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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 06/28/26 has been entered.
Response to Arguments
35 USC 101.
Applicant asserts the claims have been amended to include specific hardware limitations, particularly specifying an accelerator card coupled to a host computer and that the processing is executed by a processor circuit of an accelerator card, which different the claimed invention from a purely abstract idea by tying to a specific non-generic computing environment designed to perform the specialized tasks of combinatorial optimization (Remarks p. 9). Similarly Applicant asserts under the step 2A prong 1 analysis, that the claims do not recite mathematical concepts in isolation, but pertain to a specific, enhanced method for operating a computer system, particularly one equipped with an accelerator card, to effectively address a technical problem in the realm of computational optimization (Remarks p. 10 bottom – 11 top).
Examiner respectfully disagrees. The claims merely recite generic computing components to “apply” the math to a computer. Furthermore, the claims are not a specific method for enhanced operation of a computer system but merely use the computer as tool to execute arguably better math. What is recited with specificity is the mathematical relationships and mathematical calculations. What is generically recited is the computing system elements. Furthermore, coupling an accelerator card to a host computer to execute instructions is well understood, routine, and conventional activity. See rejection under 35 USC 101 to claim 9, Step 2B below.
Applicant further asserts that while the Monte Carlo method inherently possesses mathematical underpinnings, its application here is firmly situated within a concrete, technologically specific context that specifically aims to improve the operational efficiency of the computer system itself (Remarks p. 11 top).
Examiner respectfully disagrees. The processor, accelerator, host computer, storing in memory are in no way improved in and of themselves. What is arguably improved, as set forth above, is the mathematical calculation of the optimization problem, which is a direct result of the mathematical relationships, and mathematical calculations claimed, not as a result of any improvement in the additional elements whatsoever.
Applicant further asserts the claims merely involve math, not reciting math because the claims describe a highly specific technologically integrated process that uses mathematical principles within the context of hardware-accelerated computation to solve a complex, real-world technical problem, and not seeking to patent an abstract mathematical formula, algorithm or calculation per se (Remarks p. 11).
Examiner respectfully disagrees. The claim recites mathematical relationships and mathematical calculations for solving an optimization problem represented by an Ising energy function, using a Monte Carlo method. The Ising energy function is an equation. See specification [0030]. The Monte Carlo method is a mathematical algorithm. See Ren et al., Acceleration of Markov chain Monte Carlo simulations through sequential updating, J. Chem. Phys. Volume 124, Issue 6, 064109, 2006, disclosed in the specification [0118], which describes the Monte Carlo simulation in terms of mathematical equations, mathematical calculations, and mathematical relationships throughout. Applicant merely claims a different mathematical algorithm, than Ren, claimed with words, instead of explicitly reciting equations as with the similar Monte Carlo simulation of Ren. See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2).I.A. “A mathematical relationship may be expressed in words or using mathematical symbols”. Furthermore, what is specifically recited in the claims is the mathematical concepts, not an implementation in technology. The technology claimed is merely generically recited processing in a computer, such that the claim recites “apply it” as to the mathematical concepts in a generic computer. Furthermore, any technical problem that is addressed in the field of computational optimization, is a direct result of the mathematical concepts claimed, the specific mathematical calculations and mathematical relationships. “It is important to keep in mind that an improvement in the abstract idea itself (e.g. a recited fundamental economic concept) is not an improvement in technology” (MPEP 2106.05(a)(II)).
Applicant further asserts that the search processing of claim 9 includes continuous counting, stochastic key calculation, and active forcing of state changes to overcome inherit technical limitations of tradition Monte Carlo simulations, which is not simply and improvement in a mathematical algorithm but an improvement in how a computational system operates to execute that algorithm effectively within a specific technological context (Remarks p. 11). Applicant further asserts that instruction addressing how to identify a recited mathematical concept, is not a mathematical concept but what the accelerator card does in response (Remarks p. 11-12).
Examiner respectfully disagrees. These steps asserted: continuous counting, stochastic key calculation, and active forcing of state changes are all the math. Better math is not eligible subject matter. Applicant claims mathematical steps merely generally linked to an instruction and accelerator. None of the claimed steps limit the instruction per se. No details of the instruction are claimed. No details of the accelerator are claimed. No details of these elements are claimed beyond reciting the mathematical steps implemented and generally claiming do it in generic and well known computing components without more.
Applicant further asserts, under the Step 2A prong 2 analysis, the claims integrate into a practical application because the claims are directed to an improvement to computer functionality, improving the operation of Monte Carlo simulations themselves, versus directed to an abstract idea, consistent with Desjardins, Enfish, and Recentive Analytics. (Remarks p. 12-15). In support of the purported improvement, Applicant points to 1., the specific integration with specialized hardware on an accelerator card, 2. solving a problem with Monte Carlo simulations, and 3, the steps of counting, stochastic keys, and forcing state variable changes enhance performance of the simulation card (Remarks p. 13-14).
Examiner respectfully disagrees. The purported improvement flows as a direct result of the abstract idea, the mathematical calculations and mathematical relationships, not as a result of technology. As to point 1, see response to arguments above related to the generic, well understood, routine, and conventional aspect of additional elements. As to point 2, using better math to solve a math problem is not eligible subject matter. As to point 3, the steps recited are the abstract idea. As such an inventive concept cannot result from the abstract ideal. The 'inventive concept cannot be furnished by the unpatentable law or nature (or natural phenomenon or abstract idea) itself. MPEP 2106.05.I. Furthermore the question of whether an element is an insignificant extra solution activity is not applicable to the abstract idea. Furthermore, the claimed invention is different than Desjardins and Enfish. In both, additional elements in the claim as was present in both Desjardins and Enfish. The claim limitations pointed to by Applicant for causing the improvement to transition to escape local optima are limitations that are entirely the abstract idea. The stated improvement to the Monte Carlo simulations themselves, is merely an improvement in math, and what remains is generic, well understood, routine and conventional. As to Fox Corp, Examiner is unaware of this case being a precedential decision, having not found it discussed in the MPEP with respect to subject matter eligibility, therefore it will not be addressed here.
Applicant further asserts that when eligibility is a close call, Examiner should not make the rejection (Remarks p. 15).
Examiner respectfully disagrees that the question of eligibility is not a close call for the reasons set forth above and with respect to the rejection below.
Applicant further asserts under Step 2B that when considered as an ordered combination, particularly when implemented within specialized architecture of an accelerator card, results in an inventive concept (Remarks p. 15, 16). In support Applicant cites continuous monitoring of state transition rejection events, coupled with astute utilization of a predetermined threshold, counting processing as representative of an innovative diagnostic and control mechanism elegantly embedded within the simulation that is not conventional or routine (Remarks p. 15 bottom – 16 top). Applicant further points to deployment of a stochastic key mechanism to forcibly induce a state transition and selecting as not conventional approach to escape a local optima (Remarks p. 16).
Examiner respectfully disagrees. As stated in response above, the continuous monitoring, threshold, counting and stochastic key are all elements of the mathematical concepts. No matter how innovative, ingenious, or elegant remain math, which is ineligible subject matter. As to the architecture with respect to the accelerator card, this element is well understood, routine and conventional.
Applicant further asserts that because the subject matter that is allowable over the art are the limitations asserted as the technical improvement under the Alice analysis, that the claims result in an inventive concept under Alice (Remarks p. 17).
Examiner respectfully disagrees. The question of allowable subject matter with respect to prior art is a different question than an inventive concept in the Alice framework, and not relevant, considering that the point of novelty over the prior art is the abstract idea itself.
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 9-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more.
Regarding claim 9, under the Alice framework Step 2A prong 1, the claim recites Mathematical concepts for solving an optimization problem represented by an energy function. Specifically the claim recites the following mathematical concepts:
Search for a ground state of an Ising-typed energy function corresponding to an Ising model that represents a combinatorial optimization problem, the search being repeatedly execute selection, determination, and state change, the Ising-typed energy function including a plurality of state variables, the plurality of state variables corresponding to a plurality of spins in the Ising mode, each of the plurality of state variables indicating a binary value corresponding to a state of a respective spin of the plurality of spins in the Ising model, wherein
the selection includes selecting a state variable of a change candidate, which is a part of the plurality of state variables, in a predetermined order,
the determination includes determining whether or not to accept a state transition to change a value of the state variable of the change candidate based on a change amount of a value of the energy function corresponding to a change in the value of the state variable of the change candidate selected in the selection, and
the state change includes changing the value of the state variable of the change candidate when it is determined that the state transition to change the value of the state variable of the change candidate is accepted,
the search further includes:
counting a number of times the state transition to change the value of the state variable of the change candidate is continuously rejected in the search repeatedly executed,
selecting a first state variable from the plurality of state variables based on a stochastic key that is calculated according to the change amount and random number value when the number of times counted in the count reaches a predetermined number of times, and
changing a value of the selected first state variable, to update the selected first stated variable of the plurality of state variables by using the changed value of the selected first state variable .
See [0003] which describe the solution to a problem as converting a combinatorial optimization problem into an energy function, and searching for a combination of state variables included in the energy function that minimizes or maximizes the energy function using a Markov-chain Monte Carlo (MCMC) method. See also eon 1, [0030] which defines Ising-type the energy function as an equation. See also equation 2 [0035] which defines changing a state of state variables. See also eon 3 {0037] for criteria as to selection of a state variable. For these reasons, the claim recites mathematical concepts, including mathematical relationships, and mathematical calculations.
Under the Alice framework Step 2A prong 2 analysis, additional elements not reciting Mathematical relationships and mathematical calculations thereof include: a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium storing a program comprising instructions, which when executed by a processor circuit of an accelerator card coupled to a host computer, cause the processor circuit to execute processing, the processing comprising: in response to receiving an instruction from the host computer, executing processing, the processing being configured to repeatedly execute processing, stored in memory of the accelerator card, in response to a completion of the executing of the search processing, transmitting a result of the processing to the host computer, selection processing .. stored in memory, determination processing, and state change processing, store values in the memory. These additional elements do no more than generally link the additional element to the mathematical relationships and mathematical calculations in a manner that in effect merely recites “apply it” in a computer and merely includes instructions to implement the abstract idea on a computer and merely uses the computer as a tool to perform the abstract idea. Furthermore, the elements of storing in memory, and transmitting a result to a host computer merely comprise an insignificant extra solution activity. For these reasons, the claim is not integrated into a practical application.
Moreover, under the Alice Framework Step 2B analysis, the claim, considered individually and as an ordered combination does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. As discussed in the Step 2A prong 2 analysis, the claim merely generally links the additional element to the math in a manner that merely recites “apply it’ in a computer, include instructions to implement the abstract idea on a computer, and use the computer as a tool to perform the abstract idea. Furthermore, the elements of storing in memory and transmitting a result to a host computer are well understood routine and conventional activity. See e.g., MPEP 2106.05(d).i. transmitting data over a network, iv. storing information in memory. Furthermore, the processor circuit of an accelerator card coupled to a host computer comprises well understood, routine, and conventional activity. See e.g. Meta, Accelerating Facebook’s infrastructure with application specific hardware, 2019 posted to data center engineering at engineering.fb.com/2019/03/14/data-center-engineering/accelerating-infrastructure/, first figure showing host coupled to accelerator. See also P. Vogel, Exploring Shared Virtual Memory for FPGA Accelerators with a Configurable IOMMU, IEEE Transactions on Computers, Vol 68, No 4, 2019, figure 1 Host processor couped to FPGA accelerator. See also M. Showerman et al., QP: A Heterogeneous Multi-Accelerator Cluster, 10th LCI International Conference on High-Performance Clustered computing, 2009, figure 2 GPU and FPGA accelerators coupled to HOST CPUs. See also Unity, Unity Manual, Unity Accelerator, Unity User Manual 2020.1, 2020, found at docs.unity3d.com/2020.1/Documentation/Manual/UnityAccelerator.html, first figure first section Installing an Accelerator, requirements, local hosting requirements. For these reasons the claim when considered as a whole does not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea.
Claims 10-13 are rejected for at least the reasons set forth with respect to claim 9. Claims 10-13 contain no further additional elements beyond those recited in claim 9 that would require further analysis under Step 2A prong 2 or Step 2B.
Allowable Subject Matter
For the reasons set forth in the office action dated 12/09/25, claims 9-13 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejections under 35 USC 101.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to EMILY E LAROCQUE whose telephone number is (469)295-9289. The examiner can normally be reached on 10:00am - 1200pm, 2:00pm - 8pm ET M-F.
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, Andrew Caldwell can be reached on 571 272 3702. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (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 USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/EMILY E LAROCQUE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2182
Prosecution Insights