DETAILED ACTION
The following is a Non-Final, First Office Action on the Merits in response to communications filed December 20, 2023. Claims 1–20 are currently pending.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement filed December 20, 2023 fails to comply with 37 CFR 1.98(a)(2), which requires a legible copy of each cited foreign patent document; each non-patent literature publication or that portion which caused it to be listed; and all other information or that portion which caused it to be listed. It has been placed in the application file, but the information referred to therein has not been considered. More particularly, the copy of the Non-Patent Literature Document titled “Facility location problems,” as submitted on December 20, 2023, is illegible. It has been placed in the application file, but the information referred to therein has not been considered.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(b)
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1–20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claims 1, 10, and 18 recite an element to “identify one of the intermediate target networks in the plurality of in-memory intermediate target networks”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for “the intermediate target networks” in the claim, and the element renders the scope of the claims indefinite because it is unclear whether Applicant intends to distinguish between “the intermediate target networks” and “the plurality of in-memory intermediate target networks”.
For purposes of examination, the claims are interpreted as reciting “identify one of
In view of the above, claims 1, 10, and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
Claims 2–9, 11–17, and 19–20, which depend from claims 1, 10, and 18, inherit the deficiencies described above. As a result, claims 2–9, 11–17, and 19–20 are similarly rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
Claims 9, 17, and 20 recite “calculating a distorted incremental gain for each intermediate target network”, “calculating a distorted incremental gain for each intermediate target network in the plurality of additional in-memory intermediate target networks”, and “identifying an in-memory intermediate target network in the additional plurality of in-memory intermediate target networks having a highest distorted increment gain”. However, claims 1, 10, and 18, from which claims 9, 17, and 20 depend, previously recite elements to “calculate a distorted incremental gain for each intermediate target network” and “identify one of the intermediate target networks in the plurality of in-memory intermediate target networks having a highest distorted increment gain”.
In view of the above, the scope of claims 9, 17, and 20 is indefinite because it is unclear whether Applicant intends for the claim 9, 17, and 20 recitations of “a distorted incremental gain”, “a distorted incremental gain”, and “a highest distorted incremental gain” to reference the previous recitations of claims 1, 10, and 18 or intends to introduce new elements for “distorted incremental gain” and “highest distorted incremental gain”.
For purposes of examination, claims 9, 17, and 20 are interpreted as reciting “calculating a first distorted incremental gain for each intermediate target network”, “calculating a second distorted incremental gain for each intermediate target network in the plurality of additional in-memory intermediate target networks”, and “identifying an in-memory intermediate target network in the additional plurality of in-memory intermediate target networks having [[a]] the highest distorted increment gain”.
In view of the above, Examiner respectfully requests that Applicant thoroughly review the claims for compliance with the requirements set forth under 35 U.S.C. 112(b).
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 non-statutory subject matter. Specifically, claims 1–20 are directed to an abstract idea without additional elements amounting to significantly more than the abstract idea.
With respect to Step 2A Prong One of the framework, claim 1 recites an abstract idea. Claim 1 includes elements to “receive a network optimization request”; “obtain in-memory initial state target network”; “generate a plurality of in-memory intermediate target networks, wherein each intermediate target network in the plurality of in-memory intermediate target networks are generated by adding at least one candidate distribution node to the in-memory initial state target network”; “calculate a distorted incremental gain for each intermediate target network”; and “identify one of the intermediate target networks in the plurality of in-memory intermediate target networks having a highest distorted increment gain as an optimal iteration target network.”
The limitations above recite an abstract idea. More particularly, the elements above recite certain methods of organizing human activity related to commercial sales activities or behaviors or business relations because the elements describe a process for optimizing a distribution network. Further, the elements to “generate”, “calculate”, and “identify” recite mental processes because the elements embody observations or evaluations that can be practically performed in the mind or by a human using pen and paper. Finally, the element to “calculate” recites mathematical concepts because, when considered in view of Applicant’s Specification, the elements recites mathematical calculations. As a result, claim 1 recites an abstract idea under Step 2A Prong One.
Claims 10 and 18 include substantially similar limitations to those included with respect to claim 1. Further, claim 10 recites “wherein the in-memory initial state target network comprises at least one existing distribution node, at least one demand node, and at least one distribution channel connecting the at least one existing distribution node to the at least one demand node,” and claim 18 recites “wherein the in-memory initial state target network comprises at least one existing distribution node, at least one demand node, and at least one distribution channel connecting the at least one existing distribution node to the at least one demand node” and “wherein the distorted increment gain is determined by a multi-stage optimal fulfillment process”. The identified elements of claims 10 and 18 further recite certain methods of organizing human activity and/or mental processes for the same reasons as stated above. As a result, claims 10 and 18 recite an abstract idea under Step 2A Prong One for the same reasons as stated above with respect to claim 1.
Claims 2–9, 11–17, and 19–20 further describe the process for optimizing a distribution network and further recite certain methods of organizing human activity, mental processes, and/or mathematical concepts for the same reasons as stated above. As a result, claims 2–9, 11–17, and 19–20 recite an abstract idea under Step 2A Prong One.
With respect to Step 2A Prong Two of the framework, claim 1 does not include additional elements that integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Claim 1 includes additional elements that do not recite an abstract idea under Step 2A Prong One. The additional elements include a non-transitory memory, a processor, and a step to “store”. When considered in view of the claim as a whole, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because the additional computer elements are generic computing components that are merely used as a tool to perform the recited abstract idea, and the step to “store” is an insignificant extrasolution activity to the recited abstract idea. As a result, claim 1 does not include any additional elements that integrate the abstract idea into a practical application under Step 2A Prong Two.
As noted above, claims 10 and 18 include substantially similar limitations to those included with respect to claim 1. Although claim 18 further includes a non-transitory computer readable medium, the additional element, when considered in view of the claim as a whole, does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because the additional computer element is a generic computing component that is merely used as a tool to perform the recited abstract idea. As a result, claims 10 and 18 do not include any additional elements that integrate the abstract idea into a practical application under Step 2A Prong Two.
Claims 2–9, 11–17, and 19–20 do not include any additional elements beyond those included with respect to the claims from which claims 2–9, 11–17, and 19–20 depend. As a result, claims 2–9, 11–17, and 19–20 do not include any additional elements that integrate the abstract idea into a practical application under Step 2A Prong Two for the same reasons as stated above.
With respect to Step 2B of the framework, claim 1 does not include additional elements amounting to significantly more than the abstract idea. As noted above, claim 1 includes additional elements that do not recite an abstract idea under Step 2A Prong One. The additional elements include a non-transitory memory, a processor, and a step to “store”. The additional elements do not amount to significantly more than the recited abstract idea because the additional computer elements are generic computing components that are merely used as a tool to perform the recited abstract idea, and the step to “store” is a well-understood, routine, and conventional computer function in view of MPEP 2106.05(d)(II), which identifies electronic recordkeeping and storing information in memory as conventional computer functions. Further, looking at the additional elements as an ordered combination adds nothing that is not already present when considering the additional elements individually. As a result, claim 1 does not include any additional elements that amount to significantly more than the recited abstract idea under Step 2B.
As noted above, claims 10 and 18 include substantially similar limitations to those included with respect to claim 1. Although claim 18 further includes a non-transitory computer-readable medium, the additional element does not amount to significantly more than the recited abstract idea because the additional computer element is a generic computing component that is merely used as a tool to perform the recited abstract idea. Further, looking at the additional elements as an ordered combination adds nothing that is not already present when considering the additional elements individually. As a result, claims 10 and 18 do not include any additional elements that amount to significantly more than the recited abstract idea under Step 2B.
Claims 2–9, 11–17, and 19–20 do not include any additional elements beyond those included with respect to the claims from which claims 2–9, 11–17, and 19–20 depend. As a result, claims 2–9, 11–17, and 19–20 do not include any additional elements that amount to significantly more than the recited abstract idea under Step 2B for the same reasons as stated above.
Therefore, the claims are directed to an abstract idea without additional elements amounting to significantly more than the abstract idea. Accordingly, claims 1–20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 as being directed to non-statutory subject matter.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1–20 are allowable over the prior art of record. More particularly, when considered in combination with the remaining claim elements, the prior art references of record, as discussed below, do not disclose the combination of elements to “generate a plurality of in-memory intermediate target networks, wherein each intermediate target network in the plurality of in-memory intermediate target networks are generated by adding at least one candidate distribution node to the in-memory initial state target network” and “calculate a distorted incremental gain for each intermediate target network,” as recited in independent claims 1, 10, and 18.
Conclusion
The following prior art is made of record and not relied upon but is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
Witzig et al. (U.S. 2024/0265314) discloses a system directed to solving an optimized supply network configuration by incrementally removing portions of the supply network;
Saylor et al. (U.S. 2019/0228372) discloses a system directed to analyzing supply chain models, including updated models having new nodes;
Evans et al. (U.S. 2023/0306347) discloses a system directed to optimizing supply chain networks by optimizing leaf node operating parameters;
Yee et al. (U.S. 2008/0306783) disclose a system directed to simulating supply chain models and analyzing incremental changes within each model;
Emerson et al. (Emerson, Denise, and Selwyn Piramuthu. "Agent-based framework for dynamic supply chain configuration." 37th Annual Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences, 2004. Proceedings of the. IEEE, 2004.) discloses a system directed to analyzing performance improvements in adaptive supply chain configurations;
Sodhi et al. (Sodhi, ManMohan S., and Christopher S. Tang. "The incremental bullwhip effect of operational deviations in an arborescent supply chain with requirements planning." European Journal of Operational Research 215.2 (2011): 374-382.) discloses a system directed to analyzing incremental bullwhip distortions in supply chain demand deviations;
Liu et al. (Liu, Yan, et al. "Optimization of logistics nodes in dynamic location with a multi-objective evolutionary algorithm." 2009 International Conference on Computational Intelligence and Security. Vol. 1. IEEE, 2009.) discloses a system directed to optimizing logistics nodes by analyzing dynamic, candidate location nodes; and
Riechel (Riechel, Patrick. A phased approach to distribution network optimization given incremental supply chain change. Diss. Massachusetts Institute of Technology, 2012.) discloses a system directed to optimizing a distribution network according to incremental supply chain change.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to WILLIAM S BROCKINGTON III whose telephone number is (571)270-3400. The examiner can normally be reached M-F, 8am-5pm, EST.
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, Rutao Wu can be reached at 571-272-6045. 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.
/WILLIAM S BROCKINGTON III/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3623
Prosecution Insights