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 .
Response to Amendment
This office action is responsive to amendment filed on 06/17/2026. Claims 1-11 are pending. The amendment has overcome the claim objections and rejections under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as set forth in the previous office action.
Response to Arguments
Applicant asserted on page 10 that the amended language does not merely output data or link the judicial exception to a particular technological environment. Rather, it employs the information provided by the judicial exception, that is, the calculated optimal solution and the determination flag, to take corrective action by controlling the operation of physical equipment (a vehicle or a factory) in a particular way. The control unit does not simply receive the output solution. Rather, it actively controls the vehicle or factory based on that solution, and further adapts its control behavior depending on whether the determination flag indicates that the output solution is the optimal solution. This is an integral part of the control scheme, not insignificant post-solution activity.
Examiner respectfully disagrees because the limitation of controls operation of the vehicle or the factory based on the output solution and changes the control operation in accordance with the determination flag is mere generally linking the use of the judicial exception into a particular technological environment or field of use, see MPEP 2106.05(h) states “ the additional element in Flook regarding the catalytic chemical conversion of hydrocarbons was not sufficient to make the claim eligible, because it was merely an incidental or token addition to the claim that did not alter or affect how the process steps of calculating the alarm limit value were performed.” Similarly, the instant claim recites additional element, such as control operation of a vehicle and change the control operation as merely token addition to the claim that did not alter or affect how the process steps of calculating the optimal solution and flag determination. Accordingly, such additional element or combination of additional elements recited in the claims as whole fail to integrate the judicial exception into a practical application under step 2A Prong Two.
Applicant further asserted on page 11 that the instant claim is analogous to claim 2 of Example 45 (Controller for Injection Mold).
Examiner respectfully disagrees because the instant claim and the claim 2 of Example 45 are not analogous as claim 2 of Example 45 recites additional elements, such as repeatedly measurements of the temperature of a mold, send control signals to the apparatus, instructing the apparatus to open the mold and eject the molded polyurethane from the mold, but the instant claim merely recite control unit to control operation of the vehicle or factor based on the result and change the control operation based on the determined flag. Furthermore, the instant example is analogous to Parker v. Flook (see MPEP 2106.05(h)), where the claim recited the steps of calculating an updated value for an alarm limit according to mathematical formula in a process comprising the catalytic chemical conversion of hydrocarbons, wherein the additional element in Flook regarding the catalytic chemical conversion of hydrocarbons was not sufficient to make the claim eligible, because it was merely an incidental or token addition to the claim that did not alter or affect how the process steps of calculating the alarm limit value were performed. Similarly, the additional elements recited in the claims, such as controlling operation of the vehicle and changes the control operation are merely an addition to the claim that did not alter or affect how the process steps of calculating the optimal solution and flag.
Applicant further asserted on page 11 that the instant claim is analogous to claim 2 of Example 46 (Livestock Management).
Examiner respectfully disagrees because the instant claim and the claim 2 of Example 46 are not analogous as claim 2 of Example 46 recites additional elements, such as a feed dispenser that is connected to a feed and supplement supply and is operable to dispense individualized amounts of feed and optional supplements, and wherein the monitoring component is further configured for automatically sending a control signal to the feed dispenser to dispense a therapeutically effective amount of supplemental salt and minerals mixed with feed when the analysis results for the animal indicate that the animal is exhibiting an aberrant behavioral pattern indicative of grass tetany, but the instant claim merely recite control unit to control operation of the vehicle or factor based on the result and change the control operation based on the determined flag. Thus, as explained above, the instant example is analogous to Parker v. Flook.
Applicant further asserted on page 12, “Amended claim 1 follows the same pattern as these eligible claims. The mathematical calculations (the judicial exception) produce an output solution and a determination flag. These results are then used by the control unit to control operation of a vehicle or a factory-physical equipment-and to change the control operation in accordance with the determination flag. The amended claim goes beyond merely automating mathematical calculations on a generic computer. Instead, the claim uses the calculated results to take corrective action by controlling physical systems in a particular way based on both the output solution and the determination flag. This is an "other meaningful limitation" that integrates the judicial exception into the overall control scheme of the vehicle or factory, and accordingly practically applies the exception.”
Examiner respectfully disagrees because amended claim 1 does not follow the same patterns as the eligible claims of examples 45-46 as those claims recite additional elements that provide meaningful limitations and more similar to Diamond v. Dier. MPEP 2106.05(e) provides an example of Diamond v. Dier that recite meaningful limitations beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment, where the additional elements such as the steps of installing rubber in a press, closing the mold, constantly measuring the temperature in the mold, and automatically opening the press at the proper time, are meaningful because they sufficiently limited the use of the mathematical equation to the practical application of molding rubber products. However, the amended claim is analogous to Parker v. Flook, where the additional elements are recited as merely token addition to the claim that did not alter or affect how the process steps of calculating the alarm limit value were performed. Thus, the instant claim recite additional elements that are mere generally linking the judicial exception to a particular environment or field of use.
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.
Claims 1-11 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 1 line 45 recites “the update unit outputs a determination flag”. There is lack of antecedent basis for “the update unit”. For examination purposes, Examiner interprets such limitation as “the update circuitry outputs a determination flag.
Claim 1 line 47 recites “the vehicle or the factory”. It is unclear whether such limitation refers to the vehicle or the factor control system recited in claim 1 line 44 or the one recited in claim 1 line 3. For examination purposes, examiner interprets such limitation as “the vehicle or the factory control system” as recited in claim 1 line 44. Examiner suggests amending claim 1 line 44 to “the vehicle or the factory control system”. Claim 9 line 46 recites similar limitations. Thus, it is rejected for the same reasons.
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.
Claims 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 calculating 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 updated 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 representing a target precision and a second threshold value representing a convergence criterion 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), determining 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 corresponds to the first threshold value and output 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 implemented in a control unit of a vehicle or a factory control system 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 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)). The claim further recites “to reduce influence of calculation errors in a residual vector caused by rounding errors, but such limitation is merely recited as a result of performing the abstract idea of determining the iterative solution. 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 the optimal solution to a vehicle or factor control system as an output solution and outputting a determination flag indicating whether the output solution is the optimal solution, but such steps of acquiring and outputting are mere data gathering, which is an insignificant extra/post solution activity. Moreover, the claim recites the control unit controls operation of the vehicle or the factory based on the output solution and changes the control operation in accordance with the determination flag, such limitation is at most considered as mere generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use, such as controlling operation (see MPEP 2106.05(h)). Therefore, the additional elements or the combination of 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 computer components. 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 steps 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 the 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 the 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, relationships, 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, relationships, 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. 101.
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. The 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. 101.
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. 101.
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. 101.
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 limitations as claim 3. Thus, it is rejected for the same reasons.
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 HUY DUONG whose telephone number is (571)272-2764. The examiner can normally be reached 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, 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.
/HUY DUONG/Examiner, Art Unit 2182 (571)272-2764
/ANDREW CALDWELL/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2182
Prosecution Insights