DETAILED ACTION
Claims 1-20 are pending. Claims 1-20 are considered in this Office 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 4/17/2025 has been acknowledged.
The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner. The initialed and dated copy of Applicant’s IDS form 1449 is attached to the instant Office action.
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.
Alice – Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Claims 1 and 13 recite the limitations for receiving information indicating: a plurality of entities, wherein each entity of the plurality of entities has an associated valuation, and a plurality of assignees (Collecting Information, an Observation, a Mental Process; Managing Human Behavior, i.e. allocating resources/assignees, a Certain Method of Organizing Human Activity), setting, based on the received information, values of one or more constraints associated with an objective function that defines variations in a total valuation of entities assigned to each assignee (Analyzing the Information, an Evaluation, a Mental Process; Managing Human Behavior, i.e. allocating resources/assignees, a Certain Method of Organizing Human Activity), and determining based on the objective function and the values of the one or more constraints, an entity assignment distribution that assigns one or more entities of the plurality of entities to each assignee of the plurality of assignees (Analyzing the Information, an Evaluation, a Mental Process; Managing Human Behavior, i.e. allocating resources/assignees, a Certain Method of Organizing Human Activity), which under their broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind for the purposes of evaluating data for assignment of assignees and entities, but for the recitation of generic computer components. That is, other than reciting a system, classical computing system, and a quantum computing system, nothing in the claim element precludes the step from practically being performed or read into the mind for the purposes of evaluating data of customers, which is Managing Human Behavior, a Certain Method of Organizing Human Activity. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas, an observation, evaluation, and judgment. Further, as described above, the claims recite limitations for Managing Human Behavior, a “Certain Method of Organizing Human Activity”. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim recites the above stated additional elements to perform the abstract limitations as above. The system, classical computing system, and a quantum computing system are recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as a generic software/module performing a generic computer function of storing, retrieving, sending, and processing data) such that they amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components. Even if taken as an additional element, the receiving steps above are at best insignificant extra-solution activity as these are receiving, storing, and transmitting data as per the MPEP 2106.05(d). 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 claim is directed to an abstract idea.
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception, when considered both individually and as an ordered combination. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional element being used to perform the abstract limitations stated above amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components. Mere instructions to apply an exception using generic computer components cannot provide an inventive concept. The claim is not patent eligible. Applicant’s Specification states:
“[0026] Classical computing system 102 can be any suitable type of microprocessor-based device,
such as a personal computer, workstation, server, or handheld computing device (portable electronic device) such as a phone or tablet, or dedicated device.”
And
“[0039] Classical computing system 102 may be communicatively coupled to quantum computing system 104. Quantum computing system 104 may be any suitable quantum-processor-based device”
Which shows that these steps can be performed on any generic computing device which can be used to perform the abstract limitations, such as a laptop, phone, desktop, etc., and from this interpretation, one would reasonably deduce the aforementioned steps are all functions that can be done on generic components, and thus application of an abstract idea on a generic computer, as per the Alice decision and not requiring further analysis under Berkheimer, but for edification the Applicant’s specification has been used as above satisfying any such requirement. This is “Applying It” by utilizing current technologies. For the receiving steps that were considered extra-solution activity in Step 2A above, if they were to be considered additional elements, they have been re-evaluated in Step 2B and determined to be well-understood, routine, conventional, activity in the field. The background does not provide any indication that the additional elements, such as the computer, various means, etc., nor the receiving and transmitting steps as above, are anything other than a generic, and the MPEP Section 2106.05(d) indicates that mere collection or receipt, storing, or transmission of data is a well‐understood, routine, and conventional function when it is claimed in a merely generic manner (as it is here). For these reasons, there is no inventive concept. The claim is not patent eligible.
Claims 2-12 and 14-20 contain the identified abstract ideas, further narrowing them, with the additional elements of a quantum annealer which is highly generalized when considered as part of a practical application or under prong 2 of the Alice analysis of the MPEP, thus not integrated into a practical application, nor are they significantly more for the same reasons and rationale as above. Examiner notes Claims 9-11 recite abstractions of a Mathematical Concept/Relationship.
After considering all claim elements, both individually and in combination, Examiner has determined that the claims are directed to the above abstract ideas and do not amount to significantly more. Therefore, the claims and dependent claims are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 as being directed to non-statutory subject matter. See Alice Corporation Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank International, No. 13–298.
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 of this title, 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.
The factual inquiries set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 1-8 and 12-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Santos (U.S. Publication No. 2016/007,7880) in view of Saravana (U.S. Publication No. 2024/005,4382).
Regarding Claims 1 and 13, Santos, a system and method for portfolio generation based on dynamic allocation of resources, teaches a method comprising:
receiving information indicating: a plurality of entities, wherein each entity of the plurality of entities has an associated valuation, and a plurality of assignees ([0017-18] allocation data is project information, which is entities as per Applicant’s specification and resource allocation data, which is assignees, and further the projects/entities can be valuated as in [0018]);
setting, based on the received information, values of one or more constraints ([0018] and [0052] constraints are set for the projects/entities) associated with an objective function that defines variations in a total valuation of entities assigned to each assignee ([0038] which utilizes an objective function for the project and resource valuation); and
Although Santos teaches determining based on the objective function and the values of the one or more constraints, an entity assignment distribution that assigns one or more entities of the plurality of entities to each assignee of the plurality of assignees [0119-121] an objective function is used to optimized a portfolio/project which deals with the assignment of resources through time-phased resource constraints), it does not explicitly teach use of quantum computer system
Saravana teaches using a quantum computing system [0020] which is used to determine resource allocation as in [0026].
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the resource allocation using an objective function of Tanaka with the resource allocation using an objective function with a quantum computing device of Saravana as they are both analogous art along with the claimed invention which teach solutions to allocation of resources using an objective function, and the combination would lead to an improved system which would increase the speed of the optimization as taught in [0009] of Saravana.
Examiner notes Santos teaches a system and classical computing system ([0013])
Regarding Claims 2 and 14, Santos does not does not explicitly teach use of quantum computer system
Saravana teaches using a quantum annealer [0020] which is used to determine resource allocation as in [0026].
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the resource allocation using an objective function of Tanaka with the resource allocation using an objective function with a quantum computing device of Saravana as they are both analogous art along with the claimed invention which teach solutions to allocation of resources using an objective function, and the combination would lead to an improved system which would increase the speed of the optimization as taught in [0009] of Saravana.
Regarding Claims 3 and 15, does not explicitly teach use of quantum computer system
Saravana teaches using a quantum computing system for solving the quadratic constrained binary problem [0020] which is used to determine resource allocation as in [0026].
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the resource allocation using an objective function of Tanaka with the resource allocation using an objective function with a quantum computing device of Saravana as they are both analogous art along with the claimed invention which teach solutions to allocation of resources using an objective function, and the combination would lead to an improved system which would increase the speed of the optimization as taught in [0009] of Saravana.
Regarding Claims 4 and 16, the combination of Santos and Saravana teaches wherein determining the entity assignment distribution using an objective function as in Claim 1 above.
Santos further teaches comprises minimizing an output value of the objective function as in [0038] where a minimum or maximum is used and then in [0126] a min/max objective function.
Regarding Claims 5 and 17, the combination of Santos and Saravana teaches the one or more constraints associated with the objective function being utilized to assign assignees/resources to projects/entities as in Claim 1 above.
Santos further teaches comprises maximizing an output value of the objective function as in [0038] where a minimum or maximum is used and then in [0126] a min/max objective function.
Regarding Claims 6 and 18, Although Santos teaches a maximum objective function as in [0126] and in Claim 5 above, it does not explicitly state assignment of 1.
Saravana teaches should be assigned as one as in [0083] where maximum is set to one.
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the resource allocation using an objective function of Tanaka with the resource allocation using an objective function with a quantum computing device of Saravana as they are both analogous art along with the claimed invention which teach solutions to allocation of resources using an objective function, and the combination would lead to an improved system which would increase the speed of the optimization as taught in [0009] of Saravana.
Regarding Claims 7 and 19, Santos teaches wherein:
the plurality of entities is a plurality of projects ([0017-18] allocation data is project information, which is entities as per Applicant’s specification and resource allocation data, which is assignees, and further the projects/entities can be valuated as in [0018]);
the valuation associated with each project is an amount of time required to complete the project ([0018] the value is both time and cost) and
the plurality of assignees is a plurality of members of a group tasked with completing the plurality of projects ([0017-18] allocation data is project information, which is entities as per Applicant’s specification and resource allocation data, which is assignees, and further the projects/entities can be valuated as in [0018]);
Regarding Claim 8, Santos teaches wherein the objective function comprises, for each assignee of the plurality of assignees, an associated assignee term representing the total valuation of entities assigned to the assignee ([0035-42] multiple tables are used to show the results of the objective function which shows the amount of time and budget in span of time periods, a valuation as defined here in the Specification)
Regarding Claims 12 and 20, Santos teaches comprising outputting entity assignment information to each of the plurality of assignees according to the determined entity assignment distribution ([0035-42] multiple tables are used to show the results of the objective function which shows the amount of time and budget in span of time periods, which is a distribution over the table, and this is a valuation as defined here in the Specification)
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 9-11 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if the independent claim was amended in such a way as to overcome the 35 USC 101 rejection.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
US 20240054382 A1
SARAVANAN; M et al.
DETERMINING ALLOCATION OF RESOURCES IN A WIRELESS NETWORK
US 20160077880 A1
Santos; Cipriano (Pano) A et al.
Portfolio Generation Based on a Dynamic Allocation of Resources
US 20160004228 A1
Kohn; Wolf et al.
COOPERATIVE DISTRIBUTED CONTROL OF TARGET SYSTEMS
US 20210142241 A1
Thompson; Matthew et al.
Operations Management Methods and Products
US 20190244150 A1
Furman; Kevin C. et al.
Systems and Methods for Valuation and Validation of Options and Opportunities in Planning and Operations for a Liquefied Natural Gas Project or Portfolio of Projects
US 20180025452 A1
FADEEV; BORIS et al.
COMPUTERIZED SYSTEMS AND METHODS FOR OPTIMIZING BUILDING CONSTRUCTION
US 20160077507 A1
Sheble; Gerald Bernard
RESOURCE CONTROL BY PROBABILITY TREE CONVOLUTION PRODUCTION COST VALUATION BY ITERATIVE EQUIVALENT DEMAND DURATION CURVE EXPANSION (AKA. TREE CONVOLUTION)
US 20260172254 A1
LI; Chung-Sheng et al.
METHOD AND APPARATUS FOR DECENTRALIZED PRIVACY PRESERVING AUDIT BASED ON ZERO KNOWLEDGE PROOF PROTOCOL
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JOSEPH M WAESCO whose telephone number is (571)272-9913. The examiner can normally be reached on 8 AM - 5 PM 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, BETH BOSWELL can be reached on (571) 272-6737. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-1348.
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.
/JOSEPH M WAESCO/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3625B 6/23/2026
Prosecution Insights