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 .
DETAILED ACTION
Status of Claims
This action is a first action on the merits in response to the application filed on 04/25/2025.
Claims 1 – 20 are currently pending and have been examined in this 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 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. Claim 1 recites:
add new non-lateable demands by including a new variable; alter a priority of a demand by changing an objective coefficient;
modify a need quantity of an existing demand by changing an upper bound of an existing variable;
modify a need date of an existing demand by adding a new demand, changing the objective coefficient and changing a need quantity of an existing demand to zero;
add a new lateable demand by including new variables and a new constraint;
add a Work-In-Progress (WIP) by changing a right-hand value of a constraint;
modify an existing WIP quantity by modifying the right-hand side value of the constraint;
modify a WIP date by applying a linear program problem change to the right-hand side value of a constraint;
modify a capacity of a resource by adjusting an upper bound of a variable; and
fix an operation plan to a fixed quantity by changing a lower bound and an upper bound of a variable.
The limitation under its broadest reasonable interpretation covers Mathematical Concepts related to mathematical formulas (LPP), but for the recitation of generic computer components (e.g. a computer). For example, LPP changes including adding variables such as non-lateable demand, lateable demand and WIP and modifying a need quantity, a need date WiP quantity to fix an operation plan for a supply chain. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea of Mathematical Concepts.
In addition, the claim encompasses Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity related to economic principles of supply chain changes.
Independent Claims 8 and 15 substantially recite the subject matter of Claim 1 and also include the abstract ideas identified above. The dependent claims encompass the same abstract ideas. For instance, Claim 2 is directed to calculating supply chain input changes; Claim 3 is directed to setting new constraint at a lower bound in a starting basis; Claim 4 is directed to lpp changes classified as primal feasibility change or dual feasibility change; Claim 5 is directed to lpp represents a flow of materials through supply chain; Claim 6 is directed to the objective coefficient corresponds to a business objective and Claim 7 is directed to any bound corresponds to maximum or minimum values for a corresponding variable. Claims 9-14 and 16-20 substantially recite the subject matter of claims 2-7 and encompass same abstract ideas.
The judicial exceptions are not integrated into a practical application. Claims 1 and 8 recite the additional elements of a computer comprising a processor and a memory. Claim 15 recites the additional elements of a non-transitory computer readable medium. These are generic computer components recited at a high level of generality as performing generic computer functions (Spec Figure 1 and associated text)
For instance, the steps of LPP changes including:
add new non-lateable demands by including a new variable;
alter a priority of a demand by changing an objective coefficient;
modify a need quantity of an existing demand by changing an upper bound of an existing variable;
modify a need date of an existing demand by adding a new demand, changing the objective coefficient and changing a need quantity of an existing demand to zero;
add a new lateable demand by including new variables and a new constraint;
add a Work-In-Progress (WIP) by changing a right-hand value of a constraint;
modify an existing WIP quantity by modifying the right-hand side value of the constraint;
modify a WIP date by applying a linear program problem change to the right-hand side value of a constraint;
modify a capacity of a resource by adjusting an upper bound of a variable; and
fix an operation plan to a fixed quantity by changing a lower bound and an upper bound of a variable
represent adjusting variables and coefficients for mathematical operations to facilitate supply chain changes.
Each of the additional limitations is no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer components (e.g. a computer). The combination of these additional elements is no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component (e.g. a computer). Therefore, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract ideas into a practical application because it does not impose meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. Therefore, the claims are directed to an abstract idea.
The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As stated above, the additional elements of a computer including a processor , a memory and a CRM are considered generic computer components performing generic computer functions that amount to no more than instructions to implement the judicial exception. Mere, instructions to apply an exception using generic computer components cannot provide an inventive concept.
The dependent claims when analyzed both individually and in combination are also held to be ineligible for the same reason above and the additional recited limitations fail to establish that the claims are not directed to an abstract. The additional limitations of the dependent claims when considered individually and as an ordered combination do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea.
Looking at these limitations as an ordered combination and individually adds nothing additional that is sufficient to amount to significantly more than the recited abstract idea because they simply provide instructions to use generic computer components, to "apply" the recited abstract idea. Thus, the elements of the claims, considered both individually and as an ordered combination, are not sufficient to ensure that the claim as a whole amounts to significantly more than the abstract idea itself. Therefore, Claims 1-20 are not patent eligible.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered relevant but not applied:
Denton et al. (US 2007/0038657) discloses determining a plurality of coefficients of an objective function of a mathematical programming model. A first set of coefficient values determining a first solution and initially representing the plurality of coefficients is determined by employing a specified ranking of the attributes. Additional sets of coefficient values are generated, each set determining a corresponding additional solution of the model. The additional solutions are evaluated (e.g., by the Analytic Hierarchy Process) to provide a ranking of the solutions.
Chang et al. (US 8140372) discloses obtaining complementary demand values including at least one daily going rate (DGR) demand and a service demand; running a first planning production model in which the at least one DGR demand is included and the service demand is excluded; and running a second planning production model in which DGR related variables are fixed to values determined in the first planning production model and the service demand is included.
Nandeda et al. (11,995,588) discloses a solver comprising one or more supply chain planning solvers (such as, for example, an LP solver, a MAP solver, a Deep Tree solver, and the like), constructs LP matrices representing the static structure and dynamic properties of supply chain network, and generates a solution, plan, cost, or other output.
Any inquiry of a general nature or relating to the status of this application or concerning this communication or earlier communications from the Examiner should be directed to Renae Feacher whose telephone number is 571-270-5485. The Examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 9:00 am - 5:00 pm. If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the Examiner's supervisor, Beth Boswell can be reached at 571-272-6737.
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.
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://portal.uspto.gov/external/portal/pair. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866.217.9197 (toll-free).
Any response to this action should be mailed to:
Commissioner of Patents and Trademarks
Washington, D.C. 20231
or faxed to 571-273-8300.
Hand delivered responses should be brought to the United States Patent and Trademark Office Customer Service Window:
Randolph Building
401 Dulany Street
Alexandria, VA 22314.
/Renae Feacher/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3625
Prosecution Insights