DETAILED ACTION
This office action is in response to claims filed 30 July 2026.
Claims 1-14 are pending.
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 Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 30 July 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
On page 8 of the remarks, the applicant argues the following:
“These feature(s) are not directed merely to a mental process. Applicant's Specification explains that the disclosed system addresses technical problems in GPU-based annealing and parallelization. For example, the Specification states that "even in the GPGPU-based annealer, the difficulty of implementing parallelization of an algorithm of the simulated annealing with high performance has become apparent." Spec. [0014] (emphasis added). The Specification further explains that, in conventional GPGPU approaches, "one of the problems of a method of solving the Ising model by the GPGPU is that the method cannot be adapted to a general- purpose problem," and "another problem of the method of solving the Ising model by the GPGPU is that the improvement in the solving accuracy is easily limited." Spec. [0014] (emphases added). These are computer-processing and parallelization problems, not mental steps.”
The examiner respectfully disagrees. Applicant argues that the claims address a technical problem. Firstly, determining whether a claim recites a mental process (in step 2A prong 1) does not consider whether the claim addresses a technological problem (in step 2A prong 2). In other words, it is not accurate to say that features of a claim are not directed to a mental process under step 2A prong 1 because the claim addresses a technical problem. However, evaluating whether the claim provides eligibility under step 2A prong 2, MPEP 2106.05(a) states: “An important consideration in determining whether a claim improves technology is the extent to which the claim covers a particular solution to a problem or a particular way to achieve a desired outcome, as opposed to merely claiming the idea of a solution or outcome.” In this case, the applicant merely argues that the claim provides an idea of a solution or outcome, and fails to show how the claim provides a particular solution to the problem. For example, the specification states in general terms that “in the GPGPU based annealer, the difficulty of implementing parallelization of an algorithm…has become apparent.” However, in the claim, there is no “annealing” or “parallelization”, because the claim does not recite execution of the threads. Only “searching for an output value of the group variable” and “outputting the output variable. Neither the specification, nor the remarks, establish how simply searching for, and outputting an output value covers, or provides a particular solution to the general technical problem. Further, the fact that a problem is of a computer-processing or parallelization nature is irrelevant to whether the claim is directed to a mental process, because it is the nature of the solution, not the problem, that potentially provides eligibility. The applicant’s argument is therefore not persuasive.
On page 8 of the remarks, the applicant argues the following:
“Claim 1 addresses those problems using a particular GPU execution arrangement. The Specification states that the parallel processing processor "is a graphics processing unit (GPU) as a processor capable of constructing a plurality of threads 28 for each of a plurality of blocks 26 in order to solve an optimization problem by parallel processing of pseudo quantum computation," and that the processor "calls a kernel function…and executes parallel processing for each thread 28 for each block 26." Spec. [[0022]. Therefore, this GPU-block/thread execution framework is not practically performable in the human mind.”
The examiner respectfully disagrees. Applicant alleges that the claim provides a technological solution to the problem through use of a particular GPU execution arrangement that, in part, “calls a kernel function…and executes parallel processing for each thread 28 for each block 26.” However, as discussed above, the claim does not recite executing a thread or threads, either in parallel or in sequence. Further, the 2019 PEG explains that “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 is still in the mental processes grouping unless the claim limitation cannot practically be performed in the mind”. In other words, the recitation of a GPU, and similar generic processing components, by themselves do not preclude the claim from being directed to a mental process. As such, the claim does not address the problem, and the applicant’s argument is not persuasive.
On pages 8-9 of the remarks, the applicant argues the following:
“Claim 1 uses a GPU having blocks and threads to perform a specific parallel search based on one-hot group-variable solution candidates and energy evaluation values.
“The Specification describes the practical technological improvement. It states that the disclosure provides technology "capable of achieving not only high speed by implementing efficient parallelization by GPGPU but also particularly exhibiting performance for the problem of a one-hot constraint in Ising formulation frequently used in many useful applications." Spec. [0017] (emphasis added). The Specification also states that "the present disclosure provides a processing system that achieves both an increase in speed of solving processing and an improvement in solving accuracy." Spec. [0007] (emphases added).
“The claimed arrangement implements that improvement. The Specification explains that, when "a group variable is defined with a combination pattern satisfying a one-hot constraint for each group of a binary variable as a solution candidate," the solution candidate is assigned "for each thread in each of blocks of a parallel processing processor," and "an output value of the group variable is searched for on the basis of an energy evaluation value for the solution candidate of the group variable assigned to each thread in each block." Spec. [0011]. As a result, "the output value of the group variable is searched in parallel in each block of the parallel processing processor," so "the search that can ensure accuracy can be completed in a short time." Spec. [0011] (Emphasis added). The Specification concludes that the disclosed aspects are "effective in achieving both an increase in speed of solving processing and an improvement in solving accuracy." Spec. [0011] (Emphasis added).
“Thus, Claim 1 applies any alleged mathematical or optimization concept in a particular GPU-based manner that improves computer processing speed and accuracy for one-hot- constrained optimization.”
The examiner respectfully disagrees. Applicant alleges that the claim integrates the mental process into a practical application by using a GPU to perform a parallel search. However, MPEP 2106.05(a) explains: “It is important to note, the judicial exception alone cannot provide the improvement. The improvement can be provided by one or more additional elements.” Since performing a search is considered to be a mental process, it cannot provide an improvement to the functioning of the computer. As the applicant’s argument relies upon the performance of a search to provide the improvement, the applicant’s argument is not persuasive.
On pages 9-10 of the remarks, the applicant argues the following:
“Claim 1 also recites significantly more than any alleged abstract idea. Claim 1 recites a particular GPU-based processing architecture in which a "graphics processing unit (GPU) configured to execute a kernel function" and comprising "a plurality of blocks and a plurality of threads for each block" performs: (1) "assigning, to each of the threads in each of the blocks, the solution candidate of the group variable, the solution candidate being a common initial value generated from a seed value associated with the block"; (2) "searching for an output value of the group variable on a basis of an energy evaluation value for the solution candidate of the group variable assigned to each of the threads in each of the blocks"; and (3) "outputting the output value of all the group variables having been searched."
“The Specification provides technical details showing that these are not merely generic computer functions. For example, the Specification explains that an initial value is generated "by random number generation for each group variable xi from individual seed values of different blocks 26." Spec. [0031]. The Specification further states that the search section "assigns the initial value ki_s generated from different seed values individually associated with each block 26 to the threads 28 of the same block 26 in common." Spec. [0032]. This corresponds to amended Claim 1's recitation that the solution candidate is "a common initial value generated from a seed value associated with the block."
“The Specification also describes the claimed energy-evaluation-based search. It states that the search section "searches for the output value ki_f from the solution candidate k for each thread 28 for each of all the group variables xi by update processing in each block 26 based on an energy evaluation value and a transition probability as a selection rule according to simulated annealing." Spec. [0033]. Further, for each solution candidate, "a function Ei(k) of the energy evaluation value for the solution candidate k for each thread 28 for the selected group variable xi is defined" according to the disclosed model. Spec. [0037]. The Specification then states that "the evaluation value difference δEi(k, kp) and the transition probability Pi(k) based on the energy evaluation value Ei(k) are acquired by parallel computation in the plurality of threads 28 for each solution candidate k." Spec. ||[0042].
“These feature(s) amount to significantly more than merely receiving data, performing a mental evaluation, or outputting a result. These feature(s) define a particular GPU-based processing architecture involving assignment of solution candidates to threads in blocks and searching for output values of group variables on the basis of energy evaluation values. As explained in the Specification, this architecture enables the search to be performed in parallel in the blocks such that "the search that can ensure accuracy can be completed in a short time" and is "effective in achieving both an increase in speed of solving processing and an improvement in solving accuracy." Spec. [0011] (Emphases added).”
The examiner respectfully disagrees. The claim fails to recite significantly more than the judicial exception for the same reasons expressed in the above responses. Applicant argues that a particular PGU-based processing architecture enables a search to be performed in parallel. However, as established above, the search is a mental process, and therefore cannot provide significantly more than the judicial exception, being part of the judicial exception itself. The applicant’s argument is not persuasive.
Applicant’s arguments filed 30 July 2026 with respect to the rejections made under 35 U.S.C. 102 and have been fully considered and are persuasive. The rejections have been withdrawn.
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 1-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (abstract idea) without significantly more.
Regarding claim 1, in step 1 of the 101 analysis set forth in MPEP 2106, the claim recites a system that outputs values of group variables that have been searched for based on energy evaluation values. A system is one of the four statutory categories of invention.
In step 2A, prong 1 of the 101 analysis set forth in the MPEP 2106, the examiner has determined that the following limitations recite a process that, under the broadest reasonable interpretation, covers a mental process but for recitation of generic computer components:
i. “assigning, to each of the threads in each of the blocks, the solution candidate of the group variable, the solution candidate being a common initial value generated from a seed value associated with the block” (a person can mentally assign solution candidates by simply evaluating threads and seed values in blocks and making a judgement of an assignment (MPEP 2106.04(a)))
ii. “searching for an output value of the group variable on a basis of an energy evaluation value for the solution candidate of the group variable assigned to each of the threads in each of the blocks” (a person can mentally search for an output value by simply evaluating an energy evaluation value for solution candidates of a group variable assigned to threads, and making a judgment of a particular output value (MPEP 2106.04(a))).
If claim limitations, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitations as a mental process but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the mental process grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim “recites” an abstract idea.
In step 2A, prong 2 of the 101 analysis set forth in MPEP 2106, the examiner has determined that the following additional elements do not integrate this judicial exception into a practical application:
iii. “A processing system comprising a graphics processing unit (GPU) configured to execute a kernel function, the GPU comprising a plurality of blocks and a plurality of threads for each block, and the GPU configured to optimize a combination of binary variables under a one-hot constraint” (generally links the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use (MPEP 2106.05(h))).
iv. “when a group variable is defined with a combination pattern satisfying the one-hot constraint as a solution candidate for each group of the binary variables, the GPU is configured to execute” (generally links the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use (MPEP 2106.05(h))).
vii. “outputting the output value of all the group variables having been searched” (insignificant extra-solution activity of mere data output (MPEP 2106.05(g))).
Since the claim does not contain any other additional elements that are indicative of integration into a practical application, the claim is “directed” to an abstract idea.
In step 2B of the 101 analysis set forth in the 2019 PEG, the examiner has determined through reanalysis of the following limitations considered in step 2A prong 2, that the claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
iii. “A processing system comprising a graphics processing unit (GPU) configured to execute a kernel function, the GPU comprising a plurality of blocks and a plurality of threads for each block, and the GPU configured to optimize a combination of binary variables under a one-hot constraint” (generally links the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use (MPEP 2106.05(h))).
iv. “when a group variable is defined with a combination pattern satisfying the one-hot constraint as a solution candidate for each group of the binary variables, the GPU is configured to execute” (generally links the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use (MPEP 2106.05(h))).
vii. “outputting the output value of all the group variables having been searched” (well-understood, routine, and conventional activity of transmitting data over a network, (MPEP 2106.05(d)(II))).
Considering the additional elements individually and in combination, and the claim as a whole, the additional elements do not provide significantly more than the abstract idea. Therefore, the claim is not patent eligible.
Regarding claim 2, the additional element “assigning the solution candidate includes assigning, for each of the threads, the solution candidate in which the combination pattern satisfying the one-hot constraint is expressed as an integer by a multi bit index for each of the groups of the binary variables in each of the blocks” does not render the claim patent eligible because under step 2A prong 1, it recites a judicial exception (mental process) (a person can mentally assign solution candidates for each threads by simply evaluating one-hot constraint satisfaction and making a judgement of a particular solution candidate assignment (MPEP 2106.04(a))).
Regarding claim 3, the additional element “assigning the solution candidate includes repeating processing of assigning the solution candidate of an identical group variable for each of the threads for all the group variables in each of the blocks” does not render the claim patent eligible because under step 2A prong 1, it recites a judicial exception (mental process) (a person can mentally assign solution candidates for each threads by simply repeating the evaluation and judgements made for a single assignment (MPEP 2106.04(a))).
Regarding claim 4, the additional element “searching for the output value includes searching for the output value by update processing based on the energy evaluation value and a transition probability for the solution candidate of the group variable assigned to each of the threads in each of the blocks” does not render the claim patent eligible because under step 2A prong 1, it recites a judicial exception (mental process) (a person can mentally search for output values by simply evaluating energy evaluation values and a transition probability, and making a judgement of an output value (MPEP 2106.04(a))).
Regarding claim 5, the additional element “searching for the output value includes updating the output value from the solution candidate for each of the threads in which a difference in the energy evaluation value from before the update processing and the transition probability corresponding to the difference are acquired in accordance with simulated annealing in each of the blocks” does not render the claim patent eligible because under step 2A prong 1, it recites a judicial exception (mental process) (a person can mentally search for output values by simply evaluating energy evaluation difference values and a transition probability corresponding to the difference acquired in accordance with simulated annealing, and making a judgement of an output value (MPEP 2106.04(a))).
Regarding claim 6, the additional element “searching for the output value includes updating the output value from the solution candidate for each of the threads in which the difference in the energy evaluation value from before the update processing and the transition probability corresponding to the difference are acquired in each of the blocks set as a replica of different temperatures, and exchanging the output values for which an exchange condition based on the energy evaluation value is satisfied between the blocks of adjacent temperatures in accordance with a replica exchange method” does not render the claim patent eligible because under step 2A prong 1, it recites a judicial exception (mental process) (a person can mentally search for output values by simply evaluating different temperatures, and making a judgement of output values that are exchanged based on satisfaction of energy evaluation values between blocks of adjacent temperatures (MPEP 2106.04(a))).
Regarding claim 7, the additional element “searching for the output value includes acquiring the solution candidate in which the difference in the energy evaluation value is the largest in a negative direction as an update value for searching for the output value in each of the blocks” does not render the claim patent eligible because under step 2A prong 1, it recites a judicial exception (mental process) (a person can mentally search for output values by simply evaluating energy evaluation values in a negative direction, and making a judgement of an output value (MPEP 2106.04(a))).
Regarding claim 8, the additional element “searching for the output value includes comparing, in each of the blocks, an integrated probability obtained by integrating the transition probability with a uniformly distributed random number probability for a limited number of the solution candidates from a high probability side of the transition probability among the solution candidates in which the difference in the energy evaluation value is positive, and continuing to search for the output value by using, as the update value, the solution candidate of the transition probability adopted as the uniformly distributed random number probability among the limited number of the solution candidates in a case where the integrated probability exceeds the uniformly distributed random number probability” does not render the claim patent eligible because under step 2A prong 1, it recites a judicial exception (mental process) (a person can mentally search for output values by simply evaluating integrated probability, uniformly distributed random number probability, and making a judgement of an output value(MPEP 2106.04(a))).
Regarding claim 9, the additional element “inputting, to the parallel processing processor, the group variable in which the combination pattern satisfying the one-hot constraint for each of the groups of the binary variables is the solution candidate” does not render the claim patent eligible because under step 2A prong 2, it does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application (insignificant extra-solution activity of mere data gathering (MPEP 2106.05(g)), and under step 2B it does not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception (well-understood, routine and conventional activity of receiving data over a network (MPEP 2106.05(d)(II)). Further, the additional element “outputting a solution in which the combination pattern of the binary variables is optimized to satisfy the one-hot constraint for each of the groups by mapping the output values of all the group variables output from the parallel processing processor” does not render the claim patent eligible because under step 2A prong 2, it does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application (insignificant extra-solution activity of mere data output (MPEP 2106.05(g)), and under step 2B it does not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception (well-understood, routine and conventional activity of transmitting data over a network (MPEP 2106.05(d)(II)).
Regarding claims 10-11, they comprise limitations similar to claim 1, and are therefore rejected for similar rationale.
Regarding claim 12, the additional element “the GPU is configured to generate, for each block, a common initial value from a seed value associated with the block” does not render the claim patent eligible because under step 2A prong 1, it recites a judicial exception (mental process) (a person can mentally generate common initial values by simply evaluating seed values and making a judgement of common initial values (MPEP 2106.04(a))). Further, the additional element “store the common initial value in a memory area shared by the threads of the block” does not render the claim patent eligible because under step 2A prong 2, it does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application (insignificant extra-solution activity of mere data storage (MPEP 2106.05(g)), and under step 2B it does not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception (well-understood, routine and conventional activity of storing and retrieving data in memory (MPEP 2106.05(d)(II)). Further, the additional element “assign the common initial value to the threads of the block to start parallel evaluation of the solution candidate of the group variable” does not render the claim patent eligible because under step 2A prong 1, it recites a judicial exception (mental process) (a person can mentally assign variables to threads by simply evaluating the threads and initial values and making a judgement of assignments (MPEP 2106.04(a))).
Regarding claim 13, the additional element “the GPU is configured to select a target group variable, assign a plurality of different solution candidates to the threads of each block; and determine a next output value for the target group variable by comparing energy evaluation values associated with the plurality of different solution candidates in parallel in the block” does not render the claim patent eligible because under step 2A prong 1, it recites a judicial exception (mental process) (a person can mentally select target group variables, assign solution candidates to blocks, and determine output values by simply evaluating group variables, solution candidates, and energy evaluation values, and making a judgement of group variables to select, of solution candidates to assign, and output values (MPEP 2106.04(a))).
Regarding claim 14, the additional element “the GPU is configured to determine a search result by repeating, for a plurality of blocks assigned different replica temperatures, a search process in which output values of the blocks are exchanged between blocks having adjacent replica temperatures based on an exchange determination probability computed from energy evaluation values of the output values” does not render the claim patent eligible because under step 2A prong 1, it recites a judicial exception (mental process) (a person can mentally determine search results by simply evaluating output values of blocks, adjacent replica temperatures, exchange determination probability, and energy evaluation values, and making a judgement of a search result).
Examiner’s Note
Claims 1-14 were not rejected using prior art.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
SHIBATA Pub. No.: US 2022/0035808 A1 discloses scheduling of multiple threads in parallel and finding the best solution candidate during a random search.
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 MICHAEL W AYERS whose telephone number is (571)272-6420. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:30-5 PM.
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 Li can be reached at (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 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.
/MICHAEL W AYERS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2195
