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 .
This Action is non-final and is in response to the claims filed December 19, 2022. Claims 1-23 are pending, of which claims 1-13 are currently rejected.
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant's claim for foreign priority based on an application filed in Japan on 06/29/2020.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 01/26/2023 are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. It has been placed in the application file, and the information referred to therein has been considered as to the merits.
Specification
The abstract of the disclosure is objected to because the abstract contains reference numbers from the figures. A corrected abstract of the disclosure is required and must be presented on a separate sheet, apart from any other text. See MPEP § 608.01(b).
Applicant is reminded of the proper content of an abstract of the disclosure.
A patent abstract is a concise statement of the technical disclosure of the patent and should include that which is new in the art to which the invention pertains. The abstract should not refer to purported merits or speculative applications of the invention and should not compare the invention with the prior art.
If the patent is of a basic nature, the entire technical disclosure may be new in the art, and the abstract should be directed to the entire disclosure. If the patent is in the nature of an improvement in an old apparatus, process, product, or composition, the abstract should include the technical disclosure of the improvement. The abstract should also mention by way of example any preferred modifications or alternatives.
Where applicable, the abstract should include the following: (1) if a machine or apparatus, its organization and operation; (2) if an article, its method of making; (3) if a chemical compound, its identity and use; (4) if a mixture, its ingredients; (5) if a process, the steps. Extensive mechanical and design details of an apparatus should not be included in the abstract. The abstract should be in narrative form and generally limited to a single paragraph within the range of 50 to 150 words in length.
See MPEP § 608.01(b) for guidelines for the preparation of patent abstracts.
Claim Objections
Claims 5 and 13 are objected to because of the following informalities which recite grammatical issues:
Claim 5 line 2 “the divisor and the dividend” should be “the divisor value and the dividend value”. claim 2 line 6 "the multiple terms" should be "the two or more constraint terms" in order to avoid confusion
Claim 3 line 2 "a constraint terms" should be "the two or more constraint terms"
Claim 4 line 3 "the energy" should be "the energy function”
Claim 4 line 10 "the energy" should be "the energy function"
Claim 5 line 3 and line 5 "the energy should be "the energy function"
Claim 7 line 3 and 6 "the energy" should be "the energy function"
Claim 7 line 5 "the multiple terms" should be "the two or more constraint terms"
Claim 8 line 3 and 9 "the energy" should be "the energy function"
Claim 9 line 3 and 5 "the energy" should be "the energy function"
Claim 11 line 5 "the energy" should be "the energy function"
Claim 11 line 10 "the multiple terms" should be "the two or more constraint terms"
Claim 11 line 11 "the energy" should be "the energy function"
Claim 12 line 7 and line 14 "the energy" should be "the energy function"
Claim 13 lines 5, 7, 8 "the energy" should be "the energy function"
Claim 13 line 2 “the divisor and the dividend” should be “the divisor value and the dividend value”.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
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.
Claims 3-4, 8 and 12 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 3 recites the limitation “a constraint” in lines 3 and 4 of the claim. It is unclear if these mentions of “a constraint” is the same as the constraint recited in claim 2. For examination purposes, the mentions of constraint of claim 3 will be construed to be the same constraint as recited in claim 2. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 3 recites the limitation “the constraint” in line 5 of the claim. It is unclear which constraint this limitation is referring to, whether it be a constraint of claim 3 line 3, claim 3 line 4 or claim 2. For examination purposes, the constraint of claim 3 line 5 will be construed to be the same constraint as recited in claim 2. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 4 recites the limitation “the second order” in line 6 of the claim. There is lack of antecedent basis for this limitation. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 8 recites the limitation “the second order” in line 5 of the claim. There is lack of antecedent basis for this limitation. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 12 recites the limitation “the second order” in line 4 of the claim. There is lack of antecedent basis for this limitation. Appropriate correction is required.
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 1-13 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 statutory category of invention (machine).
At Step 2A, Prong 1, Examiner notes that the claim recites an abstract idea. Claim language recites determination of inconsistencies in constraints and conversion into an energy function. Below are the limitations of claim 1 that recite an abstract idea under mathematical concepts or mental steps:
determine whether or not there is inconsistency in an expression, which is to be converted into an energy function of a model representing states of individual spins by a first value or a second value, representing energy in a combinatorial optimization problem (mathematical concepts).
All limitations as indicated describe “mathematical concepts” or “mental steps”.
At Step 2A Prong 2, these are the additional elements recited in claim 1:
An inconsistency determination device
A memory configured to store instructions; and
A processor configured to execute the instructions
The processor and memory are generic computer components and do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application of the exception. See MPEP 2106.05(f). All additional elements represent no more than mere instructions to apply the judicial exception 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.
There are insignificant extra-solution activities that must be made of note:
To store instructions (insignificant extra-solution activity)
At Step 2B, there are no additional elements claimed that amount to significantly more than the recited judicial exception. These additional elements, both individually and in combination, are at best the equivalent of merely adding the words “apply it” to the judicial exception. Mere instructions to apply an exception cannot provide an inventive concept.
In regards to the insignificant extra-solution activity found in this limitation “to store instructions”, this action describes mere data gathering that is recited at a high level of generality. Per MPEP 2106.05(d)(II), the courts have recognized the following computer functions as well‐understood, routine, and conventional functions when they are claimed in a merely generic manner (e.g., at a high level of generality) or as insignificant extra-solution activity: iv. Storing and retrieving information in memory, Versata Dev. Group, Inc. v. SAP Am., Inc., 793 F.3d 1306, 1334, 115 USPQ2d 1681, 1701 (Fed. Cir. 2015); OIP Techs., 788 F.3d at 1363, 115 USPQ2d at 1092-93. This limitation therefore remains insignificant extra-solution activity even upon reconsideration. Thus, this limitation does not amount to significantly more.
The claim is not eligible.
Regarding claim 2, at Step 1, the claim is directed to a statutory category of invention (machine).
At Step 2A, Prong 1, Examiner notes that the claim recites an abstract idea. Below are the limitations of claim 2 that recite an abstract idea under mathematical concepts or mental steps:
divides the expression representing the energy into multiple terms (mathematical concepts);
extracts to or more constraint terms each of which is a term representing a constraint, from multiple terms (mathematical concepts)
determines that there is inconsistency in the expression representing the energy, when there is inconsistency between the constraints represented by the extracted two or more constraint terms (mathematical concepts).
All limitations as indicated describe “mathematical concepts” or “mental steps”.
At Step 2A Prong 2, these are no additional elements beyond those recited in claim 1.
The claim is not eligible.
Regarding claim 3, at Step 1, the claim is directed to a statutory category of invention (machine).
At Step 2A, Prong 1, Examiner notes that the claim recites an abstract idea. Below are the limitations of claim 3 that recite an abstract idea under mathematical concepts or mental steps:
Wherein the constraint represented by a constraint terms is represented by an expression (mathematical concepts), and
Wherein when substituting an expression representing a constraint into another expression representing a constraint results in inconsistency, determines that there is inconsistency between the constraint corresponding to the substituted expression and the constraint corresponding to the expression accepting substitution (mathematical concepts).
All limitations as indicated describe “mathematical concepts” or “mental steps”.
At Step 2A Prong 2, these are no additional elements beyond those recited in claim 2.
The claim is not eligible.
Regarding claim 4, at Step 1, the claim is directed to a statutory category of invention (machine).
At Step 2A, Prong 1, Examiner notes that the claim recites an abstract idea. Below are the limitations of claim 4 that recite an abstract idea under mathematical concepts or mental steps:
Divides the expression representing the energy into multiple terms (mathematical concepts);
For lowering order of variables representing the states of spins to the second order, in advance (mathematical concepts);
Determines whether or not there is a combination of terms obtained by division that corresponds to the expression stored in advance (mathematical concepts);
Specifies the auxiliary variable when there is a combination (mental steps); and
Determines that there is inconsistency in the expression representing the energy, when the auxiliary variable is used in a term that is not included in the combination (mathematical concepts).
All limitations as indicated describe “mathematical concepts” or “mental steps”. Specifying or identifying an auxiliary variable when there is a combination can be reasonably done in the human mind.
At Step 2A Prong 2, these are the additional elements recited in claim 4:
Stores an expression with an auxiliary variable
All additional elements represent no more than mere instructions to apply the judicial exception 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.
There are insignificant extra-solution activities that must be made of note:
Stores an expression with an auxiliary variable (insignificant extra-solution activity)
At Step 2B, there are no additional elements claimed that amount to significantly more than the recited judicial exception. These additional elements, both individually and in combination, are at best the equivalent of merely adding the words “apply it” to the judicial exception. Mere instructions to apply an exception cannot provide an inventive concept.
In regards to the insignificant extra-solution activity found in this limitation “stores an expression with an auxiliary variable”, this action describes mere data gathering that is recited at a high level of generality. Per MPEP 2106.05(d)(II), the courts have recognized the following computer functions as well‐understood, routine, and conventional functions when they are claimed in a merely generic manner (e.g., at a high level of generality) or as insignificant extra-solution activity: iv. Storing and retrieving information in memory, Versata Dev. Group, Inc. v. SAP Am., Inc., 793 F.3d 1306, 1334, 115 USPQ2d 1681, 1701 (Fed. Cir. 2015); OIP Techs., 788 F.3d at 1363, 115 USPQ2d at 1092-93. This limitation therefore remains insignificant extra-solution activity even upon reconsideration. Thus, this limitation does not amount to significantly more.
The claim is not eligible.
Regarding claim 5, at Step 1, the claim is directed to a statutory category of invention (machine).
At Step 2A, Prong 1, Examiner notes that the claim recites an abstract idea. Below are the limitations of claim 5 that recite an abstract idea under mathematical concepts or mental steps:
Determines that there is inconsistency in the expression representing the energy, when there is a variable that is not used in the expression representing the energy among each variable defined in the character string (mathematical concepts).
All limitations as indicated describe “mathematical concepts” or “mental steps”. Specifying or identifying an auxiliary variable when there is a combination can be reasonably done in the human mind.
At Step 2A Prong 2, these are the additional elements recited in claim 5:
The processor takes in the expression representing the energy and a character string defining each variable representing the states of spins.
All additional elements represent no more than mere instructions to apply the judicial exception 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.
There are insignificant extra-solution activities that must be made of note:
takes in the expression representing the energy and a character string (insignificant extra-solution activity)
At Step 2B, there are no additional elements claimed that amount to significantly more than the recited judicial exception. These additional elements, both individually and in combination, are at best the equivalent of merely adding the words “apply it” to the judicial exception. Mere instructions to apply an exception cannot provide an inventive concept.
In regards to the insignificant extra-solution activity found in this limitation “• takes in the expression representing the energy and a character string”, this action describes data inputting that is recited at a high level of generality. As is known in the art, inputting of data is a basic function of underlying hardware in any computer (Patterson, David A., and John L. Hennessy. Computer Organization and Design: The Hardware/Software Interface, edited by Peter J Ashenden, Elsevier Science & Technology, 2007, hereinafter “Patterson”: Pg. 15 Section 1.3 Lines 2-4). This limitation therefore remains insignificant extra-solution activity even upon reconsideration. Thus, this limitation does not amount to significantly more.
The claim is not eligible.
Claims 6-9 recites the method practiced by the apparatus of claims 1-2 and 4-5 respectively and are rejected for at least the same reasons therein. Herein, claims 6-9 are directed to the statutory category of method, thus also satisfying Step 1. Moreover, at Step 2A none of the additional elements regarding the generic computer components (“the computer”) are more than high level generic computer components that amount to mere instructions to apply the abstract idea on a generic computer. The additional elements at best are the equivalent of merely adding the words “apply it” to the judicial exception.
As disclosed in the claim in light of the specification, described are mere instructions to apply an exception, invoking the computing elements merely as a tool to perform an existing process. See MPEP 2105.06(f). Mere instructions to apply an exception cannot provide an inventive concept. The claim is not eligible.
Claims 10-13 recite the non-transitory computer readable medium having stored thereon instructions for the method practiced by the apparatus of claims 1-2 and 4-5 respectively and are rejected for at least the same reasons therein. Herein, claims 10-13 are directed to the statutory category of manufacture, thus also satisfying Step 1. Moreover, at Step 2A none of the additional elements regarding the generic computer components (“the non-transitory computer readable recording medium”, “the computer”) are more than high level generic computer components that amount to mere instructions to apply the abstract idea on a generic computer. The additional elements at best are the equivalent of merely adding the words “apply it” to the judicial exception.
As disclosed in the claim in light of the specification, described are mere instructions to apply an exception, invoking the computing elements merely as a tool to perform an existing process. See MPEP 2105.06(f). Mere instructions to apply an exception cannot provide an inventive concept. The claim is not eligible.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
Claims 1, 6, and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Irie et al. (US 2021/0232657 A1) (hereinafter “Irie”) further in view of Goswami et al. (US 2012/0253754 A1) (hereinafter “Goswami”).
Regarding claim 1, Irie teaches:
a memory configured to store instructions (Irie: ¶ 0081); and
a processor configured to execute the instructions (Irie: Fig. 1 computer for storing instructions)
which is to be converted into an energy function of a model representing states of individual spins by a first value or a second value, representing energy in a combinatorial optimization problem (Irie: ¶ 0028 expression for combinatorial optimization problem for energy function representing states of spins over a plurality of variables including first and second value, expression that needs to be solved with the use of constraints).
Irie does not explicitly teach determining whether an inconsistency is present in an expression.
Goswami teaches determining whether an inconsistency is present in an expression (Abstract; ¶ 0067 identifying inconsistencies in constraints from an objective function).
It would be obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the determination of an inconsistency being present as taught by Goswami with the apparatus as taught by Irie as both teachings are directed towards circuit design for mathematical computations. One with ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to combine the teachings because finding inconsistencies as early as possible can help to find an appropriate solution to the functional expression (Goswami: ¶ 0007-0008).
Claim 6 claims the method practiced by the apparatus of claim 1 and is therefore rejected for the same reasons therein.
Claim 10 claims the non-transitory computer readable medium having stored thereon the instructions for performing the method practiced by the apparatus recited in claim 1 and is therefore rejected for the same reasons therein.
Claims 2, 5, 7, 9, 11, and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Irie in view of Goswami, further in view of Shehab et al. (US 2020/0372094 A1) (hereinafter “Shehab”).
Regarding claim 2, while Irie teaches extraction of constraints (Irie: ¶ 0039), Irie does not explicitly teach the division of the expression into multiple terms or the determination of an inconsistency being present.
However, Goswami teaches the determination of an inconsistency being present (Goswami: ¶ 0028).
The motivation to combine with respect to claim 1 applies equally to claim 2.
Irie in view of Goswami does not explicitly teach the division of the expression into multiple terms.
However, Shehab teaches the division of terms into subgroupings of Hamiltonian expressions, i.e., multiple terms (Shehab: ¶ 0052).
It would be obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the division of the expression as taught by Shehab with the apparatus as taught by Irie in view of Goswami because all teachings are directed towards circuit design for mathematical computations. One with ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to combine the teachings because doing so would provide an improved method for obtaining a solution to an optimization problem (Shehab: ¶ 0063).
Regarding claim 5, while Irie in view of Goswami teaches the processor and determining of an inconsistency in the expression, Irie in view of Goswami does not explicitly teach having a character string define each variable representing the states of spins.
However, Shehab teaches a Pauli string i.e., character string for the representation of spin variables and states of spins (Shehab: ¶ 0044).
The motivation to combine with respect to claim 2 applies equally to claim 5.
Claims 7 and 9 claim the method practiced by the apparatus of claim 2 and 5 respectively and are therefore rejected for the same reasons therein.
Claims 11 and 13 claim the non-transitory computer readable medium having stored thereon the instructions for performing the method practiced by the apparatus recited in claim 12 and 5 respectively and are therefore rejected for the same reasons therein.
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Irie in view of Goswami, in view of Shehab further in view of P. Jeavons et al. ("A Substitution Operation for Constraints", 2005) (hereinafter “Jeavons”).
Regarding claim 3, while Irie in view of Goswami in view of Shehab teaches constraints and the processor determining an inconsistency, Irie in view of Goswami in view of Shehab does not explicitly teach inconsistencies being determined using substitution.
However, Jeavons teaches solving constraints by substitution to enforce consistency and detect any inconsistencies (Jeavons: Abstract), and shows substitution being used to enforce consistency (Pg. 7 Example 5; Pg. 8 Conclusion, possible to show no solutions exist in constraints i.e., inconsistencies are present).
It would be obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the substitution for inconsistency determination as taught by Jeavons with the apparatus as taught by Irie in view of Goswami in view of Shehab because all teachings are directed towards circuit design for mathematical computations. One with ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to combine the teachings because doing so would allow for simple means to more precisely search both solutions and inconsistencies (Jeavons: Pg. 1 Introduction Section last paragraph).
Claims 4, 8, and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Irie in view of Goswami, further in view of Shehab, further in view of Okudaira (US 2022/0092463 A1) (hereinafter “Okudaira”).
Regarding claim 4, while Irie in view of Goswami teaches the determination of inconsistencies in the constraint expressions, Irie in view of Goswami does not teach division of the expression into multiple terms.
However, Shehab teaches the division of terms into subgroupings of Hamiltonian expressions, i.e., multiple terms (Shehab: ¶ 0052).
The motivation to combine with respect to claim 2 applies equally to claim 4.
Irie in view of Goswami in view of Shehab does not explicitly teach auxiliary variables in order to lower the order of variables to a second order.
However, Okudaira teaches an auxiliary bit used to lower order of H term (Hamiltonian) to second order (Okudaira: ¶ 0049-0050), H term of Hamiltonian for Ising model function with terms representing states of spins (Okudaira: ¶ 0056-0057) and the auxiliary bit i.e., auxiliary variable used for lowering orders of the expression is stored in a truth table, and used for future integral calculations of H term expressions, some of which have been calculated in advance stored in memory (Okudaira: ¶ 0050-0055).
It would be obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the auxiliary variable as taught by Okudaira with the apparatus as taught by Irie in view of Goswami in view of Shehab because all teachings are directed towards circuit design for mathematical computation. One with ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to combine the teachings because values may be pre-computed, therefore yielding shorter execution times (Okudaira: ¶ 0050-0055).
Claim 8 claims the method practiced by the apparatus of claim 4 and is therefore rejected for the same reasons therein.
Claim 12 claims the non-transitory computer readable medium having stored thereon the instructions for performing the method practiced by the apparatus recited in claim 4 and is therefore rejected for the same reasons therein.
Prior Art Made of Record
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
A. Rahman, "The Defining Methods of Combinatorial Optimization", 2020 teaches the various processes for combinatorial optimization for finding solutions.
Susa et al. (US 2022/0292235 A1) teaches Hamiltonians and constraints used for determining states for a combinatorial optimization problem.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MARIA DE JESUS RIVERA whose telephone number is (571)272-2793. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 7:30AM-5PM.
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, James Trujillo can be reached at (571) 272-3677. 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.
/M.D.R./Examiner, Art Unit 2151
/James Trujillo/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2151
Prosecution Insights