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 FINAL and is in response to the amendment filed August 11th, 2026. Claims 1-3, 5-7, 9-11, and 13-14 are pending, of which claims 1-3, 5-7, 9-11, and 13-14 are currently rejected. Claims 4, 8, and 12 have been cancelled by Applicant.
Response to Arguments
The amendment filed August 11th, 2026 has been entered. Claims 1-3, 5-7, 9-11, and 13-14 remain pending in the application. Applicant’s amendments to the Claims have overcome each and every objection to the claims and specification as previously set forth in the Non-Final Office Action mailed June 24th, 2026.
Specification Objection
Applicant has amended the specification and therefore the previous objection to the specification has been withdrawn.
Claim Objections
Applicant has amended the claims, and therefore the previous claim objections have been withdrawn.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
New rejections under 35 USC § 112 have been made as necessitated by amendments.
See Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
Applicant has amended the claims, and therefore the previous rejection under 35 USC § 101 have been withdrawn.
Prior Art Rejections
Applicant has amended the claims, and therefore previous rejections under 35 USC § 103 have been withdrawn. However, new grounds of rejection have been made as necessitated by amendments.
See Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103.
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 1-3, 5-7, 9-11, and 13-14 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 recites the limitation “specifies the auxiliary variable and determines whether or not the auxiliary variable used in a term that is not included in the combination when there is the combination” on lines 14-15. The entirety of the clause is unclear as what is being referring to because of the lack of clarity in language. Examiner will construe the meaning of the clause to be determination of whether the auxiliary verb is present in a combination obtained by division of an expression representing the energy. Appropriate correction is required.
Claims 2-3 and 5 depend on claim 1 and are therefore also rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite.
Claim 6 recites the limitation “specifies the auxiliary variable and determines whether or not the auxiliary variable used in a term that is not included in the combination when there is the combination” on lines 12-13. The entirety of the clause is unclear as what is being referring to because of the lack of clarity in language. Examiner will construe the meaning of the clause to be determination of whether the auxiliary verb is present in a combination obtained by division of an expression representing the energy. Appropriate correction is required.
Claims 7 and 9 depend on claim 6 and are therefore also rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite.
Claim 10 recites the limitation “specifies the auxiliary variable and determines whether or not the auxiliary variable used in a term that is not included in the combination when there is the combination” on lines 17-18. The entirety of the clause is unclear as what is being referring to because of the lack of clarity in language. Examiner will construe the meaning of the clause to be determination of whether the auxiliary verb is present in a combination obtained by division of an expression representing the energy. Appropriate correction is required.
Claims 11 and 13 depend on claim 10 and are therefore also rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite.
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 1-2, 5-7, 9-11, and 13-14 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”), further in view of Shehab et al. (US 2020/0372094 A1) (hereinafter “Shehab”), further in view of Okudaira (US 2022/0092463 A1) (hereinafter “Okudaira”), further in view of Macready et al. (US 2011/0047201 A1) (hereinafter “Macready”).
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).
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 or storing of an expression or determination of the presence of an auxiliary variable for lowering an order of variables.
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).
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). With this auxiliary bit, a determination of whether it is present in a combination would be necessary in order for the corresponding lowering of an order to occur.
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).
Irie in view of Goswami in view of Shehav in view of Okudaira does not explicitly teach forgoing a computation i.e., annealing upon detection of an inconsistency that cannot be solved.
However, Macready teaches forgoing or stopping a computation i.e., annealing method in the case that an inconsistency that cannot be solved is detected (Macready: ¶ 0107).
In combining Macready with the rest of the cited references, the inconsistency is attempted to be resolved but in the case that the inconsistency is simply unsolvable (i.e., auxiliary variable is not included in a combination in order to solve the inconsistency) the computation i.e., the annealing as taught by Irie in view of Goswami in view of Shehab in view of Okudaira does not continue.
It would be obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the foregoing of computations as taught by Macready with the inconsistency determination device as taught by Irie in view of Goswami in view of Shehab in view of Okudaira in view of Macready as all teachings are directed towards the implementation for optimization computations. One with ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to combine the teachings because doing so would aid in more efficient use of computation power (Macready: ¶ 0023).
Therefore, Irie in view of Goswami in view of Shehab in view of Okudaira in view of Macready teaches:
An inconsistency determination device comprising:
a memory configured to store instructions; and
a processor configured to execute the instructions to:
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,
wherein the processor divides the expression representing the energy into multiple terms, and
wherein the processor
stores an expression with an auxiliary variable for lowering order of variables representing the states of spins to second order, in advance;
determines whether or not there is a combination of terms obtained by division that corresponds to the expression stored in advance;
specifies the auxiliary variable and determines whether or not the auxiliary variable used in a term that is not included in the combination when there is the combination;
determines that there is inconsistency in the expression representing the energy, when the auxiliary variable is used in the term that is not included in the combination; and
in accordance with a determination that there is inconsistency in the expression representing the energy, forgo performing annealing on the energy function.
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.
Claim 6 claims the method practiced by the apparatus of claim 1 and is therefore rejected for the same reasons therein.
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.
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 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.
Regarding claim 14, as discussed with respect to claim 1, in determining that no inconsistency is present in the computation (Goswami: Abstract; ¶ 0067 identifying inconsistencies in constraints from an objective function), the annealing computation of Irie may proceed as usual.
The motivation to combine with respect to claim 1 applies equally to claim 14.
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Irie in view of Goswami, in view of Shehab in view of Macready, 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).
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 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