DETAILED ACTION
The following Non-Final office action is in response to application 19/001,737 filed on 12/26/2024. Examiner notes priority claim to JP2024-048273 filed 3/25/2024. IDS filed 12/26/2024 has been considered.
Status of Claims
Claims 1-8 are currently pending and have been rejected as follows.
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 (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.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
Claims 1-8 are rejected under 35 USC 103 as being unpatentable over the teachings of
Faure et al., US 20100010869 A1, hereinafter Faure, in view of
Hunt et al., US 20080294996 A1, hereinafter Hunt. As per,
Claims 1, 7, 8
Faure teaches
A demand prediction assistance apparatus, comprising at least one processor, the at least one processor carrying out: /
A demand prediction assistance method, comprising: at least one processor /
A computer-readable non-transitory recording medium having recorded thereon a program for causing a computer to function as a demand prediction assistance apparatus, the program causing the computer to carry out: (Faure [0032])
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 (Faure [0004] “reviewing the output of the DCA (demand curve analysis) tool” corresponding to the displaying of information indicating a product which requires a prediction reassessment; [0055] “At block 1410 an actual forecast error may be determined based on historical data for one or more products” note the actual forecast error corresponding to 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)
(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; (Faure [0054] “a forecast may be made for a predetermined time period … At block 1450 a potential forecast error may be estimated;” [0055] “At block 1530 a potential forecast error may be estimated … At block 1540 the actual forecast error determined in block 1510 may be compared” note the forecast for a predetermined time period and a potential forecast error corresponding to the second index)
[…];
[…].
Faure does not explicitly teach, Hunt however in the analogous art of product analytics teaches
an accepting process of accepting a selection made by a user with respect to a product displayed in the first displaying process; and (Hunt [0286] “a user might click on three segments of a pie chart (e.g., a pie chart showing ten different brands of products of a particular category)” note the user selecting products displayed in the pie chart)
a second displaying process of displaying an analysis result regarding demand for a product corresponding to the selection accepted in the accepting process. (Hunt [0286] “a user might click on three segments of a pie chart (e.g., a pie chart showing ten different brands of products of a particular category) to indicate a desire to run a query that renders views of those three segments, leaving out unselected segments (the other brands in the category).” Note the display of the analysis in response to the selection made)
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Faure’s demand assistance tool to include accepting user selection and displaying analytic results responsive to the user selection in view of Hunt in an effort to create an actionable view of product data (see Hunt ¶ [0010] & MPEP 2143G).
Claim 2
Faure teaches
wherein the plurality of indexes includes a third index which indicates a trend in a difference between the predicted value and the actual outcome value. (Faure fig. 6 noting the high trend differential and the low trend differential in the list of parameters; [0046] “the demand planning may include determinations of … trend tendencies of demand”)
Claim 3
Faure teaches
wherein the plurality of indexes includes a fourth index regarding movement in an actual outcome value of wholesale shipping or an actual outcome value of end-user consumption. (Faure [0041] “the sales history time series data may include one or more of order history, shipment history, and point of sale history data” noting the shipment history corresponding to wholesale shipping and point of sale history corresponding to end-user consumption)
Claim 4
Faure does not explicitly teach, Hunt however in the analogous art of product analytics teaches
wherein in the second displaying process, the at least one processor displays a list of products sorted according to a sorting criterion obtained by combining the plurality of indexes. (Hunt [1196] “the analytic data platform may provide … adding new product or store hierarchy, adding new calculated measure, adding new data source or new attribute, calculating distribution measures, cross category analysis, attribute analysis across categories, ability to extend to additional categories and true integration of panel and POS data;” [1198] “the unified reporting and solution framework may include … interactive drill down, dynamic filter/sort/rank” note the included analytics and the unified reporting including dynamic sorting and ranking)
The motivation/rationale to combine Faure with Hunt persists.
Claim 5
Faure teaches
wherein in the second displaying process, the at least one processor displays an image in which at least some of the plurality of products are plotted in a feature space defined by the plurality of indexes. (Faure fig. 16; [0041] “At block 544 the ABCD algorithm may be used to produce a quadrant graph on the time series data based on variability and volume in the format shown in FIG. 16” note the quadrant graph corresponding to the image and the variability and volume are the indexes defining the feature space)
Claim 6
Faure does not explicitly teach, Hunt however in the analogous art of product analytics teaches
wherein in the second displaying process, the at least one processor extracts, from the plurality of products, a product having an index which is greater than a threshold, the index being included in the plurality of indexes, and displays the product, and in the accepting process, the at least one processor accepts a setting of the threshold made by the user. (Hunt [0409] “The output may comprise or be associated with the user-defined data projection (i.e., the analytical result).” Note the acceptance of user defined criteria corresponding to the user set threshold; [0503] “sales management may comprise monitoring sales performance … Plan variance % may define conditional formatting for >10% variance.” Note the monitoring and viewing of product performance for a product exceeding a 10% variance)
The motivation/rationale to combine Faure with Hunt persists.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. US 20150186972 A1; AU 2021201483 A1; Saravanan et al., Forecasting Economy using Machine Learning Algorithm, 2022.
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