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
Notice to Applicant
In response to the communication received on 12/30/2025, the following is a Final Office Action for Application No. 17656868.
Status of Claims
Claims 1, 3-5, 15 and 17-19 are pending.
Claims 2, 6-14, 16 and 20 are cancelled.
Priority
As required by M.P.E.P. 201.14(c), acknowledgement is made of applicant’s claim for priority based on: 17656868 filed 03/28/2022 Claims Priority from Provisional Application 63235074, filed 08/19/2021.
Response to Amendments
Applicant’s amendments have been fully considered. Applicant’s amendments to the claims overcome the 35 U.S.C 103 rejection, and hence the 35 U.S.C. 103 rejection has been withdrawn.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the claims have been fully considered. The arguments are not persuasive with respect to the 101 rejection as follows.
As per the 101 rejection, Applicant argues that the claims are in favor of eligibility per Prong One of Step 2A, however Examiner respectfully disagrees. Per Prong One of Step 2A, the identified recitation of an abstract idea falls within at least one of the Abstract Idea Groupings consisting of: Mathematical Concepts, Mental Processes, or Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity. Particularly, the identified recitation falls within the Mental Processes including concepts performed in the human mind (including an observation, evaluation judgment, opinion) and/or Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity including managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people (including social activities, teaching, and following rules of instructions). Since the recitation of the claims falls into at least one of the above Groupings, there is a basis for providing further analysis with regard to Prong Two of Step 2A to determine whether the recitation of an abstract idea is deduced to being directed to an abstract idea. Thus, the rejection is maintained.
Applicant argues that the claims are in favor of eligibility per Prong Two of Step 2A, however Examiner respectfully disagrees. Per Prong Two of Step 2A, this judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the claim as a whole does not integrate the identified abstract idea into a practical application. The processor and/or memory medium is recited at a high level of generality, i.e., as a generic processor performing a generic computer function of processing/transmitting data. This generic processor server limitation is no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Further, processor and/or memory medium to inter alia perform the function of iteratively solve the master problem and the subproblem to generate the solution using a family column generation method is mere instruction to apply an exception using a generic computer component which cannot integrate a judicial exception into a practical application. Accordingly, this/these additional element(s) does/do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. In other words, the present claims use a generic processing device and memory medium to inter alia perform the function of iteratively solve the master problem and the subproblem to generate the solution using a family column generation method which is a concept that can be performed in the human mind. The processor is merely used to perform the function(s), and the processor does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application since there are no meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. Thus, since the claims are directed to the determined judicial exception in view of the two prongs of Step 2A, the 2019 PEG flowchart is directed to Step 2B. Thus, the rejection is maintained.
Applicant argues that the claims are in favor of eligibility per Step 2B, however Examiner respectfully disagrees. Therein, the additional elements and combinations therewith are examined in the claims to determine whether the claims as a whole amounts to significantly more than the judicial exception. It is noted here that the additional elements are to be considered both individually and as an ordered combination. In this case, the claims each at most comprise additional elements of: processor and/or memory medium. Taken individually, the additional limitations each are generically recited and thus does not add significantly more to the respective limitations. Further, processor and/or memory medium to inter alia perform the function of iteratively solve the master problem and the subproblem to generate the solution using a family column generation method is mere instruction to apply an exception using a generic computer component which cannot provide an inventive concept in Step 2B (or, looking back to Step 2A, cannot integrate a judicial exception into a practical application). For further support, the Applicant’s specification supports the claims being directed to use of a generic computer/memory type structure. Taken as an ordered combination, the claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the limitations are directed to limitations referenced in Alice Corp. that are not enough to qualify as significantly more when recited in a claim with an abstract idea include the non-limiting or non-exclusive examples of MPEP § 2106.05. Thus, the rejection is maintained.
In an effort to further expedite prosecution, see: Appendix 1 to the October 2019 Update: Subject Matter Eligibility, Life Sciences & Data Processing Examples, October 2019 30, Example 46. Livestock Management. Per claim 1 of Example 46, the memory, display and processor are recited so generically (no details whatsoever are provided other than that they are a memory, display and processor) that they represent no more than mere instructions to apply the judicial exception on a computer. These limitations can also be viewed as nothing more than an attempt to generally link the use of the judicial exception to the technological environment of a computer. As an exemplary direction for similar claim limitations to be eligible, see claims 2-4 of Example 46.
Furthering efforts to expedite prosecution, the following provides a Broadest Reasonable Interpretation of claim 15, to wit, claim 15 does not provide any structure for performing the method. For instance, the first step of receiving information associated with facilities, a person can receive the information which is certain methods of organizing human activity. The same is applied to receiving demands step. Now a mental process encapsulates the remainder of steps including inter alia generating a facility location problem, splitting into master and subproblem, iteratively solving and wherein steps to further limit the abstract idea without providing practical application and/or significantly more. Again, there is no structure, e.g., memory and/or processor, to perform the method claim 15. As per claim 1, claim 1 is a system which provides that the system incorporates at least one memory and at least one processor configured to perform substantially similar operations as that of claim 15. However, the processor and/or memory is loosely applied and does not provide more than “apply it”. Similarly, the knapsack problem solver is performed with a second processor of the set of at least one processor. Taken as an ordered combination, the claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the limitations are directed to limitations referenced in Alice Corp. that are not enough to qualify as significantly more when recited in a claim with an abstract idea include, as a non-limiting or non-exclusive examples: i. Adding the words "apply it" (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, e.g., a limitation indicating that a particular function such as creating and maintaining electronic records is performed by a computer, as discussed in Alice Corp., 134 S. Ct. at 2360, 110 USPQ2d at 1984 (see MPEP § 2106.05(f)).
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, 3-5, 15 and 17-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 as directed to non-statutory subject matter.
Claims 1, 3-5, 15 and 17-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 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. In adhering to the 2019 PEG, Step 1 is directed to determining whether or not the claims fall within a statutory class. Herein, the claims fall within statutory class of process or machine or manufacture. Hence, the claims qualify as potentially eligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C §101. With Step 1 being directed to a statutory category, the 2019 PEG flowchart is directed to Step 2. Step 2 is the two-part analysis from Alice Corp. (also called the Mayo test). The 2019 PEG makes two changes in Step 2A: It sets forth new procedure for Step 2A (called “revised Step 2A”) under which a claim is not “directed to” a judicial exception unless the claim satisfies a two-prong inquiry. The two-prong inquiry is as follows: Prong One: evaluate whether the claim recites a judicial exception (an abstract idea enumerated in the 2019 PEG, a law of nature, or a natural phenomenon). If claim recites an exception, then Prong Two: evaluate whether the claim recites additional elements that integrate the exception into a practical application of the exception. The claim(s) recite(s) the following abstract idea indicated by non-boldface font and additional limitations indicated by boldface font:
at least one memory; and at least one processor that is coupled to the at least one memory, wherein the at least one processor is configured to determine an assignment between a plurality of facilities and a plurality of customers, wherein the at least one processor is further configured to: receive information associated with each of the plurality of facilities, wherein the information comprises an opening cost and a capacity for the corresponding facility, receive a plurality of demands associated with each of the plurality of customers, generate, based on the information and the plurality of demands, a facility location problem comprising a single source capacitated facility location problem, wherein a solution to the facility location problem minimizes a total cost of opening a subset of the plurality of facilities such that (a) each of plurality of customers is assigned to exactly one of the subset of the plurality of facilities and (b) the demand for a particular customer is less than the capacity of the assigned facility, and wherein the total cost comprises the opening cost for each of subset of the plurality of facilities and a cost associated with assigning the particular customer to the corresponding facility, split the facility location problem into a master problem and a subproblem, wherein the master problem and the subproblem comprise constraints associated with the facility location problem, and iteratively solve, using a family column generation method, the master problem and the subproblem to generate the solution comprising assignments between the plurality of customers and the subset of the plurality of facilities that minimize the total cost, wherein the family column generation method comprises a column generation method, wherein the column generation method comprises adding a column to the master problem as part of solving the subproblem, wherein the column corresponds to an assignment of a candidate customer to a candidate facility, wherein the family column generation method further comprises adding a family of the column to the master problem as part of solving the subproblem, and wherein the family of the column corresponds to assignments of additional candidate customers to the candidate facility such that a demand of each of the additional candidate customers is less than the capacity of the candidate facility, wherein the master problem is solved using a dual coordinate ascent method by a first processor of the at least one processor and the subproblem is an integer linear program that is solved using a 0-1 knapsack problem solver by a second processor of the at least one processor..
Per Prong One of Step 2A, the identified recitation of an abstract idea falls within at least one of the Abstract Idea Groupings consisting of: Mathematical Concepts, Mental Processes, or Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity. Particularly, the identified recitation falls within the Mental Processes including concepts performed in the human mind (including an observation, evaluation judgment, opinion) and/or Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity including managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people (including social activities, teaching, and following rules of instructions). Per Prong Two of Step 2A, this judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the claim as a whole does not integrate the identified abstract idea into a practical application. The processor and/or memory medium is recited at a high level of generality, i.e., as a generic processor performing a generic computer function of processing/transmitting data. This generic processor and/or memory medium limitation is no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Further, iteratively solve the master problem and the subproblem to generate the solution using a family column generation method by a processor and/or memory medium is mere instruction to apply an exception using a generic computer component which cannot integrate a judicial exception into a practical application. Accordingly, this/these additional element(s) does/do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. Thus, since the claims are directed to the determined judicial exception in view of the two prongs of Step 2A, the 2019 PEG flowchart is directed to Step 2B. Therein, the additional elements and combinations therewith are examined in the claims to determine whether the claims as a whole amounts to significantly more than the judicial exception. It is noted here that the additional elements are to be considered both individually and as an ordered combination. In this case, the claims each at most comprise additional elements of: processor and/or memory medium. Taken individually, the additional limitations each are generically recited and thus does not add significantly more to the respective limitations. Further, iteratively solve the master problem and the subproblem to generate the solution using a family column generation method by a processor and/or memory medium is mere instruction to apply an exception using a generic computer component which cannot provide an inventive concept in Step 2B (or, looking back to Step 2A, cannot integrate a judicial exception into a practical application). For further support, the Applicant’s specification supports the claims being directed to use of a generic computer/memory type structure at ¶00123 wherein “Processors suitable for the execution of a computer program include, by way of example, both general and special purpose microprocessors, and any one or more processors of any kind of digital computer”. Taken as an ordered combination, the claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the limitations are directed to limitations referenced in Alice Corp. that are not enough to qualify as significantly more when recited in a claim with an abstract idea include, as a non-limiting or non-exclusive examples: i. Adding the words "apply it" (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, e.g., a limitation indicating that a particular function such as creating and maintaining electronic records is performed by a computer, as discussed in Alice Corp., 134 S. Ct. at 2360, 110 USPQ2d at 1984 (see MPEP § 2106.05(f));
PNG
media_image1.png
18
19
media_image1.png
Greyscale
ii. Simply appending well-understood, routine, conventional activities previously known to the industry, specified at a high level of generality, to the judicial exception, e.g., a claim to an abstract idea requiring no more than a generic computer to perform generic computer functions that are well-understood, routine and conventional activities previously known to the industry, as discussed in Alice Corp., 134 S. Ct. at 2359-60, 110 USPQ2d at 1984 (see MPEP § 2106.05(d));
PNG
media_image1.png
18
19
media_image1.png
Greyscale
iii. Adding insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception, e.g., mere data gathering in conjunction with a law of nature or abstract idea such as a step of obtaining information about credit card transactions so that the information can be analyzed by an abstract mental process, as discussed in CyberSource v. Retail Decisions, Inc., 654 F.3d 1366, 1375, 99 USPQ2d 1690, 1694 (Fed. Cir. 2011) (see MPEP § 2106.05(g)); or
PNG
media_image1.png
18
19
media_image1.png
Greyscale
v. Generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use, e.g., a claim describing how the abstract idea of hedging could be used in the commodities and energy markets, as discussed in Bilski v. Kappos, 561 U.S. 593, 595, 95 USPQ2d 1001, 1010 (2010) or a claim limiting the use of a mathematical formula to the petrochemical and oil-refining fields, as discussed in Parker v. Flook. The courts have recognized the following computer functions inter alia to be well-understood, routine, and conventional functions when they are claimed in a merely generic manner: performing repetitive calculations; receiving, processing, and storing data (e.g., the present claims); electronically scanning or extracting data; electronic recordkeeping; automating mental tasks (e.g., process/machine/manufacture for performing the present claims); and receiving or transmitting data (e.g., the present claims). The dependent claims do not cure the above stated deficiencies, and in particular, the dependent claims further narrow the abstract idea without reciting additional elements that integrate the exception into a practical application of the exception or providing significantly more than the abstract idea. Since there are no elements or ordered combination of elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception, the claims are not eligible subject matter under 35 USC §101. Thus, viewed as a whole, these additional claim element(s) do not provide meaningful limitation(s) to transform the abstract idea into a patent eligible application of the abstract idea such that the claim(s) amounts to significantly more than the abstract idea itself. Therefore, the claim(s) are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 as being directed to non-statutory subject matter.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 extension fee 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 date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KURTIS GILLS whose telephone number is (571)270-3315. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F 8-5 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, Jerry O’Connor can be reached on 5712726787. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
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://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/KURTIS GILLS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3624