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 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 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Under the Alice Framework Step 1, claims 1-7 recites a information processing apparatus and, therefore, is a machine. Claims 8-14 recites a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium and, therefore, is an article of manufacture. Claims 15-20 recite an information processing method and, therefore, is a process.
Under the Alice Framework Step 2A prong 1, claim 1 recites:
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:
store N2 state variables (N is an integer equal to or more than 3) which indicate a state of an Ising model, the N2 state variables being included in an energy function of the Ising model, and
execute a traveling transition process of returning from a first state to the first state through a plurality of states by repeating a state transition of changing values of four state variables of the N2 state variables so as to satisfy a constraint in which a sum of values of state variables included in each row is 1 and a sum of values of state variables included in each column is 1 when the N2 state variables are arranged in N rows and N columns,
specify a second state in which an accumulation of a change amount of a value of the energy function for each state transition from the first state satisfies a certain determination criterion, among the plurality of states sequentially obtained by the traveling transition process, and
search for a solution to a permutation optimization problem represented by the energy function by starting from the second state.
The above underlined limitations are related to finding the solution for a permutation optimization problem which amount to mathematical relationships that falls under “mathematical concepts” of abstract ideas (see at least specification equations 1, 5, 6, and 7-9 and related paragraphs, also see figures 1, 6, and 7). Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
Under the Alice Framework Step 2A prong 2, the claim recites the following additional elements: “one or more memories” and “one or more processors coupled to the one or more memories and the one or more processors configured to: store N2 state variables”. However, the additional elements of “one or more memories” and “one or more processors are recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as a generic computer component for storing data; and as a generic computer component for performing the algorithm) such that they amount to no more than mere instructions using a generic computer component or merely as tools to implement the abstract idea. The additional elements of “store N2 state variables” is merely adding insignificant extra-solution activities. The additional elements do not, individually or in combination, integrate the exception into a practical application. Accordingly, the claim is not integrated into a practical application.
Under the Alice Framework Step 2B, the claim does not include additional elements that individually or in combination, 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 elements of “one or more memories” and “one or more processors are recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as a generic computer component for storing data; and as a generic computer component for performing the algorithm) such that they amount to no more than mere instructions using a generic computer component or merely as tools to implement the abstract idea. The additional elements of “store N2 state variables” is merely adding insignificant extra-solution activities. See MPEP 2106.05(d)(II) which states that the courts have recognized computer functions such as “Storing and retrieving information in memory” as well-understood, routine, and conventional functions when they are claimed in a merely generic manner (e.g., at a high level of generality) or as insignificant extra-solution activity. The claim does not recite additional elements that alone or in combination amount to an inventive concept. Accordingly, the claim does not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea.
Under the Alice Framework Step 2A prong 1, Claims 2-7 recite further steps and details to the abstract idea of claim 1 and falls within the “mathematical Concepts” grouping of abstract ideas.
Claim 2 is directed to comparing the change amount of the value of the energy function to a certain determination criterion and continuing the search. The claim does not include additional elements that would require further analysis under Step 2A prong 2 and Step 2B. Accordingly, the claims recites an abstract idea.
Claim 3 is directed to storing local fields related to the state variables. Accordingly, the claims recites an abstract idea.
Under the Alice Framework Step 2A prong 2, the claim recites the following additional elements: “store N2 local fields”. However, the additional elements of “store N2 local fields” is merely adding insignificant extra-solution activities. The additional elements do not, individually or in combination, integrate the exception into a practical application. Accordingly, the claim is not integrated into a practical application.
Under the Alice Framework Step 2B, the claim does not include additional elements that individually or in combination, 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 elements of “store N2 local fields” is merely adding insignificant extra-solution activities. See MPEP 2106.05(d)(II) which states that the courts have recognized computer functions such as “Storing and retrieving information in memory” as well-understood, routine, and conventional functions when they are claimed in a merely generic manner (e.g., at a high level of generality) or as insignificant extra-solution activity. The claim does not recite additional elements that alone or in combination amount to an inventive concept. Accordingly, the claim does not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea.
Claim 4 is directed to the states being different from one another. The claim does not include additional elements that would require further analysis under Step 2A prong 2 and Step 2B. Accordingly, the claims recites an abstract idea.
Claim 5 is directed to performing a search process to determine a local solution for the traveling transition process. The claim does not include additional elements that would require further analysis under Step 2A prong 2 and Step 2B. Accordingly, the claims recites an abstract idea.
Claim 6 is directed to performing a different search when a solution is not found with a search. The claim does not include additional elements that would require further analysis under Step 2A prong 2 and Step 2B. Accordingly, the claims recites an abstract idea.
Claim 7 is directed to performing another search using the solution found with a search. The claim does not include additional elements that would require further analysis under Step 2A prong 2 and Step 2B. Accordingly, the claims recites an abstract idea.
Claims 8-14 are directed to claim 1-14, respectively. A mere change in statutory class is obvious. As such the claims are rejected for the reasons given above.
Claims 15-20 are directed to claim 1-13, respectively. A mere change in statutory class is obvious. As such the claims are rejected for the reasons given above.
Allowable Subject Matter
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Yatabe (US 2025/0036712 A1) discloses Ising Model, Annealing machine for finding the optimal solution, 2-way 1-hot constraints, repeated searches to find a better solution [see Figures 1-2, 18, 35-37, and 39, and at least par.7-9 and par.219-225], however the reference does not explicitly disclose execute a traveling transition process of returning from a first state to the first state through a plurality of states by repeating a state transition and specifying a second state from a change amount of a value of the energy function for each state transition from the first state among the plurality of states sequentially obtained by the process.
Sugita et al. (US 2023/0153376 A1) discloses an optimization method with respect to state candidates that satisfies 2-way 1-hot conditions and structural elements for searching a combinatorial optimization problem [See figures 5-9], however the reference does not explicitly disclose the traveling transition process and the specifying a change amount among the plurality of states from the result of the process as stated above.
Kanada et al. (US 2020/0326673 A1) discloses a 1-way 1-hot variant and searching for a ground state by repeating the changing of two bits in one time of the update processing [see figures 4 and 16-19 and at least par.52-54], however the reference does not explicitly disclose the traveling transition process and the specifying a change amount among the plurality of states from the result of the process as stated above.
Oshima (US 2021/0065087 A1, See IDS filed 04/07/2023) discloses a example of 2-way 1-hot conditions, bit transitions, and performing additional searches based on prior searches [see figures 5, and 13], however the reference does not explicitly disclose the traveling transition process and the specifying a change amount among the plurality of states from the result of the process as stated above.
Bagherbeik et al. (NPL: “A Permutational Boltzmann Machine with Parallel Tempering for Solving Combinatorial Optimization Problems”) discloses Permutational Boltzmann machines with 4 variable states changing with respect to a Swap Move [See figure 2], however the reference does not explicitly disclose the traveling transition process and the specifying a change amount among the plurality of states from the result of the process as stated above.
Hoos et al. (NPL; “Stochastic Local Search: Foundations and Applications”) discloses various search methods that iterate to find a solution with respect to the combinational problem, including a systematic iteration [see at least sec.1.4], however the reference does not explicitly disclose the traveling transition process and the specifying a change amount among the plurality of states from the result of the process as stated above.
Liu et al. (NPL: “Leveraging Special-Purpose Hardware for Local Search Heuristics”) discloses ising model, Digital Annealers, 2-way 1-hot encodings benefits, traveling salesman problem and a local search algorithm with returning the solution in the search [See algorithms 1-3 and sec.3.1],
Takano (US 2024/0386070 A1) discloses 2-way 1-hot conditions and solution searching [see figures 4-8]
The prior art of record does not teach or suggest a combination as claimed wherein: “execute a traveling transition process of returning from a first state to the first state through a plurality of states by repeating a state transition of changing values of four state variables of the N2 state variables so as to satisfy a constraint in which a sum of values of state variables…, specify a second state in which an accumulation of a change amount of a value of the energy function for each state transition from the first state satisfies a certain determination criterion, among the plurality of states sequentially obtained by the traveling transition process…”.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Kenny K. Bui whose telephone number is (571)270-0604. The examiner can normally be reached 8:00 am to 3:00 pm on Monday, 8:00 am to 4:00 pm on Tuesday to Friday 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.
/KENNY K. BUI/Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2182 (571)270-0604
/ANDREW CALDWELL/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2182
Prosecution Insights