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 . Claims 1, 2, 4, 9-11, 13, 18 and 19 are pending, all examined and rejected.
This action is responsive to amendments/remarks filed May 18, 2026
Please note the change in examiner in this case.
This action contains new grounds of rejection not necessitated by applicant’s amendments. Therefore this action has been made non-final.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 4 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
With regard to Claims 4 and 13,
These claims recite “the one of the one or more best solutions.” It isn’t clear which “one” of the best solutions is “the one.” As such the claim is indefinite. Further, the claim recites “for random selection of segment.” It is not clear which segment this refers to. The claim is thus further indefinite. Finally, it’s also unclear whether this was meant to be the solutions being selected randomly or the segments being selected randomly as Claim 1 recites that the best solutions are the ones that have highest fitness values and thus provides a mechanism for selecting solutions that is not random. Appropriate correction is required.
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, 2, 4, 9-11, 13, 18 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
With regard to Claim 1,
Step 2A, Prong 1
This part of the eligibility analysis evaluates whether the claim recites a judicial exception. As explained in MPEP 2106.04, subsection II, a claim “recites” a judicial exception when the judicial exception is “set forth” or “described” in the claim.
Claim 1 recites:
A method for augmenting a population of candidate solutions including one or more best solutions, wherein the method is implemented by a processor executing program instructions stored in a memory, the method comprising:
a. receiving, by the processor, a population of the candidate solutions including one or more best solutions, wherein the one or more best solutions have highest fitness values in the population of the candidate solutions;
b. randomly selecting, by the processor, a segment from a best solution amongst the one or more best solutions, the segment comprising a subset of elements of the best solution and indices representing addresses corresponding to the subset of elements, wherein the indices of the subset of elements of the randomly selected segment are one of continuous and non-contiguous;
c. generating, by the processor, a first population of candidate solutions with respect to the randomly selected segment of the best solution by replacing elements of each of the candidate solutions of the received population with the subset of elements of the randomly selected segment, wherein position of the elements of each of the candidate solutions that is replaced is same as the indices corresponding to the subset of elements of the randomly selected segment;
d. generating, by the processor, a second population of candidate solutions with respect to a complement of the randomly selected segment of the best solution by replacing elements of each of the candidate solutions of the received population with the subset of elements of the complement of the randomly selected segment, wherein position of the elements of each of the candidate solutions that is replaced is same as the indices corresponding to the subset of elements of the complement of the randomly selected segment, and wherein the complement of the randomly selected segment comprises elements of the best solution excluding the subset of elements of the randomly selected segment; and
e. repeating, by the processor, steps b, c, and d for remaining of the one or more best solutions of the population until the first population and the second population of candidate solutions have been generated with respect to each of the remaining of the one or more best solutions; and
f. generating, by the processor, an augmented population by merging the received population of the candidate solutions with the first population and the second population of candidate solutions generated with respect to each of the one or more best solutions, and providing the augmented population for finding an optimal solution in a search space.
The broadest, reasonable interpretation of the bolded limitations above are directed to a mental process able to be performed in the human mind or by a human using pen and paper. A human can look at solutions to the problem at hand, randomly select parts of that solution, generate alternative populations of solutions by replacing elements of the segment and complement of the segment, repeat those steps and then merge the alternative solutions back then to generate an augmented population.
Step 2A, Prong 2
This part of the eligibility analysis evaluates whether the claim as a whole integrates the recited judicial exception into a practical application of the exception or whether the claim is “directed to” the judicial exception. This evaluation is performed by (1) identifying whether there are any additional elements recited in the claim beyond the judicial exception, and (2) evaluating those additional elements individually and in combination to determine whether the claim as a whole integrates the exception into a practical application. See MPEP 2106.04(d).
The additional elements in this claim are “a processor executing program instructions stored in a memory” and the step a, “receiving” step. With respect to the processor/memory, these elements are recited at a high level of generality and thus are generic computer components performing generic computer functions. Thus these are mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. See MPEP 2106.05(f). With respect to the “receiving” step, this is mere data gathering recited at a high level of generality and thus is insignificant extra-solution activity. See MPEP 2106.05(g).
Even when view in combination with the rest of the claim the additional elements do not integrate the recited judicial exception into a practical application.
Step 2A, Prong 2 (No).
Step 2B
This part of the eligibility analysis evaluates whether the claim as a whole amounts to significantly more than the recited exception, i.e., whether any additional element, or combination of additional elements, adds an inventive concept the claim. See MPEP 2106.05.
As explained in Step 2A, the additional elements are “a processor executing program instructions stored in a memory” and the step a, “receiving” step. The processors/memory are mere instructions to apply the abstract ideas and cannot provide an inventive concept. See MPEP 2106.05(f). With respect to the receiving step, receiving or transmitting data over a network has been found by the courts to be well-understood, routine and conventional activity. See MPEP 2106.05(d), subsection II.
Even when viewed in combination with the rest of the claim the additional elements do not provide an inventive concept.
Step 2B (No).
Claim 1 is ineligible.
With respect to Claims 9 and 19,
These claims are similar in scope to Claim 1 and are rejected under a similar rationale. The medium in claim 19 is also a generic computing component.
Claims 9 and 19 are ineligible.
Dependent Claims:
Claims 2, 4, 9, 11, 13 and 18 – These claims only recite further abstract ideas (mental processes) or elaborate on the recited mental processes above and thus are ineligible.
Response to Arguments
The examiner has considered applicant’s arguments regarding the prior art and finds them persuasive. The examiner agrees that the prior art of record does not adequately teach or render obvious the claims. No other prior art was uncovered during further search that taught or rendered obvious the claims. As such, no prior art rejection is given.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MATT ELL whose telephone number is (571)270-3264. The examiner can normally be reached 9-5, 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, Dave Wiley can be reached at 571-272-4150. 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.
/MATTHEW ELL/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2141
Prosecution Insights