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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR
1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued
examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the
finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's
submission filed on 01/14/2026 has been entered.
Response to Arguments
The arguments and amendments filed 01/14/2026 have been entered. Claims 1-4, 6-23 remain pending in the application.
Applicant’s arguments and amendments, with respect to the claim rejections of claim(s) 1-23 under 35 U.S.C 103 have been considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the previous rejections has been removed.
Applicant’s argument and amendments, with respect to the claim rejections of claim(s) 1-23 under 35 U.S.C 101 have been considered and is not persuasive. Therefore, the previous rejections will be maintained.
Applicants argues that the pending claims are patent-eligible under 35 U.S.C 101 in view of MPEP 2106, the USPTO ‘s August 2025 memorandum, and the Ex Parte Guillaume Desjardins et.al Decision for appeal. Under step 2A, Prong one, Applicant contends that the claims do not recite a judicial exception because they do not recite either a mental process or a mathematical concept. Applicant argues that the claimed Hamiltonian path/Ising model solution cannot be practically performed in the human mind or with pen and paper, and therefore does not fall within the “mental process” category. Applicant further argues that the claims do not recite a mathematical concept per se, but instead recite a technological solution implemented in a specific computing environment with particular hardware components, data flow and a defined way of generating and solving the Ising model. Applicant also relies on the August 2025 memorandum for the proposition that claims that merely involve an exception, rather than recite the exception itself, are eligible and not require further eligibility analysis.
Applicant further argues that, even if the claims are viewed as involving a mathematical concept, they integrate such concept into a practical application under Step 2A. Prong two. Applicant contends that the claims are directed to a specific technological improvement in solving Hamiltonian path problems by converting the problem into an Ising model in a way that reduces the number of required spins from a quadratic node-based representation to a reduced edge-based representation, thereby reducing computational resources and shortening calculation time. Applicant emphasizes that the claims recite a specific architecture involving a first computer generating the Ising model, a second computer receiving and solving the model, and the first computer acquiring the Hamiltonian path solution based on that result, rather then merely using generic computer as a tools. Applicant also argues, citing Ex Parte Desjardins and the updated guidance, that the claims improve computer functionality or another technical field because they provide a particular manner of improving optimization technology, rather than merely linking an abstract idea to a technological environment.
Finally, Applicant argues that the claims recite “significantly more” under step 2B. Applicant asserts that the claimed edge-group formulation, reduced-spin representation, distributed computer architecture, and specific method of constructing and solving the Ising model are not well-understood, routine, or conventional, and instead provide an inventive concept. Applicant points to the specification’s discussion of prior approaches requiring N2 spins/variables and argues that the claimed approach reduces the required number of spins to the number of edges, enabling large-scale problems to be solved more quickly and with reduced resource consumption. Based on these asserted technical advantages and the claimed implementation detailed, Applicant concludes that the claims are patent-eligible.
Applicant arguments have been fully considered but are not persuasive. Applicant argues under Step 2A, Prong one that the claims do not recite a judicial exception because they allegedly do not recite a mental process or a mathematical concept, and instead recite a technological solution in a specific computing environment. This argument is not persuasive. As previously set forth in the rejection, the claim recites generating an edge group for a graph of a Hamiltonian path problem, assigning a binary variable indicating whether edges are selected as a path, generating an Ising model using the recited expression, calculating a solution of the Ising model, and acquiring a solution of the Hamiltonian path problem based on the calculated solution. These limitations recite a mathematical formulation and evaluation of an Ising Hamiltonian formula used to solve an optimization problem. The recited expression is itself a mathematical concept and calculation, and the step of calculating a solution of the Ising model is like wise a mathematical concept as well as a mental process. Further, the claimed acts of grouping edges, assigning values indicating whether edges are selected, and evaluating the mathematical expression are the type of observations, evaluations, and mathematical determinations that can be performed conceptually in a person’s mind or with pen and paper, even if impractical for large instances. The fact that the claim is directed to a complex Hamiltonian path problem or a large-scale problem does not remove it from the judicial exception, because the complexity or volume of data does not negate the claim recites a mathematical concept and mental process. Accordingly, the claims still recite an abstract idea under Step 2A, Prong one.
Applicant further argues that the claims merely involve, but do not recite, a mathematical concept, and the claim recites a particular computing environment including a first computer, a second computer, processors, network interfaces, generation of the model, transmission of information and receipt of the result. This argument is also not persuasive. The claim expressly recites the mathematical expression used to generate the Ising model and recites calculating a solution of that model. Thus, the claim does not merely involve a mathematical concept; it affirmatively recites one. The additional recitations of a first, second computer, processors and wired or wireless network interfaces do not change the character of the claim because these elements are recited at a high level of generality and merely serve as tools to generate, transmit, solve, and return the mathematical model and its result. Likewise, transmitting the Ising model from the first to second computer, and return or acquiring the resulting solution amounts to mere data transmission and receiving. Such information transfer does not improve the functioning of the computers or the network itself, but instead merely uses generic computer technology as a conduit for carrying out the abstract mathematical calculation. The claim therefore remains directed to the abstract idea rather than to a technological improvement in computer functionality.
Applicant also argues under Step 2A, Prong two that the claims integrate any alleged exception into a practical application because the claims allegedly improve the technology of solving Hamiltonian path problem by reducing the number of require spins from a quadratic node-based representation to an edge-based representation, thereby reducing computation time and resource consumption, and because the claims recite a particular architecture involving two computers. This argument is not persuasive, the asserted reduction in spins, resource usage, or computation time flows from the choice of the claimed mathematical expression itself, i.e., the particular way the Hamiltonian path problem is modeled using edge groups and the recited Ising expression. Such an alleged improvement is therefore an improvement in the abstract mathematical technique or optimization formulation, not an improvement in the functioning of a computer, network, machine learning model algorithm or other technology. The claim does not recite any technological improvement to the processors, network interfaces, data transmission protocol, or computer architecture itself. Rather, the first computer generates the mathematical model, the second computer solves it, and the first computer acquire the result. This is simply using computers as tools to perform the mathematical modeling and calculation, in which a human can mentally calculate the same expression, which does not amount to integration into a practical application. Similarly, the presence of two computers and communication between them does not confer eligibility where the communication is merely for sending the model and receiving the result, i.e., insignificant extra-solution activity and generic data transfer. The claim therefore does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Applicant’s reliance on the USPTO memorandum and Ex Parte Desjardins is also unpersuasive. Even assuming that claims can be eligible where they improve computer functionality or another technical field, the present claims do not recite such an improvement. The claims do not recite an improvement to the operation of the computers, processor, or network interface, nor do they recite a technological change in how the Ising machine may be constructed or another computing devices operates. Instead, the claims recite using conventional computer component and features to implement a particular mathematical formulation for solving an optimization problem. Any alleged benefit arises from the abstract model selected, not from a technological improvement in the computer system itself. Accordingly, the cited guidance does not compel withdrawal of the rejection.
Finally, Applicant argues under Step 2B that the claims recite significantly more because the claimed edge-group formulation, reduced-spin representation, distributed architecture, and method of contracting and solving the Ising model are allegedly not well-understood, routine, or conventional and purportedly provide and inventive concept. This argument is not persuasive. The additional claim elements beyond the abstract idea are generic computer components performing their ordinary functions, namely generating data, transmitting data over a network, receiving data, and output or acquiring a result. These are well-understood, routine, and conventional computer functions. The claimed distributed architecture, involving the first and second computer communicating over a network does not add significantly more because it merely allocates performance of the abstract idea across generic computing components without changing the abstract nature of the claim. Nor does the recited mathematical expression supply an inventive concept at Step 2B, because the abstract idea itself cannot supply the significantly more required for eligibility. When the claim is considered as a whole, the additional elements merely implement the judicial exception using generic computer technology and data transfer, and therefore do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself.
Accordingly, the rejections under 35 U.S.C 101 is maintained.
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 1-4, 6-23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Regarding claim 1,
Step 1:
Claim 1 recites a system, one of the four statutory categories of patentable subject matter.
Step 2A, Prong I:
Claim 1 further recites the limitations of:
“...generate an edge group that is a group of edges connected to corresponding nodes for each of the nodes in a graph of a Hamiltonian path problem, a binary variable indicating whether the edges included in the edge group are selected as a path for each of edge groups, and an Ising model with the binary variable as a spin” The generation of edge group for edges of a graph and a value indicating if an edge is selected is considered to be a mental process. A user can manually put edges from a graph of the Hamiltonian problem together to form an edge group. A user can also manually generate a binary variable that indicate if the edges in the edge group are selected as a path of the graph such as 1 for selected edges and 0 for opposite. Finally, a user can mentally or manually generate an Ising model with the binary variable as a spin because it is considered as a mental process as well as a mathematical concept. The Ising model is a statistical mathematical model, wherein a person can mentally generate the Ising model with spin represented by mentally assigning binary variable.
“... calculates a solution of the Ising model”. The process of calculating a solution of the Ising model is considered to be a mental process or a mathematical process. A user can manually calculate or perform mathematical calculation toward the Ising model to obtain the solution.
“... generates the Ising model of Expression
H
=
∑
g
ϵ
G
T
g
-
∑
i
ϵ
g
1
+
s
i
2
2
where a set G is the edge groups, g is the edge group, si is the binary variable, and a coefficient Tg depending on conditions of the edge group g” The Ising model of expression as recited in the claim is considered to be a mental process or a mathematical concept. The limitation recites a mathematical formulation that can be calculated mentally.
Step 2A, Prong II:
Claim 1 recites the following additional elements:
“a first computer that includes a first processor and a first wired or wireless network interface, the first processor being configured ...”, and “a second computer that includes a second processor and a second wired or wireless network interface communicating with the first network interface via a network, the second processor beinq configured ...”. These additional elements are high-level recitation of generic computer components used as a tool, and do not provide integration into a practical application.
“... an Ising model with the binary variable as a spin” This additional element is considered to be a mere instruction to apply an exception with the words "apply it" (or an equivalent) per MPEP 2106.05(f), because the claim only recites the idea of generating an Ising model with the spin being binary variable without reciting how to accomplish the solution to the problem, and does not provide integration into a practical application.
“... receive the Isinq model from the first computer via the second network interface and the first network interface ...” This additional element recites an insignificant extra-solution of mere data gathering as identified in MPEP 2106.05(g), and does not provide integration into a practical application.
“The first computer acquiring a solution of the Hamiltonian path problem based on the solution of the Ising model calculated by the second computer”. This additional element recites an insignificant extra-solution of mere data gathering as identified in MPEP 2106.05(g), and does not provide integration into a practical application.
“wherein the first computer generates the Ising model ...” This additional element is considered to be a mere instruction to apply an exception with the words "apply it" (or an equivalent) per MPEP 2106.05(f), because the claim only recites the idea of generating an Ising model by applying a first computer without reciting any change to the configuration of the computer, improvement to the computer function or improvement to a machine learning algorithm, but merely using the computer to generate the model, and does not provide integration into a practical application.
Step 2B:
When considered individually or in combination, the additional limitations and elements of claim 1 does not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception for the same reasons discussed above as to why the additional limitations do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. The additional elements of outlined in Step 2A performing functions as designed simply accomplishes execution of the abstract ideas.
Step 2B:
Additional elements “a first computer that includes a first processor and a first wired or wireless network interface, the first processor being configured ...”, and “a second computer that includes a second processor and a second wired or wireless network interface communicating with the first network interface via a network, the second processor beinq configured ...” are high-level recitation of generic computer components used as a tool, and they do not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception for the same reasons discussed above
Additional element “... receive the Isinq model from the first computer via the second network interface and the first network interface ...” is a recitation of well-understood, routine, conventional activity as identified in MPEP 2106.05(d). The court decision cited in MPEP 2106.05(d)(II) Receiving or transmitting data over a network, e.g., using the Internet to gather data, Symantec, 838 F.3d at 1321, 120 USPQ2d at 1362 indicate that collecting data is a well-understood, routine, and conventional function when it is claimed in a merely generic manner. Accordingly, a conclusion that the collecting sensor data is well-understood, routine, conventional activity is supported under Berkheimer option II.
Additional element “The first computer acquiring a solution of the Hamiltonian path problem based on the solution of the Ising model calculated by the second computer” is a recitation of well-understood, routine, conventional activity as identified in MPEP 2106.05(d). The court decision cited in MPEP 2106.05(d)(II) Receiving or transmitting data over a network, e.g., using the Internet to gather data, Symantec, 838 F.3d at 1321, 120 USPQ2d at 1362 indicate that collecting data is a well-understood, routine, and conventional function when it is claimed in a merely generic manner. Accordingly, a conclusion that the collecting sensor data is well-understood, routine, conventional activity is supported under Berkheimer option II.
In conclusion from above for elements considered as a mental process or mathematical concept, elements reciting generic computer components, elements reciting mere instruction to apply an exception as identified in MPEP 2106(f), elements reciting an insignificant extra-solution of mere data gathering as identified in MPEP 2106.05(g) and represents well-understood, routine, conventional activity as identified in MPEP 2106.05(d) are carried over and do not provide significantly more than the abstract idea. Looking at the limitations in combination and the claims as a whole does not change this conclusion and the claim is ineligible.
Therefore, additional limitations of claim 1 do not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Thus, claim 1 recites abstract ideas with additional elements rendered at a high level of generality resulting in claims that do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Therefore, claim 1 is not patent eligible.
Regarding claim 2 depends on claim 1, thus the rejection of claim 1 is incorporated. Claim 2 recites the following limitations:
“when the solution of the Hamiltonian path problem is not acquired based on the solution of the Ising model calculated ..., calculate a solution of the Ising model again”. This limitation further specifies the mental process of claim 1. The process of calculating a solution of the Ising model again is considered to be a mental process. A user can determine to calculate a solution of the Ising model again if the solution is not acquired.
“...by the second computer, the first computer causes the second computer...” This additional element is a recitation of mere instruction to apply an exception with the words "apply it" (or an equivalent) per MPEP 2106.05(f), and does not provide integration into a practical application, nor does it provide significantly more than the judicial exception.
Claim 2 recites abstract ideas with additional elements rendered at a high level of generality resulting in claims that do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. Therefore, claim 2 is not patent eligible.
Regarding claim 3 depends on claim 2, thus the rejection of claim 2 is incorporated. Claim 3 recites the limitation:
“the graph is an undirected graph” This additional element is a recitation of mere instruction to apply an exception with the words "apply it" (or an equivalent) per MPEP 2106.05(f), and does not provide integration into a practical application, nor does it provide significantly more than the judicial exception.
“the solution of the Ising model calculated ... corresponds to a case where two edges belonging to the edge group are selected as a path for all the edge groups”. This limitation further specified the mental process of claim 2. A user can manually perform the calculation and select two edges within the edge group to be used for the calculation.
“... by the second computer ...”. This additional element is a high-level recitation of generic computer components used as a tool, and it does not provide significantly more than the abstract idea, does not provide integration into a practical application, nor does it provide significantly more than the judicial exception.
Claim 3 recites abstract ideas with additional elements rendered at a high level of generality resulting in claims that do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. Therefore, claim 3 is not patent eligible.
Regarding claim 4 depends on claim 2, thus the rejection of claim 2 is incorporated. Claim 4 recites the limitation:
“the graph is an directed graph” This additional element is a recitation of mere instruction to apply an exception with the words "apply it" (or an equivalent) per MPEP 2106.05(f), and does not provide integration into a practical application, nor does it provide significantly more than the judicial exception.
“... generates a group of the edges directed to the node and a group of the edges directed from the node to another node as separate edge groups”. This limitation further specified the mental process of claim 2. A user can manually generate a group of edges of the directed graph, that comprises of edge from one node to another node of the graph.
“the solution of the Ising model calculated ... corresponds to a case where one of the edges belonging to the edge group is selected as a path for all the edge groups”. This limitation further specified the mental process of claim 2. A user can manually perform the calculation and select one edge within the edge group as a path of the graph to be used for the calculation.
“the first computer”, “... by the second computer ...”. This additional element is a high-level recitation of generic computer components used as a tool, and they do not provide significantly more than the abstract idea, does not provide integration into a practical application, nor does it provide significantly more than the judicial exception.
Claim 4 recites abstract ideas with additional elements rendered at a high level of generality resulting in claims that do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. Therefore, claim 4 is not patent eligible.
Regarding claim 6 depends on claim 1, thus the rejection of claim 1 is incorporated. Claim 6 recites the limitation:
“when the node of a start point of the path and the node of an end point of the path are the same node and the graph is an undirected graph in the Hamiltonian path problem, the coefficient Tg has a value of 2 regardless of the edge group g”. This limitation further recites a mental process. A user can manually determine the value of the coefficient to be 2 if a graph is an undirected graph and the node of the start point is the same as the node of the endpoint of the graph traversal.
Claim 6 recites abstract ideas rendered at a high level of generality resulting in claims that do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. Therefore, claim 6 is not patent eligible.
Regarding claim 7 depends on claim 1, thus the rejection of claim 1 is incorporated. Claim 7 recites the limitation:
“when the node of a start point of the path and the node of an end point of the path are the same node and the graph is a directed graph in the Hamiltonian path problem, the coefficient Tg has a value of 1 regardless of the edge group g”. This limitation further recites a mental process. A user can manually determine the value of the coefficient to be 1 if a graph is a directed graph and the node of the start point is the same as the node of the endpoint of the graph traversal.
Claim 7 recites abstract ideas rendered at a high level of generality resulting in claims that do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. Therefore, claim 7 is not patent eligible.
Regarding claim 8 depends on claim 7, thus the rejection of claim 7 is incorporated. Claim 8 recites the limitation:
“... execute calculation of a solution of the Ising model again when the solution of the Ising model calculated by the second computer forms a plurality of cycles on the graph”. This limitation further specified the mental process of claim 7. A user can mentally determine to execute calculation of the Ising model again to obtain the solution in the scenario that the previous solution forms a plurality of cycles of node traversal in a graph.
“the first computer causes the second computer ...” This additional element is a high-level recitation of generic computer components used as a tool, and they do not provide significantly more than the abstract idea, does not provide integration into a practical application, nor does it provide significantly more than the judicial exception.
Claim 8 recites abstract ideas rendered at a high level of generality resulting in claims that do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. Therefore, claim 8 is not patent eligible.
Regarding claim 9 depends on claim 1, thus the rejection of claim 1 is incorporated. Claim 9 recites the limitation:
“when the graph is an undirected graph, the coefficient Tg has a value of 1 for the edge group g including the edges connected to the node of the start point or the node of the end point, and the coefficient Tg has a value of 2 for the edge group g including the edges connected to the nodes other than the start point and the end point”. This limitation further recites a mental process. A user can manually determine the value of the coefficient to be 1 or 2 if a graph is an undirected graph and if the edges group contain edges that are connected to the start point node or end point node or contain edges that are connected to nodes other than the start point node and end point node.
Claim 9 recites abstract ideas rendered at a high level of generality resulting in claims that do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. Therefore, claim 9 is not patent eligible.
Regarding claim 10 depends on claim 1, thus the rejection of claim 1 is incorporated. Claim 10 recites the limitation:
“when the graph is a directed graph, the coefficient Tg has a value of 0 for the edge group g including the edge directed to the node of the start point or the edge directed from the node of the end point to another node, and the coefficient Tg has a value of 1 for the edge group g not including the edge directed to the node of the start point and the edge directed from the node of the end point to another node”. This limitation further recites a mental process. A user can manually determine the value of the coefficient to be 0 or 1 if a graph is a directed graph and if the edges group contain edges that are connected to the start point node or end point node or not contain these edges.
Claim 10 recites abstract ideas rendered at a high level of generality resulting in claims that do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. Therefore, claim 10 is not patent eligible.
Regarding claim 11 depends on claim 1, thus the rejection of claim 1 is incorporated. Claim 11 recites the limitation:
“the second computer is at least any one of quantum annealing machine, a gate-type quantum computer, and a von Neumann computer capable of executing a Simulated Annealing method” This additional element is a recitation of mere instruction to apply an exception with the words "apply it" (or an equivalent) per MPEP 2106.05(f) and does not provide integration into a practical application, nor does it provide significantly more than the judicial exception.
Claim 11 recites an additional element that do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. Therefore, claim 11 is not patent eligible.
Regarding claim 12 depends on claim 1, thus the rejection of claim 1 is incorporated. Claim 12 recites the limitation:
“a plurality of the second computers” This additional element is a high-level recitation of generic computer components used as a tool, and they do not provide significantly more than the abstract idea.
Claim 12 recites an additional element that do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. Therefore, claim 12 is not patent eligible.
Regarding claim 13 depends on claim 1, thus the rejection of claim 1 is incorporated. Claim 13 recites the limitation:
“...generates the graph to determine a sequence of DNA strands by associating the node with corresponding one of DNA fragments acquired by cleaving the DNA strands and the edge with a connection relationship between the corresponding DNA fragments, and generates the edge group based on the generated graph” This limitation is considered to be a mental process. A user can manually generate a graph to determine a sequence of DNA strands by mentally considering node as representation for DNA fragments, and edge as representation for connection relationship, and manually generate an edge group.
“the first computer ...” This additional element is a high-level recitation of generic computer components used as a tool, and they do not provide significantly more than the abstract idea, does not provide integration into a practical application, nor does it provide significantly more than the judicial exception.
Claim 13 recites abstract ideas rendered at a high level of generality resulting in claims that do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. Therefore, claim 13 is not patent eligible.
Regarding claim 14 depends on claim 13, thus the rejection of claim 13 is incorporated. Claim 14 recites the limitation:
“... excludes an edge corresponding to the DNA fragment from the edge group when it is determined that the DNA fragment is not connected to any of the DNA fragments” This element further specifies the mental process of claim 13. A user can manually determine if a DNA fragment is not connected to any other fragments, and generate an edge group that exempt these edges representing connection of DNA fragment that is not connected to each other.
“the first computer ...” This additional element is a high-level recitation of generic computer components used as a tool, and they do not provide significantly more than the abstract idea, does not provide integration into a practical application, nor does it provide significantly more than the judicial exception.
Claim 14 recites abstract ideas rendered at a high level of generality resulting in claims that do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. Therefore, claim 14 is not patent eligible.
Regarding claim 15 depends on claim 13, thus the rejection of claim 13 is incorporated. Claim 14 recites the limitation:
“... generates the edge group by excluding at least one edge of the graph” This element further specifies the mental process of claim 13. A user can manually generate the edge group that does not contain an edge as determined by the user.
“the first computer ...” This additional element is a high-level recitation of generic computer components used as a tool, and they do not provide significantly more than the abstract idea, does not provide integration into a practical application, nor does it provide significantly more than the judicial exception.
Claim 15 recites abstract ideas rendered at a high level of generality resulting in claims that do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. Therefore, claim 15 is not patent eligible.
Regarding claim 16,
Step 1:
Claim 16 recites a system, one of the four statutory categories of patentable subject matter.
Step 2A, Prong I:
Claim 16 further recites the limitations of:
“...generates an edge group that is a group of edges connected to corresponding nodes for each of the nodes in a graph of a Hamiltonian path problem, and a binary variable indicating whether the edges included in the edge group are selected as a path for each of edge groups, ... and that calculates a solution of an objective function using the binary variable as a parameter to acquire a solution of the Hamiltonian path problem based on the solution of the objective function; and...” The generation of edge group for edges of a graph, a binary value indicating if an edge is selected, and calculating a solution of an objective function to acquire a solution is considered to be a mental process. A user can manually put edges from a graph of the Hamiltonian problem together to generate an edge group. The user can then manually generate a binary variable that indicate if the edges in the edge group are selected as a path of the graph such as 1 for selected edges and 0 for opposite. The user can further mentally calculate a solution of an objective function to acquire a solution.
“wherein the objective function is represented by Expression
H
=
∑
g
ϵ
G
T
g
-
∑
i
ϵ
g
1
+
s
i
2
2
where a set G is the edge groups, g is the edge group, si is the binary variable, and a coefficient Tg depending on conditions of the edge group g” The Ising model of expression as recited in the claim is considered to be a mental process or a mathematical concept. The limitation recites a mathematical formulation that can be calculated mentally.
Step 2A, Prong II:
Claim 1 recites the following additional elements:
“a hardware circuit that”, “a storage unit that”. These additional elements are high-level recitation of generic computer components used as a tool, and they do not provide integration into a practical application.
“...output the generated edge group and the generated binary variable via a bus ...” This additional element is considered to be a mere instruction to apply an exception with the words "apply it" (or an equivalent) per MPEP 2106.05(f), because the claim only recites the idea of output the generated edge group and binary variable by a bus without reciting how to accomplish the solution to the problem, and does not provide integration into a practical application.
“... receives the edge group generated by the hardware circuit and the binary variable generated by hardware circuit via the bus ...” This additional element recites an insignificant extra-solution of data storage as identified in MPEP 2106.05(g), and does not provide integration into a practical application.
“...that stores the edge group generated by the hardware circuit and the binary variable generated by the hardware circuit”. This additional element recites an insignificant extra-solution of data storage as identified in MPEP 2106.05(g), and does not provide integration into a practical application.
Step 2B:
When considered individually or in combination, the additional limitations and elements of claim 1 does not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception for the same reasons discussed above as to why the additional limitations do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. The additional elements of outlined in Step 2A performing functions as designed simply accomplishes execution of the abstract ideas.
Additional elements “a hardware circuit that”, “a storage unit” are high-level recitation of generic computer components used as a tool, and does not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception for the same reasons discussed above
The additional element “... receives the edge group generated by the hardware circuit and the binary variable generated by hardware circuit via the bus ...” further represents well-understood, routine, conventional activity. The Versata Dev. Group, Inc. v. SAP Am., Inc.. court decisions cited in MPEP 2106.05(d)(II)(iv) indicate that Storing and retrieving information in memory is a well-understood, routine, and conventional function when it is claimed in a merely generic manner (as it is here). Accordingly, a conclusion that the receiving step is well-understood, routine, conventional activity is supported under Berkheimer option II.
The additional element “... stores the edge group generated by the hardware circuit and the binary variable generated by the hardware circuit” further represents well-understood, routine, conventional activity. The Versata Dev. Group, Inc. v. SAP Am., Inc.. court decisions cited in MPEP 2106.05(d)(II)(iv) indicate that Storing and retrieving information in memory is a well-understood, routine, and conventional function when it is claimed in a merely generic manner (as it is here). Accordingly, a conclusion that the receiving step is well-understood, routine, conventional activity is supported under Berkheimer option II.
In conclusion from above for elements considered as a mental process, elements reciting generic computer components are carried over and do not provide significantly more than the abstract idea. Looking at the limitations in combination and the claims as a whole does not change this conclusion and the claim is ineligible.
Therefore, additional limitations of claim 16 do not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Thus, claim 16 recites abstract ideas with additional elements rendered at a high level of generality resulting in claims that do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Therefore, claim 16 is not patent eligible.
Regarding claim 17 depends on claim 16, thus the rejection of claim 16 is incorporated. Claim 17 recites the limitation:
“when the graph is a directed graph, ... generates a group of the edges directed to the node and a group of the edges directed from the node to another node as separate edge groups, and when one of the edges belonging to the edge group is not selected as a path, the hardware circuit updates a value of the objective function by inverting a value of the binary variable in calculation of a solution of the objective function” This additional element further specifies the mental process of claim 1. A user can manually determine if a graph is a directed graph, then generate two edge groups and determine if the edge from any edge groups is not selected, the user can update a value of the objective function by inverting the value for the calculation process.
“... the hardware circuit ...” This additional element is a high-level recitation of generic computer component used as a tool, and does not provide significantly more than the abstract idea, does not provide integration into a practical application, nor does it provide significantly more than the judicial exception.
Claim 17 recites abstract ideas rendered at a high level of generality resulting in claims that do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. Therefore, claim 17 is not patent eligible.
Regarding claim 18 depends on claim 16, thus the rejection of claim 16 is incorporated. Claim 18 recites the limitation:
“when the graph is an undirected graph, and two of the edges belonging to the edge group are not selected as a path, ... updates a value of the objective function by inverting a value of the binary variable in calculation of a solution of the objective function” This additional element further specifies the mental process of claim 1. A user can manually determine if a graph is an undirected graph, determine if two edges from the edge group is not selected, the user can update a value of the objective function by inverting the value for the calculation process.
“... the hardware circuit ...” This additional element is a high-level recitation of generic computer component used as a tool, and does not provide significantly more than the abstract idea, does not provide integration into a practical application, nor does it provide significantly more than the judicial exception.
Claim 18 recites abstract ideas rendered at a high level of generality resulting in claims that do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. Therefore, claim 18 is not patent eligible.
Regarding claim 19
Step 1:
Claim 19 recites a method, one of the four statutory categories of patentable subject matter.
Step 2A, Prong I:
Claim 19 further recites the limitations of:
“generating, ..., an edge group that is a group of edges connected to corresponding nodes for each of the nodes in a graph of a Hamiltonian path problem” the generating of a group of edges corresponding to nodes in the graph of the Hamiltonian path problem is considered to be a mental process.
“generating, ..., a binary variable indicating whether the edges included in the edge group are selected as a path for each of edge groups” generating a binary variable indicating if edges is selected is considered to be a mental process. A person can mentally determine which edge to select from a group of edge and assign a binary variable such as 1 to indicate if the edge is selected and 0 for not selected.
“generating, ..., an Ising model with the binary variable as a spin” generating an Ising model with the binary variable as a spin is considered to be a mental process as well as a mathematical concept. The Ising model is a statistical mathematical model, wherein a person can mentally generate the Ising model with spin represented by assigning binary variable.
“calculating, ..., a solution of the Ising model” The calculating of the Ising model is considered to be a mental process and a mathematical concept. The Ising model is a statistical mathematical model, wherein a person can mentally calculate it result or calculate the result of the Ising model in view of the formula expression below.
“wherein the objective function is represented by Expression
H
=
∑
g
ϵ
G
T
g
-
∑
i
ϵ
g
1
+
s
i
2
2
where a set G is the edge groups, g is the edge group, si is the binary variable, and a coefficient Tg depending on conditions of the edge group g” The Ising model of expression as recited in the claim is considered to be a mental process or a mathematical concept. The limitation recites a mathematical formulation that can be calculated mentally.
Step 2A, Prong II:
Claim 1 recites the following additional elements:
“first processor of the computer”, “second processor of the computer”, “via a first wired or wireless network interface”, “via a first wired or wireless network interface” These additional elements are high-level recitation of generic computer components used as a tool, and they do not provide significantly more than the abstract idea. These additional elements merely recite using these computers and interface as tools to process the abstract idea of the Ising model and solving the Hamiltonian path problem without providing the technical detail or structure of the model or improvement toward the computer itself or improvement toward any machine learning algorithms.
“transmitting ..., the Ising model to a second computer over a network”. This additional element recites an insignificant extra-solution of mere data gathering as identified in MPEP 2106.05(g), and does not provide integration into a practical application.
“receiving ..., the Ising model”. This additional element recites an insignificant extra-solution of mere data gathering as identified in MPEP 2106.05(g), and does not provide integration into a practical application.
“acquiring, ..., a solution of the Hamiltonian path problem based on the solution of the Ising model”. This additional element recites an insignificant extra-solution of mere data gathering as identified in MPEP 2106.05(g), and does not provide integration into a practical application.
Step 2B:
When considered individually or in combination, the additional limitations and elements of claim 1 does not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception for the same reasons discussed above as to why the additional limitations do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. The additional elements of outlined in Step 2A performing functions as designed simply accomplishes execution of the abstract ideas.
Additional elements “first processor of the computer”, “second processor of the computer” via a first wired or wireless network interface”, “via a first wired or wireless network interface” are high-level recitation of generic computer components used as a tool, and do not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception for the same reasons discussed above
The additional element “transmitting ..., the Ising model to a second computer over a network” further represents well-understood, routine, conventional activity. The Symantec court decisions cited in MPEP 2106.05(d)(II)(i) indicate that receiving or transmitting data over a network is a well-understood, routine, and conventional function when it is claimed in a merely generic manner (as it is here). Accordingly, a conclusion that the receiving step is well-understood, routine, conventional activity is supported under Berkheimer option II.
The additional element “receiving ..., the Ising model” further represents well-understood, routine, conventional activity. The Symantec court decisions cited in MPEP 2106.05(d)(II)(i) indicate that receiving or transmitting data over a network is a well-understood, routine, and conventional function when it is claimed in a merely generic manner (as it is here). Accordingly, a conclusion that the receiving step is well-understood, routine, conventional activity is supported under Berkheimer option II.
The additional element “acquiring, ..., a solution of the Hamiltonian path problem based on the solution of the Ising model” The Symantec court decisions cited in MPEP 2106.05(d)(II)(i) indicate that receiving or transmitting data over a network is a well-understood, routine, and conventional function when it is claimed in a merely generic manner (as it is here). Accordingly, a conclusion that the receiving step is well-understood, routine, conventional activity is supported under Berkheimer option II.
In conclusion from above for elements considered as a mental process, elements reciting generic computer components are carried over and do not provide significantly more than the abstract idea. Looking at the limitations in combination and the claims as a whole does not change this conclusion and the claim is ineligible.
Therefore, additional limitations of claim 19 do not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Thus, claim 19 recites abstract ideas with additional elements rendered at a high level of generality resulting in claims that do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Therefore, claim 19 is not patent eligible.
Regarding claim 20 recites a method, one of the four statutory categories of patentable subject matter. The applicant is directed to the rejections to claim 19 and 1 set forth above, because claim 20 comprises limitations similar to claims 19 and 1, and they are rejected based on the same rationale.
Regarding claim 21 recites a machine, one of the four statutory categories of patentable subject matter. The applicant is directed to the rejections to claim 19 and 1 set forth above, because claim 21 comprises limitations similar to claims 19 and 1, and they are rejected based on the same rationale.
Regarding claim 22 depends on claim 21, thus the rejection of claim 21 is incorporated. The applicant is directed to the rejections to claim 11 set forth above, because claim 22 comprises limitations similar to claim 11, and they are rejected based on the same rationale.
Regarding claim 23 recites a machine, one of the four statutory categories of patentable subject matter. The applicant is directed to the rejections to claim 16 set forth above, because claim 23 comprises limitations similar to claim 16, and they are rejected based on the same rationale.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DUY TU DIEP whose telephone number is (703)756-1738. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8-4:30.
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, Alexey Shmatov can be reached at (571) 270-3428. 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.
/DUY T DIEP/Examiner, Art Unit 2123
/ALEXEY SHMATOV/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2123