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 .
DETAILED ACTION
Status of Claims
This action is a first action on the merits in response to the application filed on 05/23/2025.
Claims 1 – 20 are currently pending and have been examined in this application.
Claim Objection
Claim 5 is objected to for the following informality. Claims 2 and 5 appear to recite substantially similar limitations with the only difference in Claim 2 reciting additional intended use language. Claim 5 is not further limiting Claim 1. Appropriate correction is required.
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 an abstract idea without significantly more. Claim 1 recites:
performing a forecast adjustment at a channel level for a demand forecast level by removing double-counted customer orders;
transferring the adjusted forecast at the channel level to fulfillment based on a demand- forecast-level-to-SKU conversion;
configuring planning and safety stock parameters for multi-level replenishment;
performing supply generation in distribution requirement planning at a SKU level;
creating supply according to related SKU planning parameters; calculating and generating planned arrivals;
performing a net priority demand rollup action by calculating unmet priority demands at each node in a supply chain network;
allocating supplies within a supply allocation duration time period to plan arrivals based on location priority and a demand date for each SKU being processed;
meeting priority demands within a minimum allocation duration time period; and
pegging demand and supply based on constrained and unconstrained supplies.
The limitation under its broadest reasonable interpretation covers Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activities related to commercial interactions, but for the recitation of generic computer components (e.g. a processor and memory). For example, performing a forecast adjustment at a channel level; transferring adjusted forecast; configuring planning and safety stock parameters, performing supply generation, etc. are related to commercial interactions for replenishment planning. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea of Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity.
In addition, the claim could be seen as Mental Processes observation and evaluation of data.
Independent Claims 8 and 15 substantially recite the subject matter of Claim 1 and also include the abstract ideas identified above. The dependent claims encompass the same abstract ideas. For instance, Claim 2 is directed to reconciling a long-term channel-level forecast with customer orders; Claim 3 is directed to disaggregating a monthly forecast to a weekly forecast and readjusting forecast; Claim 4 is directed to sorting the priority demands; Claim 5 is directed to reconciling a long-term channel-level forecast; Claim 6 is directed to demand forecast level sku conversion and Claim 7 is directed to allocating supplies. Claims 9-14 and 16-20 substantially recite the subject matter of Claims 2-7 and encompass same abstract ideas.
The judicial exceptions are not integrated into a practical application. Claim 1 recites the additional element of a server. Claim 8 recites the additional elements of a server comprising one or more processors or memory. Claim 15 recites the additional elements of a non-transitory computer readable medium and a server comprising a processor and a memory. These are generic computer components recited at a high level of generality as performing generic computer functions (Spec Figure 1 and ¶0029).
For instance, the steps of performing a forecast adjustment at a channel level for a demand forecast level by removing double-counted customer orders; performing supply generation in distribution requirement planning at a SKU level; creating supply according to related SKU planning parameters; calculating and generating planned arrivals; performing a net priority demand rollup action by calculating unmet priority demands at each node in a supply chain network; allocating supplies within a supply allocation duration time period to plan arrivals based on location priority and a demand date for each SKU being processed; meeting priority demands within a minimum allocation duration time period; and pegging demand and supply based on constrained and unconstrained supplies involve analyzing data. The steps related to transferring the adjusted forecast at the channel level to fulfillment based on demand forecast level to sku conversion is sending information and configuring planning and safety stock parameters for multi-level replenishment is data gathering functionality.
Each of the additional limitations is no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer components (e.g. a processor and memory). The combination of these additional elements is no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component (e.g. a processor and memory). Therefore, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract ideas into a practical application because it does not impose meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. Therefore, the claims are directed to an abstract idea.
The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As stated above, the additional elements of a processor, a memory, a server, crm etc. are considered generic computer components performing generic computer functions that amount to no more than instructions to implement the judicial exception. Mere, instructions to apply an exception using generic computer components cannot provide an inventive concept.
The dependent claims when analyzed both individually and in combination are also held to be ineligible for the same reason above and the additional recited limitations fail to establish that the claims are not directed to an abstract. The additional limitations of the dependent claims when considered individually and as an ordered combination do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea.
Looking at these limitations as an ordered combination and individually adds nothing additional that is sufficient to amount to significantly more than the recited abstract idea because they simply provide instructions to use generic computer components, to "apply" the recited abstract idea. Thus, the elements of the claims, considered both individually and as an ordered combination, are not sufficient to ensure that the claim as a whole amounts to significantly more than the abstract idea itself. Therefore, Claims 1-20 claim are not patent eligible.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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 set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied 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.
Claims 1, 4, 6, 7, 8, 11, 13-15, 18 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jenkins et al. (US 2002/0188499) in view of Shekar et al. (US 2003/0208392).
Claim 1:
Jenkins discloses:
A computer-implemented method for customer level replenishment planning by a server, comprising: (see at least ¶0038-¶0039, replenishment planning for multiple sku levels; see at least ¶0122, different locations)
performing a forecast adjustment at a channel level for a demand forecast level by removing double-counted customer orders; (see at least ¶0031, adjust the forecast for customer orders; see also ¶0032-¶0037, forecast adjustment rules)
transferring the adjusted forecast at the channel level to fulfillment based on a demand- forecast-level-to-SKU conversion; (see at least ¶0039, determines a level for each SKU)
configuring planning and safety stock parameters for multi-level replenishment; (see at least ¶0202-204, planning component allocates stock to cover safety stock for all destinations; see also ¶0174)
performing supply generation in distribution requirement planning at a SKU level; (see at least ¶0167,planning component can recommend shipments in constrained or unconstrained modes when allocating SKUs; see also ¶0174)
creating supply according to related SKU planning parameters; (see at least ¶0174, determining how much inventory is available to ship and whether supply is limited)
performing a net priority demand rollup action by calculating unmet priority demands at each node in a supply chain network; (see at least ¶0092-¶0094, determining how much demand is unmet and utilizing a reduction method)
allocating supplies within a supply allocation duration time period to plan arrivals based on location priority and a demand date for each SKU being processed; (see at least ¶0145, minimum allocation duration at one or more locations with same location priority; see also ¶0146; see also ¶0153, location priority)
meeting priority demands within a minimum allocation duration time period; and (see at least ¶0145, minimum allocation duration at one or more locations with same location priority; see also ¶0146; see also ¶0153, location priority)
While Jenkins discloses the above limitations, Jenkins does not explicitly disclose the following limitations; however, Shekar does disclose:
configuring planning and safety stock parameters for multi-level replenishment; (Shakir see at least ¶0039, safety stock rules for a group of skus or family of items; see also¶0049, safety stock goals)
pegging demand and supply based on constrained and unconstrained supplies. (Shakir see at least ¶0090, order pegging user view which displays supply orders that are responsible for meeting demand; see also ¶0104, pegging; see also ¶0224, unconstrained; see also ¶0103, order constraints )
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, having the teachings to combine the creating of inventory plans to meet customer requirements of Jenkins with the master resource planning including optimizing constrained resources of Shekar to assist in creating optimized plans to allocate and coordinate shipping and procurement of limited resources.
Claim 4:
Jenkins and Shekar disclose claim 1. Jenkins further discloses:
further comprising: sorting the priority demands based on independent demand priority, location priority, demand type, and requirement dates. (see at least ¶0202, determining location priority level of each destination sku; see also ¶0231, highest priority demand; see also ¶0314)
Claim 6:
Jenkins and Shekar disclose claim 1. Jenkins further discloses:
wherein the demand-forecast- level-to-SKU conversion is based on a conversion rule. (see at least ¶0039, determines a level for each SKU)
Claim 7:
Jenkins and Shekar disclose claim 1. Jenkins further discloses:
wherein the allocating supplies are chosen according to an order. (see at least ¶0326, allocation strategy to prioritize demand types; see also ¶0143-¶0148, allocation strategies)
Claims 8, 11, 13 and 14 for a system (Jenkins ¶0057, server) and Claims 15, 18 and 20 for a CRM substantially recites the subject matter of Claims 1, 4, 6 and 7 for a method and are rejected based on the same rationale.
Claims 2, 9 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jenkins et al. (US 2002/0188499) in view of Shekar et al. (US 2003/0208392) further in view of Mara (US 2003/0009416).
Claim 2:
While Jenkins and Shekar disclose claim 1, neither explicitly disclose the following limitation; however, Mara does disclose:
reconciling a long-term channel-level forecast with customer orders on a daily basis to ensure response to changes in demand signals. (see at least ¶0033, the total number of actual orders or sales are compared to the forecasted amount)
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, having the teachings to combine the creating of inventory plans to meet customer requirements of Jenkins and the master resource planning including optimizing constrained resources of Shekar with the comparing of forecast to orders placed of Mara to assist in determining forecasting accuracy in an organization (Spec see ¶0033).
Claim 5:
While Jekins and Shekar disclose claim 1, neither explicitly disclose the following limitation; however, Mara does disclose:
further comprising: reconciling a long-term channel-level forecast with customer orders on a daily basis. (see at least ¶0033, the total number of actual orders or sales are compared to the forecasted amount)
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, having the teachings to combine the creating of inventory plans to meet customer requirements of Jenkins and the master resource planning including optimizing constrained resources of Shekar with the comparing of forecast to orders placed of Mara to assist in determining forecasting accuracy in an organization (Spec see ¶0033).
Claim 9 for a system and Claim 16 for a CRM substantially recites the subject matter of Claim 2 and is rejected based on the same rationale.
Claims 3, 10 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jenkins et al. (US 2002/0188499) in view of Shekar et al. (US 2003/0208392) further in view of Notani et al. (US 2013/0179220).
Claim 3:
While Jekins and Shekar disclose claim 1, neither explicitly disclose the following limitation; however, Notani does disclose:
further comprising: disaggregating a monthly forecast to a weekly forecast; (see at least ¶0039, middle out forecast is generated at a DC product level that is further disaggregated at a store-item-day level)
and readjusting the weekly forecast based on market, territories, customers, customer groups and demand groups. (see at least ¶0079-¶0080, weekly forecast should be adjusted)
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, having the teachings to combine the creating of inventory plans to meet customer requirements of Jenkins and the master resource planning including optimizing constrained resources of Shekar with the disaggregation and adjustment functionality of Notani to assist to track and adjust any deviations in forecasts (see Abstract)
Claim 10 for a system and Claim 17 for a CRM substantially recites the subject matter of Claim 3 and is rejected based on the same rationale.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered relevant but not applied:
Huang et al. (US 5953707) discloses inventory control process does not generally take into account the problems associated with availability of materials and machines to satisfy the inventory demand.
Burger et al. (US 7835951) discloses ordering wireless handsets and accessories for the respective dealer agent based on the sales forecast, tracking and receiving the orders, reporting on sold product, updating the sales forecast based on sold product, and reconciling activations with ESN's.
Ayres de Castro et al. (US 2011/0071885) discloses Daily disaggregating parameters (DDP) are estimated by minimizing an error function of day of week and transactional data grouped according to promotion, price range, or customer.
Any inquiry of a general nature or relating to the status of this application or concerning this communication or earlier communications from the Examiner should be directed to Renae Feacher whose telephone number is 571-270-5485. The Examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 9:00 am - 5:00 pm. If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the Examiner's supervisor, Beth Boswell can be reached at 571-272-6737.
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.
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://portal.uspto.gov/external/portal/pair. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866.217.9197 (toll-free).
Any response to this action should be mailed to:
Commissioner of Patents and Trademarks
Washington, D.C. 20231
or faxed to 571-273-8300.
Hand delivered responses should be brought to the United States Patent and Trademark Office Customer Service Window:
Randolph Building
401 Dulany Street
Alexandria, VA 22314.
/Renae Feacher/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3625
