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 .
Response to Arguments
Claim Objections. The objections to claims 9-13 are withdrawn based on amendment to claims.
35 USC 112(b). The rejections of claims 9-13 are withdrawn based on amendment to claims.
35 USC 101.
Applicant asserts, that under the Step 2A prong 1 analysis, the claimed invention does not recite a mathematical concept, because the claims are directed to a specific, enhanced way of performing a Monte Carlo simulation on a computer to achieve a practical improved result (Remarks p. 11). Furthermore, the mathematical concepts are tools utilized within a larger, concrete process designed to address a technical problem in the field of computational optimization, as opposed to being claimed in isolation, wherein the core advance is mathematical formula itself but its specific application with a computer-implemented simulation process to overcome a known technical hurdle (Remarks, p. 11).
Examiner respectfully disagrees. The claim recites mathematical relationships and mathematical calculations for solving an optimization problem represented by an energy function, using a Monte Carlo method. 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, 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 and Elfish. (Remarks p. 12-13). In support of the purported improvement, Applicant points to sections of the specification citing that the claimed invention addresses efficiency problems that result in reduced sampling efficiency and increased computation time, and points to claim elements such as “counting a number of times the state transition to change the value of the state variable of the change candidate is continuously rejected”, and “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 processing reaches a predetermined number of times, and changing a value of the selected first state variable”, which forces a state transition to escape local optima when stagnation is detected (Remarks p. 12-13). Applicant further asserts that the counting and stochastic steps are not well understood, routine, and conventional activity (Remarks p. 13).
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, additional elements in the claim as was present in both Desjardins and Elfish. 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. As stated in response to the first argument above, the improvement to the abstract idea itself is not an improvement in technology. Furthermore, math that may not be well understood, routine, or conventional remains an abstract idea and is not statutory.
Applicant further asserts under the Step 2B analysis that claim 9 taken individually and in combination amounts to significantly more than the abstract idea based on the unconventional nature of the claimed solution: the combination of continuously monitoring the state transition rejection event, employing a predetermined threshold to identify prolonged stagnation, and utilizing a stochastic key mechanism to forcibly induce a state transition, constitutes an inventive concept that is not well understood, routine or conventional activity but a novel approach to addressing a persistent technical problem of stagnation in Monte Carlo simulations (Remarks p. 13-14).
Examiner respectfully disagrees. As stated above, the stated improvement to the Monte Carlo simulations themselves, is merely an improvement in math, and that math that may not be well understood, routine, or conventional remains an abstract idea and is not statutory. The 'inventive concept cannot be furnished by the unpatentable law or nature (or natural phenomenon or abstract idea) itself. MPEP 2106.05.I.
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.
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.
Applicant further asserts that an improvement can be provided by one or more additional elements, and that improvements to software can make non abstract improvements to computer technology just as hardware can, and that the claimed invention is a software-implemented process that improves Monte-Carlo simulation (Remarks p. 14-15).
Examiner respectfully disagrees. No combination of additional elements provide the purported improvement in the instant application, but rather improved math results in an improved mathematical algorithm – the Monte Carlo simulation. The present application differs from Desjardins, in that software is not improved. An improvement to technology under Alice does not result from improvement math, whether or not the improved math causes the math that is merely “applied” on a computer to run more efficiently.
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:
repeatedly execute selection, determination, and state change, according to a predetermined order for searching for a solution to a problem represented by an energy function including a plurality of state variables, 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.
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 the energy function. 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 that causes a processor included in a computer to execute a process, the process comprising, executing search processing, that repeatedly execute selection processing, determination processing, and state change processing. 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. 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. 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
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
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