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:
initialize a counter, wherein the counter represents a current objective level in a hierarchy of objectives;
load the hierarchical linear programming problem and an optimal basis of an objective corresponding to a base run, wherein the objective corresponds to the counter; apply dual feasibility changes;
modify a starting basis based on an addition of a new constraint made up of new variables such that the new constraint is feasible when all the new variables are set at a zero value;
solve the hierarchical linear programming problem with the dual feasibility changes using a primal simplex method by reading a starting basis; apply primal feasibility changes;
solve the hierarchical linear programming problem after the dual feasibility changes and the primal feasibility changes are added;
update a list of lower or upper bound changes required for variable fixing based on a current solution; and
solve additional objectives until the counter is greater than a number of objectives in the hierarchy of objectives.
The limitation under its broadest reasonable interpretation covers Mathematical Concepts related to mathematical formulas but for the recitation of generic computer components (e.g. a computer comprising a processor and memory). For example, initializing a counter representing a current objective level; loading the hierarchical linear programming problem and optimal basis of an objective; applying dual feasibility changes; modifying a starting basis based on an addition of new constraint,…, to solve additional objects of the LPP are reflective of mathematical formulas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea of Mathematical Concepts.
Independent Claims 8 and 15 substantially recite the subject matter of Claim 1 and also include the abstract idea identified above. The dependent claims encompass the same abstract idea. For instance, Claim 2 is directed to dual feasibility changes comprising new variable, changes in objective coefficients and constraints; Claim 3 is directed to primal feasibility changes; Claim 4 is directed to current starting basis is dual feasible to hierarchical lpp; Claim 5 is directed to variable fixing ; Claim 6 is directed to objective associated with the hierarchy of objects; and Claim 7 is directed to maximum or minimum bound. Claims 9-14 and 6-2- substantially recite the subject matter of Claims 1-7.
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 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 ¶0037).
For instance, the steps of
initialize a counter, wherein the counter represents a current objective level in a hierarchy of objectives;
load the hierarchical linear programming problem and an optimal basis of an objective corresponding to a base run, wherein the objective corresponds to the counter; apply dual feasibility changes;
modify a starting basis based on an addition of a new constraint made up of new variables such that the new constraint is feasible when all the new variables are set at a zero value;
solve the hierarchical linear programming problem with the dual feasibility changes using a primal simplex method by reading a starting basis;
apply primal feasibility changes;
solve the hierarchical linear programming problem after the dual feasibility changes and the primal feasibility changes are added;
update a list of lower or upper bound changes required for variable fixing based on a current solution; and
solve additional objectives until the counter is greater than a number of objectives in the hierarchy of objectives
demonstrates running and solving the LPP based on mathematical operations.
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 comprising 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:
R et al. (US 11429929) discloses solving a supply chain planning problem modeled as a linear programming (LP) problem including receiving an LP problem representing a supply chain planning problem for a supply chain network comprising material buffers and resource buffers, partitioning the supply chain network at a complicating node into at least two supply chains sharing the complicating node, formulating a decomposed subproblem for each of the supply chains, calculating an effective dual based, at least in part, on a mathematical difference of at least two dual values calculated by solving the functional-based decomposed subproblems, and generating a globally-optimal LP solution to the LP problem.
Kamath et al. (US 2017/036847) discloses solving supply chain planning problems and a computer configured to access the planning problem of the supply chain network stored in the database and model the planning problem as a network of nodes and edges. The computer is further configured to generate a hierarchical linear programming solution of the planning problem and apply advanced heuristics to the generated hierarchical linear programming solution.
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