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 .
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 02/13/2026 has been entered.
Claims 1-19 are presented for examination.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 02/13/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant’s argued:
PNG
media_image1.png
114
638
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
81
637
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Examiner respectfully disagrees. The recited limitations have not part of the claimed invention as argued.
Applicants argued:
PNG
media_image3.png
375
665
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Examiner respectfully disagrees. The newly amended limitations don’t appear to be enough to say there are clear practical application. The components recited such as “processor”, “computing device”, “non-transitory computer readable medium” and “controller” are considered to be general purpose computing components. Further, the recited limitation of “controlling how fuel supply network may operate” simply falls into the “mental process” group of abstract idea because the recited limitation can be practically performed in with pen and paper. Any purported improvement to a technology or technical field as direct consequence of the “mental process” grouping of abstract ideas. “An inventive concept "cannot be furnished by the unpatentable law of nature (or natural phenomenon or abstract idea) itself” (MPEP 2106.05(I)).
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 1-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1 (Does this claim fall within at least one statutory category?):
Claims 1-14 are directed to a method.
Claims 15-18 are directed to a system.
Claim 19 is directed to a product.
Therefore, claims 1-19 fall into at least one of the four statutory categories.
Step 2A, Prong 1: ((a) identify the specific limitation(s) in the claim that recites an abstract idea: and (b) determine whether the identified limitation(s) falls within at least one of the groups of abstract ideas enumerates in MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)):
Claim 1:
A method of controlling a fuel supply network comprising one or more feedstock sources, one or more processes and one or more end-use points, the method comprising:
defining, using a processor, a directed acyclic graph representative of the fuel supply network, said directed acyclic graph comprising a set of fuel pathways, each fuel pathway extending between one or more source nodes each representative of a feedstock source of the fuel supply network to one or more sink nodes each representative of an end-use point of the fuel supply network and comprising one or more edges representative of one or more processes of the fuel supply network, wherein one or more edges are associated with a throughput determined by one or more control elements of the fuel supply network operable to control the process of the fuel supply network associated with the respective edge [“mental process i.e. concepts performed in the human mind or with pen and paper (including an observation, evaluation judgement, opinion)];
the set of fuel pathways being defined based on equation (1):(1) Pr=e wherein P is a matrix having a number of columns equal to a number of reportable pathways of the set of fuel pathways and a number of rows equal to the number of edges in the fuel supply network, r is a vector of designated pathway quantities and e is a vector of average edge throughput for a predefined time period, and an element of P in row i and column i is equal to 1 if and only if edge i is part of reported pathway i, and all other elements of matrix P are equal to zero [mathematical concept i.e. mathematical formula];
defining, using a processor, a set of reportable fuel pathways as a system of linear equations, the set of reportable fuel pathways comprising a subset of the set of fuel pathways [“mental process i.e. concepts performed in the human mind or with pen and paper (including an observation, evaluation judgement, opinion) and/or mathematical concepts], the subset of the fuel pathways being selected in accordance with equation (1) to solve for a rank in accordance with equation (2) of: rank(P) <dim (r) [mathematical concept];
calculating, using a processor, designated pathway quantities for the set of reportable fuel pathways such that the designated pathway quantities satisfy the system of linear equations [“mental process i.e. concepts performed in the human mind or with pen and paper (including an observation, evaluation judgement, opinion) and/or mathematical concepts];
determining, using a processor, one or more throughput setpoint values for one or more edges in the directed acyclic graph based on the designated pathway quantities for one or more reportable fuel pathways associated with said one or more edges [“mental process i.e. concepts performed in the human mind or with pen and paper (including an observation, evaluation judgement, opinion) and/or mathematical concepts];
controlling, using one or more controllers, one or more control elements of the processes associated with the one or more edges based on the determined throughput setpoint values for the respective one or more edges to control the flow of fuel in the fuel supply network via the edges of the fuel supply network [“mental process i.e. concepts performed in the human mind or with pen and paper (including an observation, evaluation judgement, opinion) and/or mathematical concepts].
Claim 1 recites “defining, defining, calculating, determining, controlling” which fall into [“mental process i.e. concepts performed in the human mind or with pen and paper (including an observation, evaluation judgement, opinion) and/or mathematical concepts].
Step 2A, Prong 2 (1. Identifying whether there are any additional elements recited in the claim beyond the judicial exception; and 2. Evaluating those additional elements individually and in combination to determine whether the claim as a whole integrates the exception into a practical application): The claim is directed to the judicial exception.
Claim 1 recites additional elements of a “processor”, “computing device”, “non-transitory computer readable medium” and “controller”. These additional elements recited at a high level of generality (e.g. a generic computer element for performing a generic computer functions) such that it amounts to no more than mere application of the judicial exception using generic computer component(s). Accordingly, the additional element(s) of each of these claims do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
Step 2B: (Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception? No):
Further, as discussed above with respect to the integration of the abstract into a practical application, additional elements of a “processor”, “computing device”, “non-transitory computer readable medium” and “controller” amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the judicial exception using generic computer component(s). Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept.
As per claim 2, the claim falls into “mental process i.e. concepts performed in the human mind or with pen and paper (including an observation, evaluation judgement, opinion) and/or mathematical concepts”.
As per claim 3, the claim falls into “mental process i.e. concepts performed in the human mind or with pen and paper (including an observation, evaluation judgement, opinion) and/or mathematical concepts”.
As per claim 4, the claim falls into “mental process i.e. concepts performed in the human mind or with pen and paper (including an observation, evaluation judgement, opinion) and/or mathematical concepts”.
As per claim 5, the claim falls into “mathematical concepts”.
As per claim 6, the claim falls into “mental process i.e. concepts performed in the human mind or with pen and paper (including an observation, evaluation judgement, opinion) and/or mathematical concepts”.
As per claim 7, the claim falls into “mental process i.e. concepts performed in the human mind or with pen and paper (including an observation, evaluation judgement, opinion) and/or mathematical concepts”.
As per claim 8, the claim falls into “mental process i.e. concepts performed in the human mind or with pen and paper (including an observation, evaluation judgement, opinion) and/or mathematical concepts”.
As per claim 9, the claim falls into “mental process i.e. concepts performed in the human mind or with pen and paper (including an observation, evaluation judgement, opinion) and/or mathematical concepts”.
As per claim 10, the claim falls into “mental process i.e. concepts performed in the human mind or with pen and paper (including an observation, evaluation judgement, opinion) and/or mathematical concepts”.
As per claim 11, the claim falls into “mental process i.e. concepts performed in the human mind or with pen and paper (including an observation, evaluation judgement, opinion) and/or mathematical concepts”.
As per claim 12, the claim falls into [““mental process i.e. concepts performed in the human mind or with pen and paper (including an observation, evaluation judgement, opinion) and/or mathematical concepts”.
As per claim 13, the claim falls into “mental process i.e. concepts performed in the human mind or with pen and paper (including an observation, evaluation judgement, opinion) and/or mathematical concepts”.
As per claim 14, the claim falls into “mental process i.e. concepts performed in the human mind or with pen and paper (including an observation, evaluation judgement, opinion) and/or mathematical concepts”.
As per claim 15, independent claim 15 recites limitations analogous in scope to those of independent claim 1, and as such are similar rejected. Further, claim 15 recites additional elements of a “processor”, “computing device”, “non-transitory computer readable medium” and “one or more controllers”. The components recited at a high level of generality (e.g. a generic computer element for performing a generic computer functions) such that it amounts to no more than mere application of the judicial exception using generic computer component(s). Accordingly, the additional element(s) of each of these claims do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. Further, as discussed above with respect to the integration of the abstract into a practical application, additional elements of a “processor”, “computing device”, “non-transitory computer readable medium” and “controller” amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the judicial exception using generic computer component(s). Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept.
As per Claims 16-18, the claims fall into “mental process i.e. concepts performed in the human mind or with pen and paper (including an observation, evaluation judgement, opinion) and/or mathematical concepts”.
As per claim 19, independent claim 19 recites limitations analogous in scope to those of independent claim 1, and as such are similar rejected.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1, 15, and 19 would be allowable if rewritten or amended to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 101 set forth in this Office action.
Claims 2-14, and 16-18 depend on independent claims 1, 15, and 19. Therefore, dependent claims 2-14, and 16-18 would be allowable by virtue of their dependency on the allowable independent claims.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Phan et al (US Publication No. 2022/0027685 A1) discloses Abstract, automatically generating an optimization model for site-wide plant optimization includes mapping a process flow diagram of a plant process to a graph comprising nodes and edges, wherein the nodes represent processes and the edges represent flows between processes. A behavior is learned for each node of the graph based at least on historic data of the plant process. One or more regression functions are modeled for each node to predict an output of each of the processes, wherein the one or more regression functions are modeled based on the learned behavior for each node; [0017] In some embodiments, the regression functions include piece-wise linear and non-linear types of regression models; par [0019] A typical process flow diagram could be used for site-wide process optimization. Set points, such as temperatures, pressures, flow rates, and the like, are used to control the behavior of processes and plants. Invariably, set points have both upstream and downstream effects; par [0035] utilizing terms such as “processing,” “computing,” “calculating,” “determining,” or the like, refer to the action and/or processes of a computer or computing system; par [0039] A typical process flow diagram could be used for site-wide process optimization. Set points, such as temperatures, pressures, flow rates, and the like, are used to control the behavior of processes and plants; par [0040] Referring to FIGS. 1 and 2, one act in developing a sitewide optimization model is to create a time-indexed graphical representation 100 (also referred to as directed acyclic graph 100) of the various processes, P1, P2, P3, P4, P5, referred generically as process 102. In a typical time-indexed graphical representation 100, each process 102 has a self-contained set of inputs 104 and outputs 106, where an output from an upstream process becomes an input into a downstream process. In the example of FIG. 1, storage tanks T1, T2, T3, T4 may be used to identify an output from one process and an input to another process. For example, the output from process P1 is in tank T1 and the output from process P2 is in tank T2. Tank T3 is the combination of tank T1 and tank T2 and provides the input to process P3; par [0041] Each node in the graph 100 represents the state of a specific process (e.g., P1) or a storage tank (e.g., T1), and each edge denotes a corresponding material flow rate. More generally, each plant itself could be modeled using multiple lower level process nodes that connect to make up the plant. It is useful to adopt a discrete time model, i.e., a set of time periods at a chosen resolution, say hourly intervals. The plant variables could be defined to be in correspondence with either time periods (e.g., flow rates, set points over the next hour), or with time points, i.e., the endpoints of any time period (e.g., tank levels at the end of the next hour). Each node or edge is also equipped with a data structure to capture various parameters like current set points, states of other process variables in the plant (e.g., quality, temperature, density), static capacity limits, flow throughput limits, and the like. While the above network representation is necessarily a simplification of a realistic process flow diagram, it can be used for realizing a prediction optimization framework; par [0046] The outputs of the optimization model can include a continuous optimization model 208, that can provide function values, gradients and the like, and a mixed-integer linear program 270 that provides a mixed-integer program (MIP) model 274. A user may experiment with different configurations and KPIs to product a list of options for setpoints and expected target values, where the best one may be selected by the user; par [0052] For regression models, such as linear regression and decision tree, the optimization approach can reformulate the problem as a scalable mixed-integer linear program (MILP). Relaxation methods such as McCormick envelope and Sherali-Adams' reformulation linearization technique can be used to handle specific bi-linear forms from pooling constraints. Nonlinear regression functions such as general deep neural networks or general ensemble models can lead to nonlinear constraints or even black-box constraints. In addition, depending on the type of the learned prediction model, nonlinear optimization algorithms can be used to exploit the special structure of problems. For instance, for a single period model, such as shown in FIG. 4B, an augmented Lagrangian method (ALM) can be used to solve for it when f.sub.l is highly non-linear, it cannot be linearized and its gradients are available. The other set of linear constraints in FIG. 4B capture the process flow (i.e., network flow constraints) that represent mass balance and inventory levels; par [0070] Referring to FIG. 11, a continuous model for regression functions is shown. For piece-wise linear partition models, such as decision tree (DT), multivariate adaptive regression splines (MARS), and FFN, one can trace to the leaf node and compute the gradient. The function value can be computed from the regression function.
Ezra et al (US Publication No. 2011/0172816 A1) discloses Abstract, a fuel delivery pathway control is provided for remotely monitoring and controlling the delivery of fuel from a producer to consumers Fueling vehicles transport the fuel from storage tanks at a fuel depot to fueling station storage tanks, and the fuel is then dispensed from the fueling station storage tanks to consumer vehicles Fuel delivery is controlled and authorized wirelessly.
However, none of the cited prior art references of record fully anticipate or render obvious the independent claims in particular the limitation of: “the set of fuel pathways being defined based on equation (1):(1) Pr=e wherein P is a matrix having a number of columns equal to a number of reportable pathways of the set of fuel pathways and a number of rows equal to the number of edges in the fuel supply network, r is a vector of designated pathway quantities and e is a vector of average edge throughput for a predefined time period, and an element of P in row i and column i is equal to 1 if and only if edge i is part of reported pathway i, and all other elements of matrix P are equal to zero; defining, using a processor, a set of reportable fuel pathways as a system of linear equations, the set of reportable fuel pathways comprising a subset of the set of fuel pathways, the subset of the fuel pathways being selected in accordance with equation (1) to solve for a rank in accordance with equation (2) of: rank(P) <dim (r)” recited in claims 1, 15, and 19.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KIBROM K GEBRESILASSIE whose telephone number is (571)272-8571. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9:00 AM-5:30 PM.
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, Rehana Perveen can be reached at 571 272 3676. 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.
KIBROM K. GEBRESILASSIE
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2189
/KIBROM K GEBRESILASSIE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2189 03/12/2026