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 .
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 1-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Under step 1 of MPEP §2106’s subject matter eligibility guidelines, the claims 1-16 fall with the category of a machine, method and article of manufacture.
Under Step 2A, prong 1, the claim(s) recite(s) “(Claim 1) searching for a solution of a combinatorial optimization problem using an ISing model computation…an energy function of an Ising model converted from the combinatorial optimization problem…a first processing a plurality of times, the first processing including, obtaining a first candidate value from a first range, the first range being a candidate value range of the parameter to be used for a search for a solution of the problem based on the energy function, and evaluating the first candidate value according to a result of the search in a case where the first candidate value is used as a value of the parameter; changing the candidate value range from the first range to a second range narrower than the first range; performing a second processing a plurality of times, the second processing including obtaining a second candidate value from the second range, and evaluating the second candidate value according to a result of the search in a case where the second candidate value is used as a value of the parameter; and determining, based on at least any one of a first difference or an index, a timing at which the candidate value range is changed from the first range to the second range and a second difference between the first range and the second range, the first difference being a difference between a best evaluation value and another evaluation value, the best evaluation value being any one of a plurality of first evaluation values calculated by the performing of the first processing the plurality of times, the another evaluation value being an evaluation value obtained by the first processing performed before the first processing of the best evaluation value, the index indicating a nature of the problem according to the energy function…(Claim 2) the determining of the timing is configured to delay the timing as the first difference increases, the determining of the second difference is configured to decrease the second difference as the first difference increases…(Claim 3) the determining of the timing is configured to advance, as compared with a case where the first difference is more than the threshold value, the timing in a case where the first difference is equal to or less than a threshold value, and the determining of the second difference is configured to increase, as compared with a case where the first difference is more than the threshold value, the second difference in a case where the first difference is equal to or less than a threshold value…(Claim 4) the index that indicates the nature of the problem indicates a difficulty level of the problem, the determining of the timing is configured to delay the timing as the difficulty level increases, and the determining of the second difference is configured to decrease the second difference as the difficulty level increases…(Claim 5) the index that indicates the nature of the problem is an index that indicates at least any one of: the number of state variables in the energy function, a type of a constraint in the energy function, or the number of constraints in the energy function…(Claim 6) the determining of the timing is configured to delay the timing as at least any one of the number of state variables or the number of constraints increases, and the determining of the second difference is configured to decrease the second difference as at least any one of the number of state variables or the number of constraints increases…(Claim 7) the changing of the candidate value is configured to set, as a center value of the second range, the first candidate value that corresponds to the best evaluation value among the first candidate values obtained from the first range…(Claim 8) calculating the best evaluation value that corresponds to the first candidate value based on a best value of the energy function and a period of time taken to reach the best value, the best value being any one of values obtained by the search for a certain period of time in a case where the first candidate value is used…(Claim 9) determining, as a value of the parameter, the second candidate value that corresponds to a best evaluation value among a plurality of second evaluation values obtained for a plurality of the second candidate values obtained from the second range, and obtaining a result of the search for a solution to the problem, by executing the search for a solution to the problem by using the determined value of the parameter, or by inputting the determined value of the parameter to a search processing circuit configured to perform the search to cause the search processing circuit to execute the search…(Clam 10) there are a plurality of parameters to be used as the parameter, the first processing is configured to obtain a first set of candidate values by obtaining, for each of the plurality of parameters, the candidate value from the first range, and evaluate the first set of the candidate values according to a result of the search in a case where the first set of the candidate values is used, the changing of the candidate value range is configured to change, for each candidate value in the first set of candidate values, the candidate value range from the first range to the second range, the second processing is configured to obtain a second set of candidate values by obtaining, for each of the plurality of parameters, the candidate value from the second range, and evaluate the second set of the candidate values according to a result of the search in a case where the second set of the candidate values is used, and the determining is configured to determine the timing and the second difference based on at least any one of the first difference or the index, the first difference being a difference between a best evaluation and another evaluation value, the best value being any one of a plurality of evaluation values calculated by the performing of the first processing the plurality of times, the another evaluation value being an evaluation value obtained by the first processing performed before the first processing of the best evaluation value, the index indicating the nature of the problem according to the energy function…(Claim 11) wherein the search for a solution to the problem is executed by a simulated annealing method or a replica-exchange method, and a plurality of the parameters include at least one of a maximum temperature value and a minimum temperature value to be used in the simulated annealing method or the replica-exchange method…(Claim 12) searching for a solution of a combinatorial optimization problem using an Ising model computation…obtaining information that indicates an energy function of an Ising model converted from the combinatorial optimization problem; performing a first processing a plurality of times, the first processing including, obtaining a first candidate value from a first range, the first range being a candidate value range of a parameter to be used for a search for a solution of the problem based on the energy function, and evaluating the first candidate value according to a result of the search in a case where the first candidate value is used as a value of the parameter; changing the candidate value range from the first range to a second range narrower than the first range; performing a second processing a plurality of times, the second processing including obtaining a second candidate value from the second range, and evaluating the second candidate value according to a result of the search in a case where the second candidate value is used as a value of the parameter; and determining, based on at least any one of a first difference or an index, a timing at which the candidate value range is changed from the first range to the second range and a second difference between the first range and the second range, the first difference being a difference between a best evaluation value and another evaluation value, the best evaluation value being any one of a plurality of first evaluation values calculated by the performing of the first processing the plurality of times, the another evaluation value being an evaluation value obtained by the first processing performed before the first processing of the best evaluation value, the index indicating a nature of the problem according to the energy function…(Claim 13) searching for a solution of a combinatorial optimization problem using an Ising model computation…obtaining information that indicates an energy function of an Ising model converted from the combinatorial optimization problem; performing a first processing a plurality of times, the first processing including obtaining a first candidate value from a first range, the first range being a candidate value range of a parameter to be used for a search for a solution of the problem based on the energy function, and evaluating the first candidate value according to a result of the search in a case where the first candidate value is used as a value of the parameter; changing the candidate value range from the first range to a second range narrower than the first range; performing a second processing a plurality of times, the second processing including, obtaining a second candidate value from the second range, and evaluating the second candidate value according to a result of the search in a case where the second candidate value is used as a value of the parameter; and determining, based on at least any one of a first difference or an index, a timing at which the candidate value range is changed from the first range to the second range and a second difference between the first range and the second range, the first difference being a difference between a best evaluation value and another evaluation value, the best evaluation value being any one of a plurality of first evaluation values calculated by the performing of the first processing the plurality of times, the another evaluation value being an evaluation value obtained by the first processing performed before the first processing of the best evaluation value, the index indicating a nature of the problem according to the energy function…(Claim 14) searching for a solution of a combinatorial optimization problem using an Ising model computation…obtaining information that indicates an energy function of an Ising model converted from the combinatorial optimization problem; and determining, based on an index that indicates a nature of the problem according to the energy function, a timing of changing a candidate value range from a first range to a second range and a difference between the first range and the second range, each of the first range and the second range being a range to be used in processing, the processing including performing first processing a plurality of times, the first processing including obtaining a first candidate value from the first range that is a candidate value range of a parameter to be used for a search for a solution of the problem based on the energy function and evaluating the first candidate value according to a result of the search in a case where the first candidate value is used as a value of the parameter, performing second processing of changing the candidate value range from the first range to the second range narrower than the first range, and performing third processing a plurality of times, the third processing including obtaining a second candidate value from the second range and evaluating the second candidate value according to a result of the search in a case where the second candidate value is used as a value of the parameter…(Claim 15) searching for a solution of a combinatorial optimization problem using an Ising model computation…obtaining information that indicates an energy function of an Ising model converted from the combinatorial optimization problem; and determining, based on an index that indicates a nature of the problem according to the energy function, a timing of changing a candidate value range from a first range to a second range and a difference between the first range and the second range, each of the first range and the second range being a range to be used in processing, the processing including performing first processing a plurality of times, the first processing including obtaining a first candidate value from the first range that is a candidate value range of a parameter to be used for a search for a solution of the problem based on the energy function and evaluating the first candidate value according to a result of the search in a case where the first candidate value is used as a value of the parameter, performing second processing of changing the candidate value range from the first range to the second range narrower than the first range, and performing third processing a plurality of times, the third processing including obtaining a second candidate value from the second range and evaluating the second candidate value according to a result of the search in a case where the second candidate value is used as a value of the parameter…(Claim 16) searching for a solution of a combinatorial optimization problem using an Ising model computation…obtaining information that indicates an energy function of an Ising model converted from the combinatorial optimization problem; and determining, based on an index that indicates a nature of the problem according to the energy function, a timing of changing a candidate value range from a first range to a second range and a difference between the first range and the second range, each of the first range and the second range being a range to be used in processing, the processing including performing first processing a plurality of times, the first processing including obtaining a first candidate value from the first range that is a candidate value range of a parameter to be used for a search for a solution of the problem based on the energy function and evaluating the first candidate value according to a result of the search in a case where the first candidate value is used as a value of the parameter, performing second processing of changing the candidate value range from the first range to the second range narrower than the first range, and performing third processing a plurality of times, the third processing including obtaining a second candidate value from the second range and evaluating the second candidate value according to a result of the search in a case where the second candidate value is used as a value of the parameter.” These claims fall within the judicial exception of mathematical concepts as articulated in MPEP §2106.04(a)(2)(I).
Under Step 2A, prong 2, the claims recite the additional limitations of:
In Claims 1, 13, 14 and 16, “A memory configured to store information,” a “a processor configured to perform processing,” and “a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium”. These limitations are to a general purpose computer being used in its ordinary capacity. “Use of a computer or other machinery in its ordinary capacity for economic or other tasks (e.g., to receive, store, or transmit data) or simply adding a general purpose computer or computer components after the fact to an abstract idea (e.g., a fundamental economic practice or mathematical equation) does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application.” MPEP §2106.05(f).
In Claims 1, “obtaining the information stored in the memory.” This limitation is mere data gathering, which constitutes insignificant extra-solution activity. MPEP §2106.05(g).
Accordingly, the claims do not recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Under Step 2B, the claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As stated above in regard to Step 2A, prong 2, the claims recite the additional limitations of:
In Claims 1, 13, 14 and 16, “A memory configured to store information,” a “a processor configured to perform processing,” and “a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium”. These limitations are to a general purpose computer being used in its ordinary capacity. “Use of a computer or other machinery in its ordinary capacity for economic or other tasks (e.g., to receive, store, or transmit data) or simply adding a general purpose computer or computer components after the fact to an abstract idea (e.g., a fundamental economic practice or mathematical equation) does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application.” MPEP §2106.05(f).
In Claim 1, “obtaining the information stored in the memory.” This limitation is mere data gathering, which constitutes insignificant extra-solution activity. MPEP §2106.05(g).
Accordingly, the claims do not recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Response to Arguments
§101 Arguments
Step 2A Prong 1 Argument
Applicants argue:
“The claimed invention specifies a particular approach to parameter searching within Ising model computations, which, while involving mathematical concepts, focuses on an improved technical process for more efficient problem solving, rather than preempting the mathematical concepts themselves. The claims describe a novel methodology for dynamically refining the parameter search space critical for solving combinatorial optimization problems, which moves beyond a mere abstract mathematical concept.” (Remarks, pgs. 11-12) (emphasis added).
The Examiner respectfully disagrees. Refining the parameter search space of a combinatorial optimization problem using an Ising model computation is a mathematical solution to a mathematical problem. The purported improvement is an abstract idea that allegedly improves another abstract idea. The federal circuit has made it clear that such an alleged improvement is still invalid under §101. “Adding one abstract idea (math) to another abstract idea (encoding and decoding) does not render the claim non-abstract.” RecogniCorp, LLC v. Nintendo Co., 122 USPQ2d 1377,1380 (Fed. Cir. 2017); See also, PersonalWeb Technologies LLC v. GOOGLE LLC, 8 F. 4th 1310 (Fed. Cir. 2021).
Step 2A, Prong 2 Argument
Applicants argue:
Firstly, the claims are specifically directed to an apparatus, method or storage medium for 'searching for a solution of a combinatorial optimization problem using an Ising model computation." This, in conjunction with the specific steps, clearly defines the claimed invention as an improvement in a particular technical field: combinatorial optimization using Ising model computations. The para meters being searched directly influence the efficiency and accuracy of these computations. The process of "determining, based on at least any one of a first difference or an index, a timing at which the candidate value range is changed from the first range to the second range and a second difference between the first range and the second range" directly impacts how the computer performs the Ising model computation.
This constitutes a technical improvement in "how the machine learning model itself operates" by providing "Improvements to computer component or system performance based upon adjustments to parameters of a machine learning model associated with tasks or workstreams," as recognized in Ex Parte Desjardins, Appeal No. 2024-000567 (PTAB September 26, 2025) (precedential)” (Remarks, pgs. 12-13).
However, the Examiner respectfully disagrees as Applicants’ attempt to shoehorn the abstract solution to an abstract idea of the present application into the rubric of the Director’s Ex Parte Desjardins decision is misplaced. Ex Parte Desjardins involved training of a computer neural network system that allegedly improved the functioning of the computer itself because it uses “less of their storage capacity” and enabled “reduced system complexity (Desjardins, pg. 9, citing Spec. ph. 21 of the application). Ex Parte Desjardins heavily relies on Enfish as the basis of the decision. Enfish, LLC v. Microsoft Corp., 118 USPQ2d 1684 (Fed. Cir. 2016). As stated in Enfish, “In sum, the self-referential table recited in the claims on appeal is a specific type of data structure designed to improve the way a computer stores and retrieves data in memory. The specification's disparagement of conventional data structures, combined with language describing the “present invention” as including the features that make up a self-referential table, confirm that our characterization of the “invention” for purposes of the § 101 analysis has not been deceived by the “draftsman's art.” Cf. Alice, 134 S. Ct. at 2360. In other words, we are not faced with a situation where general-purpose computer components are added post-hoc to a fundamental economic practice or mathematical equation. Rather, the claims are directed to a specific implementation of a solution to a problem in the software arts.) (Emphasis Added).
Ex Parte Desjardins and Enfish are specific implementations of solutions to problems in the software arts, whereas the present application is exactly what Enfish warned about when it mentions a situation where general-purpose computer components are added post-hoc to a mathematical equation. The present application by Applicants own admission is “a solution of a combinatorial optimization problem using an Ising model computation”, or in other words the application of an abstract idea solution to an abstract idea problem.
Applicants further argue that “obtaining the information stored in the memory” is “an integral part of the claimed technical solution that enhances the efficiency and performance of the Ising model computation” (Remarks, pg. 13). However this is not at all persuasive. The argument conflates the information being retrieved with the actual method step of simply reading the information stored in memory. The generic recitation of obtaining/reading data from memory is something every computing device does. It’s certainly not an additional element that would integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. It’s a nominal recitation of obtaining/reading data from memory that amounts to necessary data gathering. See MPEP §2106.05(g).
Step 2B Argument
Applicants argue:
“The claimed invention directly addresses this problem by: (1) acquiring a candidate value from a first range; (2) evaluating the fitness of this candidate value; (3) dynamically narrowing the candidate value range to a second, narrower range based on an 'inventive concept' derived from the "first difference" (evaluation convergence) or an "index" (problem nature); and (4) centering the new search range around the best-performing candidate value. These steps, taken in combination, constitute an unconventional approach to parameter optimization that significantly improves the overall performance of Ising model solvers… The dynamic adjustment of the parameter search range based on a feedback mechanism involving evaluation changes and problem characteristics represents a specific algorithm that is tailored to improve the efficiency of Ising model solvers, rather than a generic implementation of an abstract mathematical concept. These features, when viewed in combination, are "significantly more" than the abstract idea itself.”(Remarks, pgs. 13-14)
However, the Examiner respectfully disagrees. As stated in MPEP §2106.04(II)(A)(2):
“Because a judicial exception is not eligible subject matter, Bilski, 561 U.S. at 601, 95 USPQ2d at 1005-06 (quoting Chakrabarty, 447 U.S. at 309, 206 USPQ at 197 (1980)), if there are no additional claim elements besides the judicial exception, or if the additional claim elements merely recite another judicial exception, that is insufficient to integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. See, e.g., RecogniCorp, LLC v. Nintendo Co., 855 F.3d 1322, 1327, 122 USPQ2d 1377 (Fed. Cir. 2017) ("Adding one abstract idea (math) to another abstract idea (encoding and decoding) does not render the claim non-abstract"); Genetic Techs. Ltd. v. Merial LLC, 818 F.3d 1369, 1376, 118 USPQ2d 1541, 1546 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (eligibility "cannot be furnished by the unpatentable law of nature (or natural phenomenon or abstract idea) itself."). For a claim reciting a judicial exception to be eligible, the additional elements (if any) in the claim must "transform the nature of the claim" into a patent-eligible application of the judicial exception, Alice Corp., 573 U.S. at 217, 110 USPQ2d at 1981, either at Prong Two or in Step 2B. If there are no additional elements in the claim, then it cannot be eligible.” (Emphasis Added).
In this case, by Applicant’s own admission (Remarks, pg. 12, and amendment to preamble of claim 1), the claimed invention is the application of a mathematical Ising model to allegedly improve the solution of a combinatorial optimization problem. Accordingly, Applicants arguments are found to be unpersuasive.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
Cook et al., “Combinatorial Optimization” teaches that combinatorial optimization is a field of mathematics that combines techniques from combinatorics, linear programming, and the theory of algorithms to solve optimization problems over discrete structures.
Wolshin et al. “One or two dimensional Ising model” teaches that the Ising model is a theoretical model in statistical physics that originally developed to describe ferromagnetism.
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 BRIAN W WATHEN whose telephone number is (571)270-5570. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9-5:30pm.
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, James Trujillo can be reached at 571-272-3677. 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.
BRIAN W. WATHEN
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2151
/BRIAN W WATHEN/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2151