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 .
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 1-20 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract without significantly more.
Claims 1-20 all within a statutory category (step 1).
Exemplary claims 8-15 recite:
8. At least one non-transitory computer-readable medium storing instructions that, when executed, configure at least one processor for:calculating model probabilities and a ranked list of locations;receiving a selection of a plurality of the ranked locations;receiving actual item count data from at least a subset of the selected locations;comparing the actual item count data to a corresponding inventory record; andoutputting a discrepancy indication based upon a discrepancy between the actual item count data and the corresponding inventory record.
9. The at least one non-transitory computer-readable medium of claim 8, wherein the ranked locations are determined at least in part by a payoff matrix estimate calculation.
10. The at least one non-transitory computer-readable medium of claim 8 wherein the at least one processor is further configured for outputting instructions to replenish inventory for unavailable items or as indicated by a model as being likely unavailable.
11. The at least one non-transitory computer-readable medium of claim 8 wherein the ranking of locations is based at least in part on an overall value of fixing the discrepancy within a category.
12. The at least one non-transitory computer-readable medium of claim 8 wherein the at least one processor is further configured for monitoring the classification model performance with calculated performance metrics based at least in part on received input comprising auditor intervention to correct inventory quantity.
13. The at least one non-transitory computer-readable medium of claim 12, wherein the monitoring further comprises utilizing performance metrics for model degradation.
14. The at least one non-transitory computer-readable medium of claim 13 wherein the at least one processor is further configured for retraining the model based upon detected model degradation.
15. The at least one non-transitory computer-readable medium of claim 8, wherein the model probability comprises a probability of an item not being present at a location on a particular date.
But for the recitation of the underlined elements, the limitations, as drafted, are a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers inventory management of phantom inventory. Per MPEP 2106.04(a)(2): The courts have used the phrases “fundamental economic practices” or “fundamental economic principles” to describe concepts relating to the economy and commerce. Management of inventory can certainly be said to relate to commerce. Thus claims 8-15 recite a fundamental economic practice, which per MPEP 2106.04(a)(2) is an abstract idea (Step 2A_1).
The additional elements are computer hardware recited at a high degree of generality such that they amount to mere instructions to implement an abstract idea, which per MPEP 2106.05(f) means they do not provide a practical application or significantly more (Step 2A_2, Step 2B). Thus claims 8-15 are ineligible. Claims 1-7 and 16-20 contain similar limitations to claims 8-15 and are considered ineligible for substantially the same reasons.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1-8, 10-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Brooks (WO 2021171202 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Brooks discloses:
1. A method comprising:calculating model probabilities and a ranked list of locations (paragraph 42 PoP associated with likelihood of unavailable product; different PoP are ranked in the sense that the degree of uncertainty is used to select a PoP to audit); receiving a selection of a plurality of the ranked locations (paragraph 42 select a PoP to audit) ;receiving actual item count data from at least a subset of the selected locations (paragraph 43 counting the inventory of a product available); comparing the actual item count data to a corresponding inventory record (paragraph 43 degree of error between the standard system and actual count); and outputting a discrepancy indication based upon a discrepancy between the actual item count data and the corresponding inventory record (paragraph 43 discrepancy is determined).
Regarding claim 2, Brooks discloses:
2. The method of claim 1, further comprising outputting instructions to replenish inventory for unavailable items or as indicated by a model as being likely unavailable (paragraph 84 replenishment strategy based on product unavailability).
Regarding claim 3, Brooks discloses:
wherein the ranking of locations is based at least in part on an overall value of fixing the discrepancy within a category (paragraph 42 degree of uncertainty).
Regarding claim 4, Brooks discloses:
4. The method of claim 1, further comprising monitoring the classification model performance with calculated performance metrics based at least in part on received input comprising auditor intervention to correct inventory quantity (paragraph 28, 43, 84)
Regarding claim 5, Brooks discloses:
5. The method of claim 4, wherein the monitoring further comprises utilizing performance metrics for model degradation (paragraph 43 error used for feedback, paragraph 61)
Regarding claim 6, Brooks discloses:
6. The method of claim 5, further comprising retraining the model based upon detected model degradation (paragraph 43 develop more precise prediction methods, paragraph 61 train the network, paragraph 80)
Regarding claim 7, Brooks discloses
7. The method of claim 1, wherein the model probability comprises a probability of an item not being present at a location on a particular date (fig. 8 801, paragraph 83 predict actual availability at current date)
Claims 8 and 10-15 are rejected for the same reasons as claims 1-7 and see [81] regarding CRM-based software implementation.
Claim 16-20 are rejected for the same reasons as claim 1-5.
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claim(s) 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Brooks (WO 2021171202 A1) in view of “Matrix game (LP for game theory)” to Oswalt.
Regarding claim 9, Brooks discloses selecting between ranked locations (paragraph 42), but fails to disclose payoff matrix estimate calculations. However in analogous art, Oswalt discloses payoff matrix calculations (see entire document). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine this teaching with Brooks by using payoff matrices to facilitate decision making. The motivation for the combination is to optimize strategy (“best strategy”).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Kliper (US 20160140490 A1) discloses a probabilistic assessment of inventory level.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to NATHAN A MITCHELL whose telephone number is (571)270-3117. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9-5.
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, Ryan Zeender can be reached at 571-272-6790. 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.
/NATHAN A MITCHELL/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3627
