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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement filed 09 January 2023 fails to comply with 37 CFR 1.98(a)(3)(i) because non-patent literature (NPL) documents #2-5 are not in the English language, and therefore do not include a concise explanation of the relevance, as it is presently understood by the individual designated in 37 CFR 1.56(c) most knowledgeable about the content of the information, of each reference listed that is not in the English language.
It has been placed in the application file, but the information referred to therein has not been considered as to the merits. Applicant is advised that the date of any re-submission of any item of information contained in this information disclosure statement or the submission of any missing element(s) will be the date of submission for purposes of determining compliance with the requirements based on the time of filing the statement, including all certification requirements for statements under 37 CFR 1.97(e). See MPEP § 609.05(a).
Specification
The abstract of the disclosure is objected to because of its inclusion of legal phraseology and reference characters. 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).
The title of the invention is not descriptive. A new title is required that is clearly indicative of the invention to which the claims are directed.
The specification is objected to as failing to provide proper antecedent basis for the claimed subject matter. See 37 CFR 1.75(d)(1) and MPEP § 608.01(o). Correction of the following is required: the recitation of “non-transitory computer-readable recording medium” in claims 9-11 lacks antecedent basis from the specification. Examiner suggests amending the specification to include “non-transitory computer-readable recording medium” in the description of the computer-readable recording medium. No new matter would be considered as entered.
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 1-11 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 recites the limitation "the energy function of a model" in lines 5-6. This limitation renders the metes and bounds of the claim indefinite as it is unclear if this is meant to antecedently refer back to “an energy function” in lines 4-5 or if it’s meant that annealing is executed using an energy function and an energy function of a model representing states of individuals spins. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For purposes of examination, it is interpreted as a separate energy function distinct from the first instance.
Claim 1 further recites the limitation “the given solution” in line 12, however, there is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claims 2-5 inherit the same deficiency by reasons of dependence.
Corresponding claims 6 and 9 recite the same limitations as claim 1. Claims 6 and 9 are similarly rejected. Claims 7-8 inherit the same deficiency by reasons of dependence on claim 6. Claims 10-11 inherit the same deficiency by reasons of dependence on claim 9.
Claim 3 recites the limitation “the given solution” in line 1, p. 4, however, there is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Claim 4 inherits the same deficiency by reasons of dependence.
Corresponding claims 8 and 11 recite the same limitations as claim 3. Claims 8 and 11 are similarly rejected.
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 1-2, 5-7, 9-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed
invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Regarding claim 1, under the Alice Framework Step 1 Analysis, the claim falls
within the four statutory categories of patentable subject matter: an apparatus.
Under the Alice Framework Step 2A Prong 1 Analysis, claim 1 recites
Mathematical Concepts and/or Mental Processes. The claim recites Mathematical
Calculations, which is specifically identified as an exemplar in the Mathematical
Concepts grouping of abstract ideas, and/or recites Evaluations, which is specifically
identified as an exemplar in the Mental Processes grouping of abstract ideas:
“execute annealing using an energy function, when a solution to a combinatorial optimization problem, and the energy function of a model representing states of individual spins by a first value or a second value which is used to obtain the solution are given, and derive multiple new solutions to the combinatorial optimization problem, and
determine a solution from among the multiple solutions derived by based on a solution determination rule for determining a solution among the multiple new solutions and the given solution to the combinatorial optimization problem.”
See specification ([0011-0016], [0033]) describing executing annealing. See specification ([0042-0045]) describing determining a solution. The limitations “executing annealing” and “determining a solution” under the broadest reasonable interpretation cover performance in the mind. That is, nothing in the claim element precludes the limitations from practicality being performed in the human mind. For example, the claim encompasses solving a combinatorial optimization problem, deriving multiple solutions, and selecting one based on certain criteria, which when done with pen and paper, is shown in the equations disclosed in the above cited paragraphs. For these reasons, the claim recites Mathematical Concepts and/or Mental Processes.
Under the Alice Framework Step 2A Prong 2 Analysis, the claim recites the combination of the following additional elements: a memory configured to store instructions; a processor configured to execute the instructions. The memory and processor are recited at a high level of generality, and are examples of generic computing elements, and/or merely generally linked to a particular technological environment (see MPEP 2106.05(h)(vi): Limiting the abstract idea of collecting information, analyzing it, and displaying certain results of the collection analysis to data related to the electric power grid, because limiting application of the abstract idea to power-grid monitoring is simply an attempt to limit the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment). Further, it is recited at a high-level of generality such that it amounts to no more than mere instructions using a generic computer component or merely as tools to implement the abstract idea or merely reciting the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception. (See MPEP2106.05(f): Mere Instructions to Apply an Exception). The “to store instructions” and “to execute the instructions to” are examples of insignificant extra-solution activity, mere data gathering (see MPEP 2106.05(g): Insignificant Extra-Solution Activity). Taken alone or in combination, they fail to integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Under the Alice Framework Step 2B Analysis, the additional elements recited above, taken alone or in combination, do not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed in the Step 2A Prong 2 Analysis, the claim recites limitations described above as recited at a high level of generality merely results in “apply it” on a computer (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception. The limitations
described above as an insignificant extra-solution activity are also well-understood, routine, or conventional (for storing: see MPEP 2106.05(d)(II)(iv): Storing and retrieving information in memory; for executing: see MPEP 2106.05(d)(II)(ii): Performing repetitive
calculations). Since the claim does not include additional elements that, alone or in combination, amount to significantly more than the judicial exception, claim 1 is ineligible.
Claims 2 and 5 merely further limit the abstract idea, the Mathematical Concepts
and/or Mental Processes. Claims 2 and 5 do no recite any new additional elements.
Claims 6-7 are directed to a method that would be performed by the apparatus of claims 1-2. The claims 1-2 analysis similarly applies, and claims 6-7 are similarly rejected.
Regarding claim 9, under the Alice Framework Step 1 Analysis, the claim falls
within the four statutory categories of patentable subject matter: a computer program product.
Under the Alice Framework Step 2A Prong 1 Analysis, claim 9 recites
Mathematical Concepts and/or Mental Processes. The claim recites Mathematical
Calculations, which is specifically identified as an exemplar in the Mathematical
Concepts grouping of abstract ideas, and/or recites Evaluations, which is specifically
identified as an exemplar in the Mental Processes grouping of abstract ideas:
“execute annealing using an energy function, when a solution to a combinatorial optimization problem, and the energy function of a model representing states of individual spins by a first value or a second value which is used to obtain the solution are given, and derive multiple new solutions to the combinatorial optimization problem, and
determine a solution from among the multiple solutions derived by based on a solution determination rule for determining a solution among the multiple new solutions and the given solution to the combinatorial optimization problem.”
See specification ([0011-0016], [0033]) describing executing annealing. See specification ([0042-0045]) describing determining a solution. The limitations “executing annealing” and “determining a solution” under the broadest reasonable interpretation cover performance in the mind. That is, nothing in the claim element precludes the limitations from practicality being performed in the human mind. For example, the claim encompasses solving a combinatorial optimization problem, deriving multiple solutions, and selecting one based on certain criteria, which when done with pen and paper, is shown in the equations disclosed in the above cited paragraphs. For these reasons, the claim recites Mathematical Concepts and/or Mental Processes.
Under the Alice Framework Step 2A Prong 2 Analysis, the claim recites the combination of the following additional elements: the solution program causes a computer to execute. The solution program and computer are recited at a high level of generality, and are examples of generic computing elements, and/or merely generally linked to a particular technological environment (see MPEP 2106.05(h)(vi): Limiting the abstract idea of collecting information, analyzing it, and displaying certain results of the collection analysis to data related to the electric power grid, because limiting application of the abstract idea to power-grid monitoring is simply an attempt to limit the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment). Further, it is recited at a high-level of generality such that it amounts to no more than mere instructions using a generic computer component or merely as tools to implement the abstract idea or merely reciting the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception. (See MPEP2106.05(f): Mere Instructions to Apply an Exception). Taken alone or in combination, they fail to integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Under the Alice Framework Step 2B Analysis, the additional elements recited above, taken alone or in combination, do not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed in the Step 2A Prong 2 Analysis, the claim recites limitations described above as recited at a high level of generality merely results in “apply it” on a computer (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception. Since the claim does not include additional elements that, alone or in combination, amount to significantly more than the judicial exception, claim 9 is ineligible.
Claim 10 is directed to a computer program product that would be executed by the apparatus of claim 2. The claim 2 analysis similarly applies, and claim 10 is similarly rejected.
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)(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.
(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.
Claims 1-2, 5-7, 9-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and (a)(2) as being anticipated by US 20150205759 A1 Israel et al. (hereinafter “Israel”).
Regarding claim 1, Israel discloses a solution system comprising:
a memory (Fig. 14 “1415” [0213]) configured to store instructions ([0213] instructions); and
a processor (Fig. 14 “1440” [0217]; Fig. 15 “1500” [0226, 0233]) configured to execute the instructions ([0233]) to:
execute annealing using an energy function ([0113], [0124]), when a solution (Fig. 3 “310” [0103] solution; Fig. 6 “310” [0117-0118]) to a combinatorial optimization problem ([0077], [0105], [0112]), and the energy function of a model representing states of individual spins by a first value or a second value which is used to obtain the solution are given ([0010] ising model with spin variable
s
i
∈
{
-
1
,
1
}
; other examples in [0059] vertices of graph, [0063-0064], [0072-0073], [0081-0083], [0106]), and derive multiple new solutions to the combinatorial optimization problem (Fig. 3 “312” [0103]; Fig. 6 “312” [0119-0121]), and
determine a solution from among the multiple solutions derived by the processor (Fig. 6 “610” of “312” [0121] solution deemed highest value among comparison), based on a solution determination rule for determining a solution among the multiple new solutions (Fig. 6 “610” of “312” [0121]) and the given solution to the combinatorial optimization problem (Fig. 3 “310” [0103] solution; Fig. 6 “310” [0117-0118]; [0104] iterates over 306-316).
Regarding claim 2, the teachings addressed in the claim 1 analysis and rejection are incorporated, and Israel discloses the system wherein:
the processor (Fig. 14 “1440” [0217]; Fig. 15 “1500” [0226, 0233]) derives the multiple new solutions (Fig. 3 “312” [0103]; Fig. 6 “312” [0119-0121]) by executing annealing multiple times using the energy function ([0123-0124]).
Regarding claim 5, the teachings addressed in the claim 1 analysis and rejection are incorporated, and Israel discloses the system wherein:
wherein the solution determination rule includes information indicating a constraint that the solution must satisfy (Fig. 6 “610” of “312” comparing to find maximum [0121]).
Claims 6-7 are directed to a method that would be performed by the apparatus of claims 1-2. The claims 1-2 analysis similarly applies, and claims 6-7 are similarly rejected.
Claims 9-10 are directed to a computer program product that would be executed by the apparatus of claims 1-2. The claims 1-2 analysis similarly applies, and claims 9-10 are similarly rejected.
Claim 9 additionally recites the following limitations: wherein the solution program causes a computer to execute.
Israel disclose wherein the solution program ([0208] program modules) causes a computer to execute ([0088-0089]; [0208] digital computer 1401).
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 3, 8, 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Israel as applied to claims 1, 6, 9 above, and further in view of T. Okuyama, C. Yoshimura, M. Hayashi, and M. Yamaoka, “Computing architecture to perform approximated simulated annealing for ising models,” in 2016 IEEE International Conference on Rebooting Computing (ICRC), Oct 2016, pp. 1–8. (hereinafter “Okuyama”).
Regarding claim 3, the teachings addressed in the claim 1 analysis and rejection are incorporated, and Israel discloses the system wherein:
the processor (Fig. 14 “1440” [0217]; Fig. 15 “1500” [0226, 0233]) executes simulated annealing using the energy function ([0123-0124]), and
defines state of each spin obtained as on-going status of the simulated annealing, whose energy value is lower than an energy value of the given solution (Fig. 3 “310” [0103] solution; Fig. 6 “310” [0117-0119]; [0121] current value of the lower bound) to the combinatorial optimization problem as a solution candidate ([0121] newly obtained lower bound),
the processor
determines the solution candidate obtained first to be a provisional solution ([0121] newly obtained lower bound not yet finalized until iteration is complete),
repeats determining ([0119]) which of a new solution candidate and the provisional solution conforms better ([0120]) to the solution determination rule when the new solution candidate is obtained ([0121]), and updating the provisional solution with the new solution candidate when the new solution candidate conforms to the solution determination rule better than the provisional solution ([0121] maximum of two values becomes new lower bound), and
determines the provisional solution at the point in time when an iterative process to update the provisional solution is stopped, as the solution ([0117-0121]).
Although Israel generally discloses spins, they appear to be silent with disclosing defines state of each spin obtained as on-going status.
Okuyama discloses defines state of each spin obtained as on-going status (p. 2, sec. II, ⁋1-2).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Israel’s spin features with it being used as an indicator for status updates as disclosed by Okuyama’s features because they are in the claimed invention’s same field of endeavor of solving combinatorial optimization problems (Abstract). Modifying with Okuyama’s spin status feature would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art as this continual updating provides more accurate measurements of data for computations (p. 2, sec. II, ⁋2), thereby retaining information about previous and current spin states provides a greater level of knowledge of the system. Using Okuyama’s features to provide a predictable level of performance improvements in Israel’s spin features before the effective filing date would have been obvious since one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that Israel’s device was ready for improvement to incorporate the spin updating features for yielding up to date calculations and greater knowledge of the system, as doing so would be beneficial.
Claim 8 is directed to a method that would be performed by the apparatus of claim 3. The claim 3 analysis similarly applies, and claim 8 is similarly rejected.
Claim 11 is directed to a computer program product that would be executed by the apparatus of claim 3. The claim 3 analysis similarly applies, and claim 11 is similarly rejected.
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Israel in view of Okuyama as applied to claim 3 above, and further in view of US 20200401650 A1 Chen et al. (hereinafter “Chen”).
Regarding claim 4, the teachings addressed in the claim 3 analysis and rejection are incorporated, and Israel discloses the system wherein:
the processor (Fig. 14 “1440” [0217]; Fig. 15 “1500” [0226, 0233]) presents the provisional solution ([0121] newly obtained lower bound not yet finalized until iteration is complete) to a user each time a new provisional solution is obtained ([0121] maximum of two values becomes new lower bound),
wherein the processor,
when an instruction to stop the iterative process ([0119]) to update the provisional solution ([0121]) is input by a user, stops the iterative process, and determines the provisional solution at the point in time as the solution ([0117-0121]).
Although Israel discloses determining the solutions, they appear to be silent to disclosing presenting to a user each time, and when an instruction to stop is input by the user, stop, and determine at the point in time as the solution.
Okuyama appears to be silent to disclosing presenting to a user each time, and when an instruction to stop is input by the user, stop, and determine at the point in time as the solution.
Chen discloses presenting to a user each time ([0188]), and when an instruction ([0038]) to stop is input by the user, stop, and determine at the point in time as the solution ([0035] time constraints as programmed by second user).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Israel in view of Okuyama’s solution obtaining features with it being influenced by a user as disclosed by Chen’s features because they are in the claimed invention’s same field of endeavor of solving combinatorial optimization problems ([Abstract]). Modifying with Chen’s user-based feature would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art as this provides greater configurability for users less knowledgeable in the field to formulate such complex problems ([0023]), thereby improving accessibility and configurability to solving applicable optimization problems based on need-specific cases ([0032-0034]). Using Chen’s features to provide a predictable level of performance improvements in Israel in view of Okuyama’s solution obtaining features before the effective filing date would have been obvious since one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that Israel in view of Okuyama’s device was ready for improvement to incorporate the user-based features for yielding greater accessibility to configuring optimization problems for their specific needs, as doing so would be beneficial.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MARKUS A VILLANUEVA whose telephone number is (703)756-1603. The examiner can normally be reached M - F 8:30 am - 5:30 pm.
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.
/MARKUS ANTHONY VILLANUEVA/Examiner, Art Unit 2151
/James Trujillo/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2151
Prosecution Insights