DETAILED ACTION
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 02/24/2023. Claims 1-15 are currently pending, of which claims 1, 3-8 and 10-15 are currently rejected. Claims 2 and 9 are currently objected.
Specification
The title of the invention is not descriptive. An “INFORMATION PROCESSING METHOD, STORAGE MEDIUM, AND INFORMATION PROCESSING APPARATUS” could be any form of processing apparatus processing generic data, and is not descriptive of the parameter search method for optimization processing disclosed in the instant application. A new title is required that is clearly indicative of the invention to which the claims are directed.
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 3-7 and 10-14 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 "the first number". It is unclear if Applicant intends this “first number” to be the first number of iteration of claim 1, or another number. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claims 4-7 also recite “the first number”. They are rejected for the same reason as claim 3.
Claim 10 recites the limitation "the first number". It is unclear if Applicant intends this “first number” to be the first number of iteration of claim 8, or another number. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claims 11-14 also recite “the first number”. They are rejected for the same reason as claim 10.
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 1-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because they are directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Regarding Claim 1, at Step 1 the claim is directed to a method, which is a statutory category of invention.
At Step 2A, Prong 1, Examiner notes the claims are directed to mathematical concepts:
An information processing method for a computer to execute a process comprising:
searching for a first parameter for searching for a solution by using an evaluation function included in an Ising model (mathematical calculations/relationships);
acquiring an evaluation value of the first parameter based on an energy value of the evaluation function obtained by executing the searching for the solution by using the first parameter and a time period to reach the energy value (mathematical calculations/relationships);
determining a first number of iterations for determining that the searching the first parameter converges based on at least one selected from a best evaluation value after the searching the first parameter for a certain number of iterations, a number of bits included in the evaluation function, a type of a constraint included in the evaluation function, and a number of the constraint (mathematical calculations/relationships);
and when the best evaluation value is not updated during the searching for the first parameter for the first number of iterations, determining a second parameter which leads to the best evaluation value and ending the searching the first parameter (mathematical calculations/relationships).
At Step 2A Prong 2, the additional elements are bolded above. These additional elements are merely an “apply it” scenario using generically recited computer components. See MPEP 2106.05(f). In the “for a computer to execute” limitation, the claim is simply using generic processing devices to perform the mathematical calculations/relationships (parameter search process).
At Step 2B, the additional elements do not, alone or in combination, amount to significantly more than the recited judicial exception. As explained in the step 2A prong 2 analysis, the additional elements 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.
Claim 2 further recites the mathematical concept of searching a solution using the evaluation function and the second parameter (mathematical calculations/relationships). Under Steps 2A prong 2 and 2B, the claim does not recite any additional elements that integrate the abstract idea into a practical application nor do they amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Claim 3 further recites the mathematical concept of determining the first number (mathematical calculations/relationships). Under Steps 2A prong 2 and 2B, the claim does not recite any additional elements that integrate the abstract idea into a practical application nor do they amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Claim 4 further recites the mathematical concept of determining the first number (mathematical calculations/relationships). Under Steps 2A prong 2 and 2B, the claim does not recite any additional elements that integrate the abstract idea into a practical application nor do they amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Claim 5 further recites the mathematical concept of determining the first number (mathematical calculations/relationships). Under Steps 2A prong 2 and 2B, the claim does not recite any additional elements that integrate the abstract idea into a practical application nor do they amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Claim 6 further recites the mathematical concept of determining the first number (mathematical calculations/relationships). Under Steps 2A prong 2 and 2B, the claim does not recite any additional elements that integrate the abstract idea into a practical application nor do they amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Claim 7 further recites the mathematical concept of determining the first number (mathematical calculations/relationships). Under Steps 2A prong 2 and 2B, the claim does not recite any additional elements that integrate the abstract idea into a practical application nor do they amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Claims 8-14 are media versions of claims 1-7, respectively. Under Steps 2A prong 2 and 2B, the claims do not recite any additional elements that integrate the abstract idea into a practical application nor do they amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Claim 15 is an apparatus version of claim 1. Moreover, none of the additional elements regarding the generic computer components (i.e., one or more memories, one or more processor) are more than high level generic computer components that amount to mere instructions to apply the abstract idea on a generic computer. See MPEP 2106.05(f). Alternatively, even if not considered as merely an “apply it” scenario, this type of architecture using a memory coupled to a processor is well understood routine and conventional.
At Step 2B, there are no additional elements claimed that amount to significantly more than the recited judicial exception.
Regarding the architecture of the system, this is well understood routine and conventional architecture known to be used in generic computers. As per the book Computer Organization and Design: The Hardware/Software interface, Chapter 1: Computer Abstractions and Technology, “The board is composed of three pieces: the piece connecting to the I/O devices mentioned earlier, the memory, and the processor.” (Page 20, Second Paragraph). These limitations therefore are considered well understood routine and conventional even upon consideration. Thus, these limitations do not amount to significantly more.
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 and 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Satoshi Matsubara in NPL: Digital Annealer for High-Speed Solving of Combinatorial Optimization Problems and Its Applications (cited in IDS on 12/14/2023), hereinafter “Matsubara”.
Regarding Claim 1, Matsubara teaches:
An information processing method for a computer to execute a process (Abstract, e.g., Digital Annealer solving combinatorial optimization problems) comprising:
searching for a first parameter for searching for a solution by using an evaluation function included in an Ising model (Section II, B., e.g., current bit value xi);
acquiring an evaluation value of the first parameter based on an energy value of the evaluation function obtained by executing the searching for the solution by using the first parameter and a time period to reach the energy value (Section II, B., e.g., Equation number 2 computes value ΔE; Fig. 1);
determining a first number of iterations for determining that the searching the first parameter converges based on at least one selected from a best evaluation value after the searching the first parameter for a certain number of iterations, a number of bits included in the evaluation function, a type of a constraint included in the evaluation function, and a number of the constraint (Section II, B., e.g., number of iterations and series of processing ends, bit to be flipped in the bit value xi, inverse temperature);
and when the best evaluation value is not updated during the searching for the first parameter for the first number of iterations, determining a second parameter which leads to the best evaluation value and ending the searching the first parameter (Section II, C., e.g., escape from a local minimum is facilitated when no bit flip candidate is found; Fig. 2).
Regarding Claim 8, it is a media claim practiced by the method of claim 1. It is rejected for the same reasons as claim 1.
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.
Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Matsubara in view of Kakuko et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication No.: US 20210081809 A1), hereinafter “Kakuko”.
Regarding Claim 15, Matsubara teaches:
An information processing apparatus (Abstract, e.g., Digital Annealer solving combinatorial optimization problems) … configured to:
search for a first parameter for searching for a solution by using an evaluation function included in an Ising model (Section II, B., e.g., current bit value xi),
acquire an evaluation value of the first parameter based on an energy value of the evaluation function obtained by executing the searching for the solution by using the first parameter and a time period to reach the energy value (Section II, B., e.g., Equation number 2 computes value ΔE; Fig. 1),
determine a first number of iterations for determining that the searching the first parameter converges based on at least one selected from a best evaluation value after the searching the first parameter for a certain number of iterations, a number of bits included in the evaluation function, a type of a constraint included in the evaluation function, and a number of the constraint (Section II, B., e.g., number of iterations and series of processing ends, bit to be flipped in the bit value xi, inverse temperature), and
when the best evaluation value is not updated during the searching for the first parameter for the first number of iterations, determine a second parameter which leads to the best evaluation value and ending the searching the first parameter (Section II, C., e.g., escape from a local minimum is facilitated when no bit flip candidate is found; Fig. 2).
Matsubara does not teach:
An information processing apparatus comprising:
one or more memories; and
one or more processors coupled to the one or more memories and the one or more processors configured to …
However, Kakuko teaches:
An information processing apparatus (¶0057; Fig. 3, e.g., computer 20) comprising:
one or more memories (¶0057; Fig. 3, e.g., RAM 22, ROM 23, a secondary storage device 24, removable-medium storage device 25); and
one or more processors coupled to the one or more memories (Fig. 3, e.g., CPU 21 is coupled to RAM 22, ROM 23, a secondary storage device 24, and removable-medium storage device 25) …
Matsubara further discloses Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to one of ordinary skill in the art to which said subject matter pertains to substitute the digital annealer as taught by Matsubara with the optimization apparatus implemented as a computer as taught by Kakuko. One would have been motivated to combine these references because both references disclose optimization apparatuses for solving optimization problems, and Kakuko enhances the model of Matsubara by allowing for the optimization operation process to be implemented in hardware using a computer for simulated annealing. See Kakuko: ¶0029.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 2 and 9 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Claims 3-7 and 11-14 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the 35 U.S.C 112(b) rejections discussed above.
Prior Art Made of Record
US 11151480 B1 – teaches parameters defined for search methods based on maximum number of iterations. See Column 33 Lines 25-41. This is pertinent to the parameter search method based on number of iterations disclosed in the instant application on at least ¶0007 of the specification.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CARLOS H DE LA GARZA whose telephone number is (571)272-0474. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9:30AM-6PM.
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 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.
/C.H.D./
Carlos H. De La GarzaExaminer, Art Unit 2182 (571)272-0474
/ANDREW CALDWELL/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2182
Prosecution Insights