CTNF 17/980,586 CTNF 100398 DETAILED ACTION Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status 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. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112 07-30-02 AIA The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b): (b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention. The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA), second paragraph: The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention. 07-34-01 Claims 1-4, 8-10 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. Claims 1, 8, 10 recite the limitation "the number of the plurality of selected first state variables". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. It is unclear what the number of selected state variables is because the claim recites “while changing the plurality of selected first state variables” without indicating the step in the process of changing the plurality of selected first state variables that is being referred to; for example a number of the plurality of selected first state variables from after a specific change, or after all changing is completed. Claim 2 recites the limitation "the number of second state variables". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For examination purposes, “the number of second state variables” will be interpreted as “a number of second state variables”. Claim 3 is rejected based on inheriting the deficiencies of claims 1 and 2. Claim 4 recites the limitation "the number of third state variables". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For examination purposes, "the number of third state variables" will be interpreted as "a number of third state variables". Claim 9 is rejected based on inheriting the deficiencies of claim 8. 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 1-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. Regarding claim 1, at Step 1, the claim is directed to a non-transitory computer-readable recording medium, which is a statutory category of invention (Article of Manufacture). At Step 2A Prong 1, Examiner notes that the claims are directed towards an abstract idea. The claim language has been reproduced below: A non-transitory computer-readable recording medium storing a data processing program for causing a computer of searching for a solution for a combinatorial optimization problem represented by an energy function that includes a plurality of state variables ( mathematical relationship ), to execute processing comprising: executing search processing of searching for the solution by performing determination whether or not to accept a change of each value of a plurality of first state variables, for the plurality of first state variables selected from among the plurality of state variables in parallel ( mathematical relationship ) and executing processing of changing the value of one state variable of which the change of the value is determined to be accepted while changing the plurality of selected first state variables ( mathematical relationship ); and specifying the number of the plurality of selected first state variables, based on a search status of the search processing ( mathematical relationship ) or search information that indicates a search record of another combinatorial optimization problem and repeating the search processing ( mathematical relationship ). At Step 2A Prong 2, the additional elements are bolded above. The additional elements do not integrate the abstract ideas into a practical application because the computer elements, which are recited at a high level of generality, provide conventional computer functions that do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract ideas. See MPEP 2106.05(f). The limitation storing a data processing program is merely the equivalent of reciting “apply it” to implement the abstract idea on a computer. Even when viewed in combination, these additional elements do not integrate the recited judicial exception into a practical application and the claim is directed to the judicial exception. At Step 2B, the additional elements do not, alone or in combination, amount to significantly more than the recited judicial exception As set forth in step 2A prong 2 analysis, the functions of storing a data processing program is the equivalent of adding the words “apply it” to the judicial exception and are mere instructions to implement the abstract idea on a computer. Even when considered in combination, these additional elements represent mere instructions to apply an exception and insignificant extra-solution activity, which do not provide an inventive concept. The claim is not eligible. Regarding claims 2-7, the claims merely recite functions for performing computations during the search processing or characteristics of state variables that further mathematically limit the mathematical concepts, or provide additional mathematical functions, of claim 1. They do not include additional elements that would require further analysis under steps 2A prong 2 and step 2B. Regarding claim 8, at Step 1, the claim is directed to a data processing device, which is a statutory category of invention (Machine). At Step 2A Prong 1, Examiner notes that the claims are directed towards an abstract idea. The claim language has been reproduced below: A data processing device of searching for a solution for a combinatorial optimization problem represented by an energy function that includes a plurality of state variables, the data processing device comprising: a memory; and a processor circuit coupled to the memory , the processor circuit being configured to perform processing comprising: determining whether or not to accept a change of each value of a plurality of first state variables in parallel for the plurality of first state variables selected from among the plurality of state variables ( mathematical relationship ); executing search processing of searching for the solution by executing processing of changing the value of the one state variable of which the change of the value is determined to be accepted while changing the plurality of selected first state variables ( mathematical relationship ); specifying the number of the plurality of selected first state variables based on a search status of the search processing ( mathematical relationship ) or search information that indicates a search record of another combinatorial optimization problem ( mathematical relationship ); and repeating the search processing ( mathematical relationship ). At Step 2A Prong 2, the additional elements are bolded above. The additional elements do not integrate the abstract ideas into a practical application because the computer elements, which are recited at a high level of generality, provide conventional computer functions that do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract ideas. See MPEP 2106.05(f). The limitations a memory and a processor circuit coupled to the memory are merely generic computer components recited at a high level of generality. As disclosed in [0034] of Applicant’s specification, the processing unit performing the program may be a CPU, GPU, or DSP, which indicates the processor circuit is a generic computer. Furthermore, Pekhimenko (Parallel Computer Architecture and Programming Parallel Processing, Multicores) discloses multiple tasks or operations done in parallel can be run on/with a general-purpose computer. Even when viewed in combination, these additional elements do not integrate the recited judicial exception into a practical application and the claim is directed to the judicial exception. At Step 2B, the additional elements do not, alone or in combination, amount to significantly more than the recited judicial exception As set forth in step 2A prong 2 analysis, the memory and processor circuit are the equivalent of adding the words “apply it” to the judicial exception and are mere instructions to implement the abstract idea on a computer. Even when considered in combination, these additional elements represent mere instructions to apply an exception and insignificant extra-solution activity, which do not provide an inventive concept. The claim is not eligible. Regarding claim 9, it is directed to the mathematical concepts and/or mental processes of “ make the determination regarding the plurality of first state variables in parallel, for each n replicas of a plurality of replicas that respectively indicates the plurality of state variables, for each processing period, ” “ selects one state variable of which the change of the value is determined to be accepted according to the determination for each of the n groups in parallel, ” and “ perform control so that a group other than a first group of the n groups does not start to process a first replica, until update processing of changing the value of the state variable selected by the selector, of the first replica that is one of the plurality of replicas, ends in the first group of the n groups ”. Under Step 2A Prong 2, the claim recites additional elements “ modules ”, “ selector ”, and “ replica ”. The additional elements do not integrate the abstract ideas into a practical application because the “ modules ”, “ selector ”, and “ replica ” are recited at a high level of generality, are the equivalent of reciting the words “apply it” to the abstract idea, and do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. Even when viewed in combination, these additional elements do not integrate the recited judicial exception into a practical application and the claim is directed to the judicial exception. Under Step 2B, the additional elements do not, alone or in combination, amount to significantly more than the recited judicial exception. Even when considered in combination, these additional elements represent mere instructions to apply an exception and insignificant extra-solution activity, which do not provide an inventive concept. The claim is not eligible. Regarding claim 10, the claim is directed to a method that would be practiced by the apparatus of claim 8. All steps performed by the method of claim 10 is executed by the apparatus in claim 8 as configured. The analysis of claim 8 applies equally to claim 10. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102 07-07-aia AIA 07-07 The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action: A person shall be entitled to a patent unless – 07-08-aia AIA (a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention. 07-15 AIA Claim s 1-4, 8, 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102( a)(1 ) as being anticipated by Tamura (US 20200401738 A1, hereinafter “Tamura”, provided in IDS filed 9/12/2023) . As per claim 1, Tamura teaches A non-transitory computer-readable recording medium storing a data processing program for causing a computer of searching for a solution for a combinatorial optimization problem represented by an energy function that includes a plurality of state variables (Tamura: [0005]) , to execute processing comprising: executing search processing of searching for the solution by performing determination whether or not to accept a change of each value of a plurality of first state variables, for the plurality of first state variables selected from among the plurality of state variables in parallel and executing processing of changing the value of one state variable of which the change of the value is determined to be accepted while changing the plurality of selected first state variables (Tamura: Fig. 2; [0005], [0023], [0077]-[0079]; [0136]) ; and specifying the number of the plurality of selected first state variables, based on a search status of the search processing or search information that indicates a search record of another combinatorial optimization problem and repeating the search processing (Tamura: [0005], [0027]) . As per claim 2, Tamura further teaches The non-transitory computer-readable recording medium according to claim 1, wherein the search information includes a first cumulative value in a first period, on the number of second state variables of which the change of the value is determined to be accepted, among the plurality of first state variables (Tamura: Fig. 6; [0124]) . As per claim 3, Tamura further teaches The non-transitory computer-readable recording medium according to claim 2, the processing further comprising: calculating a first average value in the first period, of the number of the second state variables, based on the first cumulative value (Tamura: Fig. 9 element 23; [0161]) ; reducing the number of the plurality of first state variables in a case where the first average value is larger than a first threshold (Tamura: [0104]) ; and increasing the number of the plurality of first state variables in a case where the first average value is smaller than a second threshold that is smaller than the first threshold (Tamura: [0104]) . As per claim 4, Tamura further teaches The non-transitory computer-readable recording medium according to claim 1, wherein the search information includes a second cumulative value in a second period, of the number of third state variables of which the value changes, among the plurality of first state variables (Tamura: [0058], wherein the process repeats to update the state variables) . As per claim 8, the claim is directed to a data processing device that implements the same or similar features as the non-transitory computer-readable medium of claim 1, and is therefore rejected for at least the same reasons therein. Furthermore, Tamura teaches a memory; and a processor circuit coupled to the memory (Tamura: [0005]). As per claim 10, the claim is directed to a method that implements the same or similar features as the non-transitory computer-readable medium of claim 1, and is therefore rejected for at least the same reasons therein . Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103 07-20-aia AIA The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action: A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made. 07-21-aia AIA Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tamura in view of Kanda et al. (US 20200326673 A1, hereinafter “Kanda”) . As per claim 5, Tamura teaches The non-transitory computer-readable recording medium according to claim 4, the processing further comprising: reducing the number of the plurality of first state variables, in a case where the occurrence rate is larger than a third threshold (Tamura: [0104]) ; and increasing the number of the plurality of first state variables in a case where the occurrence rate is smaller than a fourth threshold that is smaller than the third threshold (Tamura: [0104]) . However, while Tamura discloses calculating a score for each state variable, Tamura does not teach calculating an occurrence rate of the state variables. Thus, Tamura does not teach calculating an occurrence rate of the third state variable, in the second period, based on the second cumulative value; Kanda teaches calculating an occurrence rate of the third state variable, in the second period, based on the second cumulative value (Kanda: [0061], [0190]) ; Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to one of ordinary skill in the art to substitute, with a reasonable expectation of success, the score value computation of Tamura with the occurrence computation of Kanda. One would have been motivated to combine these references because both references disclose solving combinatorial optimization with replicas, and simple substitution of one known element for another to obtain predictable results (assigning values to determine state variables) . 07-21-aia AIA Claim s 6-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tamura in view of Handa (US 20210365605 A1, hereinafter “Handa”) . As per claim 6, Tamura teaches The non-transitory computer-readable recording medium according to claim 1, However, while Tamura discloses calculating score values for selecting state variables, Tamura does not explicitly disclose score values being computed by Hamming distance. Thus, Tamura does not teach wherein the search information includes a movement amount represented by a Hamming distance, in a third period, of a state vector according to the plurality of state variables. Handa teaches wherein the search information includes a movement amount represented by a Hamming distance, in a third period, of a state vector according to the plurality of state variables (Handa: [0107], [0120]) . Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to one of ordinary skill in the art to substitute, with a reasonable expectation of success, the score value computation of Tamura with the Hamming distance computation of Handa. One would have been motivated to combine these references because both references disclose solving combinatorial optimization with replicas, and simple substitution of one known element for another to obtain predictable results (assigning values to determine state variables). As per claim 7, Tamura/Handa further teaches The non-transitory computer-readable recording medium according to claim 6, the processing further comprising: calculating a second average value of the movement amount, in the third period, based on the movement amount (Handa: [0107], [0120]) ; reducing the number of the plurality of first state variables in a case where the second average value is larger than a fifth threshold and a minimum value of the energy function is not updated in the search processing in the third period (Tamura: [0104]) ; and increasing the number of the plurality of first state variables in a case where the second average value is smaller than a sixth threshold that is smaller than the fifth threshold and the minimum value is not updated (Tamura: [0104]) . 07-21-aia AIA Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tamura in view of Koyama (US 20210049475 A1, hereinafter “Koyama”) . As per claim 9, Tamura teaches The data processing device according to claim 8, Tamura does not explicitly disclose grouping the replicas. Thus, Tamura does not teach wherein the processor circuit includes M (M is integer equal to or more than two) modules that are grouped and a selector in n (n is integer equal to or more than two) groups each of which includes one or a plurality of modules, the n groups make the determination regarding the plurality of first state variables in parallel, for each n replicas of a plurality of replicas that respectively indicates the plurality of state variables, for each unit processing period, the selector selects one state variable of which the change of the value is determined to be accepted according to the determination for each of the n groups in parallel, and the processing circuit is configured to perform control so that a group other than a first group of the n groups does not start to process a first replica, until update processing of changing the value of the state variable selected by the selector, of the first replica that is one of the plurality of replicas, ends in the first group of the n groups. Koyama teaches wherein the processor circuit includes M (M is integer equal to or more than two) modules that are grouped and a selector in n (n is integer equal to or more than two) groups each of which includes one or a plurality of modules (Koyama: Fig. 2; [0060]) , the n groups make the determination regarding the plurality of first state variables in parallel, for each n replicas of a plurality of replicas that respectively indicates the plurality of state variables, for each unit processing period (Koyama: Figs. 7-8; [0158]) , the selector selects one state variable of which the change of the value is determined to be accepted according to the determination for each of the n groups in parallel (Koyama: [0166]) , and the processing circuit is configured to perform control so that a group other than a first group of the n groups does not start to process a first replica, until update processing of changing the value of the state variable selected by the selector, of the first replica that is one of the plurality of replicas, ends in the first group of the n groups (Koyama: Fig. 9; [0181]) . Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify, with a reasonable expectation of success, the replica circuits of Tamura with the grouping of Koyama. One would have been motivated to combine these references because both references disclose solving combinatorial optimization with replicas, and the grouping of Koyama may improve solution accuracy and solving performance (Koyama: [0206]). Conclusion Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to PHAT N LE whose telephone number is (571)272-0546. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8:30AM-5PM ET. Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice. If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Andrew T 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. /P.N.L./ Phat LeExaminer, Art Unit 2182 (571) 272-0546 /ANDREW CALDWELL/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2182 Application/Control Number: 17/980,586 Page 2 Art Unit: 2182 Application/Control Number: 17/980,586 Page 3 Art Unit: 2182 Application/Control Number: 17/980,586 Page 4 Art Unit: 2182 Application/Control Number: 17/980,586 Page 5 Art Unit: 2182 Application/Control Number: 17/980,586 Page 6 Art Unit: 2182 Application/Control Number: 17/980,586 Page 7 Art Unit: 2182 Application/Control Number: 17/980,586 Page 9 Art Unit: 2182 Application/Control Number: 17/980,586 Page 10 Art Unit: 2182 Application/Control Number: 17/980,586 Page 12 Art Unit: 2182
Prosecution Insights