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
Specification Objections
Applicant has amended the specification at issue and the previous objections have therefore been withdrawn.
Claim Rejections – 35 USC 112
Applicant has amended the claims at issue and the previous objections have therefore been withdrawn.
35 USC 101 Rejections
Applicant's arguments filed 2/13/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant asserts the claim is not an abstract mathematical formula, but a concrete method on a specific apparatus that performs a particular series of steps to achieve a technical solution to a technical problem.
Examiner respectfully disagrees. The claims do not reflect a specific apparatus, instead the claims encompass a general-purpose computer generally programmed to do the math, as paragraphs [0078]-[0079] of Applicant’s specification discloses the processing unit that performs the method may be realized by hardware such as a CPU, GPU, and DSP; and in [0054], the storage unit as a volatile or non-volatile storage device. Therefore, the scope of the claimed apparatus includes a general-purpose computer comprising a generic processor and storage device that is merely applied to perform the method.
Applicant asserts the claims describe a mechanistic process within the context of a data processing apparatus, specifically designed to handle higher-order terms in optimization problems without increasing the number of independent variables, thus a non-abstract improvement to the functioning of a computer.
Examiner respectfully disagrees. The judicial exception alone cannot provide the improvement. See MPEP 2106.05(a). It follows that improvements to the judicial exception would improve the computer it is applied on, and as discussed above, the additional elements are recited at a high level of generality and thus do not contribute to the improvement, therefore the improvement is not a result of the claimed combination with additional elements, but is a result of the judicial exception alone.
Applicant asserts the claimed invention provides a novel approach to handle higher-order evaluation functions for discrete optimization problems without increasing the number of independent variables.
Examiner respectfully disagrees. The judicial exception alone cannot provide the improvement, as discussed above.
Applicant asserts the claimed invention is an improvement in the functionality of the data processing apparatus enabling it to solve a wider variety of discrete optimization problems more efficiently than conventional apparatuses.
Examiner respectfully disagrees. The judicial exception alone cannot provide the improvement, as discussed above.
Applicant asserts the apparatus, storage device, and processor have an integral role as an ordered combination of a tailored architecture and processing steps of solving the technical problem, thus the solution provided is intrinsically tied to the computer’s operation.
Examiner respectfully disagrees. As discussed above, the scope of the claimed apparatus includes a general-purpose computer comprising a generic processor and storage device, and thus do not have an integral role as the architecture is not tailored nor specific.
Applicant asserts the combination of a storage device for coefficients indicating interaction between k state variables and a processor configured to calculate a first local field based on an auxiliary variable (derived from k state variables and second coefficients) to determine whether to allow a change in a first state variable represents an unconventional, technical solution, and is a specific arrangement of hardware and software components.
Examiner respectfully disagrees. As discussed above, the scope of the claimed apparatus includes a general-purpose computer comprising a generic processor and storage device, and are thus generic components that are merely applied to perform the abstract idea. The additional elements do not make the claim as a whole to be significantly more than the judicial exception.
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 1-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Regarding claim 1, at Step 1, the claim is directed to a data processing apparatus, which is a statutory category of invention (machine).
At Step 2A Prong 1, Examiner notes that the claims are directed towards an abstract. The claim language has been reproduced below:
A data processing apparatus of searching for a combination of values of a plurality of state variables with which a value of an evaluation function which includes the plurality of state variables becomes a local minimum or a local maximum (mathematical process), the data processing apparatus comprising: a storage device configured to store a first coefficient indicating a magnitude of interaction between k state variables (k is an integer of greater than or equal to three) out of the plurality of state variables included in a kth order term of the evaluation function (characterization of data used in the claimed mathematical process);
and a processor configured to perform processing including: calculating a first local field indicative of a change amount of the kth order term in a case where a value of a first state variable out of the k state variables changes based on a value of a first variable and the first coefficient read from the storage device (mathematical process), the value of the first variable being a value obtained based on values of the k state variables and a plurality of second coefficients respectively representative of influences of the k state variables on the first variable (mathematical process);
and determining, based on a result of comparison, whether to allow a change in the value of the first state variable, the result of the comparison being obtained by comparing between a predetermined value and a product of a sum of the first local field and a second local field indicative of a change amount of quadratic and lower-order terms of the evaluation function in the case where the value of the first state variable changes and a change amount of the first state variable (mathematical process).
At Step 2A Prong 2, the additional elements are bolded above. The additional elements (“a data processing apparatus”, “a storage device”, and “a processor”) 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 as they merely apply the judicial exception on a generic computer. See MPEP 2106.05(f). Furthermore, the limitation of storing in a storage device is an insignificant extra solution activity.
At Step 2B, the additional elements do not, alone or in combination, amount to significantly more than the recited judicial exception. As explained in step 2A prong 2, the additional elements of the “data processing apparatus”, “storage device”, and “processor” are the equivalent of merely adding the words “apply it” to the judicial exception. Furthermore, the storing in memory is understood by the courts as well understood, routine, and conventional. See MPEP 2106.05(d).
Regarding claims 2-7, the claims merely recite additional data used on the judicial exception, further mathematically limit the mathematical concepts of claim 1, or provide additional mathematical calculations performed by the processor. They do not include additional elements that would require further analysis under steps 2A prong 2 and step 2B.
Regarding claim 8, it is directed to a non-transitory computer-readable medium storing a program that could be executed by the apparatus of claim 1. All steps executed in claim 8 are executed by the apparatus in claim 1 as configured. The claim 1 analysis applies equally to claim 8.
Regarding claim 9, it is directed to a method that would be practiced by the apparatus of claim 1. All steps performed by the method of claim 9 are executed by the apparatus in claim 1 as configured. The claim 1 analysis applies equally to claim 9.
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