DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
1 The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
2. Claims 1-25 are presented for examination.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
3. 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.
3.1 Claims 1-25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1
Is the claim directed to a statutory category?
Yes. The claims are to a method (claims 1, 25), a system (claims 10, 21), a computer program product (claim 20).
Step 2A- Prong One
The claim(s) recite(s) a method (claims 1, 25), a system (claims 10, 21), a computer program product (claim 20) for calculating a trace approximation of an adjacency matrix, comprising: The step of: “determine at least one trigger point associated with at least one of a computational power of the system or detection of one or more faults associated with one or more calculations performed by the system based on the retrieved adjacency matrix”; “determine a random vector based on the retrieved adjacency matrix and the determined at least one trigger point, the random vector has an expectation value of zero”; “generate a matrix-vector based on the retrieved adjacency matrix and the determined random vector”; “determine a first set of natural numbers based on the first dimension of the retrieved adjacency matrix, wherein a count of elements in the determined first set of natural numbers is less than the first dimension of the retrieved adjacency matrix”, “determine a diagonal random matrix based on a summation of canonical outer products formed by the selected subset of entries”; “calculate a trace approximation of the adjacency matrix based on the determined diagonal random matrix and the selected subset of entries”, under the broadest reasonable interpretation fall under a mathematical concept / mathematical relationship. Similarly, the step of: “select a subset of entries from the generated matrix-vector based on the determined first set of natural numbers” under the broadest reasonable interpretation fall under a mental process. Therefore, the claims are directed to an abstract idea, by use of generic computer components and thus are clearly directed to an abstract idea, as constructed.
Step 2A Prong Two
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the additional limitation such as: “a processor set”, “a computer-readable storage medium”, “a computer program” having “program instructions”, either alone or in combination, all serve to gather and process data and do not add anything more significantly to the judicial exception, but are mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component that are well known, routine, and conventional activities (see specification at para [0037-0040], and fig.1) which can be of any type, including general-purpose computer (para [0040]) previously known in the industries. Merely adding a programmable computer to perform generic computer functions does not automatically overcome an eligibility rejection. Alice, 573 U.S. at 223-24. Furthermore, the use of a general-purpose computer to apply an otherwise ineligible algorithm does not qualify as a particular machine. See Ultramerciallnc. v. Hulu, LLC, 772F.3d 709, 716-17 (Fed. Cir. 20l4); In re TLI Commc 'ns LLC v. AV Automotive, LLC, 823 F.3d 607, 613 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (mere recitation of concrete or tangible components is not an inventive concept); Eon Corp. IP Holdings LLC v. AT&T Mobility LLC, 785; the step of: “retrieving, by a computer, an adjacency matrix associated with a complex graph, wherein the retrieved adjacency matrix is of a first dimension”, under the broadest reasonable interpretation, reasonable fall under data gathering and the step of: “storing, by the computer, the calculated trace approximation of the adjacency matrix” amount to insignificant post-solution activities that are also well-known, routine and conventional activities and are not sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception (See further MPEP 2106.05(d)(i-iv)-f); thus are not patent eligible under 35 USC 101.
Step 2B
The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because, as previously discussed above with reference to the integration of abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements of: “a processor set”, “a computer-readable storage medium”, “a computer program” having “program instructions”, either alone or in combination, all serve to gather and process data and do not add anything more significantly to the judicial exception, but are mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component that are well known, routine, and conventional activities (see specification at para [0037-0040], and fig.1) which can be of any type, including general-purpose computer (para [0040]) previously known in the industries. Merely adding a programmable computer to perform generic computer functions does not automatically overcome an eligibility rejection. Alice, 573 U.S. at 223-24. Furthermore, the use of a general-purpose computer to apply an otherwise ineligible algorithm does not qualify as a particular machine. See Ultramerciallnc. v. Hulu, LLC, 772F.3d 709, 716-17 (Fed. Cir. 20l4); In re TLI Commc 'ns LLC v. AV Automotive, LLC, 823 F.3d 607, 613 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (mere recitation of concrete or tangible components is not an inventive concept); Eon Corp. IP Holdings LLC v. AT&T Mobility LLC, 785; the step of: “retrieving, by a computer, an adjacency matrix associated with a complex graph, wherein the retrieved adjacency matrix is of a first dimension”, under the broadest reasonable interpretation, reasonable fall under data gathering and the step of: “storing, by the computer, the calculated trace approximation of the adjacency matrix” amount to insignificant post-solution activities that are also well-known, routine and conventional activities and are not sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception (See further MPEP 2106.05(d)(i-iv)-f); thus are not patent eligible under 35 USC 101. Therefore, using computer components amount to no more than mere instructions to perform the abstract, and thus are not sufficient to amount to significantly more than the recited abstract, as constructed.
3.2 Dependent claims 2-9, 11-19, 22-24 merely include limitations pertaining:
(claims 2, 11, and 22), “generating, by the computer, a solution of a graph analysis problem based on the calculated trace approximation of the adjacency matrix, wherein the complex graph is associated with the graph analysis problem” (mathematical concept or otherwise a mental process). (claims 3, 12, 23); “wherein the graph analysis problem corresponds to one of: a graph traversal problem, a network routing problem, a social network analysis problem, a protein folding problem, a graph centrality problem, a sorting problem, or a graph classification problem” (mathematical concept or otherwise a mental process); (claims 4, 13); “generating, by the computer, the matrix-vector based on the retrieved adjacency matrix, the determined random vector, and the first set of natural numbers, wherein at least one row of the retrieved adjacency matrix is updated by a zero-row vector in the generated matrix-vector based on a determination of an absence of a corresponding row number associated with the at least one row of an initial matrix-vector from the first set of natural numbers” (mathematical concept); (claims 5, 14); “determining, …, a computational power of at least one electronic device” (mathematical concept); and “selecting, …., the subset of entries from the generated matrix-vector based on the determined computational power of the electronic device” (mental process); (claims 6, 15); “detecting, …., one or more faults associated with one or more calculations performed by at least one electronic device” (mathematical concept); and “selecting, by the computer, the subset of entries from the generated matrix-vector based on the detection of the one or more faults” (mental process); (claims 7, 16) “iteratively selecting, by the computer, the subset of entries from the generated matrix-vector based on the determined first set of natural numbers”; “iteratively determining, by the computer, the diagonal random matrix based on the summation of the canonical outer products formed by the corresponding subset of entries”; and “calculating, by the computer, the trace approximation of the adjacency matrix based on an average of a set of intermediate results obtained based on the iterative selection of the subset of entries and the iterative determination of the diagonal random matrix” (mathematical concept); (claim 17) “select a subset of entries from the generated matrix-vector based on processor set information, wherein the processor set information indicates a count of processors in the processor set” (mental process); and “determine the diagonal random matrix based on the summation of canonical outer products formed by the selected subset of entries.” (mathematical concept); (claims 8, 18) “wherein a variance of the determined random vector is equal to 1” (mathematical concept); (claims 9, 19) “wherein the random vector is sampled based on one of a Rademacher distribution or a Gaussian distribution” (mathematical concept); (Claim 24) “compare the computational power of the system with a pre-determined computational power threshold and determine at least one trigger point based on the comparison” (a mental process); all of which further amount to further mathematical concept and/or mental process similar to that already recited by the independent claims and already addressed above and thus are further not patent eligible under 35 USC 101.
Claim Interpretation
4. The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
4.1 The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
4.2 This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: “processor set” claim 10, 21.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Conclusion
5. The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
5.1 Monroe et al. (USPG_PUB No. 2018/0114138) teaches a fault tolerance scalable modular quantum computer architecture with an enhanced control of multi-mode couplings between trapped qubits.
5.2 Ubaru et al. (USPG_PUB No. 2024/0020565) teaches a quantum circuit for estimating matrix spectral sums.
5.3 Majumdar et al. (USPG_PUB No. 2020/0004752) teaches an apparatus and method for rapidly ranking network nodes according to input ranking criteria. The links (i.e., first-order paths) between nodes are expressed in a first-order path matrix, which is used to generate nth-order path matrices as nth powers of the first-order path matrix and summed as a power series to generate a surrogate ranking operator (SRO) representing as a single matrix operation a sum over paths of all orders.
6. Claims 1-25 are rejected and this action non-final. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ANDRE PIERRE-LOUIS whose telephone number is (571)272-8636. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9:00 AM-5:00 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, EMERSON C PUENTE can be reached at 571-272-3652. 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.
/ANDRE PIERRE LOUIS/Primary Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2187 September 24, 2026
