DETAILED ACTION
1. This communication is being filed in response to the submission having a mailing date of (02/27/2024) in which a (3) month Shortened Statutory Period for Response has been set.
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
2. The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Acknowledgements
3. Upon entry, claims (1 -22) appear pending in the patent application, of which (1. 17, 18, 19 -22) being the seven (7) parallel-running independent claims on record.
Information Disclosure Statement
4. The Information Disclosure Statement (IDS) that was/were submitted on (02/27/2024; 11/25/2024; 04/27/2026) is/are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the IDS has been considered by the examiner.
Specification
5. The lengthy specification has not been checked to the extent necessary to determine
the presence of all possible minor errors. Applicant's cooperation is requested in correcting
any errors of which applicant may become aware in the specification.
Drawings
6. The submitted Drawings on date (02/27/2024) has been accepted and considered under the 37 CFR 1.121 (d).
Claim interpretation section
7. For the sole purpose of examination, and under the broadest reasonable interpretation (BRI), consistent with the instant specification and the common knowledge of one of ordinary skill in the art, the below list of terms/limitations will be considered to read as:
7.1. Claim 1 recites term “data”, having plurality of different meanings in the claims/specs context. For example, the specs defines “data” as: (e.g. stock market’s transactions data; also as “one piece” of the data; also “packet data”’ also as “PINOUT data” (dataIn, dataOut); also as "data from moving object based on an image capturing"; also “time-constrains information” in at least [specs; 0006; 0116; and others]. For the purpose of examination, the cited above term will be read as – one or more financial transaction, in the combination optimization process. Proper clarification/correction is respectfully requested.
7.2. Claims (1 -22) recite term/limitation associated with “data prediction techniques”, with no functional description of such technique found in the filing. The specs defines “data prediction” as – (e.g. The prediction data is obtained by predicting data acquired after the output data… [0209]). For the purpose of examination, cited above term will be read as – a feature part of the claimed combination optimization process. Proper clarification and/or correction is respectfully requested.
7.3. Claim 1 recites limitation “acquire, in acquiring the data, the prediction data…” being confusing and lacking of technical meaning; For the purpose of examination, the cited above limitation will be read as – input/output predicted data. Proper clarification and/or correction is respectfully requested.
7.4. Claims (1 -22) recites the feature/limitation “cost function” that will be read as – (e.g. using a plurality of decision variables representing a state of a system to be optimized; [specs; 0004]. Proper clarification and/or correction is respectfully requested.
7.5. Claim (16) recites limitation “a binary discrete variable” with no specific description of the involved variable in the filing. Por the purpose of examination, the cited above term will be read as - an element of the cost function process. Proper clarification is still required moving forward.
7.6. Finally, If claims (20 and 22) is/are intendent to be considered as independent claim(s), they should be rewritten in a correct independent form (i.e. apparatus/device categories, respectively). Por the purpose of examination, the cited above claims will be treated as independent claims. Proper clarification is still required moving forward.
Claim rejection section
35 USC 112 (a)
8. The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
8.1. Independent claims (1 -22) is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor had possession of the claimed invention.
_ Claims (1 -22) recite a term “data” with multiple different meanings in the claims/specs. For example, the specs describes “data” as: (e.g. stock market’s transactions data; also “packet data”’ also PINOUT data (dataIn, dataOut); also as "moving object based on an image capturing"; also as time-constrains information [specs; 0006; 0116; others] …etc; being confusing, and therefore failing to explain how the inventor envisioning the functionality to be performed, so that the written description does not show that the inventor has possession of what’s claimed. Proper clarification/correction is respectfully requested.
_ Claims (1 -22) recites the feature limitation “prediction data” technique, however, and even when enabled in at least [0208 -0209], no functional description of such technique found in the filing. The instant specs defines “data prediction” as – (e.g. The prediction data is obtained by predicting data acquired after the output data [0209] … failing to explain how the inventor envisioning the functionality to be performed, so that the written description does not show that the inventor has possession. Proper clarification and/or correction is respectfully requested.
_ Claim 1 and the associated dependencies recite limitation [“and acquire, in acquiring the data, the predicted data …” that is confusing and lack of technical meaning, failing to explain how the inventor envisioning the functionality to be performed, so that the written description does not show that the inventor has possession of what’s claimed. Proper clarification and/or correction is respectfully requested.
_ Claims (15) is similarly rejected under 365 USC 112, as the claim recites limitation - “the process based on the solution, outputted to a control device, for controlling “a moving object…” - considered to be a different “data type”, not associated with the “combination optimization algorithm” claimed in (1 -15), defined as (i.e. marketplace’s transactions).
The data in Claim 15 is associated with “Image processing technology”, and therefore (and even when enables in at least [0006]), fails to explain how the inventor envisioning the functionality to be performed, so that the written description does not show that the inventor has possession of what’s claimed. Proper clarification and/or correction is respectfully requested.
_ Claim 16 recites limitation “a binary discrete variable” with no specific description of the involved variable in the filing; that when enabled in at least [0199], it fails to explain how the inventor envisioning the functionality to be performed, so that the written description does not show that the inventor has possession of what’s claimed. Proper clarification/correction is respectfully requested.
35 USC § 112(b)
9. The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112:
(B) 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.
9.1. Claims (4 -16) and the associated dependencies, are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as per the claims recite set of feature terms/limitations (as listed below), however there is insufficient antecedent basis for the origination and characteristics of the associated type(s) in the claims. Proper correction and/or clarification is required moving forward.
_ the claim recites “the cost function” – with no antecedent basis in the claims.
_ the claim further recites "a term" in association with above “the cost function” without any specifics and/or origination of such "a term"; to be addressed accordantly.
_ the claim finally recites “a weight value from a plurality of weight values”, also associated with the above “the cost function”, to be addressed accordantly.
9.2. See also [MPEP 2173.02; …limitations/features in the claims should not been ambiguous, vague, incoherent, opaque, or otherwise unclear in describing and defining the claimed invention. If the claim language, (given its broadest reasonable interpretation) is such that a person of ordinary skill in the relevant art would read it with more than one reasonable interpretation, then a rejection under “35 U.S.C. 112 (b)” is appropriate.
Interview
10. Examiner provided this Interview (08/03/2026), in accordance with the MPEP § 713.04, where claim construction, some irregularities, potential amendments and a verbal restriction requirement discussed. See Interview form attached on record for details.
10.1. Although no agreement was reached, the Examiner undersigned thanks Applicant’s representative (Atty. John Mulacahy) for the cooperation on how to possibly advance prosecution. Should you have any questions or concerns regarding the case, you can reach me at phone Number: (571)-270-1168 or Email me at: luis.perez-fuentes@uspto.gov
Restriction
11. Restriction to one of the following inventions is required under 35 U.S.C. 121:
The MPEP §803 sets forth the criteria for restriction between patentably distinct inventions;
(A) the inventions must be independent (see MPEP §802.01, §806.04, §808.01) or distinct as claimed (see MPEP §806.05-806.05 (i));
(B) there must be a serious burden on Examiner if restriction is not required (see MPEP §803.02, 806.04(a), §806.04(i), §808.01(a) and §808.02).
11.1. Independent Claims (1, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21) are directed to plurality of generic claim types (groups), associated with plurality of species/embodiments; [specs. 0123 – 0194].
_ First embodiment - Fig. 6;
_ Second embodiment - Fig. 10;
_ Third embodiment - Fig. 11;
_ Fourth embodiment - Fig. 13;
_ Fifth Embodiment - Fig. 15;
Each of the cited above embodiments, further identified by the corresponding imputed data-type, feeding a “combination optimization algorithms”, were further expanded, in form of several “Technical Scenes” sets (from 1 -25), as in details described in [specs; 0224 -0325].
Also, in some instances, it is note that the claim language incorrectly overlaps and/or mixes features from different embodiments (see rejection sections 8 -9), making the search and feature’s investigations, even more technically challenging.
11.2. The inventions disclosed (i.e. embodiments + “Technical Scenes”) are distinct, each from the other because of the presented “species Examples” as filed:
_ they do not overlap in scope,
_ they are not obvious variants,
_ they are also considered as separately usable.
11.3. Because of the reasons given above, and the because a search required for each one of the Examples/Embodiments, also acquired a separate status in the art and different classifications, a restriction is indicated is proper, for examination purpose.
11.4. Applicant representative did not elect any group during Interview discussion.
Claim Objection section
12. Claims (1 -22) are objected to, because the substantially irregularities found in the claims, ventilated in sections (7 -9) above, and a pending restriction requirement to be resolved. See also Interview Summary (section 10) for details.
Prior Art Citations
13. The following List of prior art, made of record and not relied upon, is/are considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
13.1. Patent documentation:
US 12,579,477 B2 Sharma; et al. Sharma discloses - An information processing device executing processing on data, the information processing device comprising: (e.g. a server-client architecture that employes a similar QUBO optimization model, multiple data evaluation layers for learning, and adaptive loops (i.e. feedback information) feature techniques, able to construction “a predictive model” from the implemented” machine learning model”, previously trained based on inputted candidate feature sets.
US 11,366,972 B2 Kehler; et al. Kehler discloses – process technique of balancing between data exploration and data optimization, applied to structured/unstructured data (i.e. defined as intellectual property, finances, marketing, investing, management, business models, etc). In an evaluation for which features are structured (e.g., either in a structured evaluation or determined from unstructured data and provided for evaluation) a probabilistic graphical network may graph inputs of machine learning model(s) and outputs of the machine learning model(s) as graphical elements,
US 11,907,325 B2 Mugel; et al. Mugel discloses - A computer-implemented method is provided whereby an equation with a cost function for minimization is solved by a tensor network for different data types (such as control of scheduling, routing, portfolio optimization, financial equilibrium, etc). Coefficients of tensors of the tensor network are modified so as to reduce a value of the cost function in an iterative process until convergence is reached, at which point the concerned Unconstrained Optimization problem is solved and the values of the variables of the cost function are provided.
US 11,074,624 B1 Karlsson; et al. Karlsson discloses - A method for tracking state information of various revenue state variables and events per revenue state variables associated with the previous logical interval. In addition, the method may include determining a cost estimate for a present logical interval of the campaign based on the state information, the observed event volume, the observed revenue, and an events per revenue forgetting factor.
US 11,681,931 B2 Zhang; et al. A computer program for performing evaluation scheme for a set of machine learning algorithms, wherein the configuring the performance evaluation scheme, and a value for the metric of performance evaluation accuracy of the corresponding performance evaluation scheme using the respective performance evaluation configuration parameter.
US 2002/0016760 A1 Pathak; et al. Pathak discloses – A server-client architecture and optimization program flow (i.e. combinatorial optimization modeling, as an efficient methodology for trading multiple dissimilar products, in an exchange marketplace and financial transactions of the same.
13.2. Non-Patent Literature:
_ End to end machine learning framework for optimizing E-commerce; Loh – 2022.
_ Coordination of inventory distribution and price; Caro – 2020.
_ QUBO Formulations for Training Machine Learning Models; Date et al., - Aug. 5, 2020.
_ A Tutorial on Formulating and Using QUBO Models; Glover - Feb-2022.
CONCLUSIONS
14. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to LUIS PEREZ-FUENTES (luis.perez-fuentes@uspto.gov) whose telephone number is (571) 270 -1168. The examiner can normally be reached on
Monday-Friday 8am-5pm. If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner's supervisor, WILLIAM VAUGHN can be reached on (571) 272-3922. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is (571)
272 -3922. Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published Applic. 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 (USA OR CANADA) or (571) 272 -1000.
/LUIS PEREZ-FUENTES/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2481.
Prosecution Insights