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 the 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 08/01/2025 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 1-20 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 to integrate the claims into a practical application or to amount to significantly more than the abstract idea.
Claims 1-20 are directed to a process, machine, or manufacture (Step 1), however the claims are directed to the abstract idea of mathematical concept of solving a multi-objective hierarchical linear programming problem, method of organizing human activities, supply chain plan, and software automation of math, killing live thread, parallel....
With respect to Step 2A Prong One of the frameworks, claim 1 recites an abstract idea. Claim 1 includes limitations for “implementing a supply chain plan using a multi-objective hierarchical linear programming problem solved in parallel in parallel, comprising: a threaded architecture comprising at least a first thread and one or more secondary threads; execute multiple threads of a threaded architecture to solve the multi-objective hierarchical linear programming problem by: receiving a request to generate a supply chain plan for a supply chain network; formulating one or more supply chain planning problems as a multi-objective hierarchical linear programming problem; solving the one or more formulated supply chain planning problems by solving the multi-objective hierarchical linear programming problem in parallel by executing the first thread as a mainline solve of a first objective and executing the one or more secondary threads as one or more auxiliary solves of one or more additional objectives; killing any live threads being processed by a solver, wherein the any live threads are solving one or more solutions whose bounds are farther away than a solution associated with a particular thread, wherein a solution associated with a particular thread has bounds that are closest to a bounds specified by the multi-objective hierarchical linear programming problem; generating a supply chain plan for the supply chain network based at least in part on the solutions to the one or more formulated supply chain planning problems; and implementing the supply chain plan within the supply chain network”
The limitations above recite an abstract idea under Step 2A Prong One. More particularly, the limitations above recite Mathematical concept and certain methods of organizing human activity associated with managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people because the claimed elements describe a process for generating a supply chain plan. 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 2-7, 9-14, and 16-20 recite Mathematical concept and certain methods of organizing human activity because the claimed elements describe a process for generating a supply chain plan. As a result, claims 2-7, 9-14, and 16-20 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”, “a computer, comprising a processor and memory, and configured to”. When considered in view of the claim, the step of “receiving” does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because “receiving” is an insignificant extra solution activity to the judicial exception. When considered in view of the claim, 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 2-7, 9-14, and 16-20 do not include any additional elements beyond those recited by independent claims 1, 8, and 15. As a result, claims 2-7, 9-14, and 16-20 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”, “a computer, comprising a processor and memory, and configured to”. The step of “receiving” does not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea because “receiving” is well-understood, routine, and conventional computer function in view of MPEP 2106.05(d)(ll). 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 2-7, 9-14, and 16-20 do not include any additional elements beyond those recited by independent claims 1, 8, and 15. As a result, claims 2-7, 9-14, and 16-20 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 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 as being directed to non-statutory subject matter.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or non-obviousness.
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.
Claims 1, 3-8, 10-15, and 17-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being un-patentable over Multi-objective integer programming: Synergistic parallel approaches, William Pettersson et al. November 2, 2018, in view of Moorkanat et al. (US 20080221960 A1).
Regarding claim 1. Pettersson teaches A system for implementing a supply chain plan using a multi-objective hierarchical linear programming problem solved in parallel in parallel, comprising: [Pettersson, Abstract, Pettersson teaches “solving multi-objective integer programming (MOIP)”] a threaded architecture comprising at least a first thread and one or more secondary threads; [Pettersson, 1.2 “Our contribution”, Pettersson teaches “As one thread reduces the required computation for a second thread, the second thread will in turn reduce the required running time for the first thread.” Wherein multi thread architecture] 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: [Pettersson, 4.3 “Execution environment”, Pettersson teaches “a supercomputer run” Wherein a computer comprising a processor and memory]
Pettersson does not specifically teach, however; Moorkanat teaches receiving a request to generate a supply chain plan for a supply chain network; formulating one or more supply chain planning problems as a multi-objective hierarchical linear programming problem; [Moorkanat, para. 0006, Moorkanat teaches “The method provides for accessing data describing the flow of one or more items through the supply chain network and accessing constraints associated with one or more supply chain entities” Wherein accessing supply chain data following a request. See figure 1, 306 “model a supply chain planning problem as a hierarchical linear programming objective”] solving the one or more formulated supply chain planning problems by solving the multi-objective hierarchical linear programming problem in parallel [Moorkanat, para. 0029, Moorkanat teaches “optimizer engine 212 may solve each level of the hierarchy in parallel”]
Further, Pettersson teaches by executing the first thread as a mainline solve of a first objective and executing the one or more secondary threads as one or more auxiliary solves of one or more additional objectives; [Pettersson, Abstract, Pettersson teaches “The theory utilizes elements of the symmetric group to apply a permutation to the objective functions to assign different workloads, and applies to algorithms that order the objective functions lexicographically.” Designating one of those threads as mainline solve and other parallel computation as auxiliary threads would have been predictable thread organization of Pettersson’s existing threaded parallel solver particularly where hierarchical objectives necessarily establish a priority order] killing any live threads being processed by a solver, wherein the any live threads are solving one or more solutions whose bounds are farther away than a solution associated with a particular thread, wherein a solution associated with a particular thread has bounds that are closest to a bounds specified by the multi-objective hierarchical linear programming problem; [Pettersson, See Lemma 3 page 5, Pettersson teaches “This lemma is also given in [20], and the proof of this lemma follows trivially from Definition 3. The lemma says that if a thread is solving OIPns (n − 1, (as(n))), and has found all solutions above this problem, then any other thread can also ignore any solution x for which fs(n)(x) > as(n). Other threads will be using other permutations, so the bound on fs(n) may not be the “last” bound for other threads. This sharing of bounds across many objective functions can create a synergy between threads, where one thread can supply a bound to other threads, which in turn means that those threads also find new bounds faster and these new bounds can be shared back to the original thread.” Wherein Pettersson teaches that when a thread establishes a particular bound, another thread can incorporate that bound into its optimization problem]
Pettersson does not specifically teach, however; Moorkanat teaches generating a supply chain plan for the supply chain network based at least in part on the solutions to the one or more formulated supply chain planning problems; and implementing the supply chain plan within the supply chain network [Moorkanat, para. 0029, Moorkanat teaches “In addition, or as an alternative, optimizer engine 212 may solve each level of the hierarchy in parallel, that is, optimizer engine 212 may utilize one or more processors 136 and associated memory to converge each optimized level of the hierarchy into an optimized supply chain plan” wherein generating a plan. Further, claim 26 teaches “communicate the supply chain plan to the one or more supply chain entities.” Wherein communicating a plan for implementation]
Pettersson teaches solving multi-objective integer programming (MOIP) problems and Moorkanat teaches optimizing supply chain planning problems associated with a supply chain network. The two references are in the same field of endeavor as the claimed invention. It would have been obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify/combine solving multi-objective integer programming (MOIP) problems Pettersson with solving supply chain planning problems as a multi-objective hierarchical linear programming problem and developing a plan of Moorkanat since the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, with the predictable results of obtaining supply chain information and generating an optimized supply chain plan.
Regarding claim 3. Pettersson in view of Moorkanat teaches all of the limitations of claim 1 as above. Further, Pettersson teaches wherein the computer is further configured to execute multiple threads to solve the multi-objective hierarchical linear programming problem by: delaying a continuation of a mainline solve to allow the one or more auxiliary solves to complete the one or more additional objectives [Pettersson, page 7 algorithm 2, Pettersson teaches “Wait for all threads to complete” wherein Pettersson teaches multiple threaded parallel solver in which the system waits for threads to complete before combining their results].
Regarding claim 4. Pettersson in view of Moorkanat teaches all of the limitations of claim 1 as above. Further, Pettersson teaches wherein the computer is further configured to execute multiple threads to solve the multi-objective hierarchical linear programming problem by: updating bounds for the one or more auxiliary solves based on a most recently solved mainline objective [Pettersson, page 7 algorithm 2, Pettersson teaches “Use Theorem 2 to update the bounds on P” wherein Pettersson teaches one tread supplies a new bound to another thread, allowing the receiving thread to update the optimization problem].
Regarding claim 5. Pettersson in view of Moorkanat teaches all of the limitations of claim 1 as above. Pettersson does not specifically teach, however; Moorkanat teaches wherein the generated supply chain plan for the supply chain network is based at least in part on solved objectives in a hierarchy [Moorkanat, para. 0006 and figure 1, Moorkanat teaches “The method yet further provides for solving the master-problem and each of the independent sub-problems of the supply chain planning problem independently and generating a supply chain plan by converging the solved master-problem and each of the solved independent sub-problems into the supply chain plan.”]
It would have been obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify/combine solving multi-objective integer programming (MOIP) problems Pettersson with the generated supply chain plan for the supply chain network based at least in part on solved objectives in a hierarchy of Moorkanat since the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, with the predictable results of obtaining supply chain information and generating an optimized supply chain plan.
Regarding claim 6. Pettersson in view of Moorkanat teaches all of the limitations of claim 1 as above. Further, Pettersson teaches wherein a starting solution comprises one or more objectives, one or more constraints, one or more bounds and a solution lag [Pettersson, page 10, Discussion, Pettersson teaches “This may be explained by the new constraints added by V-SPLIT to search only a specified region. V-SPLIT must add three lower bounds and three upper bounds for each region, while EPP is only required to add one lower bound and one upper bound.” wherein Pettersson teaches constraints and bounds solve. Further, Pettersson teaches in the conclusion “The threads are also able to communicate in real time, and this communication creates a synergy where each thread can reduce the running time of all other threads, which in turn can speed up the first thread” wherein solution lag].
Regarding claim 7. Pettersson in view of Moorkanat teaches all of the limitations of claim 1 as above. Further, Pettersson teaches wherein a starting solution for a subsequent objective is calculated using bounds of a previous objective [Pettersson, page 6, Algorithm 1, Pettersson teaches “Start a MOIP solver in a new thread to find all solutions y satisfying l < fk(y) ≤ u.” Wherein starting solution for a subsequent objective is calculated using bounds. In addition Petterson teaches for n=1 solve the single-objective problem and return the solution , else, Return the union of the results from all threads started, wherein starting solution for a subsequent objective is calculated 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 Pettersson Abstract.
Regarding claims 10-14, claims 10-14 recite substantially similar limitations as claims 3-7, respectively; therefore, claims 10-14 are rejected with the same rationale, reasoning, and motivation provided above for claims 3-7, respectively. Claims 3-7 are system claims while claims 10-14 are directed to a computer implemented method which is anticipated by Pettersson Abstract.
Regarding claim 15, the claim recites analogous limitations to claim 1 above and is therefore rejected on the same premises. Claim 1 is a system claim while claim 15 is directed to a non-transitory computer-readable medium which is anticipated by Pettersson Abstract.
Regarding claims 17-20, claims 17-20 recite substantially similar limitations as claims 3-6, respectively; therefore, claims 17-20 are rejected with the same rationale, reasoning, and motivation provided above for claims 3-6, respectively. Claims 3-6 are system claims while claims 17-20 are directed to a non-transitory computer-readable medium which is anticipated by Pettersson Abstract.
Claims 2, 9, and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being un-patentable over Pettersson in view of Moorkanat and in further view of Horne Martin (WO 02060235 A2)
Regarding claim 2. Pettersson in view of Moorkanat teaches all of the limitations of claim 1 as above. Pettersson in view of Moorkanat does not specifically teach, however; Martin teaches where the request is received according to a periodic schedule [Martin, page 34 second paragraph, Martin teaches “Continuing with FIG. 2, after setting up the database 110, the user may generate a supply plan on a periodic regular cycle step 240, e.g., twice a month or every week. The user may generate a supply planner 200 either in batch mode or interactively.” Wherein request plans or request according to a periodic schedule]
It would have been obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify/combine solving multi-objective integer programming (MOIP) problems Pettersson with solving supply chain planning problems as a multi-objective hierarchical linear programming problem and developing a plan of Moorkanat and the supply chain periodic schedule of Martin since the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, with the predictable results of obtaining supply chain information and generating an optimized supply chain plan.
Regarding claim 9, the claim recites analogous limitations to claim 2 above and is therefore rejected on the same premise. Claim 2 is a system claim while claim 9 is directed to a computer implemented method which is anticipated by Pettersson Abstract.
Regarding claim 16, the claim recites analogous limitations to claim 2 above and is therefore rejected on the same premises. Claim 2 is a system claim while claim 16 is directed to a computer implemented method which is anticipated by Pettersson Abstract.
Conclusion
The following prior arts made of record and not relied upon are considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure Chan et al. (US 20210174215 A1). Chan teaches a method for optimizing objective functions can include selecting an objective function based at least on a hierarchy, applying parameters to the objective function to generate an output, responsive to the output not satisfying a tolerance condition, assigning a penalty to the set of parameters and evaluating a convergence condition using the set of parameters and the penalty, responsive to the output satisfying the tolerance condition, evaluating an additional objective function using the parameters in an order corresponding to the hierarchy or evaluating the convergence condition responsive to the selected objective function being a final objective function, modifying the set of parameters using a genetic algorithm responsive to the set of parameters not satisfying the convergence condition, and outputting the set of parameters responsive to the set of parameters satisfying the convergence condition.
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