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 .
Claim Objections
Claim 4 is objected to because of the following informalities:
For claim 4 on lines 9-10 of the page, “wherein coefficient setting unit” should be “wherein the coefficient setting unit” for clearer antecedent.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier.
Such claim limitation(s) is/are: coefficient setting unit and solution acquisition unit in claim 1.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
As to claim 1’s coefficient setting unit, the examiner interprets the means plus function limitation to the corresponding structure: processor performing an algorithm as disclosed in Fig. 3; pgs. 21-24 of the applicant’s specification.
As to claim 1’s solution acquisition unit, the examiner interprets the means plus function limitation to the corresponding structure: processor performing an algorithm as disclosed in Fig. 3; pgs. 21-24 of the applicant’s specification.
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 1-7 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 "a value of the constraint indicator" on line 11. It is unclear whether "a value of the constraint indicator" on line 11 is referring to "a value of the constraint indicator according to…" on line 8, or a new value according to a different factor. For examination purposes, the Examiner interprets "a value of the constraint indicator" on line 11 as a separate value of the constraint indicator.
Claims 2-5 are rejected for depending on claim 1 without correcting the deficiencies of claim 1 as discussed above.
Claim 4 recites the limitation "the value of the constraint indicator" on line 12-13. It is unclear whether "the value of the constraint indicator" is referring to "a value of the constraint indicator according to…" in claim 1 line 8 or “a value of the constraint indicator” in claim 1 line 11. For examination purposes, the Examiner interprets "the value of the constraint indicator" as referring to "a value of the constraint indicator" in claim 1 line 11.
Claims 6-7 are rejected for the same reasons as claim 1 discussed above.
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 1-7 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 an apparatus, 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 computation apparatus comprising: a coefficient setting unit configured to set, in a value of an objective function including a performance indicator representing performance of each candidate solution (mathematical relationship) and a constraint indicator representing a degree of each candidate solution satisfying a constraint condition (mathematical relationship), a value of a coefficient for adjusting a degree of impact between a value of the performance indicator and a value of the constraint indicator according to a value of the performance indicator related to a first candidate solution satisfying the constraint condition (mathematical relationship), a value of the performance indicator related to a second candidate solution unsatisfying the constraint condition (mathematical relationship), and a value of the constraint indicator (mathematical relationship);
and a solution acquisition unit configured to search for a solution to a problem to be solved using the objective function which the value of the coefficient is set to (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 coefficient setting unit and solution acquisition unit are merely generic computer components performing the algorithm such that it is the equivalent of reciting “apply it” to the judicial exception. 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 coefficient setting unit and solution acquisition unit 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 claims 2-5, the claims merely recite functions for setting the coefficient, performing a solution search, and the constraint indicator that further mathematically limit the mathematical relationships, 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 6, the claim is directed to a computation method that would be practiced by the apparatus of claims 1. All steps performed by the method of claim 6 is executed by the apparatus in claims 1 as configured. The analysis of claim 1 applies equally to claims 6.
Regarding claim 7, the claim is directed to a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium that would be practiced by the apparatus of claims 1. All steps performed by the non-transitory computer-readable storage medium of claim 7 is executed by the apparatus in claims 1 as configured. The analysis of claim 1 applies equally to claims 7.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-7 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejections under 35 USC 101 set forth in this Office Action.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
As to claims 1, 6-7, the prior art of record does not teach or suggest a combination as claimed including: a value of a coefficient for adjusting a degree of impact between a value of the performance indicator and a value of the constraint indicator according to a value of the performance indicator related to a first candidate solution satisfying the constraint condition, a value of the performance indicator related to a second candidate solution unsatisfying the constraint condition, and a value of the constraint indicator;
Cao et al. (US 20210034998 A1, hereinafter “Cao”) discloses a hybrid quantum-classical computer generating Hamiltonians as a basis for the annealing process (Fig. 2B; [0096]). Cao further discloses the Hamiltonian is computed with the Lucas formulation with three terms of energy penalty ([0057]-[0059]). Cao does not suggest computation of the coefficient including a corresponding performance indicator related to a candidate solution not satisfying the constraint condition. Therefore, Cao does not teach or suggest a combination as claimed including the limitations identified above.
Takatsu (US 20220138378 A1, hereinafter “Takatsu”) discloses a cost function representing travel distance between cities (Expression 4; [0051]) to solve a discrete optimization having a constraint condition and searching for variables that satisfy the constraint condition (abstract; [0015]). Takatsu does not suggest computation of the correction value including a corresponding performance indicator related to a candidate solution not satisfying the constraint condition. Therefore, Takatsu does not teach or suggest a combination as claimed including the limitations identified above.
Shimokawa (US 20190325320 A1, hereinafter “Shimokawa”) discloses modifying the parameter so that the individual candidates conform the pre-constraint condition (Fig. 2; [0056]). Shimokawa does not suggest evaluating a value corresponding to a constraint indicator. Therefore, Shimokawa does not teach or suggest a combination as claimed including the limitations identified above.
Brandt et al. (Alternative Networks for Solving the Traveling Salesman Problem and the List-Matching Problem, hereinafter “Brandt”) discloses a modified penalty function for solving the Traveling Salesman Problem (pg. 335). Brandt does not suggest evaluating a value corresponding to a coefficient including a corresponding performance indicator related to a candidate solution not satisfying the constraint condition. Therefore, Brandt does not teach or suggest a combination as claimed including the limitations identified above.
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
/Carlo Waje/Examiner, Art Unit 2151
Prosecution Insights