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
Claims 1-12 are objected to because of the following informalities: Claims 1, 5, and 9 recite in the last limitation “updating the first local field based on the second local field before the updating and the second local field after the updating.” There appears to be a typo present in for the underlined word, which should likely instead read “of” (resulting in the limitation stating “before the updating of the second local field”). Absent this change, the language used does not make sense. It is being interpreted to read as the corrected version for the purpose of examination.
Claims 2-4, 6-8, and 10-12 inherit the issue and do not correct it.
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 1-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea (mental processes and mathematical relationships) without significantly more. Claim 1 recites:
A data processing apparatus comprising: (this falls within the statutory categories of invention)
one or more memories; and one or more processors coupled to the one or more memories and the one or more processors configured to: (generic computer components being invoked merely as tools to carry out the claimed steps, equivalent to mere instructions to apply an exception with generic computer components as per MPEP 2106.05(f).)
search for a combination of values of a plurality of state variables that minimizes or maximizes a value of an Ising-type evaluation function that includes the plurality of state variables, (this search is done by mathematical algorithms, and the maximizing or minimizing a value is done by setting numerical constraints on the mathematical algorithms. This all falls within the scope of mathematical relationships.)
store total energy that is a sum of a plurality of constraint terms and the value of the evaluation function, the values of the plurality of state variables, a first weight value between each of the plurality of state variables, a second weight value between one of the plurality of state variables and each of a plurality of constraint conditions, a first local field, and a second local field in the one or more memories, (storing data in memory falls within the scope of generic computer components being recited in a manner that amounts to mere instructions to apply the exception as per MPEP 2106.05(f). The remainder of the features enumerated are mathematical variables and numerical values that are used for mathematical calculations, and fall within the scope of mathematical relationships.)
the plurality of constraint terms including values that correspond to whether each of the plurality of constraint conditions is violated, the first local field indicating a first change amount of the total energy when a value of each of the plurality of state variables changes, the second local field being used to specify a constraint violation amount for each of the plurality of the constraint conditions, and (further details of the mathematical calculations, algorithms, and variables. All of this falls within the scope of mathematical relationships.)
repeat determining whether to permit a change in a value of a first state variable among the plurality of state variables based on the first local field, and (this is done by checking mathematical inequalities, and proceeding with further calculations according to the mathematical algorithm this step defines. This falls within the scope of mathematical relationships. Alternatively, a person could observe the results of the mathematical calculation output, and make a mental determination on whether to permit changes.)
when the change in the value of the first state variable is permitted, updating the first local field based on the first weight value, updating the second local field that corresponds to a constraint condition in which the second weight value with the first state variable is non-zero based on the second weight value, and updating the first local field based on the second local field before the updating and the second local field after the updating. (The updating is just performing further mathematical calculations based on the numerical variables, and the details here are equivalent to specifying a mathematical algorithm to be performed. This all falls within the scope of mathematical relationships.)
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim only recites the following additional elements: 1) mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components (the processor/memory). The processor/memory is recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as a generic processor/memory performing a generic computer function of executing instructions and storing data) such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Accordingly, this additional element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to an abstract idea.
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional element of using a processor/memory to perform the claimed steps amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. The claim is not patent eligible.
Claims 2-4 recite only further details of the mathematical algorithm and numerical calculation details. These features remain within the scope of mathematical relationships, and the above discussed rationale applies equally to these claims. They remain ineligible.
Claims 5-8 are substantially similar to claims 1-4 respectively, and are rejected under the same grounds as claims 1-4 above.
Claims 9-12 are substantially similar to claims 1-4 respectively, and are rejected under the same grounds as claims 1-4 above.
Following a complete review of the specification, examiner is unable to provide any recommendations for how to render the claims eligible without introducing unsupported new matter.
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.
Claims 1-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Tamura (EP 3757908 A1, cited by applicant on the IDS dated 9/22/2023.).
Regarding Claim 1, Tamura teaches:
one or more memories; and one or more processors coupled to the one or more memories and the one or more processors configured to: (¶182 The CPU 111 is a processor that controls the information processing device 110. The CPU 111 executes a program stored in the memory 112.)
search for a combination of values of a plurality of state variables that minimizes or maximizes a value of an Ising-type evaluation function that includes the plurality of state variables, (¶16 An optimization device 10 searches for values (ground state) of each state variable when an energy function is a minimum value, among combinations (states) of respective values of a plurality of state variables corresponding to a plurality of spins included in an Ising model obtained by converting a problem of a calculation target.)
store total energy that is a sum of a plurality of constraint terms and the value of the evaluation function, (¶45-46 At this time, an objective function Etot(x) corresponding to the total energy is represented by [see equation 11] … The function C(x) is a sum of products of a constraint excess amount for an inequality constraint and an importance coefficient λi, for all inequality constraints and is represented by [see equation 12])
the values of the plurality of state variables, (¶16 An optimization device 10 searches for values (ground state) of each state variable)
a first weight value between each of the plurality of state variables, (¶31 The state holding unit 11 holds values of a plurality of state variables included in an evaluation function (energy function E(x) described above) representing energy and a weight value of each set of the state variables)
a second weight value between one of the plurality of state variables and each of a plurality of constraint conditions, (¶53 A magnitude (weight) of influence of the state variable xj on the inequality constraint k is represented by a coupling coefficient akj. The coupling coefficient akj is given as an element of the matrix W described above.)
a first local field, and (¶23 hi is referred to as a local field and is represented by [see equation 3]; ¶40 storing the local field hi corresponding to each of the K inequality constraint variables.; ¶54 by setting the coupling coefficient akj to an asymmetric coupling coefficient (that is, akj ≠ 0, ajk = 0), the influence of the inequality constraint variable xk on the local field of the state variable may be suppressed.)
a second local field in the one or more memories, (¶56 The local field hk of the inequality constraint variable xk (k ∈ Ω) is represented by [see equation 13]; ¶57 by comparing the local field hk with upper and lower limits of the inequality constraint, a satisfaction situation of the inequality constraint is obtained.)
the plurality of constraint terms including values that correspond to whether each of the plurality of constraint conditions is violated, (¶46 The function C(x) is a sum of products of a constraint excess amount for an inequality constraint and an importance coefficient λi, for all inequality constraints and is represented by [see equation 12])
the first local field indicating a first change amount of the total energy when a value of each of the plurality of state variables changes, (¶22 If a value of a state variable xi changes to become 1-xi, an increase amount of the state variable xi is represented by δxi = (1 - xi) - xi = 1 - 2xi. Therefore, an energy change ΔEi accompanying a spin inversion (change in value) of the state variable xi is expressed by equation 2 for the energy function E(x).[see equation 2]; ¶23 hi is referred to as a local field; ¶32 If any value of a plurality of state variables held in the state holding unit 11 changes, the energy change calculation unit 12 calculates a change value of energy in a case where each of the values of the plurality of state variables is set as a next change candidate based on the values of the plurality of state variables and the weight values.)
the second local field being used to specify a constraint violation amount for each of the plurality of the constraint conditions, and (¶60 ΔCj is generated based on equation 15 by using a current value of the local field hi of the inequality constraint variable xi (i ∈ Ω). [see equation 15])
repeat determining whether to permit a change in a value of a first state variable among the plurality of state variables based on the first local field, and when the change in the value of the first state variable is permitted, updating the first local field based on the first weight value, (¶24 A change amount δhi (j) of the local field hi at the time of change in the state variable xj (bit inversion) is represented by [see equation 4])
updating the second local field that corresponds to a constraint condition in which the second weight value with the first state variable is non-zero based on the second weight value, and (¶57 a value of the local field hk corresponding to the inequality constraint variable xk is updated to a latest value according to inversion of the normal state variable. In addition, by comparing the local field hk with upper and lower limits of the inequality constraint, a satisfaction situation of the inequality constraint is obtained.; ¶54 an asymmetric coupling coefficient (that is, akj ≠ 0, ajk = 0); ¶175 The asymmetric coupling coefficient may be represented as Wkj ≠ 0)
updating the first local field based on the second local field before the updating and the second local field after the updating. (¶32 If any value of a plurality of state variables held in the state holding unit 11 changes, the energy change calculation unit 12 calculates a change value of energy in a case where each of the values of the plurality of state variables is set as a next change candidate based on the values of the plurality of state variables and the weight values.; ¶56 The local field hk of the inequality constraint variable xk (k ∈ Ω) is represented by [see equation 13]; ¶57 by comparing the local field hk with upper and lower limits of the inequality constraint, )
Regarding Claim 2, Tamura teaches:
wherein the first local field is represented by a difference between a second change amount of the value of the evaluation function and a sum total of a third change amounts of each of the plurality of constraint terms when the value of each of the plurality of state variables changes. (¶22 If a value of a state variable xi changes to become 1-xi, an increase amount of the state variable xi is represented by δxi = (1 - xi) - xi = 1 - 2xi. Therefore, an energy change ΔEi accompanying a spin inversion (change in value) of the state variable xi is expressed by equation 2 for the energy function E(x).[see equation 2]; ¶23 hi is referred to as a local field ... [see equation 3]; ¶32 If any value of a plurality of state variables held in the state holding unit 11 changes, the energy change calculation unit 12 calculates a change value of energy in a case where each of the values of the plurality of state variables is set as a next change candidate based on the values of the plurality of state variables and the weight values.)
Regarding Claim 3, Tamura teaches:
when the change in the value of the first state variable is permitted, updating the first local field based on a difference between the third change amount acquired by using the second local field before the updating and the third change amount acquired by using the second local field after the updating. (¶24 A change amount δhi (j) of the local field hi at the time of change in the state variable xj (bit inversion) is represented by [see equation 4]; ¶32 If any value of a plurality of state variables held in the state holding unit 11 changes, the energy change calculation unit 12 calculates a change value of energy in a case where each of the values of the plurality of state variables is set as a next change candidate based on the values of the plurality of state variables and the weight values.; ¶56 The local field hk of the inequality constraint variable xk (k ∈ Ω) is represented by [see equation 13]; ¶57 by comparing the local field hk with upper and lower limits of the inequality constraint, )
Regarding Claim 4, Tamura teaches:
wherein the plurality of constraint terms is represented by at least one function selected from a step function, a Max function, and a combination of the step function and the Max function. (¶46 The function C(x) is a sum of products of a constraint excess amount for an inequality constraint and an importance coefficient λi, for all inequality constraints and is represented by [see equation 12] … In addition, a max operator indicates a maximum value of the arguments)
Regarding Claims 5-8:
Claims 5-8 are substantially similar to claims 1-4 respectively, and are rejected under the same grounds as claims 1-4 above.
Regarding Claims 9-12:
Claims 9-12 are substantially similar to claims 1-4 respectively, and are rejected under the same grounds as claims 1-4 above.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
US 20220405347 A1 describes analyzing Ising evaluation functions with inequality constraint conditions.
US 20210365605 A1 describes minimizing the energy of the Ising model that is searched for with state variables and weight factors.
US 20190286077 A1 describes analyzing states of an Ising model while accounting for local fields, using weight coefficients.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BIJAN MAPAR whose telephone number is (571)270-3674. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Thursday, 11:00-8:30.
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, Rehana Perveen can be reached at 571-272-3676. 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.
/BIJAN MAPAR/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2189
Prosecution Insights