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 .
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant’s claim for foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. 119 (a)-(d). Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Status of Claims
Claims 1 and 9-11 have been amended.
Claims 1-20 are currently pending and have been examined.
Response to Applicant's Remarks
35 U.S.C. § 101
Applicant’s remarks, see Page(s) 11, filed 3 April 2026, with respect to the 35 U.S.C. § 101 rejections regarding non-statutory subject matter in claims 10 and 20, have been fully considered, and are persuasive, in view of the claim amendments. Therefore, the 35 U.S.C. § 101 rejections regarding non-statutory subject matter in claims 10 and 20 have been withdrawn.
Applicant’s remarks, see Page(s) 11-16, filed 3 April 2026, with respect to the 35 U.S.C. § 101 rejections regarding the judicial exception in claims 1-20, have been fully considered, but are not persuasive.
Applicant submits that the claims of the current application are not directed to an abstract idea because, the claims recite elements that are specifically integrated into a practical application. Specifically, applicant submits that the claim limitations of sampling constraints and constructing linear programming tasks cannot practically be performed in the human mind, even with the aid of pen and paper.
Examiner respectfully disagrees. Under broadest reasonable interpretation, the claim limitations are analogous to concepts performed in the human mind, such as observation, evaluation, judgment, and/or opinion. These concepts are grouped as mental processes. Accordingly, the claim(s) recite(s) an abstract idea. And although the claim(s) recite(s) the additional element(s) of ‘a server’, ‘a terminal device’, ‘A non-transitory computer storage medium’, ‘one or more computers’, ‘A computer program product’, ‘at least one processor’, ‘at least one memory’, ‘at least one communications interface’, ‘a communications bus’, ‘a device or a communications network’. The additional element(s) is/are recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as generic computer components performing generic computer functions) such that they amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components. In their broadest reasonable interpretation, the additional element(s) comprise(s) only a processor, instructions in memory, a receiver, and a transmitter, being used to implement the functions of the abstract idea. Accordingly, the claims do not amount to more than a recitation of the words "apply it" (or an equivalent) or more than mere instructions to implement an abstract idea or other exception in a generic computing environment (see MPEP 2106.05(f) Mere Instructions to Apply an Exception). Thus, even when viewed in combination, these additional elements do not integrate the recited judicial exception into a practical application and the claim(s) is/are directed to the judicial exception.
Applicant further submits that the claims are directed to an improvement in the functioning of a computer, or an improvement to other technology or technical field, such as, accelerating a solving process of the first linear-programming task where software products run.
Examiner respectfully disagrees, as the claim limitations are not indicative of integration into a practical application, such as an improvement to the functioning of a computer or other technical field, as considered below in view of MPEP 2106. In particular, an improvement in the judicial exception itself, i.e., solving a linear programming task, is not an improvement in technology. Applicant’s improvement in this case is not an improvement to the functioning of a computer, or to any other technology or technological field.
The following are examples of eligible subject matter based on technological improvements: see, e.g., McRO, 837 F.3d at 1315 ("The claimed process uses a combined order of specific rules that renders information into a specific format that is then used and applied to create desired results: a sequence of synchronized, animated characters."); Finjan, Inc. v. Blue Coat Sys., Inc., 879 F.3d 1299, 1304 (Fed. Cir. 2018) (finding patent eligible a claim drawn to a behavior-based virus scan that protects against viruses that have been "cosmetically modified to avoid detection by code-matching virus scans"); Enfish, 822 F.3d at 1330, 1333 (discussing patent eligible claims directed to "an innovative logical model for a computer database" that included a self-referential table allowing for greater flexibility in configuring databases, faster searching, and more effective storage); CardioNet, LLC v. InfoBionic, Inc., 955 F.3d 1358, 1368 (Fed. Cir. 2020) (explaining that the claims at issue focus on a specific means for improving cardiac monitoring technology; they are not "directed to a result or effect that itself is the abstract idea and merely invoke generic processes and machinery" (quoting McRO, 837 F.3d at 1314)).
To show that the involvement of a computer assists in improving the technology, the claims must recite the details regarding how a computer aids the method, the extent to which the computer aids the method, or the significance of a computer to the performance of the method. Merely adding generic computer components to perform the method is not sufficient. Thus, the claim must include more than mere instructions to perform the method on a generic component or machinery to qualify as an improvement to an existing technology (see MPEP 2106.05(a)).
Instead, the additional element(s) is/are recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as generic computer components performing generic computer functions) such that they amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components. In their broadest reasonable interpretation, the additional element(s) comprise(s) only a processor, instructions in memory, a receiver, and a transmitter, being used to implement the functions of the abstract idea.
Accordingly, the claims do not amount to more than a recitation of the words "apply it" (or an equivalent) or more than mere instructions to implement an abstract idea or other exception in a generic computing environment (see MPEP 2106.05(f) Mere Instructions to Apply an Exception). Thus, even when viewed in combination, these additional elements do not integrate the recited judicial exception into a practical application and the claim(s) is/are directed to the judicial exception.
Interview Request
Applicant’s interview request is granted. Please contact the undersigned Examiner to schedule a telephone conference.
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.
Claim(s) 1-20 is/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.
Claim(s) 1, 9, 10, and 11 recite(s) a system and series of steps for solving a linear programming task, which under broadest reasonable interpretation, is analogous to concepts performed in the human mind, such as observation, evaluation, judgment, and/or opinion. These concepts are grouped as mental processes.
The limitation(s) of, ‘receiving… a first linear-programming task…’; ‘receiving… information…’; ‘determining… a plurality of importance for the plurality of first scheduling constraints…’; ‘determining…a subset of the plurality of first scheduling constraints…’; ‘sampling the plurality of first scheduling constraints…’; ‘constructing…a second linear-programming task…’; ‘processing… the second linear-programming task…’; ‘processing… the initialized first linear-programming task…’; ‘transmitting… the second solving result’, as drafted, recite a process that, under broadest reasonable interpretation, is/are mental processes. Accordingly, the claim(s) recite(s) an abstract idea.
The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim(s) recite(s) the additional element(s) of ‘a server’, ‘a terminal device’, ‘A non-transitory computer storage medium’, ‘one or more computers’, ‘A computer program product’, ‘at least one processor’, ‘at least one memory’, ‘at least one communications interface’, ‘a communications bus’, ‘a device or a communications network’. The additional element(s) is/are recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as generic computer components performing generic computer functions) such that they amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components. In their broadest reasonable interpretation, the additional element(s) comprise(s) only a processor, instructions in memory, a receiver, and a transmitter, being used to implement the functions of the abstract idea. Accordingly, the claims do not amount to more than a recitation of the words "apply it" (or an equivalent) or more than mere instructions to implement an abstract idea or other exception in a generic computing environment (see MPEP 2106.05(f) Mere Instructions to Apply an Exception). Thus, even when viewed in combination, these additional elements do not integrate the recited judicial exception into a practical application and the claim(s) is/are directed to the judicial exception.
Claim(s) 2-8 and 12-20 further recite(s) the system and series of steps for solving a linear programming task, which under broadest reasonable interpretation, is analogous to concepts performed in the human mind, such as observation, evaluation, judgment, and/or opinion. These concepts are grouped as mental processes. Accordingly, the claim(s) recite(s) an abstract idea.
Additionally, the recite(s) the additional elements of receiving and transmitting data over a communications network. These limitations are recited at a high level of generality (i.e., as a general means of receiving and transmitting data), and amount to mere data transmission, which is a form of insignificant extra-solution activity. Thus, the claim(s) is/are directed to the abstract idea.
As discussed above, the additional elements amount to mere data transmission, which is a form of insignificant extra-solution activity. As detailed in MPEP 2106, a conclusion that an additional element is insignificant extra-solution activity in Step 2A should be re-evaluated in Step 2B. Here, the reception and transmission of data was considered to be extra-solution activity in Step 2A, and thus it is re-evaluated in Step 2B to determine if it is more than what is well-understood, routine, conventional activity in the field.
The generic functions of receiving and transmitting data are considered to be well‐understood, routine, and conventional elements previously known to the industry, because the functions can be summarized as the generic computer functions of receiving or transmitting data over a network. This is similar to how ‘using the Internet to gather data’ was found to be a well-known, routine, and conventional function in the decision of Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Symantec Corp. (Fed. Cir. 2015) (see MPEP 2106.05(d)(II) Elements That the Courts Have Recognized as Well-Understood, Routine, Conventional Activity in Particular Fields). Thus, these elements amount to well‐understood, routine, and conventional elements previously known to the industry, which does not add significantly more, and therefore remains insignificant extra-solution activity even upon reconsideration. Even when considered in combination, these additional elements represent mere instructions to apply an exception and insignificant extra-solution activity, which do not provide an inventive concept, and therefore, the claim(s) is/are not eligible.
As analyzed above in step 2A prong 2, the limitations as an ordered combination, are merely applying the abstract idea in a generic computing environment. In addition, the claims do not improve functionality of a computer or improve any other technology. Thus, claims 1-20 are ineligible as the claims do not recite additional elements which result in significantly more than the abstract idea itself.
Novelty/Non-Obviousness
The subject matter of claims 1-20 is not taught by the cited prior art and is considered novel. However, claims 1-20 remain rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 as described above.
The closest prior art of record are Binder (U.S. Patent App. Pub. No. 20120127893), Aykin (U.S. Patent No. 10970682), and Beckford (U.S. Patent No. 9135581).
The cited prior art, taken either individually or in combination with other prior art of record, fails to teach or suggest determining, for a plurality of scheduling constraints, a degree of contribution to reducing a time for solving a first linear-programming task, sampling the plurality of scheduling constraints to determine a subset of the of scheduling constraints, constructing and processing a second linear-programming task based on the subset of scheduling constraints, and using the solution of the second linear-programming task as an initial value of the first linear-programming task to process an initialized first linear-programming task.
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 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 Wayne S Murray whose telephone number is (571)272-4306. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8am-5pm.
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, Jeffrey Zimmerman can be reached at (571) 272-4602. 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.
/Wayne S. Murray/Examiner, Art Unit 3628
/JEFF ZIMMERMAN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3628
Prosecution Insights