CTFR 17/895,928 CTFR 93321 2182 DETAILED ACTION 07-03-aia AIA 15-10-aia 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 Drawings . The objections to the drawings are withdrawn based on amendment to Drawings, and arguments being found persuasive. Specification . Having received no amendment to the specification or arguments, the objection to the specification is maintained. 35 USC 101 . Claim 19, software per se. The rejection of claim 19 under 35 USC 101 as being directed to software per se is withdrawn based on amendment to claim. Claims 1-20. Abstract idea. Applicant asserts that the claims do not involve a mathematical concept but rather a specific calculating device architecture and data-processing workflow in which an input matrix is first transformed into a second matrix and the transformed matrix is then structurally incorporated into multiply-add update operations executed by the processor (Remarks p. 17 bottom – 18 top). Examiner respectfully disagrees. What is specific is the mathematical relationships and mathematical calculations, the abstract idea. The data-processing workflow is merely a series of mathematical steps performed in order, and transforming of matrices is math. Applicant further asserts that beyond the mathematical concepts, claim 1 recites a processor comprising a plurality of processing parts and that at least a portion of the update processing performed by the plurality of processing parts operate in parallel, reflecting a particular computing implementation (Remarks p. 18). Applicant similarly asserts that claim 15, claim 16, and claim 18 reciting different numbered parts simultaneously performing different portions of a calculation are directed to a calculating device with a defined processing architecture (Remarks p. 18 bottom -19 top). Examiner respectfully disagrees. These additional elements no more than generally link the additional element to the mathematical calculations in a manner that in effect merely recites “apply it” to the math, or recite mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components. For example, the specification supports this assertion, stating “a general-purpose computer may be used as the calculating device”. See specification p. 4 lines 4-6. Furthermore a processor comprising different processing parts performing a portion of the update processing in parallel merely comprises well understood, routine, and conventional activity performed by generically recited parts. See e.g., J.L. Hennessy et al., Computer Architecture: A quantitative approach , Elsevier 2014 (hereinafter “Hennessy”), which discloses various plural processor architectures some of which have been in use since the earlies electronic computers, and that support multi-programmed processors running many tasks simultaneously, running in parallel, p. 528-532. Applicant further asserts is similar to Desjardins because the claims recite additional elements that amount to a technological improvement in the technical field of techniques for solving optimization problems using computing devices, because the specification provides sufficient detail as to the improvement and the claim integrates this improvement (Remarks p. 20-21). Applicant points to paragraphs [0034] and [0043] for the improvement asserting improved calculation accuracy by transforming input data and using the transformed data in update processing: “[t]he matrix transformation processing M_P includes deriving a second matrix J by transforming multiple row vectors included in the first matrix J’ that is input”, and that “[t]he update processing is performed using such a second matrix J after transformation (normalization). A highly-accurate solution is obtained thereby” (Remarks p. 21). Applicant further points to claim elements integrating this purported improvement “a matrix transformation processing,” including “deriving a second matrix by transforming a plurality of first row vectors including in a first matrix, the first matrix being input,” and further including update operations in which “the first multiply-add operation include[es] a multiply-add operation of the updated first variable set and a component of the second matrix” and “the second multiply-add operation include[es] a multiply-add operation of a component of the second matrix and a variable independent of the updated first variable set.” (Remarks p. 21 bottom – 22 top). Applicant further asserts that the specification cites that the calculating device “may include multiple processing parts” and that “the multiple processing parts may operate in parallel” such that “parallel computation speeds up the calculation” [0029],[0081], and that claim 1 (with similar recitation in claim 15, 16, and 18) similarly recites “wherein the processor comprises a plurality of processing parts, and wherein at least a portion of the update processing is performed by the plurality of processing parts operating in parallel” (Remarks p. 22-23 top). Examiner respectfully disagrees the section of the specification pointed, and associated elements of the claim describes mathematical calculations and mathematical relationships, not an improvement in technology. “It is important to keep in mind that an improvement in the abstract idea itself (e.g. a recited fundamental economic concept) is not an improvement in technology” (MPEP 2106.05(a)(II)). As to the plurality of processing parts operating in parallel, the plurality of processing parts continues to recite generic computing components and processing in parallel comprises well understood, routine, and conventional activity as discussed above. Applicant further asserts the claims recites technical improvements beyond merely implementing an abstract idea on generic computing components, yielding a highly accurate solution, and that claim 1 recites elements that reflect an inventive concept that is not well, understood, routine or conventional in the field (Remarks p. 23). Examiner respectfully disagrees. What is arguably not well, understood, routine, or conventional is the abstract idea, the mathematical calculations and mathematical relationships. What remains is generically recited computing components executing parts of the generically recited computing components in parallel, wherein the parallel computing is well understood, routine and conventional activity. Specification The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities. The equations throughout the specification are not legible. See 37 CFR 1.52(a)(iv). Appropriate correction is required. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101 07-04-01 AIA 07-04 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 1-20 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 2A prong 1, the claim recites Mathematical concepts. The claim recites mathematical calculations and mathematical relationships for solving an optimization problem. Specifically, the claim recites the following: perform a matrix transformation, and an update, the matrix transformation including deriving a second matrix by transforming a plurality of first row vectors included in a first matrix, the first matrix being input, the update including an update of a first variable set, and an update of a second variable set, the update of the second variable set including obtaining the second variable set after the update by adding a first update function of the updated first variable set to the second variable set before the update, the first update function including at least one of a first multiply-add operation or a second multiply-add operation, the first multiply-add operation including a multiply-add operation of the updated first variable set and a component of the second matrix, the second multiply-add operation including a multiply-add operation of a component of the second matrix and a variable dependent on the updated first variable set. See, e.g. specification p. 4-12, and figure 4. For these reasons, these are steps in a mathematical calculation using mathematical relationships. Under the Alice framework Step 2A prong 2 analysis, additional elements not reciting Mathematical equations and mathematical calculations thereof include: a calculating device, comprising a processor configured to perform processing, wherein the processor comprises a plurality of processing parts, and wherein at least a portion of the update processing is performed by the plurality of processing parts operating in parallel. This additional element does no more than generally link the additional element to the mathematical calculations in a manner that in effect merely recites “apply it” to the math, or recite mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components. For example, the specification supports this assertion, stating “a general-purpose computer may be used as the calculating device”. See specification p. 4 lines 4-6. Furthermore a processor comprising different processing parts performing a portion of the update processing in parallel merely comprises an insignificant extra solution activity performed by generically recited parts. For these reasons the claim is not integrated into a practical application. Moreover, under the Alice Framework Step 2B analysis, the claim, considered individually and as an ordered combination does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. As discussed in the Step 2A prong 2 analysis, the claim merely generally links the additional element to the math. Furthermore as stated in the Step 2A prong 2 analysis, the claims recite mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components. Mere instructions to apply an exception using generic computer components cannot provide an inventive concept. For example, the specification supports this assertion, stating “a general-purpose computer may be used as the calculating device”. See specification p. 4 lines 4-6. Furthermore a processor comprising different processing parts performing a portion of the update processing in parallel comprises well understood, routine, and conventional activity performed by generically recited parts. See e.g., J.L. Hennessy et al., Computer Architecture: A quantitative approach , Elsevier 2014 (hereinafter “Hennessy”), which discloses various plural processor architectures some of which have been in use since the earlies electronic computers, and that support multi-programmed processors running many tasks simultaneously, running in parallel, p. 528-532. For these reasons claim 1 elements considered individually and as an ordered combination does not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. Claims 2-18 are rejected for at least the reasons cited with respect to the claim 1 analysis. Under the Step 2A prong 1 analysis, claims 18-21 merely further mathematically limit the claim 17 mathematical elements recited. Claims 2-14, and 17 contain no further additional elements that would require further consideration under Step 2A prong 2 or Step 2B. Claims 15-16, and 18 further recites the following additional elements: a third processing part and a fourth processing part with portions of calculations performed simultaneously (claim 15), a first processing part, a second processing part with portions of calculations performed simultaneously (claim 16), and a fifth processing part and a sixth processing part with portions of calculations performed simultaneously (claim 18). Under the Step 2A prong 2 analysis, the different processing parts continue to merely generically recited computing components. Furthermore the performing different portions of calculations simultaneously comprises an insignificant extra solution activity. For these reasons claims 15-16, and 18 are not integrated into a practical application. Under the step 2B analysis, as stated above, the different processing parts are merely generically recited. Furthermore the performing different portions of calculations simultaneously is well understood, routine and conventional activity. See Hennessy, which discloses various plural processor architectures some of which have been in use since the earlies electronic computers, and that support multi-programmed processors running many tasks simultaneously, p. 528-532. For these reasons claim 15-16, and 18 considered individually and as an ordered combination, do not amount to significantly more that the abstract idea. Regarding claim 19, under the Alice framework Step 2A prong 1, the claim recites Mathematical concepts. The claim recites mathematical calculations and mathematical relationships for solving an optimization problem. Specifically, the claim recites the following: perform repeating an update, the update including an update of a first variable set and an update of a second variable set, the first variable set including a first variable x i (the ordinal number i being an integer of 1 to N, and N being one integer not less than 2), the second variable set including a second variable y i , the update of the second variable set includes updating the second variable y i by adding a second function F i to the second variable y i before the update, the second function F i including the first variable x i as a variable, the second function F i including a parameter a i , the ordinal number p being one integer not less than 1 and not more than N, the ordinal number q being one integer not less than 1 and not more than N, the ordinal number q being different from the ordinal number p, a parameter a p being different from a parameter a q . See, e.g. specification p. 4-12, and figure 4. For these reasons, these are steps in a mathematical calculation using mathematical relationships. Under the Alice framework Step 2A prong 2 analysis, additional elements not reciting Mathematical equations and mathematical calculations thereof include: a non-transitory recording medium storing a calculation program, the calculation program causing a processor in a computer to perform processing. This additional element does no more than generally link the additional element to the mathematical calculations in a manner that in effect merely recites “apply it” to the math, or recite mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components. For example, the specification supports this assertion, stating “a general-purpose computer may be used as the calculating device”. See specification p. 4 lines 4-6. Furthermore a processor comprising different processing parts performing a portion of the update processing in parallel merely comprises an insignificant extra solution activity performed by generically recited parts. For these reasons the claim is not integrated into a practical application. Moreover, under the Alice Framework Step 2B analysis, the claim, considered individually and as an ordered combination does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. As discussed in the Step 2A prong 2 analysis, the claim merely generally links the additional element to the math. Furthermore as stated in the Step 2A prong 2 analysis, the claims recite mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components. Mere instructions to apply an exception using generic computer components cannot provide an inventive concept. Furthermore, the specification supports this assertion, stating “a general-purpose computer may be used as the calculating device”. See specification p. 4 lines 4-6. Furthermore a processor comprising different processing parts performing a portion of the update processing in parallel comprises well understood, routine, and conventional activity performed by generically recited parts. See e.g., Hennessy, which discloses various plural processor architectures some of which have been in use since the earlies electronic computers, and that support multi-programmed processors running many tasks simultaneously, running in parallel, p. 528-532. For these reasons claim 19 elements considered individually and as an ordered combination does not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. Claim 20 is directed to a method that would be practiced by the execution of the calculation program of claim 19. All steps performed in the method of claim 20 would be executed by the calculation program of claims 19. The analysis with respect to claim 19 applies equally to claim 20. Allowable Subject Matter For the reasons set forth in the office action dated 02/24/26, claims 1-20 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejections under 35 USC 101. Conclusion 07-39 AIA 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 EMILY E LAROCQUE whose telephone number is (469)295-9289. The examiner can normally be reached on 10:00am - 1200pm, 2:00pm - 8pm ET M-F. 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 on 571-270-3995. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-272-3702. Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000. /EMILY E LAROCQUE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2182
Prosecution Insights