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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 04/02/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that the claims as a whole are outside of the categories of abstract ideas. The Examiner disagrees. The recited claims describe managing inventory thresholds based on the probability of parameters. This is plainly business relations.
Applicant further argues that the claims provide a practical application by improving the functionality of a computer. The Examiner disagrees. The improvement Applicant describes is because of the use of a computer. Applicant’s claims do not provide a technological improvement to a problem routed in computer technology. According to the background in the original specification as filed, the problem Applicant’s claim wants to solve is that of incorrect inventory levels at high quality nodes. Applicant further likens the claims to those of Ex parte Mirza et al., Appeal 2024-003559, App. No. 17/218,757 (May 7, 2025) (hereinafter "Mirza"). The Examiner disagrees with Applicant’s assertions. Mirza was concerned with financial instruments and data storage. It does not follow the same fact pattern as the instant application, nor has Applicant presented a relevant nexus as to how the two can be used in a comparison.
Applicant further argues that the claims recite an ordered combination. The Examiner disagrees. The claims do not recite an ordered combination of claims that would result in an unconventional arrangement of improvement to technology, as discussed above. The recited order is not one that lends itself to patentability with respect to 35 USC 101.
Applicant argues that the claims are similar to those in Bascom Global Internet Services, Inc. v. AT&T Mobility LLC 15-1763, the Examiner disagrees. Unlike Bascom, the instant Application does not describe how its particular arrangement of elements is a technical improvement. Again, Applicant's supposed improvement is not from a problem rooted in technology. Accordingly, Applicant’s arguments are not persuasive and the rejections are maintained.
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 non-statutory subject matter because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more.
MPEP 2106 Step 2A-Prong 1
The claims recite:
generating inventory-not found probability predictions for a plurality of item-node pairs, causing the computer to: receive item data relating to each of a plurality of items, wherein the item data comprises an item category;
receive node data relating to each of a plurality of nodes; for each item-node pair, wherein an item-node pair corresponds to a particular item of the plurality of items that is intended to be inventoried at a particular node of the plurality of nodes:
select, based at least on the item category of the item of the item-node pair, receive, , training input data, the training input data received being based at least on the item category, the training data input comprising:
historic inventory-not-found rates for one or more timeframes at the node of the item-node pair;
historic inventory-not-found rates for one or more timeframes for the item of the item-node pair at the node of the item-node pair;
inventory-not-found rates for a department class associated with the category of the item of the item-node pair; and
real-time inventory level data for the node of the item-node pair;
wherein at least a first subset of the training data inputs is real-time data, wherein at least a second subset of the training data inputs is pre-computed feature data;
based on the item category, assigning a weight to each of the training data inputs; using the weighted training data inputs, to generate an updated version
receive data inputs; and
predict, an inventory-not-found probability for the item of the item-node pair at the node of the item-node pair;
determine that a change in the predicted inventory-not-found probability exceeds a threshold value;
monitor a volume of outbound communications associated with predicted inventory-not-found probabilities; and dynamically adjust transmission of the predicted inventory-not-found probability based on both (i) the threshold value and (ii) the monitored volume of outbound communications.
The claims falls into the abstract idea groupings of (b) Certain Methods Of Organizing Human Activity ** fundamental economic principles or practices (including hedging, insurance, mitigating risk) commercial or legal interactions (including agreements in the form of contracts; legal obligations; advertising, marketing or sales activities or behaviors; business relations) managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people (including social activities, teaching, and following rules or instructions)**
The limitations under their broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of business relations, but for the recitation of generic computer components. That is, other than recited, “memory, processor, machine learning application; machine learning models, classification model, computer”, nothing in the claim element precludes the step from practically being certain methods of organizing human activity. Accordingly, the claims recite an abstract idea.
MPEP 2106 Step 2A-Prong 2
The recited limitations are not indicative of integration into a practical application. In particular, the claims only recite the following additional elements, memory, processor, machine learning application; machine learning models, classification model, computer. These additional elements are recited at a high-level of generality such that in conjunction with the abstract limitations, they amount to no more than:
Adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or 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);
- (memory, processor, machine learning application; machine learning models, classification model, computer)
The claims do not include additional elements individually or in an ordered combination that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. Integration into a practical application requires the additional element(s) to apply, rely on, or use the judicial exception in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on the judicial exception, such that the claim is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception. This is not the case in the instant application. Further, as discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements amount to no more than: mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component.
MPEP 2106 Step 2B
Eligibility requires that the claim recites additional elements that amount to an inventive concept (aka “significantly more”) than the recited judicial exception. As discussed above, this is where the instant application falls short. The claims do not include additional elements individually or in an ordered combination that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception
Dependent Claims Step 2A:
The limitations of the dependent claims but for those addressed below merely set forth further refinements of the abstract idea without changing the analysis already
presented (that is, they further limit the organizing of human activities at step 2A —
Prong One without adding any new additional elements other than those already
analyzed above with respect to the independent claims at 2A — Prong Two; While claim 2 describes a database, 3-a machine learning application, classification model; Claim 17-a classification model; Claim 22-machine learning model and 23-model, these additional elements do not remedy the deficiencies.
Dependent Claims Step 2B:
The dependent claims merely use the same general technological environment
and instructions to implement the abstract idea as the independent claims without
adding any new additional elements. Accordingly, they are not directed to significantly
more than the exception itself and are not eligible subject matter under § 101.
Conclusion
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 nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) 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 TONYA S JOSEPH whose telephone number is (571)270-1361. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 6:30-2:30, First Fridays Off.
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, Shannon Campbell can be reached at (571) 272-5587. 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.
/TONYA JOSEPH/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3628
Prosecution Insights