly more than the abstract idea.
Regarding Step 1 of the 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance (‘2019 PEG”), Claims 1-6 are directed toward the statutory category of a machine (reciting an “apparatus”). Claim 7 is directed toward the statutory category of a process (reciting a “method”). Claim 8 is directed toward the statutory category of an article of manufacturer (reciting a “computer readable non-transitory recording medium”).
Regarding Step 2A, prong 1 of the 2019 PEG, Claims 1, 7 and 8 are directed to an abstract idea by reciting […] a first displaying process of displaying, based on a plurality of indexes, information indicating a product which requires a prediction reassessment, the plurality of indexes being calculated with use of a predicted value which is a result of a demand prediction of each of a plurality of products or a planned value which is a result of a shipment plan of each of the plurality of products, the plurality of indexes including (i) a first index which indicates a degree of divergence between an actual outcome value of past sales and the predicted value of each of the plurality of products and (ii) a second index which indicates a result of comparison between the predicted value or the planned value for one future period and an estimated value of sales for the one future period of each of the plurality of products; an accepting process of accepting a selection made by a user with respect to a product displayed in the first displaying process; and a second displaying process of displaying an analysis result regarding demand for a product corresponding to the selection accepted in the accepting process, wherein the estimated value of sales is calculated with use of an actual outcome value of sales in the same period of a preceding year, the first displaying process displays the information indicating a product which requires a prediction reassessment based on a combination of the first index and the second index (Example Claim 1).
The claims are considered abstract because these steps recite mathematical concepts like mathematical relationships and mathematical calculations; certain methods of organizing human activity like commercial interactions. The claims recite a plurality of indexes being calculated with use of a predicted or planned value and including two particular indexes, which are mathematical concepts like mathematical relationships and mathematical calculations. The claimed computing and use of indexes is for demand prediction, which is a commercial interaction. It is understood that the claimed steps aim to solve the problem of costly product-by-product demand prediction by providing the claimed technique to enable a user to efficiently carry out a product-by-product prediction reassessment (Applicant’s Specification, [0004]-[0005]). By this evidence, the claims recite a type of mathematical concepts like mathematical relationships and mathematical calculations and certain methods of organizing human activity like commercial interactions common to judicial exception to patent-eligibility. By preponderance, the claims recite an abstract idea (e.g., a “demand prediction assistance apparatus” for assisting in demand prediction).
Regarding Step 2A, prong 2 of the 2019 PEG, the judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the claims (the judicial exception and the additional elements such as at least one processor; a computer) are not an improvement to a computer or a technology, the claims do not apply the judicial exception with a particular machine, the claims do not effect a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing nor do the claims apply the judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment such that the claims as a whole is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception (see MPEP §§ 2106.05(a-c, e)).
Dependent claims 2-6 do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the limitations recite mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea ‐ see MPEP 2106.05(f).
Regarding Step 2B of the 2019 PEG, the additional elements have been considered above in Step 2A Prong 2. The claim limitations do not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because they are directed to limitations referenced in MPEP 2106.05I.A. that are not enough to qualify as significantly more when recited in a claim with an abstract idea because the limitations recite mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea ‐ see MPEP
2106.05(f).
Applicant's claims mimic conventional, routine, and generic computing by their similarity to other concepts already deemed routine, generic, and conventional [Berkheimer Memorandum, Page 4, item 2] by the following [MPEP § 2106.05(d) Part (II)]. The claims recite steps like: “Receiving or transmitting data over a network, e.g., using the Internet to gather data,” Symantec, “Performing repetitive calculations,” Flook, and “storing and retrieving information in memory,” Versata Dev. Group, Inc. v. SAP Am., Inc. (citations omitted), by performing steps of “displaying” information indicating a product requiring prediction reassessment; “accepting” a selection, and “displaying” an analysis result (Example Claim 1).
By the above, the claimed computing “call[s] for performance of the claimed information collection, analysis, and display functions ‘on a set of generic computer components' and display devices” [Elec. Power Group, 830 F.3d at 1355] operating in a “normal, expected manner” [DDR Holdings, LLC v. Hotels.com, L.P., 773 F.3d at 1245, 1258 (Fed. Cir. 2014)].
Conclusively, Applicant's invention is patent-ineligible. When viewed both individually and as a whole, Claims 1-8 are directed toward an abstract idea without integration into a practical application and lacking an inventive concept.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
US 7092929 B1: Methods of and apparatus for simulating and projecting future sales, inventory and gross margin are described. Some methods provide bottom-up item-by-item, per location simulation of unit inventory and unit sales. Notional deliveries and other features of simulations and projections are reflected in the detailed description, accompanying figures and claims.
WO 2020/046497 A1: Embodiments select demand forecast parameters for a demand model for one or more items, receive historical sales data for the items on a per store basis and receive a plurality of seasonality curves for a first item. Embodiments determine a repeatability of each of the seasonality curves using a correlation of each seasonality curve over year to year demand and retain a first seasonality curve based on the repeatability. Embodiments determine a smoothness of the first seasonality curve and determine a sparsity of the first seasonality curve. Based on the determined repeatability, smoothness and sparsity, embodiments determine that the first seasonality curve is reliable and repeat the receiving the plurality of seasonality curves, determining the repeatability, determining the smoothness, and determining the sparsity to determine a plurality of reliable seasonality curves. Embodiments use the demand model and the reliable seasonality curves and determine a demand forecast for the first item.
Matsumoto et al., Development of demand forecasting model for automotive electric component remanufacturing, 2016: Developing a reliable forecasting process is a crucial step for optimization of the overall planning process of product remanufacturing. This study examined the effectiveness of demand forecasting in remanufacturing by time series analysis (Holt-Winters model), product lifetime model (Weibull distribution), and incorporation of the two methods. To verify the effectiveness, the actual data of the time series of the sales of remanufactured alternators of an independent remanufacturer was used. For the forecasting over a year, the results provided average errors of 35.3% for Holt-Winters model, 42.2% for Weibull distribution, and 29.3% for the incorporated model. The results indicate the forecasting accuracy can improve by appropriately incorporating different methods. The results, implications, and future steps are discussed.
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 MOHAMED EL-BATHY whose telephone number is (571)270-5847. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F 8AM-4:30PM.
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, PATRICIA MUNSON can be reached on (571) 270-5396. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/MOHAMED N EL-BATHY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3624
Prosecution Insights