DETAILED ACTION
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 .
Double Patenting
Claims 1-23 are rejected under the doctrine of statutory double patenting as claiming the same invention as claims 1-23 of U.S. Patent No. 12,198,095 B2.
A statutory double patenting rejection is based upon 35 U.S.C. § 101, which states in pertinent part that an inventor "may obtain a patent therefor," thereby prohibiting the issuance of more than one patent claiming the identical invention. See MPEP § 804; In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Lonardo, 119 F.3d 960, 43 USPQ2d 1262 (Fed. Cir. 1997).
The instant application and U.S. Patent No. 12,198,095 B2 are commonly owned and claim the same invention.
With respect to independent claim 1, the instant claim recites a system comprising:
a monitoring sensor adapted for use at a monitored store; receiving monitored data indicating an inventory level measurement; receiving unmonitored data associated with an unmonitored store;
generating a model to estimate a correlation between inventory level and time for the unmonitored store; estimating the correlation based upon the model; estimating an inventory parameter of the unmonitored store using the correlation; estimating inventory levels and/or inventory timing information for the unmonitored store; and extrapolating or interpolating inventory parameters from a monitored store to an unmonitored store based on similarities between the stores.
Claim 1 of U.S. Patent No. 12,198,095 B2 recites the identical combination of limitations in substantially identical language and therefore defines the same invention. With respect to dependent claims 2-10, each claim recites the same limitations as corresponding claims 2-10 of U.S. Patent No. 12,198,095 B2, including:
• historical resupply information (claim 2);
• differing monitored and unmonitored data frequencies (claim 3);
• seasonal models (claim 4);
• updating the model using updated unmonitored data (claim 5);
• inventory consumption rate estimation (claim 6);
• updating the model using updated monitored data (claim 7);
• most recent inventory measurements (claim 8);
• inventory level estimation (claim 9); and
• inventory timing estimation (claim 10).
Accordingly, claims 2-10 are not patentably distinct from claims 2-10 of U.S. Patent No. 12,198,095 B2 because they are identical in scope.
Independent claim 11 recites a method corresponding to the system of claim 1. Claim 11 of U.S. Patent No. 12,198,095 B2 recites the identical method limitations in substantially identical language. Therefore, instant claim 11 claims the same invention as patented claim 11.
Dependent claims 12-20 likewise correspond directly to patented claims 12-20 and recite identical subject matter, including:
• historical resupply information;
• differing collection frequencies;
• seasonal models;
• model updates;
• inventory consumption estimation;
• inventory-level estimation; and
• inventory-time estimation.
Therefore, claims 12-20 claim the same invention as claims 12-20 of U.S. Patent No. 12,198,095 B2.
Independent claim 21 recites a computer program product for estimating an inventory parameter of an unmonitored store. Claim 21 of U.S. Patent No. 12,198,095 B2 recites the identical computer program product limitations in substantially identical language. Accordingly, instant claim 21 claims the same invention as patented claim 21.
Independent claim 22 recites a method including:
• monitored-data filtering;
• unmonitored-data filtering;
• collection of compliant datasets;
• blocking comparisons using a blocking module;
• computation of overlapped event histories;
• storage of overlapped event history data;
• generation of a model using the overlapped event histories; and
• estimation of inventory parameters for an unmonitored store.
Claim 22 of U.S. Patent No. 12,198,095 B2 recites the same limitations in substantially identical language and therefore claims the same invention.
Dependent claim 23 recites that the computing environment comprises parallel processing or distributed computing. Claim 23 of U.S. Patent No. 12,198,095 B2 recites the identical limitation and therefore claims the same invention.
Accordingly, claims 1-23 are rejected under the doctrine of statutory double patenting because the claims are identical in scope to claims 1-23 of U.S. Patent No. 12,198,095 B2.
This rejection is based on same-invention double patenting under 35 U.S.C. § 101 and cannot be overcome by the filing of a terminal disclaimer. The appropriate remedy is cancellation of the conflicting claims, amendment of the claims to render them patentably distinct from the patented claims, or a showing that the claims are not identical in scope.
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 1-23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception without significantly more.
Representative claim 1 is reproduced in substance and analyzed below. Claims 11, 21, and 22 recite substantially similar limitations and are directed to the same judicial exception. The remaining claims stand or fall therewith because they merely add insignificant extra-solution activity, data gathering, or field-of-use limitations.
STEP 1
Claim 1 is directed to a statutory category of invention, namely a machine.
Accordingly, the claim is analyzed under the judicial exception framework.
STEP 2A, PRONG ONE
Claim 1 recites a judicial exception.
Specifically, claim 1 recites limitations including: receiving monitored data providing inventory level measurements for a monitored store; receiving unmonitored data associated with an unmonitored store; generating a model to estimate a correlation between inventory level and time; estimating the correlation between inventory level and time; estimating an inventory parameter of the unmonitored store; estimating an inventory level for a specified time; estimating a time associated with a specified inventory level; extrapolating or interpolating inventory parameters from a monitored store to an unmonitored store.
These limitations describe collecting information, analyzing information, identifying relationships between data, generating predictive models, estimating future conditions, and producing results from mathematical relationships.
The limitations directed to generating a model, estimating correlations, extrapolating inventory parameters, interpolating inventory parameters, estimating inventory levels, and estimating times associated with inventory levels constitute mathematical concepts, including mathematical relationships, mathematical calculations, and mathematical modeling.
Additionally, the limitations directed to evaluating historical inventory information, comparing monitored and unmonitored stores, determining similarities, estimating future inventory conditions, and generating predictions can be performed in the human mind or with pen and paper and therefore constitute mental processes.
Accordingly, claim 1 recites abstract ideas in the form of mathematical concepts and mental processes.
STEP 2A, PRONG TWO
The claim as a whole does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
The additional elements recited in claim 1 include:
a monitoring sensor;
a communication device;
a computing device;
a processor;
a non-transitory machine-readable medium.
These elements are recited at a high level of generality and merely serve as tools for collecting, transmitting, storing, and processing information associated with the abstract idea.
The monitoring sensor merely gathers inventory measurements from a monitored store. The communication device merely transmits information. The processor and computing device merely perform generic data processing functions.
The claim does not recite any improvement to sensor technology, communication technology, computer functionality, data storage technology, networking technology, or inventory-monitoring hardware. The claim merely uses generic computing technology to perform inventory-related data analysis and predictive modeling.
The claimed invention does not effect a transformation of an article to a different state or thing, nor does it apply the judicial exception with any particular machine in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on the exception.
Accordingly, the claim does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. Therefore, claim 1 is directed to an abstract idea.
STEP 2B
The claim does not include additional elements that amount to significantly more than the abstract idea.
The additional elements recited in the claim, including the monitoring sensor, communication device, processor, computing device, and machine-readable medium, are generic computer components performing their well-understood, routine, and conventional functions of:
receiving data;
transmitting data;
storing data;
executing instructions;
processing data; and
outputting results.
The specification describes these components generically and does not indicate that they represent any unconventional hardware arrangement or technological improvement. Viewed individually and as an ordered combination, the claim merely automates the process of analyzing inventory information and predicting inventory conditions that could otherwise be performed by a human analyst using collected inventory records and mathematical calculations.
The ordered combination of receiving monitored inventory information, receiving historical inventory information, generating a predictive model, estimating correlations, and producing inventory predictions merely implements the abstract idea on generic computing technology.
The claim therefore does not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception itself. Accordingly, claim 1 lacks an inventive concept.
DEPENDENT CLAIMS
Claims 2 and 12 recite historical resupply times and historical inventory measurements. These limitations merely specify additional data used in the mathematical analysis and do not add significantly more.
Claims 3 and 13 recite receiving monitored data at a first frequency and unmonitored data at a second frequency. These limitations merely concern data collection and data gathering activity and do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application.
Claims 4 and 14 recite generating seasonal models for different time periods. The use of multiple predictive models for different periods remains a mathematical concept and does not provide an inventive concept.
Claims 5, 7, 15, and 17 recite updating the model using newly received data. Updating a predictive model based on additional information is part of the mathematical analysis and does not add significantly more.
Claims 6 and 16 recite estimating an inventory consumption rate. Estimating consumption rates constitutes mathematical analysis and prediction.
Claims 8 and 18 recite receiving a most recent inventory level measurement. Such limitations merely specify additional data inputs.
Claims 9, 10, 19, and 20 recite estimating inventory levels or times associated with inventory levels. These limitations are themselves mathematical estimations generated from the recited model.
Claim 21 recites a computer program product containing instructions for performing substantially the same abstract operations as claim 1 and therefore is directed to the same judicial exception without significantly more.
Claim 22 recites filtering monitored data, filtering unmonitored data, collecting datasets, blocking comparisons, computing overlapped event histories, storing event history data, generating a model, and estimating inventory parameters. These limitations recite additional mathematical analysis, data manipulation, comparison operations, and mental processes performed on information. The recited filtering module, blocking module, computation module, and database are generic computer components performing conventional data processing functions.
Claim 23 recites parallel processing or distributed computing. Performing the abstract idea using parallel processing or distributed computing merely uses generic computing resources as tools and does not provide an inventive concept.
Thus, claims 1-23 are directed to abstract ideas including mathematical concepts and mental processes involving inventory analysis, predictive modeling, correlation estimation, extrapolation, interpolation, and inventory forecasting. The claims do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application and do not recite additional elements sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. Therefore, claims 1-23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-23 are allowable over prior art. As allowable subject matter has been indicated, applicant's reply must either comply with all formal requirements or specifically traverse each requirement not complied with. See 37 CFR 1.111(b) and MPEP § 707.07(a).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ROKIB MASUD whose telephone number is (571)270-5390. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 8:00-5:00.
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 571-270-3324. 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.
/ROKIB MASUD/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3627
Prosecution Insights