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
Remarks
35 U.S.C. 112
The Examiner acknowledges the amendments to the claims. The 112(b) rejections regarding claims 1, 4, 5, 6, 8, and 9 are withdrawn due to amendments to the claims. Claim 3, however, seemingly has not been amended, and for that reason the 112(b) regarding claim 3 remains.
35 U.S.C. 101
The applicant argues (Remarks, page 9 paragraph 3) that the amended claim 1 recites: “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”, with the claim further reciting “a process to calculate a dot product of a first vector arithmetic operation includes “a process to calculate a dot product of a first vector and a second vector”, stating that the limitations define the particular vectors used in the computation and the specific vector arithmetic operation performed using the flow matrix and distance matrix stored in memory. The Examiner notes that much of the recited amended limitations describe mathematical formulas, with an additional element of storing data in memory, which is considered insignificant extra-solution activity, and well-understood, routine, conventional activity, see MPEP 2106.04(d), 2106.05(g), 2106.05(d)(II)(iv).
The applicant continues, (Remarks page 9 paragraph 4), stating that the amended claim recites the limitations of: “updating, upon determining to accept the first assignment change, the assignment state by exchanging destinations of the first entity and the second entity and updating the distance matrix by causing a swapping circuity to swap two columns or two rows of the distance matrix corresponding to the first entity and the second entity.” The applicant continues, seemingly arguing that the limitations specify a particular manner of updating the distance matrix and using a swapping circuity to swap corresponding rows or columns of the distance matrix. The Examiner notes that most of the recited limitations are mathematical algorithms, formulas, and the additional element of the swapping circuit is generally reciting a generic circuit that is merely named as the function performed and is not specifically limiting.
The applicant continues, (Remarks page 9 paragraph 5 – page 10 paragraph 1), seemingly arguing that the amended claim does not merely recite a mathematical concept or abstract idea, but instead recites a specific computational process with a first change in the evaluation function calculated using a defined vector arithmetic operation from matrices stored in memory, and where the assignment state and distance matrix are updated through a swapping operations caried out by the swapping circuit when the first assignment change is accepted. The Examiner respectfully disagrees, noting that much of the described computational process is mathematical formulas, data stored in memory is considered insignificant extra-solution activity, and well-understood, routine, conventional activity, and that the swapping circuit for swapping is generally reciting a generic circuit that is merely named as the function performed and is not specifically limiting.
The applicant continues, (Remarks page 10 paragraph 2), seemingly arguing that amended claim 1 when considered as a whole, integrates any alleged judicial exception into a practical solution because of a defined vector arithmetic operation and a swapping operation which govern how the computer calculates the change in the evaluation function and updates the assignment state using the flow matrix and distance matrix stored in memory, stating that these limitations define a specific implementation of the assignment problem search performed by the computer. The Examiner respectfully disagrees, noting that the arithmetic operation and swapping are algorithms, mathematical formulas, data stored in memory is insignificant extra-solution activity, and well-understood, routine, conventional activity, and that the swapping circuit for swapping is generally reciting a generic circuit merely named as the function performed and is not specifically limiting.
The applicant continues, (Remarks page 10 paragraph 3-4 – page 10 paragraphs 1-3), seemingly arguing that the amended claim 1 contains additional elements which amount to significantly more than an abstract idea. The applicant continues, seemingly arguing that claim 1 taken as a whole, amount to significantly more than an abstract idea. The applicant continues, seemingly arguing that computing circuitry, the vector arithmetic operation, swapping circuit to swap columns or rows, achieves an improved computational efficiency, and amount to significantly more than an abstract idea. The applicant continues, seemingly arguing that similar arguments apply to claims 2-7. The Examiner respectfully disagrees. The computing circuitry in claim 1, seemingly is referring to the claim limitation: “A non-transitory computer-readable storage medium storing a computer program that causes a computer to perform a process”, the additional elements in this limitation merely recite a generic computer system upon which the abstract idea is applied and thus are not integrated into a practical application, see MPEP 2106.04(d)(I), 2106.05(I)(A)(ii), 2106.05(f)(2)(i). Furthermore, the vector arithmetic operation in the claim merely recite mathematical formulas. Furthermore, the “swapping circuit to swap” is generally reciting a generic circuit that is merely named as the function performed, and is not specifically limiting.
35 U.S.C. 102
The Examiner acknowledges the amendments to the claims and has fully considered the applicant’s arguments. The applicant seemingly argues, (Remarks page 11 paragraph 5 – page 12 paragraphs 1-4), that 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”, does not teach or suggest the limitation of claim 1, and similarly claims 8 and 9, “updating the distance matrix by causing a swapping circuit to swap two columns or two rows of the distance matrix corresponding to the first entity and the second entity”. The applicant continues, seemingly arguing that the swapping in Bagherbeik does not represent swapping distances between assignment destinations, and that the features of “updating the distance matrix by causing a swapping circuit to swap two columns or two rows of the distance matrix corresponding to the first entity and the second entity” is a distinction over Bagherbeik. After further consideration of the amended claims and the applicant’s arguments, the Examiner respectfully agrees and withdraws the 102 rejections.
The applicant continues, (Remarks page 12 paragraph 5) seemingly arguing that Bagherbeik also does not teach or suggest the dependent claims due to not teaching or suggesting limitations in the independent claims. The Examiner respectfully agrees and withdraws the 102 rejections.
Conclusion
The Examiner acknowledges the applicant’s conclusion statements.
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.
Claim 3 is 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 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 is caused by a second assignment change of assigning the first entity to a first destination”.
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 including flows between a plurality of entities to be assigned to a plurality of destinations and distances between the plurality of destinations, and 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 the flows, the distance matrix representing the distances, the first change is caused by a first assignment change of exchanging destinations of a first entity and a second entity among the plurality of entities, the vector arithmetic operation including a process to calculate a dot product of a first vector and a second vector, the first vector being a difference vector between two rows or two columns of the flow matrix corresponding to the first entity and the second entity, the second vector being a difference vector between two rows or two columns of the distance matrix corresponding to the first entity and the second entity;
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 by exchanging destinations of the first entity and the second entity and updating the distance matrix by causing to swap 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 analysis, claim 1 recites additional elements of, “non-transitory computer-readable storage medium”, “memory”, “computer”, and “swapping circuit”. The Examiner notes that “a swapping circuit to swap” is generally reciting a generic circuit that is merely named as the function performed. These additional elements of “non-transitory computer-readable storage medium”, “memory”, “computer”, and “swapping circuit” merely recite a generic computer system upon which the abstract idea is applied to, see MPEP 2106.04(d)(I). Furthermore, storing the matrix data in “memory”, is considered insignificant, extra-solution activity. For these reason the additional elements are not integrated into a practical application.
Under the Alice Framework Step 2B, the additional elements, “non-transitory computer-readable storage medium”, “memory”, “computer”, and “swapping circuit”, merely recite a generic computer system upon which the abstract idea is applied to, see MPEP 2106.05(I)(A)(i)-(ii), 2106.05(f)(2)(i). Furthermore storing the matrix data in “memory” is considered well-understood, routine, conventional activity, see MPEP 2106.05(d)(II)(iv). For these reasons the additional elements, and the claim as a whole do not 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.”
Claim 2 recites no further additional elements in the claim limitations which require a Step 2A prong 2 or Step 2B analysis. For these reasons, claim 2 is neither integrated into a practical application nor amounting 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.”
Claim 3 recites no further additional elements in the claim limitations which require a Step 2A prong 2 or Step 2B analysis. For these reasons, claim 3 is neither integrated into a practical application nor amounting 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 repeating a first process for the number of rows in the distance matrix, the first process including;
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”
Claim 4 recites no further additional elements in the claim limitations which require a Step 2A prong 2 or Step 2B analysis. For these reasons, claim 4 is neither integrated into a practical application nor amounting 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 matrix, respectively, and
repeating a first process for the number of rows in the distance matrix, the first process including; writing two values output at a time respectively from of the two values swapped.”
Under the Alice Framework Step 2A prong 2 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 elements merely recite part of a generic computer system upon which the abstract idea is applied to, see MPEP 2106.04(d)(I). Furthermore, storing the matrix data in “first shift register”, “second shift register”, and “memory”, is considered insignificant, extra-solution activity. For these reason the additional elements are not integrated into a practical application.
Under the Alice Framework Step 2B analysis, the additional elements of claim 5, ”non-transitory computer-readable storage medium”, “first shift register”, “second shift register”, “storage locations” and “memory”, merely recite part of a generic computer system upon which the abstract idea is applied to, see MPEP 2106.05(I)(A)(i)-(ii), 2106.05(f)(2)(i). Furthermore storing the matrix data in “first shift register”, “second shift register”, and “memory” is considered well-understood, routine, conventional activity, see MPEP 2106.05(d)(II)(iv). For these reasons the additional elements, and the claim as a whole do not 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 hold the distance matrix, and
the swapping includes swapping the two columns by repeating a first process for the number of rows in the distance matrix, the first process including;
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 analysis, claim 6 recites the additional elements of, ”non-transitory computer-readable storage medium”, “first memory”, “second memory”, and “storage locations”. These additional elements merely recite part of a generic computer system upon which the abstract idea is applied to, see MPEP 2106.04(d)(I). Furthermore, storing the matrix data in “first memory”, “second memory”, and “storage locations”, is considered insignificant, extra-solution activity. For these reason the additional elements are not integrated into a practical application.
Under the Alice Framework Step 2B analysis, the additional elements of claim 6, ”non-transitory computer-readable storage medium”, “first memory”, “second memory”, and “storage locations” merely recite part of a generic computer system upon which the abstract idea is applied to, see MPEP 2106.05(I)(A)(i)-(ii), 2106.05(f)(2)(i). Furthermore storing the matrix data in “first memory”, “second memory”, and “storage locations” is considered well-understood, routine, conventional activity, see MPEP 2106.05(d)(II)(iv). For these reasons the additional elements, and the claim as a whole do not 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.”
Claim 7 recites no further additional elements in the claim limitations which require a Step 2A prong 2 or Step 2B analysis. For these reasons, claim 7 is neither integrated into a practical application nor amounting 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:
for finding a solution to an assignment problem with local search using an evaluation function including flows between a plurality of entities to be assigned to a plurality of destinations and distances between the plurality of destinations, and representing a cost of an assignment state, the data processing apparatus comprising:
that holds a flow matrix and a distance matrix, the flow matrix representing the flows, the distance matrix representing the distances; and
configured to perform 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 is caused by a first assignment change of exchanging destinations of a first entity and a second entity among the plurality of entities, the vector arithmetic operation including a process to calculate a dot product of a first vector and a second vector, the first vector being a difference vector between two rows or two columns of the flow matrix corresponding to the first entity and the second entity, the second vector being a difference vector between two rows or two columns of the distance matrix corresponding to the first entity and the second entity, 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 by exchanging destinations of the first entity and the second entity and updating the distance matrix by causing to swap 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 analysis, claim 8 recites additional elements of, “data processing apparatus”, “memory”, “processor”, and “swapping circuit”. The Examiner notes that “a swapping circuit to swap” is generally reciting a generic circuit that is merely named as the function performed. These additional elements of “data processing apparatus”, “memory”, “processor”, and “swapping circuit” merely recite a generic computer system upon which the abstract idea is applied to, see MPEP 2106.04(d)(I). Furthermore, storing the matrix data in “memory”, is considered insignificant, extra-solution activity. For these reason the additional elements are not integrated into a practical application.
Under the Alice Framework Step 2B, the additional elements, “data processing apparatus”, “memory”, “processor”, and “swapping circuit”, merely recite a generic computer system upon which the abstract idea is applied to, see MPEP 2106.05(I)(A)(i)-(ii), 2106.05(f)(2)(i). Furthermore storing the matrix data in “memory” is considered well-understood, routine, conventional activity, see MPEP 2106.05(d)(II)(iv). For these reasons the additional elements, and the claim as a whole do not 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 including flows between a plurality of entities to be assigned to a plurality of destinations and distances between the plurality of destinations, and 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 the flows, the distance matrix representing the distances, the first change is caused by a first assignment change of exchanging destinations of a first entity and a second entity among the plurality of entities; the vector arithmetic operation including a process to calculate a dot product of a first vector and a second vector, the first vector being a difference vector between two rows or two columns of the flow matrix corresponding to the first entity and the second entity, the second vector being a difference vector between two rows or two columns of the distance matrix corresponding to the first entity and the second entity;
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 by exchanging destinations of the first entity and the second entity and updating the distance matrix by causing to swap 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 analysis, claim 9 recites additional elements of, “memory”, “processor”, and “swapping circuit”. The Examiner notes that “a swapping circuit to swap” is generally reciting a generic circuit that is merely named as the function performed. These additional elements of memory”, “processor”, and “swapping circuit” merely recite a generic computer system upon which the abstract idea is applied to, see MPEP 2106.04(d)(I). Furthermore, storing the matrix data in “memory”, is considered insignificant, extra-solution activity. For these reason the additional elements are not integrated into a practical application.
Under the Alice Framework Step 2B, the additional elements, “memory”, “processor”, and “swapping circuit”, merely recite a generic computer system upon which the abstract idea is applied to, see MPEP 2106.05(I)(A)(i)-(ii), 2106.05(f)(2)(i). Furthermore storing the matrix data in “memory” is considered well-understood, routine, conventional activity, see MPEP 2106.05(d)(II)(iv). For these reasons the additional elements, and the claim as a whole do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-2, and 4-9 would be allowable if rewritten or amended to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 101 set forth in this Office action.
Claim 3 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, and 35 U.S.C. 101 set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Regarding claim 1, the applicant claims 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, wherein the process as in claim 1 comprises:
“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 including flows between a plurality of entities to be assigned to a plurality of destinations and distances between the plurality of destinations, and 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 stored in a memory, the flow matrix representing the flows, the distance matrix representing the distances, the first change is caused by a first assignment change of exchanging destinations of a first entity and a second entity among the plurality of entities, the vector arithmetic operation including a process to calculate a dot product of a first vector and a second vector, the first vector being a difference vector between two rows or two columns of the flow matrix corresponding to the first entity and the second entity, the second vector being a difference vector between two rows or two columns of the distance matrix corresponding to the first entity and the second entity; 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 by exchanging destinations of the first entity and the second entity and updating the distance matrix by causing a swapping circuit to swap two columns or two rows of the distance matrix corresponding to the first entity and the second entity.”
The primary reason for indication of allowable subject matter is the above italicized claim limitations in combination with the remaining claim limitations including intervening claims.
Regarding claim 8, the applicant claims a data processing apparatus for finding a solution to an assignment problem, wherein the data processing apparatus as in claim 8 comprises:
“A data processing apparatus for finding a solution to an assignment problem with local search using an evaluation function including flows between a plurality of entities to be assigned to a plurality of destinations and distances between the plurality of destinations, and representing a cost of an assignment state, the data processing apparatus comprising: a memory that holds a flow matrix and a distance matrix, the flow matrix representing the flows, the distance matrix representing the distances; and a processor configured to perform 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 is caused by a first assignment change of exchanging destinations of a first entity and a second entity among the plurality of entities, the vector arithmetic operation including a process to calculate a dot product of a first vector and a second vector, the first vector being a difference vector between two rows or two columns of the flow matrix corresponding to the first entity and the second entity, the second vector being a difference vector between two rows or two columns of the distance matrix corresponding to the first entity and the second entity, 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 by exchanging destinations of the first entity and the second entity and updating the distance matrix by causing a swapping circuit to swap two columns or two rows of the distance matrix corresponding to the first entity and the second entity.”
The primary reason for indication of allowable subject matter is the above italicized claim limitations in combination with the remaining claim limitations including intervening claims.
Regarding claim 9, the applicant claims a data processing method of finding a solution to an assignment problem, wherein the data processing method as in claim 9 comprises:
“A data processing method of finding a solution to an assignment problem with local search using an evaluation function including flows between a plurality of entities to be assigned to a plurality of destinations and distances between the plurality of destinations, and representing a cost of an assignment state, 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, the flow matrix representing the flows, the distance matrix representing the distances, the first change is caused by a first assignment change of exchanging destinations of a first entity and a second entity among the plurality of entities, the vector arithmetic operation including a process to calculate a dot product of a first vector and a second vector, the first vector being a difference vector between two rows or two columns of the flow matrix corresponding to the first entity and the second entity, the second vector being a difference vector between two rows or two columns of the distance matrix corresponding to the first entity and the second entity; determining, by the processor, based on the first change whether to accept the first assignment change; and updating, by the processor, upon determining to accept the first assignment change, the assignment state by exchanging destinations of the first entity and the second entity and updating the distance matrix by causing a swapping circuit to swap two columns or two rows of the distance matrix corresponding to the first entity and the second entity.”
The primary reason for indication of allowable subject matter is the above italicized claim limitations in combination with the remaining claim limitations including intervening claims.
Bagherbeik discusses a method regarding an assignment problem, using a flow matrix and distance matrix (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). Furthermore, Bagherbeik discusses a swapping function technique regarding a matrix (Fig. 2; Section 3.2; Algorithm 1). However, Bagherbeik fails to teach or suggest the italicized claim limitations in combination with the remaining claim limitations as referenced above.
Heider, (Heider, C. (1972). A Computationally Simplified Pair-Exchange Algorithm for the Quadratic Assignment Problem.), hereinafter “Heider” discusses a method of solving a quadratic assignment problem using a pair-exchange algorithm (pages 10-12). However, Heider fails to teach or suggest the italicized claim limitations in combination with the remaining claim limitations as referenced above.
Anazawa et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication 2022/0083625 A1), hereinafter, “Anazawa” discusses a method of solving a quadratic assignment problem using a replica exchange method ([0003]; [0048]). However Anazawa fails to teach or suggest the italicized claim limitations in combination with the remaining claim limitations as referenced above.
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 JEROME ANTHONY KLOSTERMAN II whose telephone number is (571)272-0541. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8:30am - 3:30pm 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 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
Prosecution Insights