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 .
Response to Amendment
This Office Action has been issued in response to Applicant’s Communication of amended application S/N 18/194,431 filed on February 24, 2026. Claims 1, 3 to 13, and 15 to 20 are currently pending with the application.
Claim Objections
Claims 1, 13, and 20 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 1 recites the limitation “based on a disconnection of a set of segments associated with the selected set of edges from the received first graph, the generated second graph corresponds to a partial solution of the combinatorial optimization problem” in line 8, “based on a connection of a predefined number of a set of disjoint segments in the generated second graph, the partial tour indicating an optimal route for a salesman such that the salesman visits a city exactly one and returns to a starting city” in line 13, and “re-training the RL model based on the generated third graph, the re-trained RL model is configured to determine an improved solution of the combinatorial optimization problem” in line 19, which contain typographical errors, and should read “based on a disconnection of a set of segments associated with the selected set of edges from the received first graph, wherein the generated second graph corresponds to a partial solution of the combinatorial optimization problem”, “based on a connection of a predefined number of a set of disjoint segments in the generated second graph, wherein the partial tour indicating an optimal route for a salesman such that the salesman visits a city exactly one and returns to a starting city”, and “re-training the RL model based on the generated third graph, wherein the re-trained RL model is configured to determine an improved solution of the combinatorial optimization problem”, respectively. Same rationale applies to claims 13 and 20, since they recite similar limitations, and therefore contain the same deficiencies.
Appropriate corrections are required.
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, 3 to 13, and 15 to 20 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 partial tour indicating an optimal route for a salesman such that the salesman visits a city exactly one and returns to a starting city” in line 15. This limitation is not clear. More specifically, it is not clear what the intention of “the salesman visits a city exactly one and returns to a starting city” is, therefore, rendering the claim indefinite. Same rationale applies to claims 13 and 20, since they recite similar limitations, and to claims 3 to 12, and 15 to 19, since they inherit the same deficiencies, by virtue of their dependency.
Upon further look into the specification, it appears that the relevant sections describe the limitations as “the salesman visits each city of a plurality of cities exactly once and returns to a starting city” (see paragraph [0020] of the specification).
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 to 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. Claims 1, 13, and 20 recite selecting edges and generating graphs.
The limitation of selecting edges, which specifically recites “selecting a predefined number of a set of edges from the received first graph based on the application of the RL model”, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind, but for the recitation of generic computer components. That is, other than reciting “by a processor”, nothing in the claim element precludes the steps from practically being performed in a human mind. For example, but for the “by a processor” language, “selecting”, in the context of this claim encompasses the user mentally, with the aid of pen and paper, identifying a predefined number of edges of a graph. The limitation of generating graphs, which specifically recites “deleting the selected set of edges from the received first graph to generate a second graph, based on a disconnection of a set of segments associated with the selected set of edges from the received first graph, wherein the generated second graph corresponds to a partial solution of the combinatorial optimization problem”, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind, but for the recitation of generic computer components. That is, other than reciting “by a processor”, nothing in the claim element precludes the steps from practically being performed in a human mind. For example, but for the “by a processor” language, “generating”, in the context of this claim encompasses the user mentally and with the aid of pen and paper, erasing the edges that were identified or selected in the previous step from the graph in order to create a second graph.
The limitation of generating graphs, which further recites “determining a partial tour of the generated second graph to generate a third graph, based on a connection of a predefined number of a set of disjoint segments in the generated second graph, the partial tour indicating an optimal route for a salesman such that the salesman visits a city exactly one and returns to a starting city, wherein the generated third graph corresponds to a new solution of the combinatorial optimization problem”, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind, but for the recitation of generic computer components. That is, other than reciting “by a processor”, nothing in the claim element precludes the steps from practically being performed in a human mind. For example, but for the “by a processor” language, “generating”, in the context of this claim encompasses the user mentally and with the aid of pen and paper, create a third graph based on a connection of a predefined number of a set of segments in the previously generated second graph, where the partial tour refers to a salesman route including visits to cities. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers mental processes but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claims recite an abstract idea.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claims recite the additional elements – “receiving a first graph corresponding to an initial solution of a combinatorial optimization problem”, “applying a reinforcement learning (RL) model on the received first graph”, “using an annealer-based solver”, “re-training the RL model based on the generated third graph, wherein the re-trained RL model is configured to determine an improved solution of the combinatorial optimization problem”, “rendering the determined improved solution of the combinatorial optimization problem on a display device”, a processor, one or more non-transitory computer-readable storage media (claims 13 to 19), and additionally, an electronic device, and a memory (claim 20). The limitation “receiving a first graph corresponding to an initial solution of a combinatorial optimization problem” amounts to data-gathering steps which is considered to be insignificant extra-solution activity (See MPEP 2106.05(g)). The limitations “applying a reinforcement learning (RL) model on the received first graph”, “using an annealer-based solver”, and “re-training the RL model based on the generated third graph, wherein the re-trained RL model is configured to determine an improved solution of the combinatorial optimization problem” are recited at a high-level of generality, with no restriction on how the result is accomplished and no description of the mechanism for accomplishing the result, and is equivalent to merely saying “applying it”
The limitation “rendering the determined improved solution of the combinatorial optimization problem on a display device” amounts to data presentation steps, considered to be insignificant extra-solution activity, (See MPEP 2106.05(g)). The processor, one or more non-transitory computer-readable storage media, electronic device, and the memory in these steps are recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as a generic processor performing a generic computer function) such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Accordingly, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claims are directed to an abstract idea.
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. The insignificant extra-solution activity identified above, which include the data gathering and data presentation steps, is recognized by the courts as well-understood, routine, and conventional activity when they are claimed in a merely generic manner (e.g., at a high level of generality) or as insignificant extra-solution activity (See MPEP 2106.05(d)(II)(i) Receiving or transmitting data over a network, e.g., using the Internet to gather data, buySAFE, Inc. v. Google, Inc., 765 F.3d 1350, 1355, 112 USPQ2d 1093, 1096 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (computer receives and sends information over a network); (v) Presenting offers and gathering statistics, OIP Techs., 788 F.3d at 1362-63, 115 USPQ2d at 1092-93)). The claims are not patent eligible.
Claim 3 is dependent on claim 1 and includes all the limitations of claim 1. Therefore, claim 3 recites the same abstract idea of claim 1. The claim recites the additional limitation of “the RL model corresponds to a Markov Decision Process (MDP)”, which is recited at a high-level of generality, with no restriction on how the result is accomplished and no description of the mechanism for accomplishing the result, and is equivalent to merely saying “applying it”, therefore, does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application nor amount to significantly more. Same rationale applies to claims 4 to 7, and 9.
Claim 10 is dependent on claim 1 and includes all the limitations of claim 1. Therefore, claim 10 recites the same abstract idea of claim 1. The claim recites the additional limitations of “determining a permutation of the set of disjoint segments to be connected; selecting one or more segments of the set of disjoint segments; reversing an order associated with each of the selected one or more segments; and connecting the selected one or more segments based on the determined permutations and the reversed order, wherein the partial tour of the generated second graph is determined further based on the connection of the selected one or more segments” which are limitations that can be performed in the human mind with the aid of pen and paper, and therefore are further elaborating on the abstract idea. The claim does not amount to significantly more. Same rationale applies to claims 8, 11 and 12.
Additionally, the claims do not include a requirement of anything other than conventional, generic computer technology for executing the abstract idea, and therefore, do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea.
Same rationale applies to claims 15 to 19 since they recite similar limitations.
Claims 1, 3 to 13, and 15 to 20 are therefore not drawn to eligible subject matter as they are directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Response to Arguments
The following is in response to arguments filed on March 24, 2026. Arguments have been carefully and respectfully considered, but are not persuasive.
In regards to claim 1, Applicant argues that “the combination of features in claim 1 defines a highly specific algorithmic process that is not practically feasible for a human to perform. The selecting of edges of a graph, including being "based on the application of the RL model," represents a complex computational task. This process involves sophisticated data handling, combinatorial problem- solving, and precise mathematical operations on a scale and at a speed beyond human capabilities”.
In response to the preceding argument, Examiner respectfully disagrees, and respectfully submits that adding a “computer-aided” limitation, computer components, or a neural network (RL model) recited at a high-level of generality without significantly more, to a claim covering an abstract concept, is insufficient to render a claim eligible where the claims are silent as to how the computer aids the method, the extent to which a computer aids the method, or the significance of the computer to the performance of the method, and amounts to merely saying “apply-it”. In order for a machine to add significantly more, it must “play a significant part in permitting the claimed method to be performed, rather than function solely as an obvious mechanism for permitting a solution to be achieved more quickly” (See, e.g., Versata Development Group v. SAP America, 793 F.3d 1306, 1335, 115 USPQ2d 1681, 1702 (Fed. Cir. 2015); See MPEP 2106.05(f)(II)(v) Requiring the use of software to tailor information and provide it to the user on a generic computer, Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Capital One Bank (USA), 792 F.3d 1363, 1370-71, 115 USPQ2d 1636, 1642 (Fed. Cir. 2015)).
In regards to claim 1, Applicant argues that “the inclusion of “the partial tour indicating an optimal route for a salesman such that the salesman visits a city exactly one and returns to a starting city” is a unique feature that directly ties the routing problem to a crucial human factor. This constitutes a clear improvement over conventional routing systems which frequently prioritize solely objective metrics like distance or time, thereby neglecting the practical and often significant impact of driver familiarity and comfort on overall efficiency, morale, and safety”.
In response to the preceding argument, Examiner respectfully points out that, as indicated in the rejections above, it is not clear what “the partial tour indicating an optimal route for a salesman such that the salesman visits a city exactly one and returns to a starting city” means. Furthermore, it is not clear how the elements “frequently prioritize solely objective metrics like distance or time, thereby neglecting the practical and often significant impact of driver familiarity and comfort on overall efficiency, morale, and safety” are relevant to the claims, as presently presented. Moreover, that it is not clear, from the Applicant’s argument, what is the specific improvement in the functioning of a computer, or the improvement to another technology or technical field, that is achieved with the claimed invention, nor is it apparent from the Applicant’s argument, how such improvement correlate with the claim language as presently presented. Therefore, the claims are directed to an abstract idea without significantly more, under the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas, as further detailed in the rejections above.
In regards to claim 1, Applicant argues that “the claimed invention provides a non-generic technical solution to a technical problem inherent in logistics planning. This approach goes beyond merely observing a human activity; it represents a profound technical solution that fundamentally alters the optimization process to rigorously account for and leverage human operational characteristics, thereby leading to a system that functions superiorly in a real-world context for both human operators and automated processes”.
In response to the preceding argument, Examiner respectfully points out that it is not clear what the technical problem is, nor what is the specific improvement in the functioning of a computer, or the improvement to another technology or technical field, that is achieved with the claimed invention and how such improvement correlate with the claim language as presently presented. Therefore, the claims are directed to an abstract idea without significantly more, under the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. 101 Rejections are hereby sustained.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to RAQUEL PEREZ-ARROYO whose telephone number is (571)272-8969. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 8:00am - 5:30pm, Alt Friday, EST.
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, Sherief Badawi can be reached at 571-272-9782. 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.
/RAQUEL PEREZ-ARROYO/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2169
Prosecution Insights