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. Information Disclosure Statement The information disclosure statements (IDS) submitted on 06/15/2022, 12/01/2022, 09/08/2025 are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statements mentioned above are being considered by the examiner. 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 appl icant regards as his invention. Claims 1-9 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. Regarding claim 1, claim 1 recites the limitation of: “ exchanging destinations of a first entity and a second entity among the plurality of entities ” . It is unclear what in particular this limitation is meaning, it is unclear if it is meant to be understood as the index location of the first entity is exchanged with the index location of the second entity, or if it is meant to be understood as the flow of an entity to another location is changed, or if it is meant to be understood that both the flow matrix and the distance matrix have changes due to this exchange of destinations. Furthermore, claim 1 recites the limitation of: “ t he first change being to be caused by a first assignment change of exchanging destinations of a first entity and a second entity among the plurality of entities ” . This limitation is unclear due to the limitation of “ to be caused by ” is not positively reciting that there is a first assignment change or not. For purposes of examination, the Examiner interprets the limitation as: “ the first change being to be is caused by a first assignment change of exchanging destinations of a first entity and a second entity among the plurality of entities ”. Claims 2-7 inherit the same deficiencies as claim 1 due to dependence. Regarding claim 3, claim 3 recites the limitation of: “ the second change being to be caused by a second assignment change of assigning the first entity to a first destination ”. This limitation is unclear due to the limitation of “ to be caused by ” is not positively reciting that there is a second assignment change or not. For purposes of examination, the Examiner interprets the limitation as: “ the second change being to be is caused by a second assignment change of assigning the first entity to a first destination ” Regarding claim 4, claim 4 recites the limitation of: “ the two columns are swapped by repeatedly ”. It is unclear if there is any end to swapping the two columns or if it is meant to continue repeatedly with no end. Regarding claim 5, claim 5 recites the limitation of: “ repeatedly writing two values output at a time respectively ”. It is unclear if there is any end to writing the two values or if it is meant to continue repeatedly with no end. Regarding claim 6 , claim 6 recites the limitation of: “ wherein the memory includes a first memory and a second memory to hold the distance matrix ”. It is unclear if this limitation is meant to be understood as both a first and second memory hold the distance matrix, or if the first memory stores a portion of the distance matrix and the second memory holds another portion of the distance matrix, or if a first memory is separate and only the second memory holds the distance matrix. For purposes of examination, the Examiner interprets this limitation as the first memory is a different portion of memory and the second memory is what holds the distance matrix. Furthermore, claim 6 recites the limitation of: “ swapping the two columns by repeatedly reading each row of the distance matrix, one row at a time, ” It is unclear if there is any end to the swapping process or if it is meant to continue repeatedly with no end. Regarding claim 8, claim 8 recites the limitation of: “ and a processor that performs a process including calculating a first change in the evaluation function using a vector arithmetic operation based on the flow matrix and the distance matrix, the first change being to be caused by a first assignment change of exchanging destinations of a first entity and a second entity among the plurality of entities, determining based on the first change whether to accept the first assignment change, and updating, upon determining to accept the first assignment change, the assignment state and updating the distance matrix by swapping two columns or two rows of the distance matrix corresponding to the first entity and the second entity ”. The functions which the processor is claimed do not follow from the structure recited in the claim, so it is unclear whether the function requires some other structure or is simply a result of operating the processor in a certain manner. Therefore, one of ordinary skill in the art would not be able to draw a clear boundary between what is and is not covered by the claims. See MPEP 2173.05(g) for more information. Furthermore, claim 8 recites the limitation of: “ the first change being to be caused by a first assignment change of exchanging destinations of a first entity and a second entity among the plurality of entities ” . This limitation is unclear due to the limitation of “ to be caused by ” is not positively reciting that there is a first assignment change or not. For purposes of examination, the Examiner interprets the limitation as: “ the first change being to be is caused by a first assignment change of exchanging destinations of a first entity and a second entity among the plurality of entities ”. Regarding claim 9, claim 9 recites the limitation of: “ the first change being to be caused by a first assignment change of exchanging destinations of a first entity and a second entity among the plurality of entities ”. This limitation is unclear due to the limitation of “ to be caused by ” is not positively reciting that there is a first assignment change or not. For purposes of examination, the Examiner interprets the limitation as: “ the first change being to be is caused by a first assignment change of exchanging destinations of a first entity and a second entity among the plurality of entities ”. 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 a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more. Regarding claim 1, under the Alice Framework Step 1, claim 1 falls within the four statutory categories of patentable subject matter identified by 35 USC 101: a process , machine, manufacture, or a composition of matter. Under the Alice Framework Step 2A prong 1, claim 1 recites an abstract idea, including both a mental process and mathematical concept. Specifically, claim 1 recites the following mental process, mathematical relationships, and mathematical formulas: “ perform a process of finding a solution to an assignment problem with local search using an evaluation function representing a cost of an assignment state, the process comprising: calculating a first change in the evaluation function using a vector arithmetic operation based on a flow matrix and a distance matrix, the flow matrix representing flows between a plurality of entities to be assigned to a plurality of destinations, the distance matrix representing distances between the plurality of destinations, the first change being to be caused by a first assignment change of exchanging destinations of a first entity and a second entity among the plurality of entities; determining based on the first change whether to accept the first assignment change; and updating, upon determining to accept the first assignment change, the assignment state and updating the distance matrix by swapping two columns or two rows of the distance matrix corresponding to the first entity and the second entity. ” Under the Alice Framework Step 2A prong 2, and Step 2B analysis, claim 1 recites additional elements of, ” non-transitory computer-readable storage medium ”, “ memory ” and, “ computer ”. These additional elements merely recite a generic computer system upon which the abstract idea is applied to and thus are not integrated into a practical application, see MPEP 2106.05(I)(A)(ii), and MPEP 2106.05(f)(2)( i ). Furthermore, the se additional elements which merely recite a generic computer system performing generic computer functions are considered well-understood, routine, and conventional activities, see MPEP 2106.05 (I)(A)(ii), and 2106.05(d)(II). For these reasons these additional elements are neither integrated into a practical solution nor amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. Claim 2 is rejected for at least the reasons set forth with respect to claim 1. Claim 2 merely further limits the mathematical concept set forth in claim 1. Under the Alice Framework Step 2A prong 1, claim 2 recites an abstract idea, including a mathematical concept. Specifically, claim 2 recites the following mathematical concept: “ wherein, in response to the assignment problem being a quadratic assignment problem (QAP), the determining includes determining whether to accept the first assignment change, based on a comparison between an acceptance rate and a random number, the acceptance rate being calculated based on the first change and a temperature parameter value. ” Under the Alice Framework Step 2A prong 2, and Step 2B analysis, claim 2 recites the additional element of, ” non-transitory computer-readable storage medium ”. Th is additional element merely recite a part of a generic computer system upon which the abstract idea is applied to and thus are not integrated into a practical application, see MPEP 2106.05(I)(A)(ii), and MPEP 2106.05(f)(2)( i ). Furthermore, th is additional element which merely recite a part of the generic computer system performing generic computer functions is considered well-understood, routine, and conventional activities, see MPEP 2106.05 (I)(A)(ii), and 2106.05(d)(II). For these reasons this additional element is neither integrated into a practical solution nor amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. Claim 3 is rejected for at least the reasons set forth with respect to claim 1. Claim 3 merely further limits the mathematical concept set forth in claim 1. Under the Alice Framework Step 2A prong 1, claim 3 recites an abstract idea, including a mathematical concept. Specifically, claim 3 recites the following mathematical concept: “ wherein, in response to the assignment problem being a quadratic semi-assignment problem (QSAP), the process further includes before calculating the first change, calculating a second change in the evaluate function, the second change being to be caused by a second assignment change of assigning the first entity to a first destination, determining whether to accept the second assignment change, based on a comparison between an acceptance rate and a random number, the acceptance rate being calculated based on the second change and a temperature parameter value, and updating, upon determining to accept the second assignment change, the assignment state and the distance matrix, and after calculating the first change, determining whether to accept the first assignment change, based on a comparison between the first change and a predetermined value . ” Under the Alice Framework Step 2A prong 2, and Step 2B analysis, claim 3 recites the additional element of, ” non-transitory computer-readable storage medium ”. This additional element merely recite a part of a generic computer system upon which the abstract idea is applied to and thus are not integrated into a practical application, see MPEP 2106.05(I)(A)(ii), and MPEP 2106.05(f)(2)( i ). Furthermore, this additional element which merely recite a part of the generic computer system performing generic computer functions is considered well-understood, routine, and conventional activities, see MPEP 2106.05 (I)(A)(ii), and 2106.05(d)(II). For this reasons this additional element is neither integrated into a practical solution nor amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. Claim 4 is rejected for at least the reasons set forth with respect to claim 1. Claim 4 merely further limits the mathematical concept set forth in claim 1. Under the Alice Framework Step 2A prong 1, claim 4 recites an abstract idea, including a mathematical concept. Specifically, claim 4 recites the following mathematical concept: “ wherein the swapping includes swapping the two columns by repeatedly reading each row of the distance matrix, one row at a time, selecting two values of the two columns included in the read row, and writing the two values with storage locations of the two values swapped ” Under the Alice Framework Step 2A prong 2, and Step 2B analysis, claim 4 recites the additional elements of, ” non-transitory computer-readable storage medium ”, and “ memory ”. These additional element merely recite a part of a generic computer system upon which the abstract idea is applied to and thus are not integrated into a practical application, see MPEP 2106.05(I)(A)(ii), and MPEP 2106.05(f)(2)( i ). Furthermore, these additional elements which merely recite a part of the generic computer system performing generic computer functions is considered well-understood, routine, and conventional activities, see MPEP 2106.05 (I)(A)(ii), and 2106.05(d)(II). For these reasons these additional elements are neither integrated into a practical solution nor amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. Claim 5 is rejected for at least the reasons set forth with respect to claim 1. Claim 5 merely further limits the mathematical concept set forth in claim 1. Under the Alice Framework Step 2A prong 1, claim 5 recites an abstract idea, including a mathematical concept. Specifically, claim 5 recites the following mathematical concept: “ wherein the further holds a transposed matrix of the distance matrix, and the swapping includes swapping the two columns by storing a first row and a second row of two rows of the transposed matrix corresponding to the two columns of the distance and repeatedly writing two values output at a time respectively from the with of the two values swapped. ” Under the Alice Framework Step 2A prong 2, and Step 2B analysis, claim 5 recites the additional elements of, ” non-transitory computer-readable storage medium ”, “first shift register”, “second shift register”, “storage locations” and “ memory ”. These additional element merely recite a part of a generic computer system upon which the abstract idea is applied to and thus are not integrated into a practical application, see MPEP 2106.05(I)(A)(ii), and MPEP 2106.05(f)(2)( i ). Furthermore, these additional elements which merely recite a part of the generic computer system performing generic computer functions is considered well-understood, routine, and conventional activities, see MPEP 2106.05 (I)(A)(ii), and 2106.05(d)(II). For these reasons these additional elements are neither integrated into a practical solution nor amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. Claim 6 is rejected for at least the reasons set forth with respect to claim 1. Claim 6 merely further limits the mathematical concept set forth in claim 1. Under the Alice Framework Step 2A prong 1, claim 6 recites an abstract idea, including a mathematical concept. Specifically, claim 6 recites the following mathematical concept: “ wherein the includes a to hold the distance matrix, and the swapping includes swapping the two columns by repeatedly reading each row of the distance matrix, one row at a time, from the selecting two values of the two columns included in the read row, and writing the two values with of the two values swapped. ” Under the Alice Framework Step 2A prong 2, and Step 2B analysis, claim 6 recites the additional elements of, ” non-transitory computer-readable storage medium ”, “ first memory ”, “ second memory ”, and “ storage locations ”. These additional element merely recite a part of a generic computer system upon which the abstract idea is applied to and thus are not integrated into a practical application, see MPEP 2106.05(I)(A)(ii), and MPEP 2106.05(f)(2)( i ). Furthermore, these additional elements which merely recite a part of the generic computer system performing generic computer functions is considered well-understood, routine, and conventional activities, see MPEP 2106.05 (I)(A)(ii), and 2106.05(d)(II). For these reasons these additional elements are neither integrated into a practical solution nor amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. Claim 7 is rejected for at least the reasons set forth with respect to claim 1. Claim 7 merely further limits the mathematical concept set forth in claim 1. Under the Alice Framework Step 2A prong 1, claim 7 recites an abstract idea, including a mathematical concept. Specifically, claim 7 recites the following mathematical concept: “ wherein the local search is performed using parallel tempering by a plurality of replicas each set with a different temperature parameter value, as the distance matrix, a first distance matrix and a second distance matrix respectively for a first replica and a second replica among the plurality of replicas, and the calculating a first change includes calculating the first change based on the second distance matrix of the second replica while updating the first distance matrix of the first replica. ” Under the Alice Framework Step 2A prong 2, and Step 2B analysis, claim 7 recites the additional elements of, ” non-transitory computer-readable storage medium ”, and “ memory ”. These additional element merely recite a part of a generic computer system upon which the abstract idea is applied to and thus are not integrated into a practical application, see MPEP 2106.05(I)(A)(ii), and MPEP 2106.05(f)(2)( i ). Furthermore, these additional elements which merely recite a part of the generic computer system performing generic computer functions is considered well-understood, routine, and conventional activities, see MPEP 2106.05 (I)(A)(ii), and 2106.05(d)(II). For these reasons these additional elements are neither integrated into a practical solution nor amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. Regarding claim 8 , under the Alice Framework Step 1, claim 8 falls within the four statutory categories of patentable subject matter identified by 35 USC 101: a process , machine , manufacture, or a composition of matter. Under the Alice Framework Step 2A prong 1, claim 8 recites an abstract idea, including both a mental process and mathematical concept. Specifically, claim 8 recites the following mental process, mathematical relationships, and mathematical formulas: “ finding a solution to an assignment problem with local search using an evaluation function representing a cost of an assignment state, the data processing apparatus comprising: a flow matrix and a distance matrix, the flow matrix representing flows between a plurality of entities to be assigned to a plurality of destinations, the distance matrix representing distances between the plurality of destinations; performs a process including calculating a first change in the evaluation function using a vector arithmetic operation based on the flow matrix and the distance matrix, the first change being to be caused by a first assignment change of exchanging destinations of a first entity and a second entity among the plurality of entities, determining based on the first change whether to accept the first assignment change, and updating, upon determining to accept the first assignment change, the assignment state and updating the distance matrix by swapping two columns or two rows of the distance matrix corresponding to the first entity and the second entity. ” Under the Alice Framework Step 2A prong 2, and Step 2B analysis, claim 8 recites additional elements of, ” data processing apparatus ”, “ memory ” and, “ processor ”. These additional elements merely recite a generic computer system upon which the abstract idea is applied to and thus are not integrated into a practical application, see MPEP 2106.05(I)(A)(ii), and MPEP 2106.05(f)(2)( i ). Furthermore, these additional elements which merely recite a generic computer system performing generic computer functions are considered well-understood, routine, and conventional activities, see MPEP 2106.05 (I)(A)(ii), and 2106.05(d)(II). For these reasons these additional elements are neither integrated into a practical solution nor amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. Regarding claim 9, under the Alice Framework Step 1, claim 9 falls within the four statutory categories of patentable subject matter identified by 35 USC 101: a process , machine , manufacture, or a composition of matter. Under the Alice Framework Step 2A prong 1, claim 9 recites an abstract idea, including both a mental process and mathematical concept. Specifically, claim 9 recites the following mental process, mathematical relationships, and mathematical formulas: “ A data processing method of finding a solution to an assignment problem with local search using an evaluation function representing a cost of an assignment state, the data processing method comprising: calculating, a first change in the evaluation function using a vector arithmetic operation based on a flow matrix and a distance matrix, the flow matrix representing flows between a plurality of entities to be assigned to a plurality of destinations, the distance matrix representing distances between the plurality of destinations, the first change being to be caused by a first assignment change of exchanging destinations of a first entity and a second entity among the plurality of entities; determining, based on the first change whether to accept the first assignment change; and updating, upon determining to accept the first assignment change, the assignment state and updating the distance matrix by swapping two columns or two rows of the distance matrix corresponding to the first entity and the second entity. ” Under the Alice Framework Step 2A prong 2, and Step 2B analysis, claim 9 recites additional elements of, “ memory ” and, “ processor ”. These additional elements merely recite a generic computer system upon which the abstract idea is applied to and thus are not integrated into a practical application, see MPEP 2106.05(I)(A)(ii), and MPEP 2106.05(f)(2)( i ). Furthermore, these additional elements which merely recite a generic computer system performing generic computer functions are considered well-understood, routine, and conventional activities, see MPEP 2106.05 (I)(A)(ii), and 2106.05(d)(II). For these reasons these additional elements are neither integrated into a practical solution nor amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102 In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis ( i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status. The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action: A person shall be entitled to a patent unless – (a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale , or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention. (a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention. Claims 1, 2, 4, 6, 8 and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Bagherbeik , ( Bagherbeik , M., Ashtari , P., Mousavi, S.F., Kanda, K., Tamura, H., Sheikholeslami , A. (2020). A Permutational Boltzmann Machine with Parallel Tempering for Solving Combinatorial Optimization Problems. In: Bäck , T., et al. Parallel Problem Solving from Nature – PPSN XVI. PPSN 2020. Lecture Notes in Computer Science(), vol 12269. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-58112-1_22 ), hereinafter “ Bagherbeik ”. With regards to claim 1, Bagherbeik teaches: A non-transitory computer-readable storage medium storing a computer program that causes a computer to perform a process of finding a solution to an assignment problem with local search using an evaluation function representing a cost of an assignment state, ( Abstract regarding using a 64 core CPU with SIMD instructions to perform the optimization algorithms; Section 2.2 equation 10 regarding a cost value (as evaluation function) based on flow matrix and distance matrix; section 3.2 paragraph 1 regarding memory storing flow matrix (F) and distance matrix (D) data ); the process comprising: calculating a first change in the evaluation function using a vector arithmetic operation based on a flow matrix and a distance matrix stored in a memory, ( Section 2.2 equation 10 regarding a cost value (as evaluation function) based on flow matrix and distance matrix; section 3.2 paragraph 1 regarding memory storing flow matrix (F) and distance matrix (D) data ); the flow matrix representing flows between a plurality of entities to be assigned to a plurality of destinations, ( section 2.2 paragraph 1 regarding matrix (F) describing flows between facilities ); the first change being to be caused by a first assignment change of exchanging destinations of a first entity and a second entity among the plurality of entities; ( Algorithm 1 lines 15, and 19-29 ); determining based on the first change whether to accept the first assignment change; ( Algorithm 1 lines 14, and 31-33 ); and updating, upon determining to accept the first assignment change, the assignment state ( Algorithm 1 lines 14-15, and 18-33 ); and updating the distance matrix by swapping two columns or two rows of the distance matrix corresponding to the first entity and the second entity. ( Section 3.1 page 322 paragraph 1 regarding swapping along columns (which is part of the distance matrix) corresponding to two unique entities; Figure 2 ). With regards to claim 2, Bagherbeik teaches t he non-transitory computer-readable storage medium according to claim 1, as referenced above. Bagherbeik further teaches: wherein, in response to the assignment problem being a quadratic assignment problem (QAP), ( Section 2.2 regarding the quadratic assignment problem ); the determining includes determining whether to accept the first assignment change, based on a comparison between an acceptance rate and a random number, (Section 2.1 page 319 paragraph 2 regarding comparing the probability ( Pmove ) against a random number to determine the change in the neuron's state; Section 3.1 page 322 paragraph 1 regarding comparing the generated probability (as acceptance rate) against a random value; Algorithm 1 lines 13-15) ; the acceptance rate being calculated based on the first change and a temperature parameter value. ( Algorithm 1 lines 12-13 ). With regards to claim 4, Bagherbeik teaches t he non-transitory computer-readable storage medium according to claim 1, as referenced above. Bagherbeik further teaches: wherein the swapping includes swapping the two columns by repeatedly reading each row of the distance matrix, one row at a time, from the memory, ( Section 4.2 regarding a loop of running Y trials; Algorithm 1 lines 10-11; section 3.2 paragraph 1 regarding memory storing flow matrix (F) and distance matrix (D) data ); selecting two values of the two columns included in the read row, ( Section 3.1 page 322 paragraph 1 regarding swapping along columns (which is part of the distance matrix) corresponding to two unique entities; Figure 2; Algorithm 1 lines 10-11 ); and writing the two values with storage locations of the two values swapped in the memory. ( Section 3.1 page 322 paragraph 1 regarding swapping along columns (which is part of the distance matrix) corresponding to two unique entities; Figure 2; Algorithm 1 lines 10-12, and lines 18-33 ). With regards to claim 6, Bagherbeik teaches t he non-transitory computer-readable storage medium according to claim 1, as referenced above. Bagherbeik further teaches: wherein the memory includes a first memory and a second memory to hold the distance matrix, ( Section 3.2 regarding memory storing elements of matrix (F) (as a first memory) and storing elements of matrix (D) (as a second memory) ); and the swapping includes swapping the two columns by repeatedly reading each row of the distance matrix, one row at a time, from the first memory, ( Section 4.2 regarding a loop of running Y trials; Algorithm 1 lines 10-11; section 3.2 paragraph 1 regarding memory storing flow matrix (F) and distance matrix (D) data ); selecting two values of the two columns included in the read row, ( Section 3.1 page 322 paragraph 1 regarding swapping along columns (which is part of the distance matrix) corresponding to two unique entities; Figure 2; Algorithm 1 lines 10-11 ); and writing the two values with storage locations of the two values swapped in the second memory. ( Section 3.1 page 322 paragraph 1 regarding swapping along columns (which is part of the distance matrix) corresponding to two unique entities; Figure 2; Algorithm 1 lines 10-12, and lines 18-33 ). With regards to claim 8, Bagherbeik teaches: A data processing apparatus for finding a solution to an assignment problem with local search using an evaluation function representing a cost of an assignment state, ( Abstract regarding using a 64 core CPU with SIMD instructions to perform the optimization algorithms; Section 2.2 equation 10 regarding a cost value (as evaluation function) based on flow matrix and distance matrix; section 3.2 paragraph 1 regarding memory storing flow matrix (F) and distance matrix (D) data ); the data processing apparatus comprising: a memory that holds a flow matrix and a distance matrix, ( section 3.2 paragraph 1 regarding memory storing flow matrix (F) and distance matrix (D) data ); the flow matrix representing flows between a plurality of entities to be assigned to a plurality of destinations, the distance matrix representing distances between the plurality of destinations; ( section 2.2 paragraph 1 regarding matrix (F) describing flows between facilities; Section 2.2 paragraph 1 regarding matrix (D) describing distances between locations ); and a processor that performs a process including calculating a first change in the evaluation function using a vector arithmetic operation based on the flow matrix and the distance matrix, (Section 4.3 regarding using a CPU for implementation; Section 2.2 equation 10 regarding a cost value (as evaluation function) based on flow matrix and distance matrix; section 3.2 paragraph 1 regarding memory storing flow matrix (F) and distance matrix (D) data) ; the first change being to be caused by a first assignment change of exchanging destinations of a first entity and a second entity among the plurality of entities, ( Algorithm 1 lines 15, and 19-29 ); determining based on the first change whether to accept the first assignment change, ( Algorithm 1 lines 14, and 31-33 ); and updating, upon determining to accept the first assignment change, the assignment state and updating the distance matrix by swapping two columns or two rows of the distance matrix corresponding to the first entity and the second entity. ( Algorithm 1 lines 14-15, and 18-33; Section 3.1 page 322 paragraph 1 regarding swapping along columns (which is part of the distance matrix) corresponding to two unique entities; Figure 2 ). With regards to claim 9, Bagherbeik teaches: A data processing method of finding a solution to an assignment problem with local search using an evaluation function representing a cost of an assignment state, ( Abstract regarding using a 64 core CPU with SIMD instructions to perform the optimization algorithms; Section 2.2 equation 10 regarding a cost value (as evaluation function) based on flow matrix and distance matrix; section 3.2 paragraph 1 regarding memory storing flow matrix (F) and distance matrix (D) data ); the data processing method comprising: calculating, by a processor, a first change in the evaluation function using a vector arithmetic operation based on a flow matrix and a distance matrix stored in a memory, ( Section 2.2 equation 10 regarding a cost value (as evaluation function) based on flow matrix and distance matrix; section 3.2 paragraph 1 regarding memory storing flow matrix (F) and distance matrix (D) data ); the flow matrix representing flows between a plurality of entities to be assigned to a plurality of destinations, ( section 2.2 paragraph 1 regarding matrix (F) describing flows between facilities ); the distance matrix representing distances between the plurality of destinations, ( Section 2.2 paragraph 1 regarding matrix (D) describing distances between locations ); the first change being to be caused by a first assignment change of exchanging destinations of a first entity and a second entity among the plurality of entities; ( Algorithm 1 lines 15, and 19-29 ); determining, by the processor, based on the first change whether to accept the first assignment change; ( Algorithm 1 lines 14, and 31-33 ); and updating, by the processor, upon determining to accept the first assignment change, the assignment state ( Algorithm 1 lines 14-15, and 18-33 ); and updating the distance matrix by swapping two columns or two rows of the distance matrix corresponding to the first entity and the second entity. ( Section 3.1 page 322 paragraph 1 regarding swapping along columns (which is part of the distance matrix) corresponding to two unique entities; Figure 2 ). Deferring of Indication of Allowable Subject Matter The Examiner is deferring indication of allowable subject matter over prior art pending resolution of the 35 U.S.C. 112(b), and 101 rejections made. Conclusion Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to FILLIN "Examiner name" \* MERGEFORMAT JEROME ANTHONY KLOSTERMAN II whose telephone number is FILLIN "Phone number" \* MERGEFORMAT (571)272-0541 . The examiner can normally be reached FILLIN "Work Schedule?" \* MERGEFORMAT Monday - Friday 8:30am- 3:30pm . 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 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. /J.A.K./ Examiner, Art Unit 2182 /EMILY E LAROCQUE/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2182