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 .
Status of the Application
This action is a first action on the merits in response to the application filed on 08/01/2025.
Status of Claims
Claims 1-20 filed on 08/01/2025 are currently pending and have been examined in this application.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 08/014/2025 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
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, 5-10, 12-17, and 19-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter. Specifically, claims 1-3, 5-10, 12-17, and 19-20 are directed to an abstract idea without additional elements to integrate the claims into a practical application or to amount to significantly more than the abstract idea.
Claims 1-3, 5-10, 12-17, and 19-20 are directed to a process, machine, or manufacture (Step 1), however the claims are directed to the abstract idea of mathematical concept of multi-objective hierarchical linear programming problem, variable fixing, and calculating starting solution using bounds wherein solving optimization problem step-wise can be performed mentally.
With respect to Step 2A Prong One of the frameworks, claim 1 recites an abstract idea. Claim 1 includes limitations for “execute multiple threads of a threaded architecture to solve the multi-objective hierarchical linear programming problem by: determining a batch size and a lead size for the multi-objective hierarchical linear programming problem; solving objectives of the multi-objective hierarchical linear programming problem in parallel; in response to determining that there are additional objectives to solve, perform variable fixing; using the solutions to the solved objectives as a starting point for a next objective and in response to all objectives of the multi-objective hierarchical linear programming problem being solve determine a solution.”
The limitations above recite an abstract idea under Step 2A Prong One. More particularly, the limitations above recite mathematical concept and Mental Process as mentioned above. As a result, claim 1 recites an abstract idea under Step 2A Prong One.
Claims 8 and 15 recite substantially similar limitations to those presented with respect to claim 1. As a result, claims 8 and 15 recite an abstract idea under Step 2A Prong One for the same reasons as stated above with respect to claim 1. Similarly, claims 2-3, 5-7, 9-10, 12-14, 16-17, and 19-20 recite a Mental Process and mathematical concept as explained above. As a result, claims 2-3, 5-7, 9-10, 12-14, 16-17, 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. The additional elements of claim 1 include “A system for solving a multi-objective hierarchical linear programming problem in parallel, comprising: a computer, comprising a processor and memory, and configured to”. When considered in view of the claim as a whole, the recited computer elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because the computer elements are generic computer elements that are merely used as a tool to perform the recited abstract idea. As set forth in the 2019 Eligibility Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. at 55 “merely include[ing] instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer” is an example of when an abstract idea has not been integrated into a practical application. Therefore, the claim is directed to an abstract idea.
As a result, claim 1 does not include additional elements that integrate the abstract idea into a practical application under Step 2A Prong Two.
As noted above, claims 8 and 15 recite substantially similar limitations to those recited with respect to claim 1. Although claim 8 further recites “A computer-implemented method” and claim 15 further recites “A non-transitory computer-readable medium”, when considered in view of the claim as a whole, the recited computer elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because the computer elements are generic computer elements that are merely used as a tool to perform the recited abstract idea. As a result, claims 8 and 15 do not include additional elements that integrate the abstract idea into a practical application under Step 2A Prong Two.
Claims 2-3, 5-7, 9-10, 12-14, 16-17, and 19-20 do not include any additional elements beyond those recited by independent claims 1, 8, and 15. As a result, claims 2-3, 5-7, 9-10, 12-14, 16-17, and 19-20 do not include additional elements that integrate the abstract idea into a practical application under Step 2A Prong Two.
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. The additional elements of claim 1 include “A system for solving a multi-objective hierarchical linear programming problem in parallel, comprising: a computer, comprising a processor and memory, and configured to”. The recited computer elements do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea because the computer elements are generic computer elements that are merely used as a tool to perform the recited abstract idea. As a result, claim 1 does not include additional elements that amount to significantly more than the abstract idea under Step 2B.
As noted above, claims 8 and 15 recite substantially similar limitations to those recited with respect to claim 1. Although claim 8 further recites “A computer-implemented method” and claim 15 further recites “A non-transitory computer-readable medium”, the recited computer elements do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea because the computer elements are generic computer elements that are 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 8 and 15 do not include additional elements that amount to significantly more than the abstract idea under Step 2B.
Claims 2-3, 5-7, 9-10, 12-14, 16-17, and 19-20 do not include any additional elements beyond those recited by independent claims 1, 8, and 15. As a result, claims 2-3, 5-7, 9-10, 12-14, 16-17, and 19-20 do not include additional elements that amount to significantly more than the abstract idea under Step 2B.
Therefore, the claims are directed to an abstract idea without additional elements amounting to significantly more than the abstract idea. Accordingly, claims 1-3, 5-10, 12-17, and 19-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 as being directed to non-statutory subject matter.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless – (a) (1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102 (a) (1) as being anticipated by Kamath et al. (US 20170364847 A1).
Regarding claim 1. Kamath A system for solving a multi-objective hierarchical linear programming problem in parallel, comprising: [Kamath, claim 1, Kamath teaches “The computer further generates a hierarchical linear programming solution of the planning problem and applies advanced heuristics to the generated hierarchical linear programming solution” wherein solving a multi-objective hierarchical linear programming problem. Further, Kamath teaches in claim 2 “processing a lot size and a resource setup; checking for material availability from upstream to downstream for the one or more buffers; determining a material and resource feasible integer solution; and determining the global hierarchical solution” wherein parallel processing (material and resources)] a computer, comprising a processor and memory, and configured to execute multiple threads of a threaded architecture to solve the multi-objective hierarchical linear programming problem by: [Kamath, claim 1, Kamath teaches “and a planner, comprising a computer having a processor and a non-transitory computer readable medium”] determining a batch size and a lead size for the multi-objective hierarchical linear programming problem; [Kamath, para. 0059-60, Kamath teaches “In one embodiment, the following options are available: [0060] Uniform: Total number of objective function divided into equal number of groups” wherein the objective groups are equivalent to the batch size. Further, para. 0037 teaches “supply chain planner 110 accesses and modifies an inventory profile to start with the most downstream buffer in, for example, its earliest bucket. Based on the supply chain planning problem, it is sequentially processed in every bucket for one buffer or every buffer for one bucket. If, for example, there is any lot-sized consuming operation, supply chain planner 110 updates a desired production profile so as to satisfy the consumption and safety stock requirement on the buffer” wherein solution based on updated bounds] solving objectives of the multi-objective hierarchical linear programming problem in parallel; in response to determining that there are additional objectives to solve, perform variable fixing; using the solutions to the solved objectives as a starting point for a next objective and in response to all objectives of the multi-objective hierarchical linear programming problem being solve determine a solution [Kamath, claim 1, Kamath teaches “divide a planning horizon of the generated supply chain model into one or more time buckets; prioritize and model one or more business objectives as a hierarchy of objective functions; automatically solve the hierarchy of objective functions by variable fixing” wherein the one or more time buckets is equivalent to parallel processing. Wherein solving by variable fixing]. Kamath is solving the same problem of dynamically recycling previous answers (variable fixing) to save consumption problem. Kamath fixes completed variables to lock in progress, and feed those answers forward as head start for the next set of objectives until a final solution of the supply chain complex problem is reached. Accordingly, Kamath teaches all of the limitations of claim 1.
Regarding claims 2-3. Please refer to Kamath anticipation of batch size and lead size limitations in claim 1
Regarding claim 4. wherein the computer is further configured to execute multiple threads to solve the multi-objective hierarchical linear programming problem by: in response to determining a lead size of 0, not revising any starting solutions to save on processing resources [Kamath, para. 0042, Kamath teaches “On complex models where there are a lot of side constraints and the heuristic has failed to maintain feasibility beyond material and resource, step 510 serves the purpose of removing infeasibilities. In addition, or as an alternative, in the case that this fixed-integer LP run proves infeasible, all the variables may be unfixed and a subsequent MW run may be attempted without a starting solution” wherein in the case that this fixed-integer LP run proves infeasible, all the variables may be unfixed and a subsequent MW run may be attempted without a starting solution is equivalent to not revising any starting solutions based on lead size].
Regarding claim 5. wherein the computer is further configured to execute multiple threads to solve the multi-objective hierarchical linear programming problem by: generate starting solutions using bounds associated with a current objective [Kamath, para. 0041, Kamath teaches “In another embodiment, the post-processing is aimed at restoring the objective function values to its LP values. However, the post-heuristic solution is based on the LP solution and is constraint feasible, which provides for a good starting point for further optimization, as discussed below. In one embodiment, a good starting solution provides a faster MIP convergence to the optimal solution” wherein LP solution and is constraint feasible is equivalent to bounds associated with a current objective].
Regarding claim 6. wherein a starting solution comprises one or more objectives, one or more constraints, one or more bounds and a solution lag [Kamath, para. 0002, Kamath teaches “This invention relates generally to computer implementable decision support system for obtaining feasible supply chain plans honoring discrete lot-sizing rules, production constraints and operational objectives, and more particularly to a system and method for solving large scale supply chain planning problems with integer constraints” wherein multi-objective and constrains solution].
Regarding claim 7. wherein a starting solution for a subsequent objective is calculated using bounds of a previous objective [Kamath, para. 0041, Kamath teaches “However, the post-heuristic solution is based on the LP solution and is constraint feasible, which provides for a good starting point for further optimization, as discussed below. In one embodiment, a good starting solution provides a faster MIP convergence to the optimal solution, wherein the difference in performance is pronounced on large scale problems. In addition, the starting solution may serve as a fallback solution, in some embodiments” wherein a fallback solution is equivalent to using bounds of a previous objective].
Regarding claim 8, the claim recites analogous limitations to claim 1 above, and is therefore rejected on the same premise. Claim 1 is a system claim while claim 8 is directed to a computer implemented method which is anticipated by Kamath claim 9.
Regarding claims 9-14, claims 9-14 recite substantially similar limitations as claim 2-7, respectively; therefore, claims 9-14 are rejected with the same rationale, reasoning, and motivation provided above for claims 2-7, respectively. Claims 2-7 are system claims while claims 9-14 are directed to a computer implemented method which is anticipated by Kamath claim 9.
Regarding claim 15, the claim recites analogous limitations to claim 1 above, and is therefore rejected on the same premise. Claim 1 is a system claim while claim 15 is directed to a non-transitory computer-readable medium which is anticipated by Kamath claim 15.
Regarding claims 16-20, claims 16-20 recite substantially similar limitations as claim 2-6, respectively; therefore, claims 16-20 are rejected with the same rationale, reasoning, and motivation provided above for claims 2-6, respectively. Claims 2-6 are system claims while claims 16-20 are directed to a non-transitory computer-readable medium which is anticipated by Kamath claim 15.
Conclusion
The following prior art made of record and not relied upon are considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Kamath et al. (US 20150170083 A1) teaches the lead times of the transformation processes are represented by the differences between the start-bucket and end-bucket of the edges. Thus, if each time-bucket 630a, 630b . . . 630g represents one day, then it can be seen that process 620a takes one day, while process 620b takes three days. It should be noted that the item and process described herein is a simplified description for the purpose of illustration. For example, the items may be different sizes, styles, states of same or different physical material typically used in supply chain network 100. Similarly, a process may be any manufacturing, distribution, transportation or any other operation typically used in supply chain network 100. In one embodiment, additional constraints may be added to facilitate other planning rules.
Any inquiry concerning this communication from the examiner should be directed to Abdallah El-Hagehassan whose contact information is (571) 272-0819 and Abdallah.el-hagehassan@uspto.gov The examiner can normally be reached on Monday- Friday 8 am to 5 pm.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Rutao Wu can be reached on (571) 272-6045. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is (571) 273-3734.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the patent application information retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information of published applications may be obtained from either private PAIR or public PAIR. Status information of unpublished applications is available through private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have any questions on access to the private PAIR system, contact the electronic business center (EBC) at (866) 271-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO customer service representative or access to the automated information system, call (800) 786-9199 (in US or Canada) or (571) 272-1000.
/ABDALLAH A EL-HAGE HASSAN/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3623
Prosecution Insights