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 Office Action responds to the Application filed on 3/9/2023, Oath/Declaration filed on 6/5/2023, and IDS filed on 11/30/2033. Claims 1-20 are pending.
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 8-9,11-13 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claim(s) recite(s) the abstract idea involving the mathematical concept of representing industrial SAT problem data in the form of pixelated problem image using the operation of encoding in the recited format. This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the claims do NOT recite how this pixelated problem image is used to perform industrial Boolean satisfiability (for example as recited claim 10). The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the computer system and “computer implemented SAT image encoder” are merely generic computer/computing module used to perform the abstract idea (see Federal Register, Vol. 84, No. 4, pp. 50-57). Using the flowchart for testing subject matter eligibility test found in MPEP section 2100: 1.) Step 1 is yes (the claims are directed to a machine, i.e., computer system); 2). when viewed as a whole, eligibility of the claim is NOT self-evident or streamlined (for example as per 2019 Patent Eligibility Guideline) since no satisfiability test is performed using the encoded pixelated problem image; 3.) Step 2A, yes, the claims are directed to an abstract idea involving the mathematical concept of representing industrial SAT problem data in the form of pixelated problem image using the operation of encoding in the recited format; 4.) Step 2B, the claims do NOT recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception the computer system and “computer implemented SAT image encoder” are merely generic computer/computing module used to perform the abstract idea, thus resulting in the claims not patent eligible subject matter under 35 USC 101.
Applicant may want to incorporate the elements of claim 10 into the independent claim 8, and cancel claim 10, to place the claims in patent eligible subject matter.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-7,14-20 are allowed.
Claim 10 is 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, or alternatively, per above suggest, amend claim 8 to include all of the limitations of claim 10 and cancel claim 10.
Claims 8-9, 11-13 would be allowable if rewritten or amended to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 101, set forth in this Office action.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
As per claims 1-7, the independent claim 1, from which the respective claims depend, recites the computer system for processing industrial Boolean satisfiability (SAT) problems comprising a combination of inventive features comprising a computer implemented SAT image encoder configured to encode a runtime industrial SAT problem into a pixelated problem image comprising a plurality of rows, wherein the runtime industrial SAT problem comprises a plurality of clauses and each row of the pixelated problem image represents a corresponding one of the clauses; a computer implemented clause embedding module configured to encode each row of the pixelated problem image into a corresponding vector; and a computer implemented vector encoder configured to encode the vectors into an output indicating whether the runtime industrial SAT problem is satisfiable or unsatisfiable, as claimed, which the prior arts made of record failed to teach or suggest as claimed. In particular, Dosovitskiy et al. (“An Image Is Worth 16x16 Words: Transformers for Image Recognition at Scale, ICLR 2021, pp. 1-22, especially pages 2-3; Fig. 1) teaches the use of pixels to solve the SAT problems; Loreggia et al. (“Deep Learning for Algorithm Portolios”, Association for the Advancement of Artificial Intelligence, 2015, 7 pages, especially 3) teach the conversion of text documents into images from which a learning algorithm is applied to solve SAT problems; Pradella et al. (“A SAT-based parser and completer for pictures specified by tiling”, Journal of the Pattern Recognition Society, Vol. 41, 2008, pp. 555-566, especially section 2) teach the use of a picture language to form picture tiles, from which pixel projection is performed and SAT test is applied. However, the prior arts made of record failed to teach or suggest in encoded pixelated problem image in the recited format/structure as claimed, from which each row of the pixelated problem image is further encoded into a corresponding vector and an output indicating whether the runtime industrial SAT problem is satisfiable or unsatisfiable, as claimed. Furthermore, under the 2019 Patent Eligibility Guideline, the claims are directed to patent eligible subject matter because (1) under Step 1, the claims are directed to a machine; (2) under Step 2A, Prong One, although the claims could be considered as reciting the judicial exception of mathematical concepts involving the encoding or converting of the industrial SAT problem into a pixelated problem image in the recited format which necessarily use some type of mathematical algorithms or procedures as known in the art to arrive at this solution, the claims recite integrated practical application of encoding each row of the pixelated problem image into a corresponding vector, from which a computer implemented vector encoder configured to encode the vectors into an output indicating whether the runtime industrial SAT problem is satisfiable or unsatisfiable, resulting significantly more than the judicial exception.
As per claims 8-13, claim 8, from which the respective claims depend, recites a computer system for processing industrial Boolean satisfiability (SAT) problems, comprising a combination of features comprising a computer implemented SAT image encoder configured to encode an industrial SAT problem comprising a plurality of clauses into a pixelated problem image comprising a plurality of rows, wherein: each row of the pixelated problem image represents a corresponding one of the clauses; each row of the pixelated problem image comprises D pixels where D is a total number of variables in the industrial SAT problem; and each pixel is configured with one of a plurality of weights, including a first weight indicating a positive literal of the corresponding variable, a second weight indicating a negative literal of the corresponding variable, and a third weight indicating the variable is not in the corresponding clause, as claimed, which the prior arts made of record failed to teach or suggest as claimed. In particular, Dosovitskiy et al. (“An Image Is Worth 16x16 Words: Transformers for Image Recognition at Scale, ICLR 2021, pp. 1-22, especially pages 2-3; Fig. 1) teaches the use of pixels to solve the SAT problems; Loreggia et al. (“Deep Learning for Algorithm Portolios”, Association for the Advancement of Artificial Intelligence, 2015, 7 pages, especially 3) teach the conversion of text documents into images from which a learning algorithm is applied to solve SAT problems; Pradella et al. (“A SAT-based parser and completer for pictures specified by tiling”, Journal of the Pattern Recognition Society, Vol. 41, 2008, pp. 555-566, especially section 2) teach the use of a picture language to form picture tiles, from which pixel projection is performed and SAT test is applied. However, the prior arts made of record failed to teach or suggest in encoded pixelated problem image in the recited format/structure as claimed.
As per claims 14-20, the independent claim 14, from which the respective claims depend, recites a computer-implemented method of training an industrial Boolean satisfiability (SAT) problem processor, comprising a combination of inventive steps comprising encode a training industrial SAT problem into a pixelated problem image comprising a plurality of rows, wherein the training industrial SAT problem comprises a plurality of clauses and each row of the problem image represents a corresponding one of the clauses; from which, the computer implemented machine vision module generates an output indicating whether the training industrial SAT problem is satisfiable or unsatisfiable; the output is compared to a predetermined satisfiability solution of the training industrial SAT problem to generate a training error and the machine vision module is adapted based on the training error, as claimed. In particular, Dosovitskiy et al. (“An Image Is Worth 16x16 Words: Transformers for Image Recognition at Scale, ICLR 2021, pp. 1-22, especially pages 2-3; Fig. 1) teaches the use of pixels to solve the SAT problems; Loreggia et al. (“Deep Learning for Algorithm Portolios”, Association for the Advancement of Artificial Intelligence, 2015, 7 pages, especially 3) teach the conversion of text documents into images from which a learning algorithm is applied to solve SAT problems; Pradella et al. (“A SAT-based parser and completer for pictures specified by tiling”, Journal of the Pattern Recognition Society, Vol. 41, 2008, pp. 555-566, especially section 2) teach the use of a picture language to form picture tiles, from which pixel projection is performed and SAT test is applied. However, the prior arts made of record failed to teach or suggest in encoded pixelated problem image in the recited format/structure as claimed. Furthermore, under the 2019 Patent Eligibility Guideline, the claims are directed to patent eligible subject matter because (1) under Step 1, the claims are directed to a process; (2) under Step 2A, Prong One, although the claims could be considered as reciting the judicial exception of mathematical concepts involving the encoding or converting of the industrial SAT problem into a pixelated problem image in the recited format which necessarily use some type of mathematical algorithms or procedures as known in the art to arrive at this solution, the claims further recite integrated practical application in which the computer implemented machine vision module generates an output indicating whether the training industrial SAT problem is satisfiable or unsatisfiable; wherein the output is compared to a predetermined satisfiability solution of the training industrial SAT problem to generate a training error and the machine vision module is adapted based on the training error, resulting significantly more than the judicial exception.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to PHALLAKA KIK whose telephone number is (571)272-1895. The examiner can normally be reached Maxiflex Mon-Fri 8:30AM-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, Jack Chiang can be reached at 5712727483. 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.
Any response to this action should be mailed to:
Commissioner for Patents
P. O. Box 1450
Alexandria, VA 22313-1450
or faxed to:
571-273-8300
/PHALLAKA KIK/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2851 December 13, 2025