Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claim Rejections – 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1: claims 1-20 are directed to either a process, machine, manufacture or composition of matter.
With respect to claims 1, 8, 15:
2A Prong 1:
verifies whether a solution satisfies one or more problem constraints and computes a value of an objective function that is achieved (Abstract idea of analyzing data. Mental process. A human- mind with pen and paper can verify/determine data; mathematical concepts; see applicant’s Fig. 5);
generating an output to input to an optimization engine, the output based on analyzing the set of descriptive material(Abstract idea of analyzing data. Mental process. A human- mind with pen and paper can generate/determine data; mathematical concepts; see applicant’s Fig. 5);
processing the output with the optimization engine resulting in a set of optimization results (Abstract idea of analyzing data. Mental process. A human-mind with pen and paper can process data).
2A Prong 2: This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application.
Additional elements:
Processor, memory, system, logic (computer component is recited at a high level of generality and amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component; the mere recitation of a generic computer cannot transform a patent-ineligible abstract idea into a patent-eligible invention." Alice, 134 S. Ct. at 2358);
Claim 15 readable storage medium (Adding insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception - see MPEP 2106.05(g));
receiving a set of descriptive material with [logic] that (mere data gathering and output recited at a high level of generality - insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception - see MPEP 2106.05(g)).
2B: The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Additional elements:
Processor, memory, system, logic (computer component is recited at a high level of generality and amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component; the mere recitation of a generic computer cannot transform a patent-ineligible abstract idea into a patent-eligible invention." Alice, 134 S. Ct. at 2358);
Claim 15 readable storage medium (Adding insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception - see MPEP 2106.05(g));
receiving a set of descriptive material with [logic] that (mere data gathering and output recited at a high level of generality - insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception - see MPEP 2106.05(g));
Further, the receiving/transmitting steps were considered to be extra-solution activity in Step 2A Prong 2, and thus it is re-evaluated in Step 2B to determine if it is more than what is well-understood, routine, conventional activity in the field. The receiving and/or transmitting limitations constitute extra-solution activity. See buySAFE, Inc. v. Google, Inc., 765 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2014) ("That a computer receives and sends the information over a network-with no further specification-is not even arguably inventive."). The court decisions cited in MPEP 2106.05(d)(II) indicate that merely Receiving and/or transmitting data over a network, e.g., using the Internet to gather data, Symantec, 838 F.3d at 1321, 120 USPQ2d at 1362 (utilizing an intermediary computer to forward information). Thereby, a conclusion that the claimed receiving/transmitting steps are well-understood, routine, conventional activity is supported under Berkheimer. The claim is not patent eligible.
2, 9, 16. The method of claim 1 further comprising: transforming the set of descriptive material to a tailorable mathematical representation that has extensible reasoning mechanisms, the transforming including: receiving (data gathering) a set of rules corresponding to the optimization engine, wherein the rules include semantics of complex constructs used by the optimization engine (provides nothing more than mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a generic computer; the engine is used to generally apply the abstract idea without limiting how the trained engine functions); and rewriting the set of descriptive material using the received set of rules (further define mental process, Abstract idea of analyzing data. Mental process. A human- mind with pen and paper can transform data).
3, 10, 17. The method of claim 2 further comprising: propagating one or more constraints (reads on transmitting/receiving, adding insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception - see MPEP 2106.05(g)) found in the set of descriptive material, the propagating resulting in discovery of information implicit in the set of descriptive material, the information including data types, decision variables, and variable domains (further define mental process); and transforming an expressive power (not further defined) found in a set of inputs corresponding to the set of descriptive material to a set of optimization generator inputs(Abstract idea of analyzing data. Mental process. A human- mind with pen and paper can transform data with or without a generic machine).
4, 11, 18. The method of claim 2 further comprising: converting one or more external models into the mathematical representation(mental process – user can manually perform raw thinking in their head as a first stage and then using paper and pen to perform mathematical operation), wherein at least one of the external models is selected from the group consisting of a regression model, a spreadsheet model, a graph specification model, and a natural language input model(additional element considered to be generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use – see MPEP 2106.05(h)).
5, 12. The method of claim 2 further comprising: after converting the external models into the mathematical representation, generating a second set of descriptive material from the mathematical representation (Abstract idea of analyzing data. Mental process. A human- mind with pen and paper can generate/determine data).
6, 13, 19. The method of claim 2 further comprising: generating a plurality of sets of optimization outputs from the mathematical representation, wherein a first of the sets corresponds to the optimization engine and a second of the sets corresponds to a second optimization engine(Abstract idea of analyzing data. Mental process. A human- mind with pen and paper can generate/determine data).
7, 14, 20. The method of claim 2 further comprising: converting an if-then-else construct found in the set of source code to a conjunction of implications that is included in the output(mental process of modeling with assistance of pen and paper); replacing a strict inequality found in the set of source code to a non-strict inequality form that is included in the output; and converting a quantifier found in the set of source code to a conjunction that is included in the output(mental process of modeling with assistance of pen and paper).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. It is clear the claimed invention amounts to math but not clear how “receiving a set of descriptive material with logic” is accomplished. Are a set of instructions received?
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 –
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1,8, 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Wasserkrug (US 2023/0237222).
1, 8, 15. A method, performed by an information handling system that includes a processor and a memory accessible by the processor, the method comprising:
receiving a set of “descriptive material” with logic (reads on code, Boolean, labeled data, “generate a formal objective model from the labeled data. The formal objective model may comprise an automatically generated objective function that is syntactically different from the human-generated objective function and syntactically correct for a specific optimization engine. In an exemplary embodiment, the generation of the labeled data may comprise selecting values for each one of a plurality of decision variables, inputting the values to an objective function to compute a value of the objective function, and inputting the values to the human-generated constraint definitions to determine, for each solution, whether the values satisfy the corresponding constraints”, 0003) that verifies whether a solution satisfies one or more problem constraints (constraints, “finding an optimal or near-optimal solution for a problem that involves several variables, each of which is subject to various constraints”, 0013; “code can be written so as to validate whether a solution to the optimization problem meets a constraint”, 0014) and computes a value of an objective function (“The formal objective model may comprise an automatically generated objective function that is syntactically different from the human-generated objective function and syntactically correct for a specific optimization engine”, 0003; “automatically generated objective function”, 0005) that is achieved (“A typical optimization problem involves finding an optimal or near-optimal solution for a problem that involves several variables, each of which is subject to various constraints that determine whether a particular solution to the problem is valid. Accordingly, solving an optimization problem involves understanding the business problem and translating it into a set of objectives and constraints that can be solved by a mathematical optimization solver such as IBM's CPLEX®.”, 0013);
generating an output to input to an optimization engine, the output based on analyzing the set of descriptive material (“The formal objective model may comprise an automatically generated objective function that is syntactically different from the human-generated objective function and syntactically correct for a specific optimization engine”, 0005-7; 0016); and
processing the output with the optimization engine resulting in a set of optimization results (“formal representation of the constraints can typically be solved by optimization engines much more efficiently”, 0016; “The formal model of the constraints and objectives is a model in which the constraints and objectives are expressed in a specific format that is syntactically correct and can be interpreted by the optimization engine. The specific format will depend on the optimization engine being used. Examples of optimization formats that can be used include OPL (Optimization Programming Language) and AMPL (A Mathematical Programming Language)”, 0032).
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Imamichi (2023/0197147) teaches optimization using CPLEX (0080-0081);
Mandal EP 4036763 A1 teaches optimization using CPLEX.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DAVID R VINCENT whose telephone number is (571)272-3080. The examiner can normally be reached ~Mon-Fri 12-8:30.
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, Alexey Shmatov can be reached at 5712703428. 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.
/DAVID R VINCENT/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2123