DETAILED ACTION
This communication is a Final Rejection Office Action in response to the 9/18/2025 filling of Application 18/232,157. Claims 1, 3-8, 10-15, 17-20 are now presented.
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, with respect to the prior art have been fully considered and are persuasive. The prior art rejections have been withdrawn.
Applicant's remaining arguments filed 9/18/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Regarding the rejection under 101, the Applicant argues “Applicants respectfully submit that the claimed invention overcomes these technical problems in the computerized solving of complex supply chain problems by generating a processing log, which documents how a solver proceeds through the optimization of a complex, hierarchical supply chain problem, where the processing log provides a record from which a planner can query in order to better understand how and why the machine solver reached the particular solution at hand. Otherwise, if an exception or error occurred that was erroneous or undesirable, this exception or error would be, without the benefits of Applicants' claimed invention, difficult for a supply chain planner to identify and remedy.”
The Examiner respectfully disagrees. The limitations of formulate one or more constraints of a multi-objective hierarchical linear optimization; gather one or more flexible input parameters; formulating one or more objectives of the multi-objective hierarchical linear optimization; solving the multi-objective hierarchical linear optimization; receiving a query to the plan explanation datastore; analyzing and parse the received query to identify one or more variables relevant to the received interactive query; generating a query for the identified one or more variables; analyzing the log with the machine-readable query to locate the identified one or more variables; and generate a response identifying one or more reasons corresponding to the received query are directed to commercial or legal interactions including sales activities or behaviors, and business relations and fundamental economic principles such as determining reasons to exceptions to improve business operations. Further, the limitations of formulate one or more constraints of a multi-objective hierarchical linear optimization; formulating one or more objectives of the multi-objective hierarchical linear optimization; solving the multi-objective hierarchical linear optimization; analyzing and parse a received query to identify one or more variables relevant to the received interactive query; generating a query for the identified one or more variables; analyzing the log with query to locate the identified one or more variables; and generate a response identifying one or more reasons corresponding to the received query cover performance of the limitations in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components. That is, other than reciting “a processor” nothing in the claim element precludes the steps from being performed in the human mind.
Limitations the fall into the abstract idea grouping cannot also amount to a technical improvement. As such, the recited claims remain abstract.
Regarding the rejection under 101, the Applicant further argues “Applicants thus respectfully submit that the claimed invention is solving a problem that is particular to computer processing of supply chain solutions and not directed to an abstract idea. In DDR Holdings, LLC v. Hotels. com, L.P., the court stated: As an initial matter, it is true that the claims here are similar to the claims in the cases discussed above in the sense that the claims involve both a computer and the Internet. But these claims stand apart because they do not merely recite the performance of some business practice known from the pre-Internet world along with the requirement to perform it on the Internet. Instead, the claimed solution is necessarily rooted in computer technology in order to overcome a problem specifically arising in the realm of computer networks.”
The Examiner respectfully disagrees. Page 20 of the DDR Holdings, LLC v. Hotels.com Federal Circuit decision states, "But these claims stand apart because they do not merely recite the performance of some business practice known from the pre-Internet world along with the requirement to perform it on the Internet. Instead, the claimed solution is necessarily rooted in computer technology in order to overcome a problem specifically arising in the realm of computer networks." The Examiner respectfully disagrees with Applicant’s assertion that the claims present a solution necessarily rooted in the technology in order to overcome a problem specifically arising in the computer network (or other technological) realm. Applicant’s claims seek to address a problem that existed and continues to exist outside of the realm of the technology associated with the additionally recited elements. The proposed solution is one that could have been implemented directly by a human performing analogous functions by hand and/or with the assistance of a general purpose computer applied to facilitate the functions at a high level of generality or with the assistance of additional elements performing well-known, conventional functions. In Applicant’s claims, the central processor could be substituted with a human user and the underlying invention would result in a similar solution to the problem at hand. The rejected claims do not adhere to the same fact pattern seen in the DDR Holdings, LLC v. Hotels.com decision. In the DDR Holdings decision, the manner in which the network itself operated was changed to improve network operations. There is no actual improvement made to the operations or physical structure of the additional elements claimed in the instant application.
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, 3-8, 10-15, 17-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter.
When considering subject matter eligibility under 35 U.S.C. 101, in step 1 it must be determined whether the claim is directed to one of the four statutory categories of invention, i.e., process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter. If the claim does fall within one of the statutory categories, in step 2A prong 1 it must then be determined whether the claim is recite a judicial exception (i.e., law of nature, natural phenomenon, and abstract idea). If the claim recites a judicial exception, under step 2A prong 2 it must additionally be determined whether the recites additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. If a claim does not integrate the Abstract idea into a practical application, under step 2B it must then be determined if the claim provides an inventive concept.
In the Instant case Claims 1, 3-7 are directed toward a system to generate a response identifying one or more reasons corresponding to the received query. Claims 8, 10-14 are directed toward a to generate a response identifying one or more reasons corresponding to the received query. Claims 15, 17-20 are directed toward a computer program product to generate a response identifying one or more reasons corresponding to the received query. As such, each of the Claims is directed to one of the four statutory categories of invention.
MPEP 2106.04 II. A. explains that in step 2A prong 1 Examiners are to determine whether a claim recites a judicial exception. MPEP 2106.04(a) explains that:
To facilitate examination, the Office has set forth an approach to identifying abstract ideas that distills the relevant case law into enumerated groupings of abstract ideas. The enumerated groupings are firmly rooted in Supreme Court precedent as well as Federal Circuit decisions interpreting that precedent, as is explained in MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2). This approach represents a shift from the former case-comparison approach that required examiners to rely on individual judicial cases when determining whether a claim recites an abstract idea. By grouping the abstract ideas, the examiners’ focus has been shifted from relying on individual cases to generally applying the wide body of case law spanning all technologies and claim types.
The enumerated groupings of abstract ideas are defined as:
1) Mathematical concepts – mathematical relationships, mathematical formulas or equations, mathematical calculations (see MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2), subsection I);
2) 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) (see MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2), subsection II); and
3) Mental processes – concepts performed in the human mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion) (see MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2), subsection III).
As per step 2A prong 1 of the eligibility analysis, claim 1 is directed to the abstract idea of determining one or more root causes of one or more plan exceptions resulting from the plan solver solving the multi-objective hierarchical linear optimization which falls into the abstract idea categories of certain methods of organizing human activity and mental processes.
The elements of Claim 1 that represent the Abstract idea include:
A system, comprising:
formulate one or more constraints of a multi-objective hierarchical linear optimization;
in response to formulating the one or more constraints, gather one or more flexible input parameters
formulate one or more objectives of the multi-objective hierarchical linear optimization;
solve the multi-objective hierarchical linear optimization;
in response to solving the multi-objective hierarchical linear optimization,
receive a query to the plan explanation datastore;
analyze and parse the received query to identify one or more variables relevant to the received interactive query;
generate a machine readable query for the identified one or more variables;
analyze the machine readable log with the machine-readable query to locate the identified one or more variables; and
generate a response identifying one or more reasons corresponding to the received query.
MPEP 2106.04(a)(2) II. states:
The phrase "methods of organizing human activity" is used to describe concepts relating to:
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, and business relations); and
managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people, (including social activities, teaching, and following rules or instructions).
The Supreme Court has identified a number of concepts falling within the "certain methods of organizing human activity" grouping as abstract ideas. In particular, in Alice, the Court concluded that the use of a third party to mediate settlement risk is a ‘‘fundamental economic practice’’ and thus an abstract idea. 573 U.S. at 219–20, 110 USPQ2d at 1982. In addition, the Court in Alice described the concept of risk hedging identified as an abstract idea in Bilski as ‘‘a method of organizing human activity’’. Id. Previously, in Bilski, the Court concluded that hedging is a ‘‘fundamental economic practice’’ and therefore an abstract idea. 561 U.S. at 611–612, 95 USPQ2d at 1010.
In the instant case, the limitations of formulate one or more constraints of a multi-objective hierarchical linear optimization; gather one or more flexible input parameters; formulating one or more objectives of the multi-objective hierarchical linear optimization; solving the multi-objective hierarchical linear optimization; receiving a query to the plan explanation datastore; analyzing and parse the received query to identify one or more variables relevant to the received interactive query; generating a query for the identified one or more variables; analyzing the log with the machine-readable query to locate the identified one or more variables; and generate a response identifying one or more reasons corresponding to the received query are directed to commercial or legal interactions including sales activities or behaviors, and business relations and fundamental economic principles such as determining reasons to exceptions to improve business operations.
MPEP 2106.04(a)(2) states:
The courts consider a mental process (thinking) that "can be performed in the human mind, or by a human using a pen and paper" to be an abstract idea. CyberSource Corp. v. Retail Decisions, Inc., 654 F.3d 1366, 1372, 99 USPQ2d 1690, 1695 (Fed. Cir. 2011). As the Federal Circuit explained, "methods which can be performed mentally, or which are the equivalent of human mental work, are unpatentable abstract ideas the ‘basic tools of scientific and technological work’ that are open to all.’" 654 F.3d at 1371, 99 USPQ2d at 1694 (citing Gottschalk v. Benson, 409 U.S. 63, 175 USPQ 673 (1972)). See also Mayo Collaborative Servs. v. Prometheus Labs. Inc., 566 U.S. 66, 71, 101 USPQ2d 1961, 1965 (2012) ("‘[M]ental processes[] and abstract intellectual concepts are not patentable, as they are the basic tools of scientific and technological work’" (quoting Benson, 409 U.S. at 67, 175 USPQ at 675)); Parker v. Flook, 437 U.S. 584, 589, 198 USPQ 193, 197 (1978) (same).
Accordingly, the "mental processes" abstract idea grouping is defined as concepts performed in the human mind, and examples of mental processes include observations, evaluations, judgments, and opinions
In the instant case, the limitations of formulate one or more constraints of a multi-objective hierarchical linear optimization; formulating one or more objectives of the multi-objective hierarchical linear optimization; solving the multi-objective hierarchical linear optimization; analyzing and parse a received query to identify one or more variables relevant to the received interactive query; generating a query for the identified one or more variables; analyzing the log with query to locate the identified one or more variables; and generate a response identifying one or more reasons corresponding to the received query cover performance of the limitations in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components. That is, other than reciting “a processor” nothing in the claim element precludes the steps from being performed in the human mind.
Under step 2A prong 2 the examiner must then determine if the recited abstract idea is integrated into a practical application. MPEP 2106.04 states:
Limitations the courts have found indicative that an additional element (or combination of elements) may have integrated the exception into a practical application include:
• An improvement in the functioning of a computer, or an improvement to other technology or technical field, as discussed in MPEP §§ 2106.04(d)(1) and 2106.05(a);
• Applying or using a judicial exception to effect a particular treatment or prophylaxis for a disease or medical condition, as discussed in MPEP § 2106.04(d)(2);
• Implementing a judicial exception with, or using a judicial exception in conjunction with, a particular machine or manufacture that is integral to the claim, as discussed in MPEP § 2106.05(b);
• Effecting a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing, as discussed in MPEP § 2106.05(c); and
• Applying or using the judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment, such that the claim as a whole is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception, as discussed in MPEP § 2106.05(e)
The courts have also identified limitations that did not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application:
• Merely reciting the words "apply it" (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or merely including instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely using a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea, as discussed in MPEP § 2106.05(f);
• Adding insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception, as discussed in MPEP § 2106.05(g); and
• Generally linking the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use, as discussed in MPEP § 2106.05(h).
In the instant case, this judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, Claim 1 recites the additional elements of:
A system, comprising:
a computer, comprising a processor and a plan explanation datastore, the computer configured to:
store one or more variables and one or more parameters in the machine-readable log in the plan explanation datastore;
store one or more optimal objective values and one or more optimal variable values in the machine-readable log in the plan explanation datastore;
However, the computer elements (a computer, comprising a processor and a plan explanation datastore) are recited at a high level of generality and given the broadest reasonable interpretation are simply generic computers performing generic computer functions. Generic computers performing generic computer functions, alone, do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea and mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer.
Further, the storing of data is recited broadly. Under the broadest reasonable interpretation, the limitations amounts to data storage which the MPEP says is insignificant extra solution activity (see MPEP 2106.05(g). Further, the output is also recited broadly and amounts to insignificant post solution activity.
Further, Claim 1 further recites the additional element of multigrep log search process. However, this amounts to an attempt to cover any solution to the identified problem with no restriction on how the result is accomplished and no description of the mechanism for accomplishing the result, which does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more because this type of recitation is equivalent to the words "apply it”. For example, the claims do not state how the multigrep log search process works. As such, the broadly multigrep log search process does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more.
Viewing the generic computer elements in combination with the storing data, outputting data and the multigrep log search does not add anything further than looking at the limitations individually. When viewed either individually, or as an ordered combination, the additional limitations do not amount to a claim as a whole that is significantly more than the abstract idea.
In step 2B, the examiner must determine whether the claim adds a specific limitation other than what is well-understood, routine, conventional activity in the field - see MPEP 2106.05(d).
As discussed with respect to Step 2A Prong Two, the additional element of a server that is connected to a plan explanation datastore amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. The same analysis applies here in 2B, i.e., mere instructions to apply an exception on a generic computer cannot integrate a judicial exception into a practical application at Step 2A or provide an inventive concept in Step 2B.
Similarly, an attempt to cover any solution to the identified problem with no restriction on how the result is accomplished and no description of the mechanism for accomplishing the result, which does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more because this type of recitation is equivalent to the words "apply it” cannot integrate a judicial exception into a practical application at Step 2A or provide an inventive concept in Step 2B.
Further, nothing in the claim indicates that the retrieval and storage of information is anything other than conventional. See MPEP 2106.05(d) that states “Receiving or transmitting data over a network, e.g., using the Internet to gather data is conventional when claimed in a merely generic manner (see Symantec, 838 F.3d at 1321, 120 USPQ2d at 1362 (utilizing an intermediary computer to forward information); TLI Communications LLC v. AV Auto. LLC, 823 F.3d 607, 610, 118 USPQ2d 1744, 1745 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (using a telephone for image transmission); OIP Techs., Inc., v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363, 115 USPQ2d 1090, 1093 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (sending messages over a network); buySAFE, Inc. v. Google, Inc., 765 F.3d 1350, 1355, 112 USPQ2d 1093, 1096 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (computer receives and sends information over a network).
Also see MPEP 2106.05(d) that states storing and retrieving information in memory is conventional when claimed in a merely generic manner (see Versata Dev. Group, Inc. v. SAP Am., Inc., 793 F.3d 1306, 1334, 115 USPQ2d 1681, 1701 (Fed. Cir. 2015); OIP Techs., 788 F.3d at 1363, 115 USPQ2d at 1092-93).
Further, the Examiner takes official notice that outputting the result of an analysis in the manner claimed in well-known an conventional.
Viewing the generic computer elements in combination with the storing data, outputting data and the multigrep log search does not add anything further than looking at the limitations individually. When viewed either individually, or as an ordered combination, the additional limitations do not amount to a claim as an inventive concept
Further Claims 3-7 further limit the abstract idea of an analysis that can be performed mentally or certain methods of human activity that were already rejected in claim 1, but fail to remedy the deficiencies of the parent claim as they do not impose any limitations that amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself.
Accordingly, the Examiner concludes that there are no meaningful limitations in claims3-7 that transform the judicial exception into a patent eligible application such that the claim amounts to significantly more than the judicial exception itself.
The analysis above applies to all statutory categories of invention. As such, the presentment of claim 1 otherwise styled as a method or computer program product, for example, would be subject to the same analysis. Therefore, Claims 8, 10-15, 17-20 are rejected for the same rational that applied to claims 1-7.
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 DEIRDRE D HATCHER whose telephone number is (571)270-5321. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8-4:30.
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, Brian Epstein can be reached at 571-270-5389. 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.
/DEIRDRE D HATCHER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3625