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 Objections Claims 1-11 are objected to because of the following informalities: Claim 1 line 3 “the device” should be “the optimal solution calculation device” as antecedently recited. Claim 9 line 2 “the method” should be “the optimal solution calculation method” as antecedently recited. Claims 2 -8 and 11 line 1 “The optimal solution calculation device for an optimization problem” should be “The optimal solution calculation device for the optimization problem” as antecedently recited. Claim 10 line 1 “The optimal solution calculation method for an optimization problem” should be “The optimal solution calculation method for the optimization problem” as antecedently recited. Dependent claims are also objected for inheriting the same deficiencies in which claims they depend on. Appropriate correction is required. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(b) 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. Claim FILLIN "Enter claim indentification information" \* MERGEFORMAT s 2-8 and 10- 11 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. Claim 2 line 3-5; claim 3 line 5; claim 4 line 10; claim 5 line 6 -7 ; claim 10 line 5 claim 11 line 5 recite "a solution to the optimization problem". It is unclear whether "the optimization problem" is referring to the optimization problem recited in claim 1 line 1 /claim 9 line 1 or the optimization problem recited in line 1 of the respective claims . For examination purposes, Examiner interprets as the optimization problem recited in claim 1 line 1 / claim 9 line 1 . Note: Examiner suggests a mend ing "an optimization problem" in claims 2-5, and 10- 11 line 1 to "the optimization problem". Dependent claims are also rejected for inheriting the same deficiencies in which claims they depend on. 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. Claim FILLIN "Pluralize the word 'Claim' if necessary and then identify the claim(s) being rejected." s 1-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. Claim 1 recites an optimal solution calculation device for an optimization problem Under Prong One of Step 2A of the USPTO current eligibility guidance (MPEP 2106), The claim recites limitations cover mathematical calculations, relationship, and/or formula , such as calculates a solution to an input optimization problem via processing comprising: generate an executable initial solution that satisfies all inequality constraints in the inequality constraint set based on the initial solution, and generate an equality constraint set from the inequality constraint set with respect to the executable initial solution, the equality constraint set being a set of equality constraints where an equality sign holds (see at least figure 5 [0017-0018] illustrates steps ST11 and S12 for generating initial solution w0 as the input initial solution that satisfy the inequality constraint as expressed in equation 2 and equality constraint set as expressed in equation 3) ; calculate a solution of a simultaneous linear equation generated from the equality constraint set and the evaluation function with respect to an input solution that is the executable initial solution for a first time or a solution update d for a next time or later (see at least figure 6 step ST21 [0019,0021] describes the step of generating a simultaneous linear equation SLE containing KKT condition as expressed in equation 5) , and calculate an evaluated solution that minimizes or maximizes the evaluation function (see at least figure 6 step ST23 [0021, 0027] describes the step of calculating an evaluated solution that minimizes the evaluation function , also see figure 7 illustrates the flow chart of the substeps of generating the evaluated solution y ) ; and determine the evaluated solution, generate the equality constraint set updated by updating constraints to be satisfied by the evaluated solution from the equality constraint set, and generate the input solution updated based on the input solution and the evaluated solution that are previous solutions (see at least figures 8-10 [0041], the step of updating S2k and Wk and generate S2k+1 and Wk+1, [0043-0047] describes the updating step Wk+1 based on previous input solution Wk and evaluated solution y as expressed in equation 10 ) , calculate an initial residual norm from an initial residual vector that is a difference between a vector of a left side of the simultaneous linear equation and a vector of a right side of the simultaneous linear equation with respect to the input solution (see at least figure 6 step ST22 [0025] describes calculate the initial residual norm NRo expressed in equation 7) ; perform an iterative method and calculate an iterative solution, the iterative solution being a solution for each iteration count of the simultaneous linear equation (see at least figure 7 step ST42 [0027-0028] describes the mathematical method to perform iterative method to calculate an iterative solution yj by solving the SLE) ; calculate a residual norm from a residual vector, the residual vector being a difference between the vector of the left side of the simultaneous linear equation and the vector of the right side of the simultaneous linear equation with respect to the iterative solution (see at least figure 7 step ST43 [0029] describes step to calculate residual norm NRj using equation 8) ; and determine that the iterative solution has converged when the residual norm is equal to or less than a convergence determination threshold value, the convergence determination threshold value being a larger one of a preset first threshold value and a second threshold value set based on a relaxation parameter and the initial residual norm (see at least figure 7 step ST44 [0032] describes the steps of determining whether the iterative solution yj has converged based on comparing NRj with threshold value Nth) , and output the iterative solution that has been determined to have converged as the evaluated solution (see at least ST44 [0033] describes the step of outputting yj when the solution converges as the converged evaluated solution y) , determines the evaluated solution as an optimal solution when an update of the equality constraint set is determined to be unnecessary, and the convergence determination threshold value is the first threshold value and outputs the optimal solution as an output solution that is a solution to the optimization problem ( see at least [0065,0070-0071] describes the step of determining the evaluated solution as optimal solution ) . Therefore, the claim includes limitations that fall within the “Mathematical Concepts” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea. Under Prong Two of Step 2A , this judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. The claim additionally recites an optimal solution calculation device comprises an initial condition generation circuitry, an optimization calculation circuitry, an update circuitry, an initial norm calculation circuitry, an iterative solution calculation circuitry, a norm calculation circuitry, a convergence determination circuitry . However, the additional elements are recited at a high level of generality, i.e., merely using computer components to perform the mathematical operations, which amount s to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using computer components . In other words, the circuitries are merely recited or added to perform the claimed steps of generating, calculating, and updating (see MPEP 2106.05(f)) . Furthermore, the claim recites the step of acquiring, as inputs, an inequality constraint set that is a set of inequality constraints with respect to the optimization problem, an evaluation function, and an initial solution , and the step of outputting calculated result, but such steps of acquiring and outputting are mere data gathering, which is an insignificant extra/post solution activity. Therefore, the additional elements fail to provide a meaningful limitation on the judicial exception . Thus, the claim is directed to an abstract idea. Under Step 2B, as discussed with respect to Prong Two of Step 2A, the additional elements in the claim amount no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a computer component s . The same conclusion is reached in step 2B, i.e., mere instructions to apply an exception on computer components cannot integrate a judicial exception into a practical application at step 2A or provide an inventive concept that is furnished by an element or combination of elements that is recited in the claim in addition to (beyond) the judicial exception. The step s of acquiring data and outputting data for the mathematical algorithm is considered to be insignificant extra /post solution activity in step 2A, and are determined to be well-understood, routine, conventional activity in the field. Court decisions cited in MPEP 2106.05(d)(II) section (i), indicate that mere receiving or transmitting data over a network, is well-understood, routing, conventional function when it is claimed in a merely generic manner. Thus, the additional element fails to ensure the claim as a whole amount to significantly more than the judicial exception itself. Accordingly, the claim is not patent-eligible under 35 U.S.C. 101. Claim 2 further recites wherein a value of the relaxation parameter is a preset value from 102 to 104 when a solution to the optimization problem is calculated using a single-precision type variable, and a value of the relaxation parameter is a preset value from 108 to 1012 when a solution to the optimization problem is calculated using a double-precision type variable. Such limitations cover mathematical calculations, relationship, and/or formula (merely describes value of the relaxation parameter used to preset threshold value for the convergence determination step). The claim does not recite additional element that would integrate the judicial exception into a practical application under step 2A prong two or ensure the claim as a whole amount to significantly more than the judicial exception itself under step 2B. Accordingly, the claim is not patent-eligible under 35 U.S.C. 101 . Claim 3 further recites determines the evaluated solution as a quasi-optimal solution when an update of the equality constraint set is determined to be unnecessary, and the convergence determination threshold value is the second threshold value and outputs the quasi-optimal solution as an output solution that is a solution to the optimization problem when the evaluated solution is not determined as the optimal solution. Such limitations cover mathematical calculations, relationship, and/or formula (see at least [0036] describes the step of determining the evaluated solution as a quasi-optimal solution when using second threshold value Nt2). The claim does not recite additional element that would integrate the judicial exception into a practical application under step 2A prong two or ensure the claim as a whole amount to significantly more than the judicial exception itself under step 2B. Accordingly, the claim is not patent-eligible under 35 U.S.C. 101 . Claim 4 further recites when an update count of the equality constraint set reaches an upper limit value, determines the evaluated solution as a first iterative upper limit solution when the convergence determination threshold value is the first threshold value, determines the evaluated solution as a second iterative upper limit solution when the convergence determination threshold value is the second threshold value, and outputs, when the evaluated solution is not determined as the optimal solution or the quasi-optimal solution, one of the first iterative upper limit solution and the second iterative upper limit solution as an output solution that is a solution to the optimization problem. Such limitations cover mathematical calculations, relationship, and/or formula (see at least [0070-0072] describing the step of determining the evaluated solution based on the update count of the equality constraint set reaches an upper limit value and output the evaluated solution accordingly). The claim does not recite additional element that would integrate the judicial exception into a practical application under step 2A prong two or ensure the claim as a whole amount to significantly more than the judicial exception itself under step 2B. Accordingly, the claim is not patent-eligible under 35 U.S.C. 101 . Claim 5 further recites when an update count of the equality constraint set reaches an upper limit value, determines the evaluated solution as an iterative upper limit solution when the convergence determination threshold value is the first threshold value or the second threshold value and outputs the iterative upper limit solution as an output solution that is a solution to the optimization problem when the evaluated solution is not determined as the optimal solution or the quasi-optimal solution. Such limitations cover mathematical calculations, relationship, and/or formula (see at least [0076] describing the step of determining the evaluated solution based on the update count of the equality constraint set reaches an upper limit value and output the evaluated solution accordingly). The claim does not recite additional element that would integrate the judicial exception into a practical application under step 2A prong two or ensure the claim as a whole amount to significantly more than the judicial exception itself under step 2B. Accordingly, the claim is not patent-eligible under 35 U.S.C. 1 01. Claim 6 further recites wherein the update circuitry includes a result output circuitry to output a determination flag indicating whether the output solution is the optimal solution or the quasi-optimal solution. T he step of outputting a determination flag indicating whether the output solution is the optimal solution or the quasi-optimal solution falls under the limitations cover mathematical calculations, relationship, and/or formula (see at least step ST35 and ST36 of figure 8 that output flag indication whether the output solution is optimal or quasi-optimal based on the convergence threshold value being the first or second value). Furthermore, the update circuitry includes a result output circuitry are recited at a high level of generality, e.g., using computer components to perform computer functions, which amount no more than mere instructions to apply the judicial exception using computer components under step 2A prong two and fail to provide significantly more under step 2B. Alternatively, the step of outputting data is at most considered as insignificant extra solution activity under step 2A prong two and determined to be well-understood, routine, and conventional under step 2B (See MPEP 2106.05(d)(II) i. Receiving or transmitting data over a network ). Accordingly, the claim is not patent-eligible under 35 U.S.C. 1 01. Claim 7 further recites the update circuitry includes a result output circuitry to output a determination flag indicating that the output solution is one of the optimal solution, the quasi-optimal solution, the first iterative upper limit solution, and the second iterative upper limit solution. The step of outputting a determination flag indicating that the output solution is one of the optimal solution, the quasi-optimal solution, the first iterative upper limit solution, and the second iterative upper limit solution falls under the limitations cover mathematical calculations, relationship, and/or formula (see at least step ST35 and ST36 of figure 8 [0070-0072] that output flag indication whether the output solution is optimal or quasi-optimal or first or second upper limit solution based on conditions). Furthermore, the update circuitry includes a result output circuitry are recited at a high level of generality, e.g., using computer components to perform computer functions, which amount no more than mere instructions to apply the judicial exception using computer components under step 2A prong two and fail to provide significantly more under step 2B. Alternatively, the step of outputting data is at most considered as insignificant extra solution activity under step 2A prong two and determined to be well- understood, routine, and conventional under step 2B (See MPEP 2106.05(d)(II) i. Receiving or transmitting data over a network ). Accordingly, the claim is not patent-eligible under 35 U.S.C. 1 01. Claim 8 further recites the update circuitry includes a result output circuitry to output a determination flag indicating that the output solution is one of the optimal solution, the quasi-optimal solution, and the iterative upper limit solution. The step of outputting a determination flag indicating that the output solution is one of the optimal solution, the quasi-optimal solution, and the iterative upper limit solution falls under the limitations cover mathematical calculations, relationship, and/or formula (see at least step ST35 and ST36 of figure 8 [0076] that output flag indication whether the output solution is optimal or quasi-optimal or first or second upper limit solution based on conditions). Furthermore, the update circuitry includes a result output circuitry are recited at a high level of generality, e.g., using computer components to perform computer functions, which amount no more than mere instructions to apply the judicial exception using computer components under step 2A prong two and fail to provide significantly more under step 2B. Alternatively, the step of outputting data is at most considered as insignificant extra solution activity under step 2A prong two and determined to be well-understood, routine, and conventional under step 2B (See MPEP 2106.05(d)(II) i. Receiving or transmitting data over a network ). Accordingly, the claim is not patent-eligible under 35 U.S.C. 1 01. Claims 9-10 recite method claims that would be practiced by the apparatus claims 1 and 3. Thus, they are rejected for the same reasons. Claim 11 recite an apparatus claim having similar limitation as claim 3. Thus, it is rejected for the same reasons. Allowable Subject Matter Claim FILLIN "Enter claim identification information" \* MERGEFORMAT s 1-11 are would be allowable if rewritten or amended to overcome the claim objections and rejections under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) and 101, as set forth in this Office action. The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: Regarding claims 1 and 9, the prior art of record does not teach or suggest the combination of limitations, including the specific steps of acquiring an inequality constraint set, an evaluation function, and generate an equality constraint set, calculate a solution of simultaneous linear equation generated from the equality constraint set and the evaluation function, update the equality constraint set, generate input solution updated based on the input solution, calculate an initial residual norm, calculate a residual norm, determine the iterative solution has converged based on the residual norm, and determine the evaluated solution when an updated of the equality constraint set is unnecessary and the convergence determination threshold value is the first threshold value as an optimal solution as required in claims 1 and 9. Hirotsu – US 20240320516 teaches an optimal calculation device repeatedly calculates an optimal solution that minimizes an evaluation function, wherein the device includes an initial solution generation unit that generate initial solution for providing an initial value for a search process using the initial solution as illustrated in figure 5. Furthermore, figure 5 also illustrates the iterative process to search and output the optimal solution when the number of iteration reaches a max count value, and during the search process of the optimal solution calculation device, solution candidates are also updated using the crossed over solution candidate at 220. However, Hirotsu does not teach or suggest the steps to acquire an inequality constraint set, an evaluation function, and generate an equality constraint set, calculate a solution of simultaneous linear equation generated from the equality constraint set and the evaluation function, update the equality constraint set, generate input solution updated based on the input solution, calculate an initial residual norm, calculate a residual norm, determine the iterative solution has converged based on the residual norm, and determine the evaluated solution as an optimal solution when an updated of the equality constraint set is unnecessary and the convergence determination threshold value is the first threshold value as an optimal solution as required in claims 1 and 9. Okada – US 20190249990 teaches a method to solve an optimization problem includes including the updating process by the evaluation function updating section 10 , the updating process by the equality constraint variable updating section 11 , and route search processing 12, wherein the section 10 and 11 are iterated and a route that satisfies a predetermined end condition is searched for as an optimum route [0067]. Figure 6 further illustrates a method for solving the optimization problem related to route searching for vehicles that includes the step of setting initial value and performing iterative updating. However, Okada does not teach or suggest the steps to acquire an inequality constraint set, an evaluation function, and generate an equality constraint set, calculate a solution of simultaneous linear equation generated from the equality constraint set and the evaluation function, update the equality constraint set, generate input solution updated based on the input solution, calculate an initial residual norm, calculate a residual norm, determine the iterative solution has converged based on the residual norm, and determine the evaluated solution as an optimal solution when an updated of the equality constraint set is unnecessary and the convergence determination threshold value is the first threshold value as an optimal solution as required in claims 1 and 9. Omagari – US 20230096384 teaches a device for finding an optimal solution based on evaluation function, wherein the device includes a generation unit that configured to acquire evaluation function J, inequality constraint set and an initial solution, a solution W and equality constraint set to generate a simultaneous linear equation for the search unit to generate solution, wherein the search unit updates the equality constraint set and solution W to be used by generation unit 23. However, Omagari does not teach does not teach or suggest the steps to calculate an initial residual norm, calculate a residual norm, determine the iterative solution has converged based on the residual norm, and determine the evaluated solution as an optimal solution when an updated of the equality constraint set is unnecessary and the convergence determination threshold value is the first threshold value as an optimal solution as required in claims 1 and 9. Suzuki – US 20230418895 teaches a solver apparatus calculates a solution to a problem minimizing an objective function as a non-convex quadratic function under a condition satisfying simultaneous linear equations, wherein the solver apparatus includes an acquisition unit, an update unit, and an output unit. Figure 2 illustrates steps of acquiring objective function, linear equality constraint, and linear inequality constraint, initializing, updating, and outputting optimal solution. However, Sukuki does not teach or suggest the steps to acquire an inequality constraint set, an evaluation function, and generate an equality constraint set, calculate a solution of simultaneous linear equation generated from the equality constraint set and the evaluation function, update the equality constraint set, generate input solution updated based on the input solution, calculate an initial residual norm, calculate a residual norm, determine the iterative solution has converged based on the residual norm, and determine the evaluated solution as an optimal solution when an updated of the equality constraint set is unnecessary and the convergence determination threshold value is the first threshold value as an optimal solution as required in claims 1 and 9. Therefore, the prior art of record does not teach or suggest the combination of limitations as recited in claims 1 and 9. Accordingly, Claim FILLIN "Enter claim identification information" \* MERGEFORMAT s 1-11 are would be allowable if rewritten or amended to overcome the claim objections and rejections under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) and 101, as set forth in this Office action. Conclusion Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to FILLIN "Examiner name" \* MERGEFORMAT HUY DUONG whose telephone number is FILLIN "Phone number" \* MERGEFORMAT (571)272-2764 . The examiner can normally be reached FILLIN "Work Schedule?" \* MERGEFORMAT Mon-Friday 7:30-5:30 . 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, FILLIN "SPE Name?" \* MERGEFORMAT Andrew Caldwell can be reached at FILLIN "SPE Phone?" \* MERGEFORMAT (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. /HUY DUONG/ Examiner, Art Unit 2182 FILLIN "Phone number" \* MERGEFORMAT (571)272-2764