DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Response to Arguments
Priority Documents
Examiner acknowledges certified copies of the priority documents have been retrieved by the Office on March 17, 2026.
Drawing Objections
Applicant has amended the drawings at issue and the previous objections have therefore been withdrawn.
Interpretation under 112(f)
Applicant's arguments filed 5/19/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive because it is inconsistent with MPEP 2181(II)(B) describing computer-implemented means-plus-function limitations. Therefore, the interpretation is maintained.
Claim Rejections – 35 USC 112
Applicant has amended the claims at issue and the previous rejections have therefore been withdrawn.
Claim Rejections – 35 USC 101
Applicant has amended claim 19 such that it recites a non-transitory recording medium, therefore the non-statutory subject matter rejection of claim 19 have been withdrawn.
Applicant's arguments in regards to the rejections that the claims are directed to a judicial exception without significantly more have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant asserts the claims recites a specific calculating device architecture and a defined data-processing workflow that is not abstract mathematical calculations and mathematical relationships, but concrete, hardware-implemented update mechanism that specifies how data is processed and coordinated across parallel processing parts in a calculating device.
Examiner respectfully disagrees. Application specification pg. 20 lines 6-13 discloses the calculating device may be a CPU executing instructions, thus the processor is a generic computer and not a specific calculating device. Further discussion in regards to the parallel processing parts is found below.
Applicant asserts the claims reciting parallel execution by multiple processing parts is not merely a mathematical relationship, but instead reflects a particular computing implementation.
Examiner respectfully disagrees. The computing implementation recited is a “processor” that “comprises a plurality of processing parts” wherein “at least a portion of the update processing is performed by the plurality of processing parts operating in parallel.” The configuring of a general-purpose computer to perform a plurality of operations simultaneously by parallelization is well understood, routine, or conventional. See J.L. Hennessy et al. (Computer Architecture: A Quantitative Approach, hereinafter “Hennessy”) which discloses parallelizing of loops based on data dependencies on general-purpose computers (pgs. 315-322). Therefore, merely reciting a “plurality of processing parts operating in parallel” is a well understood, routine, or conventional computing implementation and is not a particular computing implementation.
Applicant asserts claims 13, 14, 16 are directed to specific calculating-device configurations involving multiple processing parts performing portions of calculations in parallel, rather than to an abstract idea, and are thus limited to concrete hardware components and their parallel operation.
Examiner respectfully disagrees. The multiple processing parts performing portions of calculations in parallel is not a specific configuration for the same reasons as discussed above.
Applicant asserts Applicant’s claims recite additional elements that amount to a technological improvement in the technical field of techniques for solving optimization problems using computing devices. In particular, the specification explains that the process produces “a highly-accurate calculation result”, and “the optimization problem can be quickly calculated by parallel processing”.
Examiner respectfully disagrees. The “highly-accurate calculation result” is a result of performing the update processing alone, and the improvement that “the optimization problem can be quickly calculated by parallel processing” is merely the result of applying parallel processing such that it is merely applying parallel processing as a tool for the update processing. The judicial exception alone cannot provide the improvement, see MPEP 2106.05(a), and the increased speed in the process comes solely from the capabilities of the general-purpose computer performing parallel processing, see MPEP 2106.05(f)(2)(iii).
Applicant asserts the claims recites elements that reflect an inventive concept that is not well-understood, routine, or conventional in the field as evidenced by Applicant’s specification.
Examiner respectfully disagrees. The newly added “plurality of processing parts operating in parallel” is a well understood, routine, or conventional computing implementation as discussed above and disclosed in Hennessy.
Prior Art Rejections
Applicant’s arguments, filed5/19/2026, have been fully considered and are persuasive. The prior art rejections of the claims have been withdrawn.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are:
third processing part and fourth processing part in claim 13;
first processing part and second processing part in claim 14; and
fifth processing part and sixth processing part in claim 16.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
As to claim 13’s third processing part and fourth processing part, the examiner interprets the means plus function limitation to the corresponding structure: the processor performing the algorithm as disclosed in pg. 10 of the applicant' s specification, as no particular circuitry is disclosed in the specification.
As to claim 14’s first processing part and second processing part, the examiner interprets the means plus function limitation to the corresponding structure: the processor performing the algorithm as disclosed in pg. 10 of the applicant' s specification, as no particular circuitry is disclosed in the specification.
As to claim 16’s fifth processing part and sixth processing part, the examiner interprets the means plus function limitation to the corresponding structure: the processor performing the algorithm as disclosed in pg. 11 of the applicant' s specification, as no particular circuitry is disclosed in the specification.
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 1-8, 10-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception without significantly more.
Regarding claim 1, at Step 1, the claim is directed to a calculating device, which is a statutory category of invention (Machine).
At Step 2A Prong 1, Examiner notes that the claims are directed towards an abstract idea. The claim language has been reproduced below:
A calculating device, comprising: a processor configured to perform repeating an update processing (mathematical process),
the update processing including an update of a first variable set and an update of a second variable set (mathematical process),
the first variable set including a first variable xi (the ordinal number i being an integer of 1 to N, and N being one integer not less than 2) (mathematical relationship),
the second variable set including a second variable yi (mathematical relationship),
the update of the second variable set including updating the second variable yi by adding a result of a second function Fi to the second variable yi before the update (mathematical process),
the second function Fi including the first variable xi as a variable (mathematical relationship),
the second function Fi including a parameter ai (mathematical relationship),
the second function Fi includes a first-term function (mathematical relationship),
the first-term function includes a product of the first variable xi and the parameter ai (mathematical relationship),
an ordinal number p being one integer not less than 1 and not more than N, an ordinal number q being one integer not less than 1 and not more than N, the ordinal number q being different from the ordinal number p, a parameter ap being different from a parameter aq (mathematical relationship),
wherein the processor comprises a plurality of processing parts, and wherein at least a portion of the update processing is performed by the plurality of processing parts operating in parallel.
At Step 2A Prong 2, the additional elements are bolded above. The additional elements do not integrate the abstract ideas into a practical application because the computer elements, which are recited at a high level of generality, provide conventional computer functions that do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract ideas. See MPEP 2106.05(f). The limitations processor and plurality of processing parts is merely recited at a high level of generality, and is the equivalent of reciting “apply it” to the judicial exception. Moreover, pg. 3 lines 30-31 disclose “a general-purpose computer may be used as the calculating device”. Furthermore, the limitation performed by the plurality of processing parts operating in parallel is the equivalent of reciting “apply it” to the judicial exception with a computer implementation of a general-purpose computer. Even when viewed in combination, these additional elements do not integrate the recited judicial exception into a practical application and the claim is directed to the judicial exception.
At Step 2B, the additional elements do not, alone or in combination, amount to significantly more than the recited judicial exception As set forth in step 2A prong 2 analysis, the processor and plurality of processing parts is the equivalent of adding the words “apply it” to the judicial exception and are mere instructions to implement the abstract idea on a computer. Furthermore, the limitation performed by the plurality of processing parts operating in parallel is a well understood, routine, or conventional configuration for general-purpose computers (Hennessy pgs. 315-322). Mere instructions to apply an exception using generic computer components and generic configurations cannot provide the inventive concept. Even when considered in combination, these additional elements represent mere instructions to apply an exception and insignificant extra-solution activity, which do not provide an inventive concept. The claim is not eligible.
Regarding claims 2-8, 10-18, the claims merely recite functions that further mathematically limit the mathematical concepts, or provide additional mathematical functions, of claim 1. They do not include additional elements that would require further analysis under steps 2A prong 2 and step 2B.
Regarding claim 19, the claim is directed to a program that would be practiced by the device of claims 1, respectively. All steps performed by the program of claims 19 are executed by the apparatus in claims 1 as configured. The analysis of claims 1 applies equally to claims 19.
Regarding claim 20, the claim is directed to a method that would be practiced by the device of claims 1, respectively. All steps performed by the method of claims 20 are executed by the apparatus in claims 1 as configured. The analysis of claims 1 applies equally to claims 20.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-8, 10-20 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejections under 35 USC 101 set forth in this Office Action. The reasons for allowable subject matter is discussed in non-final mailed 3/9/2026.
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 PHAT N LE whose telephone number is (571)272-0546. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8:30AM-5PM ET.
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 T Caldwell can be reached at (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 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.
/P.N.L./
Phat LeExaminer, Art Unit 2182 (571) 272-0546
/ANDREW CALDWELL/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2182
Prosecution Insights