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 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., an abstract idea) without “significantly more.” Claims 1-20 are directed to receiving historical stock data, calculating a decision value and outputting stock estimates based on the decision value, which is considered an abstract idea. Further, the claim(s) as a whole, when examined on a limitation-by-limitation basis and in ordered combination do not include an inventive concept.
Step 1 – Statutory Categories
As indicated in the preamble of the claims, the examiner finds the claims are directed to a machine.
Step 2A – Prong One - Abstract Idea Analysis
Exemplary claim 11 (and similarly claim 1) recites the following abstract concepts, in italics below, which are found to include an “abstract idea”:
An inventory quantity calculation system for calculating stock quantity estimates at an end of a next time period, the inventory quantity calculation system comprising:
a receiving unit configured to receive a plurality of historical beginning-of-period stock quantity estimates, a plurality of historical end-of-period stock quantity estimates, a plurality of historical end-of-period actual stock quantities, and a plurality of historical estimated shipment quantities;
a calculation unit configured to calculate a decision value, a first stock quantity estimate at the end of the next time period, and a second stock quantity estimate at the end of the next time period based on the plurality of historical beginning-of-period stock quantity estimates, the plurality of historical end-of-period stock quantity estimates, the plurality of historical end-of-period actual stock quantities, and the plurality of historical estimated shipment quantities; and
an output unit configured to output at least one of the first stock quantity estimate, the second stock quantity estimate, and a third stock quantity estimate to a display unit based on the decision value, wherein the third stock quantity estimate is calculated based on the first stock quantity estimate and the second stock quantity estimate, and the display unit displays the at least one of the first stock quantity estimate, the second stock quantity estimate, and the third stock quantity estimate outputted from the output unit.
The claim features in italics above as drafted, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, are mental processes and/or certain methods of organizing human activity performed by generic computer components. That is, other than reciting “a receiving unit”, “a calculation unit”, “an output unit” and “a display unit,” nothing in the claim element precludes the step from practically being performed in the mind or a method of organized human activity. In fact, the units themselves are simply placeholders for software which could be on a computer and therefore not necessarily recited as additional elements. For example, but for the “receiving unit”, “calculation unit”, “output unit” and “display unit,” language, “receive a plurality of historical beginning-of-period stock quantity estimates, a plurality of historical end-of-period stock quantity estimates, a plurality of historical end-of-period actual stock quantities, and a plurality of historical estimated shipment quantities; …calculate a decision value, a first stock quantity estimate at the end of the next time period, and a second stock quantity estimate at the end of the next time period based on the plurality of historical beginning-of-period stock quantity estimates, the plurality of historical end-of-period stock quantity estimates, the plurality of historical end-of-period actual stock quantities, and the plurality of historical estimated shipment quantities; and …output at least one of the first stock quantity estimate, the second stock quantity estimate, and a third stock quantity estimate… based on the decision value, wherein the third stock quantity estimate is calculated based on the first stock quantity estimate and the second stock quantity estimate, and … displays the at least one of the first stock quantity estimate, the second stock quantity estimate, and the third stock quantity estimate outputted from the output unit” in the context of this claim encompasses certain methods of organizing human activity. If the claim limitations, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers a fundamental economic practice, commercial or legal interaction or managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “certain method of organizing human activity” grouping of abstract ideas. Further, “calculate a decision value, a first stock quantity estimate at the end of the next time period, and a second stock quantity estimate at the end of the next time period based on the plurality of historical beginning-of-period stock quantity estimates, the plurality of historical end-of-period stock quantity estimates, the plurality of historical end-of-period actual stock quantities, and the plurality of historical estimated shipment quantities” in the context of this claim encompasses a mental process. If the claim limitations, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers steps which could be performed in the human mind including an observation, evaluation, judgement of opinion but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “mental process” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
Step 2A – Prong Two - Abstract Idea Analysis
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claims only recite six additional elements – “a receiving unit”, “a calculation unit”, “an output unit”, “a display unit” (claim 5 and 11), “a cloud system” (claims 6 and 16), and “a network unit” (claims 7 and 17). The units are recited as placeholders for the computer, but could simply be software and not necessarily recited as additional elements. The “receiving unit”, “calculation unit”, “output unit”, “display unit”, “cloud system” and “network unit” are recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as a generic processor performing generic computer functions) such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component (MPEP 2106.05(f), i.e. the calculating and outputting steps) and data gathering, which is a form of insignificant extra-solution activity (MPEP 2106.05(g), i.e. the receiving step). Accordingly, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to an abstract idea.
Step 2B - Significantly More Analysis
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to
significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements of “receiving unit”, “calculation unit”, “output unit”, “display unit”, “cloud system” and “network unit” amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component and insignificant extra-solution activity. Mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component and insignificant extra-solution activity cannot provide an inventive concept. Further, the background does not provide any indication that the “receiving unit”, “calculation unit”, “output unit”, “display unit”, “cloud system” and “network unit” are anything other than generic, off-the-shelf computer components. For these reasons, there is no inventive concept. The claim is not patent eligible.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Hunter Wilder whose telephone number is (571)270-7948. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8:30AM-5:30PM.
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, Florian 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.
/A. Hunter Wilder/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3627
Prosecution Insights