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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 4/28/2025 was filed after the mailing date of the first Office action on the merits on 4/23/2025. The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Claim Status
The claims filed 10/23/2025 are entered.
Claims 1-27 are pending.
Claim 1 is independent.
Claims 1 and 5 are currently amended.
Claims 2-4, and 6-27 are original.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 10/23/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
35 U.S.C. 101
Claims 1-27 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 as being directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Applicant argues that the claims recite a concrete computation transformation performed by specialized hardware because they explicitly require a processor to transform a probabilistic objective function into a quadratic unconstrainted binary optimization (QUBO) representation, and it then requires solving that QUBO representation using a quantum or quantum-inspired computer. Applicant argues that the claim integrates the alleged abstract idea into a practical application because it produces a concrete optimized distribution of funds (see Remarks, pg. 8).
The argument is not persuasive. Per MPEP 2106 I, the Alice/Mayo two-part test is the only test that should be used to evaluate the eligibility of claims under examination. Eligibility should not be evaluated based on whether the claim recites a "useful, concrete, and tangible result," State Street Bank, 149 F.3d 1368, 1374, 47 USPQ2d 1596, 1602 (Fed. Cir. 1998) (quoting In re Alappat, 33 F.3d 1526, 1544, 31 USPQ2d 1545, 1557 (Fed. Cir. 1994)), as this test has been superseded. In re Bilski, 545 F.3d 943, 959-60, 88 USPQ2d 1385, 1394-95 (Fed. Cir. 2008) (en banc), aff'd by Bilski v. Kappos, 561 U.S. 593, 95 USPQ2d 1001 (2010). See also TLI Communications LLC v. AV Automotive LLC, 823 F.3d 607, 613, 118 USPQ2d 1744, 1748 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (“It is well-settled that mere recitation of concrete, tangible components is insufficient to confer patent eligibility to an otherwise abstract idea”). The programmed computer or “special purpose computer” test of In re Alappat, 33 F.3d 1526, 31 USPQ2d 1545 (Fed. Cir. 1994) (i.e., the rationale that an otherwise ineligible algorithm or software could be made patent-eligible by merely adding a generic computer to the claim for the “special purpose” of executing the algorithm or software) was also superseded by the Supreme Court’s Bilski and Alice Corp. decisions. Eon Corp. IP Holdings LLC v. AT&T Mobility LLC, 785 F.3d 616, 623, 114 USPQ2d 1711, 1715 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (“[W]e note that Alappat has been superseded by Bilski, 561 U.S. at 605–06, and Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank Int’l, 573 U.S. 208, 110 USPQ2d 1976 (2014)”); Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Capital One Bank (USA), N.A., 792 F.3d 1363, 1366, 115 USPQ2d 1636, 1639 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (“An abstract idea does not become nonabstract by limiting the invention to a particular field of use or technological environment, such as the Internet [or] a computer”).
Applicant further argues that the claims recite significantly more than generic computer functions including “defining, by processor, a probabilistic objective function based on probability distributions of returns for the plurality of available investments, the probability distributions beings estimated from the historical returns; converting, by the processor, the probabilistic objective function to quadratic unconstrained binary optimization (QUBO) variables.” Applicant argues that these features are not “well-understood, routine, and conventional” as they yield a new computational framework enabling quantum-based optimization of uncertain investment data, which is entirely beyond generic computing (see Remarks, pg. 9).
The argument is not persuasive. The steps of “defining…” and “converting…”, considered with the claims as a whole, do not recite patent-eligible technical improvements. The specification describes these steps at a high level without providing any detail on improving quantum computing technology or any similar technology. The claimed method merely uses a quantum or quantum-inspired computer as a tool to perform a portfolio optimization, which is a fundamental economic practice and a mathematical concept. The method being performed by a processor or quantum/quantum-inspired computer does not confer eligibility, as these are generic computer functions in view of the high level of generality offered by the specification. Here, the alleged novelty is at best an improvement in the abstract idea and not an improvement in technology. Although the courts often evaluate considerations such as the conventionality of an additional element in the eligibility analysis, the search for an inventive concept should not be confused with a novelty or non-obviousness determination. See Mayo, 566 U.S. at 91, 101 USPQ2d at 1973 (rejecting “the Government’s invitation to substitute §§ 102, 103, and 112 inquiries for the better established inquiry under § 101”). As made clear by the courts, the “‘novelty’ of any element or steps in a process, or even of the process itself, is of no relevance in determining whether the subject matter of a claim falls within the § 101 categories of possibly patentable subject matter.” Intellectual Ventures I v. Symantec Corp., 838 F.3d 1307, 1315, 120 USPQ2d 1353, 1358 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (quoting Diamond v. Diehr, 450 U.S. at 188–89, 209 USPQ at 9). See also Synopsys, Inc. v. Mentor Graphics Corp., 839 F.3d 1138, 1151, 120 USPQ2d 1473, 1483 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (“a claim for a new abstract idea is still an abstract idea. The search for a § 101 inventive concept is thus distinct from demonstrating § 102 novelty.”).
35 U.S.C. 102 and 35 U.S.C. 103
Applicant’s arguments regarding the prior rejection of claims 1-27 under 35 U.S.C. 102 or 35 U.S.C. 103 have been considered but are moot in view of the new grounds of rejection necessitated by the current amendment.
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 1-27 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1
Claims 1-27 are directed to methods and thus fall within the statutory categories of invention. (Step 1: YES).
Step 2A - Prong 1
The Examiner has identified independent method claim 1 as the claim that represents the claimed invention for analysis. Claim 1 recites the limitations of:
1. A computer method for optimizing investments, comprising:
displaying, on an electronic computer display, a graphical user interface (GUI) to a user for receiving input about investment objectives and receiving the investment objectives;
receiving, by a processor, data including historical returns on investment for a plurality of available investments;
defining, by the processor, a probabilistic objective function based on probability distributions of returns for the plurality of available investments, the probability distributions being estimated from the historical returns;
converting, by the processor, the probabilistic objective function to quadratic unconstrained binary optimization (QUBO) variables;
solving a QUBO problem defined by the QUBO variables with a quantum or quantum-inspired computer; and
converting the QUBO solution to real variables corresponding to an optimized distribution of funds across at least a portion of the plurality of available investments.
These limitations, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, cover performance of the limitation as “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity”. The claim limitations delineated in bold above recite a fundamental economic practice, as they describe or set forth optimizing investments. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation as a fundamental economic practice, then it falls within the “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity” grouping of abstract ideas.
These limitations, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, cover performance of the limitation as “Mathematical Concepts”. The claim limitations delineated in bold above recite mathematical calculations as they describe or set forth calculating an optimized distribution of funds. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation as mathematical calculations, then it falls within the “Mathematical Concepts” grouping of abstract ideas.
The limitations are considered together as a single abstract idea for further analysis rather than as a plurality of separate abstract ideas to be analyzed individually.
Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea. The computer (preamble), display, processor, and quantum/quantum-inspired computer in claim 1 is just applying generic computer components to the recited abstract limitations. The recitation of generic computer components in a claim does not necessarily preclude that claim from reciting an abstract idea. (Step 2A-Prong 1: YES. The claims recite an abstract idea)
Step 2A - Prong 2
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, claim 1 recites the additional elements of: computer (preamble), display, processor, and quantum/quantum-inspired computer.
The computer hardware/software is/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, when considered separately and as an ordered combination, do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea and are at a high level of generality. Therefore, claim 1 is directed to an abstract idea without a practical application. (Step 2A-Prong 2: NO. The additional claimed elements are not integrated into a practical application)
Step 2B
The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because, when considered separately and as an ordered combination, they do not add significantly more (also known as an “inventive concept”) to the exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional element of using a computer hardware 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. See Applicant’s specification para. [0008] about implementation using general purpose or special purpose computing devices and MPEP 2106.05(f) where applying a computer as a tool is not indicative of significantly more. Accordingly, these additional elements, do not change the outcome of the analysis, when considered separately and as an ordered combination. Thus, claim 1 is not patent eligible. (Step 2B: NO. The claims do not provide significantly more)
Dependent Claims
Dependent claims 2-27 further define the abstract idea that is present in independent claim 1 and thus correspond to “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity” and “Mathematical Concepts” and hence are abstract for the reasons presented above. The dependent claims do not recite any further additional elements that integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception when considered both individually and as an ordered combination. Therefore, the dependent claims are directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Thus, claims 1-27 are not patent-eligible.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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.
Claims 1-2, 12-13, 19-25, and 27 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Johnson (US 2017/0372427 A1) in view of Rebentrost (“Quantum computational finance: quantum algorithm for portfolio optimization”, attached).
Regarding claim 1, Johnson discloses a computer method for optimizing investments, comprising:
displaying, on an electronic computer display, a graphical user interface (GUI) to a user for receiving input about investment objectives and receiving the investment objectives (see para. 0014-0018, wherein portfolio manager specifies a budget expected rates of return);
receiving, by a processor data including historical returns on investment for a plurality of available investments (see para. 0014-0018);
defining, by the processor, an objective function with coefficients derived from historical data (see para. 0019-0026);
converting, by the processor, the objective function to quadratic unconstrained binary optimization (QUBO) variables (see para. 0024-0026);
solving a QUBO problem defined by the QUBO variables with a quantum or quantum-inspired computer (see para. 0034-0035, 0045); and
converting the QUBO solution to real variables corresponding to an optimized distribution of funds across at least a portion of the plurality of available investments (see para. 0014-0018, wherein the result is output to the portfolio manager).
Johnson teaches converting discrete optimization problems to QUBO (see para. 0045). However, Johnson does not explicitly disclose, but Rebentrost teaches defining a probabilistic objective function based on probability distributions of returns for the plurality of available investments, the probability distributions being estimated from the historical returns (see pg. 8, Section IV, Eq. 17-19).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method of Johnson to include the feature taught by Rebentrost, i.e. using the disclosed probabilistic coefficients as input to the objective function.
The modification would have been a simple substitution of the deterministic coefficients in Johnson with probabilistic coefficients derived from Rebentrost’s teachings. Since each individual element and its function are shown in the prior art, albeit shown in separate references, the difference between the claimed subject matter and the prior art rests not on any individual element or function but in the very combination itself- that is in the substitution of the probabilistic values of the secondary reference(s) for the values of the primary reference.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make the modification to achieve a desired return while minimizing risk (see Rebentrost, pg. 8, Section IV).
Regarding claim 2, Johnson discloses displaying, via the GUI, the optimized distribution of funds corresponding to the investment objectives (see para. 0014-0018).
Regarding claim 12, the combination as set forth with regards to the base claim teaches wherein defining the probabilistic objective function includes defining respective probability distributions over returns of the available investments including means and standard distributions for a future period equal to or less than a time horizon received in the investment objectives, wherein the means and standard deviations are estimated from the historical returns data (see Rebentrost, Section III B, IV, eq. 17-19).
Regarding claim 13, the combination set forth with regards to base claim 12 teaches: wherein the probability distributions include at least one of a Gaussian distribution and a t-distribution (see Rebentrost, Section III B, IV, eq. 17-19, wherein the mean-variance optimization encompasses a Gaussian distribution).
Regarding claim 19, Johnson discloses wherein receiving data including historical returns on investment for a plurality of available investments includes receiving constraints on the available investments; and wherein defining the probabilistic objective function incorporates the constraints (see para. 0019-0026).
Regarding claim 20, the combination as set forth with regards to base claim teaches wherein defining the probabilistic objective function includes representing probabilistic information as a set of probabilistic variables and using the probabilistic variables to define the objective function (see Rebentrost, see pg. 8, Section IV, Eq. 17-19).
Regarding claim 21, Johnson discloses wherein receiving data including historical returns on investment for a plurality of available investments includes receiving constraints on the available investments; and wherein converting the probabilistic objective function to QUBO variables includes converting constraints into penalty functions (see para. 0020-0023).
Regarding claim 22, Johnson discloses wherein solving the QUBO problem defined by the QUBO variables with the quantum or quantum-inspired computer consists of solving the QUBO problem with a quantum-inspired computer (see para. 0034-0035, 0045).
Regarding claim 23, the combination as set forth with regards to the base claim teaches wherein solving the QUBO problem with the quantum-inspired computer includes: initializing all quantum bits (qubits) to one state; applying the initialized qubits by operating simulated quantum gates including a NOT gate and a CNOT gate; and reading states of the simulated quantum gates (see eg. Rebentrost, pp. 4-5, Section III, wherein the claimed quantum-inspired computer is not required because it is recited in the alternative by the base claims).
Regarding claim 24, the combination as set forth with regards to the base claim discloses teaches wherein solving the QUBO problem with the quantum-inspired computer includes running the QUBO problem by: encoding the QUBO problem as a set of interacting quantum bits (qubits); initializing all qubits to one state; applying quantum gates to the qubits to cause the qubits to become entangled; and reading the final state of the qubits to determine a maximum or minimum to the QUBO problem (see eg. Rebentrost, pp. 4-5, Section III, wherein the claimed quantum-inspired computer is not required because it is recited in the alternative by the base claims).
Regarding claim 25, the combination as set forth with regards to the base claim teaches solving the QUBO problem defined by the QUBO variables with the quantum or quantum-inspired computer including using a solver program to run a quantum Monte Carlo simulation to find a best solution (see Rebentrost, pg. 14).
Regarding claim 27, Johnson displaying, via the GUI, the optimized distribution of funds corresponding to the investment objectives including displaying a list of selected investments with corresponding numbers of units to purchase (see para. 0014-0018).
Claims 3-5 and 7-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Johnson (US 2017/0372427 A1) in view of Rebentrost (“Quantum computational finance: quantum algorithm for portfolio optimization”), further in view of Rothlisberger (US 2022/0164238 A1)
Regarding claim 3, Johnson, as discussed with regards to the base claims, discloses wherein displaying the optimized distribution of funds corresponding to the investment objectives via the GUI includes solving the QUBO problem defined by the QUBO variables with the quantum or quantum-inspired computer, converting the QUBO solution to real variables corresponding to an optimized distribution of funds across at least a portion of the plurality of available investments, and displaying, via the GUI, the optimized distribution of funds corresponding to the investment objectives.
Johnson does not explicitly disclose, but Rothlisberger teaches displaying a “regenerate response” control configured to cause repetition of the portfolio optimization process (see para. 0044).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method of Johnson to include the feature taught by Rothlisberger.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make the modification to allow the user to adjust a custom portfolio by re-optimizing or rebalancing when their portfolio is out of range (see Rothlisberger para. 0044).
Regarding claim 4, the combination set forth with regards to base claim 3 teaches wherein receiving a “regenerate response” actuation further causes a repetition (Rothlisberger) of converting the probabilistic objective function to the quadratic unconstrained binary optimization (QUBO) variables (Johnson).
Regarding claim 5, the combination set forth with regards to base claim 4 teaches wherein receiving a “regenerate response” actuation (Rothlisberger) further causes a repetition of defining the probabilistic objective function for obtaining the desired investment objective with respect to the distribution of funds across the plurality of available investments (Johnson).
Regarding claim 7, Johnson does not explicitly disclose, but Rothlisberger teaches: receiving actuation of a “commit” control in the GUI; and electronically making investments corresponding to the optimized distribution of funds (see para. 0062).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method of Johnson to include the feature taught by Rothlisberger.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make the modification to conveniently execute the purchasing of the securities included in the custom portfolio (see Rothlisberger, para. 0062).
Regarding claim 8, Johnson does not explicitly disclose, but Rothlisberger teaches: receiving a command via the GUI to periodically recalculate the optimum distribution of funds (see para. 0045).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method of Johnson to include the feature taught by Rothlisberger.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make the modification to accommodate for imbalances due to changes in security prices (see Rothlisberger, para. 0045).
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Johnson (US 2017/0372427 A1) in view of Rebentrost (“Quantum computational finance: quantum algorithm for portfolio optimization”), further in view of Wallman (US 6,601,044 B1).
Regarding claim 6, Johnson does not explicitly disclose, but Wallman teaches wherein displaying the GUI includes displaying a natural language input control (see cols. 17-18, ll. 55-29).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method of Johnson to include the feature of Wallman.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make the modification to accommodate investors who wish to speak their requests or individuals who are handicapped and have difficulty using a keyboard (see Wallman, cols. 17-18, ll. 55-29).
Claims 9-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Johnson (US 2017/0372427 A1) in view of Rebentrost (“Quantum computational finance: quantum algorithm for portfolio optimization”), further in view of Zosin (US 7,337,137 B2).
Regarding claim 9, Johnson does not explicitly disclose, but Zosin teaches: wherein defining the objective function includes defining tax liabilities corresponding to trades of existing investments (see cols. 13-14, ll. 65-45).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method of Johnson further to include the feature taught by Zosin.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make the modification to take into account the total tax liability after transition into the portfolio (see Zosin, cols. 13-14, ll. 65-45).
Regarding claim 10, the combination as set forth with regards to base claim 9 teaches: wherein converting the QUBO solution to real variables corresponding to an optimized distribution of funds across at least a portion of the plurality of available investments includes converting the QUBO solution to real variables with an optimized distribution (Johnson) in view of the tax liabilities (Zosin).
Regarding claim 11, Johnson does not explicitly disclose, but Zosin teaches: wherein electronically making investments corresponding to the optimized distribution of funds includes electronically making adjustments to a previous distribution of funds to reduce exposure to previous investments inconsistent with the recalculated response (see cols. 7-8, ll. 60-32).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method of Johnson to include the feature taught by Zosin.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make the modification to allow a user to continuously evaluate portfolios/trades and rebalance portfolios (see Zosin, cols. 7-8, ll. 60-32).
Claims 14-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Johnson (US 2017/0372427 A1) in view of Rebentrost (“Quantum computational finance: quantum algorithm for portfolio optimization”), further in view of Lakshminarayan (US 2010/0114648 A1).
Regarding claim 14, Johnson discloses receiving data including historical returns on investment for a plurality of available investments (see para. 0056).
Johnson does not explicitly disclose, but Lakshminarayan teaches: including receiving expert opinions; and wherein defining the probabilistic objective function includes defining a Bayesian model including probability distributions for each of the available investments and at least one expert opinion spanning one or more of the available investments (see para. 0027, 0039-0046).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method of Johnson to include the feature taught by Lakshminarayan.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make the modification to optimize financial performance (see Lakshminarayan, para. 0027).
Regarding claim 15, the combination as set forth with regards to base claim 14 teaches: wherein the at least one expert opinion is incorporated into the Bayesian model by modifying a probability distribution for an available investment spanned by the expert opinion (see Lakshminarayan, para. . 0027, 0039-0046).
Regarding claim 16, the combination as set forth with regards to base claim 14 teaches: wherein the at least one expert opinion is incorporated into the Bayesian model by: representing probabilistic future returns for the available investments as random variables; using Bayesian inferences to modify historical returns on investment to include the expert opinions; and generating forecasts of the future investment results as functions of the Bayesian inferences (see Lakshminarayan, para. 0027, 0039-0046).
Regarding claim 17, Johnson discloses receiving data including historical returns on investment for a plurality of available investments (see para. 0056). Johnson does not explicitly disclose, but Lakshminarayan teaches: including receiving at least one of economic data and an economic data derivative; and wherein defining the probabilistic objective function includes defining a Bayesian model including probability distributions for each of the available investments and the at least one of the economic data and the economic data derivative spanning one or more of the available investments (see para. 0027, 0039-0046).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method of Johnson to include the feature taught by Lakshminarayan.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make the modification to optimize financial performance (see Lakshminarayan, para. 0027).
Regarding claim 18, Johnson discloses receiving data including historical returns on investment for a plurality of available investments includes receiving historical stock market averages, wherein defining the probabilistic objective function includes the historical stock market averages applicable to one or more of the available investments (see para. 0056). Johnson does not explicitly disclose, but Lakshminarayan teaches: defining a Bayesian model including probability distributions for each of the available investments (see para. . 0027, 0039-0046).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method of Johnson to include the feature taught by Lakshminarayan.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make the modification to optimize financial performance (see Lakshminarayan, para. 0027).
Claim 26 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Johnson (US 2017/0372427 A1) in view of Rebentrost (“Quantum computational finance: quantum algorithm for portfolio optimization”), further in view of Yarkoni (US 2018/0276550 A1).
Regarding claim 26, the combination set forth with regards to base claim 1, as described above, discloses wherein solving the QUBO problem defined by the QUBO variables with the quantum or quantum-inspired computer further includes using the solver program to: solve the QUBO problem with the quantum or quantum-inspired computer wherein converting the QUBO solution to real variables corresponding to an optimized distribution of funds across at least a portion of the plurality of available investments corresponding to the investment objectives includes outputting the solution (see para. 0066-0076).
Johnson does not explicitly disclose, but Yarkoni teaches solving a plurality of times; and comparing the QUBO solutions to determine a consensus of solutions or a best solution; and outputting the consensus of solutions or the best solution for converting the QUBO solution to the real variables (see para. 0106).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method of Johnson to include the feature taught by Yarkoni.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make the modification to increase quality of the solution (see Yarkoni, para. 0106).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Ramesh (US 2022/0084123 A1) discloses methods, systems, and apparatus for improving the computational time and complexity of portfolio optimization. In one aspect, a method includes receiving data representing a mixed integer programming (MIP) formulation of a portfolio optimization task for a current portfolio; mapping the MIP formulation of the portfolio optimization task to a quadratic unconstrained binary optimization (QUBO) formulation of the portfolio optimization task; and obtaining data representing a solution to the portfolio optimization task from a quantum computing resource, wherein the solution to the portfolio optimization task comprises data indicating how to rebalance the current portfolio.
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 ERIC T WONG whose telephone number is (571)270-3405. The examiner can normally be reached 9am-5pm M-F.
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, Michael W Anderson can be reached at 571-270-0508. 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.
/ERIC T WONG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3693
ERIC WONG
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 3693