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 final office action is responsive to the amendments filed on 08/04/2026.
Claims 1-3, 5-13, 15-20 are pending.
Response to Amendment
Applicant has amended independent claims 1, 11 and dependent claims 5-6, 9-10, 15-16, 19-20 to include new/old limitations in a form not previously presented necessitating new search and considerations. Claims 4, 14 have been canceled.
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.
Claims 1-3, 5-13, 15-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112 (b) as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following claim language is not clearly understood:
Claim 1 recites “human-understandable explanation”, which is not definite i.e. explanation may be understood by one and may not be understood by another.
Claim 1 recites “providing a problem and associated inputs and constraints to an annealer in form of metadata that provides a human-understandable explanation”. It is unclear what is being referred as providing human understandable explanation i.e. if the problem, input/constraints / annealer and/or metadata provides a human understandable explanation.
Claim 1 recites “explainer” without clearly reciting what is explainer.
Claim 11 recite elements of claim 1 and have similar deficiency as claim 1. Therefore, they are rejected for the same rationales. Remaining dependent claims 2-3, 5-10 and 12-13, 15-20 are also rejected due to similar deficiency inherited from the rejected independent claims.
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.
Claims 1-3, 5-13, 15-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ronagh et al. (US 2016/0224515 A1, hereafter Ronagh) in view of Sadeghi Esfahani et al. (US 2024/ 0248947 A1, hereafter Sadeghi Esfahani).
Ronagh and Sadeghi Esfahani were cited in the last office action.
As per claim 1, Ronagh teaches the invention substantially as claimed including the method, comprising:
providing a problem and associated inputs and constraints to an annealer in a form of metadata that provides a human-understandable explanation (fig. 1 108 [0009] providing an unconstrained quadratic binary programming problem to a quantum annealer [0014] providing an embedding of the constrained quadratic binary programming problem on the quantum annealer [0112] data representative of an embedding of the constraint binary quadratic programming problem on the quantum annealer are provided [0146] ORACLE::solve_qubo, called, input Q, quantum Annealer; fig. 5 502 [0066] constrained binary quadratic programming problem is provided by a user interacting with computer i.e. human understandable [0067]); and
when the annealer runs a quantum annealing process on the problem and does not find a solution to the problem that meets the constraints ([0009] quantum annealer 204, solving the unconstrained binary quadratic programming problem; until a convergence is detected; fig. 1 102-108-114-No):
loosening, by an explainer, one of the constraints according to the metadata and re-running, by the annealer, the quantum annealing process using the constraint that was loosened, until a new and feasible solution is found that meets the constraints ([0009] until a convergence is detected, iteratively perform a Lagrangian relaxation of the constrained quadratic binary programming problem, provide an unconstrained quadratic binary programming problem to quantum annealer, obtaining from the quantum annealer at least one corresponding solution; fig. 1 - 102, 104, 106, 108, 110 solving the UQBP using quantum annealer to provide at least one solution); and
performing an optimization process to determine whether a solution that is better than the new and feasible solution exists ([0157] test is performed in order to find out if the optimal value of y is or not improved from the previous value [0158] in case where the optimal value of y* does not improve according to the processing step 116, the result of the optimization is reported).
Ronagh doesn’t specifically teach annealer does not find a solution to the problem that meets the constraints (although non-convergence fig. 1 114 taught by Rough is similar); loosening, by an explainer, one of the constraints according to the metadata.
Sadeghi Esfahani, however, teaches annealer does not find a solution to the problem that meets the constraints ([0166] annealing, solution, produced, violate one or more constrains, infeasible solution [0170] fails to make progress in lowering infeasibility [0188] problem is infeasible and fails to improve the total violation, annealing);
loosening, by an explainer, one of the constraints according to the metadata ([0243] constrained, different variable types, determine the sampling distribution [0245] temporarily relaxing the integer variable to a continuous variable [0383] positive continuous variable, multiplier, added, avoid infeasibility, penalized).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skills in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Ronagh with the teachings of Sadeghi Esfahani of annealing solution violate one or more constraints and is infeasible solution and relaxing the constrained problem’s variable to avoid infeasibility and in case where annealer does not find a solution to the problem that meets the constraints; loosening one of the constraints according to the metadata to the method of Ronagh as in the instant invention.
The combination would have been obvious because combining the teachings of Sadeghi Esfahani of relaxing the integer variable of the constrained problem to be continuous to avoid infeasible solution obtained during annealing to the method of Ronagh to yield predictable result with improved optimization.
As per claim 2, Ronagh teaches wherein the problem comprises a quadratic unconstrained binary optimization (QUBO) problem ([0009] providing an unconstrained quadratic binary programming problem to a quantum annealer).
As per claim 3, Ronagh teaches wherein the annealer is a quantum annealer ([0009] quantum annealer).
As per claim 5, Ronagh teaches wherein re-running the quantum annealing process with noise comprises expanding a parameter space to incorporate a larger solution space (fig. 1 annealing process loop 108-110-112-114-No-108 [0018] iteratively performing a Lagrangian relaxation [0174] constraint, lagrange multiplier, relaxation, lower and upper bounds -10 and 10 for the multiplier with initial value 0 [0179] multiplier = 10 [0155] optimal multipliers [0159]).
As per claim 6, Ronagh teaches wherein the running and re-running of the quantum annealing process is performed based on the metadata provided to the annealer with the problem (fig. 1 annealing process loop 108-110-112-114-No-108 [0018] iteratively performing a Lagrangian relaxation [0174] constraint, lagrange multiplier, relaxation, lower and upper bounds -10 and 10 for the multiplier with initial value 0).
As per claim 7, Ronagh teaches wherein the metadata comprises strings tagged to parameters and the constraints ([0117] Table-0001 params.elements, num_reads_string << 100 * qubo.dim; num_reads_string.str(), embeddings, embedding_solvre_err, params).
As per claim 8, Ronagh teaches wherein the metadata enables explainability of any solutions obtained by the annealer ([0018] iteratively performing a Lagrangian relaxation [0174] constraint, lagrange multiplier, relaxation, lower and upper bounds -10 and 10 for the multiplier with initial value 0 [0148] [0149] interpreting the at least one corresponding solution as new cuts, for determining a new approximation for lagrangian dual bound).
As per claim 9, Ronagh teaches wherein the metadata is used to change the problem while the quantum annealing process is running, and/or being re-run (fig. 1 annealing process loop 108-110-112-114-No-108 [0009] performing a Lagrangian relaxation of the constrained quadratic binary programming problem to provide an unconstrained quadratic binary programming problem [0018] iteratively performing a Lagrangian relaxation [0174] constraint, lagrange multiplier, relaxation, lower and upper bounds -10 and 10 for the multiplier with initial value 0).
As per claim 10, Ronagh teaches wherein the loosening of the constraints is performed in real time as the quantum annealing process is running ([0021] until a convergence is detected, iteratively performing a lagrangian relaxation fig. 1 providing lagrangian relaxation 108-110-112-114-108 [0137] iteratively, during the entire runtime).
Claim 11 recites non-transitory storage medium having stored therein instructions that are executable by one or more hardware processors to perform operations comprising elements similar to claim 1. Therefore, it is rejected for the same rationales.
Claim 12 recites non-transitory storage medium with instructions similar to claim 2. Therefore, it is rejected for the same rationales.
Claim 13 recites non-transitory storage medium with instructions similar to claim 3. Therefore, it is rejected for the same rationales.
Claim 15 recites non-transitory storage medium with instructions similar to claim 5. Therefore, it is rejected for the same rationales.
Claim 16 recites non-transitory storage medium with instructions similar to claim 6. Therefore, it is rejected for the same rationales.
Claim 17 recites non-transitory storage medium with instructions similar to claim 7. Therefore, it is rejected for the same rationales.
Claim 18 recites non-transitory storage medium with instructions similar to claim 8. Therefore, it is rejected for the same rationales.
Claim 19 recites non-transitory storage medium with instructions similar to claim 9. Therefore, it is rejected for the same rationales.
Claim 20 recites non-transitory storage medium with instructions similar to claim 10. Therefore, it is rejected for the same rationales.
Response to Arguments
The previous objections to the specification have been withdrawn.
The previous objections to drawings have been withdrawn.
The previous objections under 35 USC 112(b) have been withdrawn. However, some new objections are made in reference to the amended claims.
Applicant's arguments filed on 08/04/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. In Applicant’s Remarks filed on 08/04/2026, Applicant argues the following:
The Lagarngian relaxation just solving an optimization problem with fixed multipliers. In other words, the fixed multipliers are fixed and not changed. Thus , the Langrangian relaxation as disclosed by Ronagh doesn’t correspond to the loosening of one of constraint as recited above in independent claims 1 and 11.
Further, Ronagh nowhere discloses “providing a problem and associated inputs and constraints to an annealer in a form of metadata that provides a human-understandable explanation” , as recited in independent claim 1 and 11.
Examiner has thoroughly considered Applicant’s arguments, but respectfully, find them unpersuasive for at least the following reasons:
With respect to point a: Examiner respectfully disagree. While the multiplier lambda is a number, it is not fixed. Instead, Langrangian relaxation algorithm explore the range of feasible multiplier lambda values, while seeking to minimize the objective function using the Langrangian multiplier i.e. ([0047] optimization equation [0002]-[0003], [0140]-[0143]). In addition, Sadeghi Esfahani clearly teaches temporary relaxing the integer variable to a continuous variable, computing the gradient due to the objective and Langrangian relaxation of the constraints that involve that variable ([0109], [0163], [0245]).
With respect to point b: Ronagh teaches providing to the annealer data representative of embedding of the constraint binary quadratic programming problem ([0112]) by a user interacting with computer ([0066] [0067]). User interaction with the computer for providing the constrained problem indicates the understanding by human.
Examiners Note
Applicant is further reminded of that the cited paragraphs and in the references as applied to the claims above for the convenience of the applicant(s) and although the specified citations are representative of the teachings of the art and are applied to the specific limitations within the individual claim, other passages and figures may apply as well. It is respectfully requested from the applicant in preparing responses, to fully consider all of the references in entirety as potentially teaching all or part of the claimed invention, as well as the context of the passage as taught by the prior art or disclosed by the examiner.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Dudash et al. (US 2023/0325461 A1) teaches hardware accelerated minor embedding for quantum Annealing.
Mahmud et al. (US 2024/0144068 A1) teaches systems and methods for improving computational efficiency of processor-based devices in solving constrained quadratic models with penalty factors.
Mohseni et al. (US 2019/0318259 A1) teaches constructing and programming quantum hardware for robust quantum annealing processes.
Authorization for Internet Communication
Applicant is encouraged to submit an authorization to communicate with the Examiner via the internet by making the following statement (MPEP 502.03)
“Recognizing that internet communications are not secure, I hereby authorize the USPTO to communicate with the undersigned and practitioners in accordance with 37 CFR 1.33 and 37 CFR 1.34 concerning any subject matter of this application by video conferencing, instant messaging, or electronic mail. I understand that a copy of these communications will be made of record in the application file.”
Please note that the above statement can only by submitted via Central Fax (not Examiner’s Fax), Regular postal mail, or EFS Web using PTO/SB/439.
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 ABU ZAR GHAFFARI whose telephone number is (571)270-3799. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Thursday 9:00 - 17:00 Hrs.
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, Aimee Lee can be reached on 571-272-4169. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/ABU ZAR GHAFFARI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2195
