The present application, filed on or after 16 March 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
DETAILED ACTION
This office action is in response to Applicant’s submission filed on 30 April 2024. THIS ACTION IS NON-FINAL.
Status of Claims
Claims 1-7 are pending.
Claims 1-7are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 for being directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more.
There is no art rejection for claims 1-7.
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.
Judicial Exception
Claims 1-7 of the claimed invention are directed to a judicial exception, an abstract idea, without significantly more.
Regarding claims 1-7,
(Independent Claims) With regards to claim 1 / 6 / 7,
Step 1: The claim recites an article of manufacturing / machine / process, which falls into one of the statutory categories.
Step 2A – Prong 1: the claim, in part, recites: “specifying, for each of the plurality of constraint terms, values of a first auxiliary variable that represents an input amount subjected to a constraint that relates to each of the plurality of constraint terms, based on the evaluation function information; generating values of a second auxiliary variable obtained by quantizing the first auxiliary variable, based on the values of the first auxiliary variable; for a first constraint term, among the plurality of constraint terms, with which the values of the second auxiliary variable change in association with a change in values of a first state variable among a plurality of state variables of the evaluation function, calculating a first difference value of a contribution amount of the first constraint term associated with the change in the values of the first state variable, to a first change amount in values of the evaluation function associated with the change in the values of the first state variable; and calculating the first change amount by using the first difference value, or updating a local field to be used to specify a second change amount in the values of the evaluation function associated with the change in each of the plurality of state variables, by using the first difference value” (math concept and/or mental process), as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers mathematical concepts but for the recitation of generic computer components. That is, the steps of “specifying … based on the evaluation function”, “generating values … by quantizing…”, “calculating …”, based on their broadest reasonable interpretation, describe mathematical relationships and algorithms. Mathematical relationship and algorithms have been found by the courts to be abstract ideas, e.g., see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2) A. Mathematical Relationships, iv. organizing information and manipulating information through mathematical correlations, Digitech Image Techs., LLC v. Electronics for Imaging, Inc., 758 F.3d 1344, 1350, 111 USPQ2d 1717, 1721 (Fed. Cir. 2014). The patentee in Digitech claimed methods of generating first and second data by taking existing information, manipulating the data using mathematical functions, and organizing this information into a new form. The court explained that such claims were directed to an abstract idea because they described a process of organizing information through mathematical correlations, like Flook's method of calculating using a mathematical formula. 758 F.3d at 1350, 111 USPQ2d at 1721. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers mathematical relationships, then it falls within the “Mathematical Concepts” grouping of abstract ideas.
Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
Step 2A – Prong 2: This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim recites the additional elements of: (a) “A non-transitory computer-readable recording medium storing a program for causing a computer to execute processing …”, “… a storage unit”, “A data processing apparatus comprising: a storage unit configured to store evaluation function information…”, “a processing unit configured to perform processing…’, which is mere instructions to implement an abstract idea using generic computing device, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea (see MPEP 2106.05(f)); (b) “acquiring, from a storage unit, evaluation function information on an evaluation function of a combinatorial optimization problem that includes a cost term and a plurality of constraint terms”, which is extra-solution activity of pre-solution data gathering (see MPEP.2106.05(g)). Accordingly. the additional elements individually or in combination do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. The claim is directed to an abstract idea.
Step 2B Analysis: The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above, the claim recites the additional elements of (a) “A non-transitory computer-readable recording medium storing a program for causing a computer to execute processing …”, “… a storage unit”, “A data processing apparatus comprising: a storage unit configured to store evaluation function information…”, “a processing unit configured to perform processing…’, which is mere instructions to implement an abstract idea using generic computing device, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea (see MPEP 2106.05(f)); (b) “acquiring, from a storage unit, evaluation function information on an evaluation function of a combinatorial optimization problem that includes a cost term and a plurality of constraint terms”, which is extra-solution activity of pre-solution data gathering (see MPEP.2106.05(g)). The courts have found limitations directed to obtaining information electronically, recited at a high level of generality, to be well-understood, routine, and conventional (see MPEP 2106.05(d)(II), “receiving or transmitting data over a network”, "electronic record keeping," and "storing and retrieving information in memory". Accordingly, the additional elements individually or in combination do not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. The claim is not patent eligible.
(Dependent claims)
Claims 2-5 are dependent on claim 1 and include all the limitations of claim 1. Therefore, claims 2-5 recite the same abstract ideas.
With regards to claim 2, the claim recites further limitation of “calculating the first change amount by adding a third change amount of the cost term associated with the change in the values of the first state variable and a fourth change amount of the first constraint term obtained from the first difference value; determining whether or not to permit the change in the values of the first state variable, based on a comparison result between the first change amount and a threshold value; and updating the values of the first state variable when it is determined to permit the change in the values of the first state variable” (math concept and/or mental process), which is further details of the data processed by the math operation, a math concept. Except citing generic computer elements to implement the abstract idea, there is no additional element showing integration into a practical application or adding something significantly more to the abstract idea. The claim is not patent eligible.
With regards to claim 3, the claim recites further limitation of “holding the local field; and updating the local field by adding the first difference value to the local field for each of the plurality of state variables when the change in the values of the first state variable is permitted” (math concept and/or mental process), which is further details of the data processed by the math operation, a math concept. Except citing generic computer elements to implement the abstract idea, there is no additional element showing integration into a practical application or adding something significantly more to the abstract idea. The claim is not patent eligible.
With regards to claim 4, the claim recites further limitation of “wherein the second auxiliary variable is a ternary value that indicates whether the values of the first auxiliary variable are positive, negative, or zero” (math concept and/or mental process), which is further details of the data processed by the math operation, a math concept. Except citing generic computer elements to implement the abstract idea, there is no additional element showing integration into a practical application or adding something significantly more to the abstract idea. The claim is not patent eligible.
With regards to claim 5, the claim recites further limitation of “calculating a second difference value of the values of the second auxiliary variable associated with the change in the values of the first state variable; and calculating the first difference value, based on the second difference value, the values of the first state variable, and a weight value between the first state variable and the first constraint term” (math concept and/or mental process), which is further details of the data processed by the math operation, a math concept. Except citing generic computer elements to implement the abstract idea, there is no additional element showing integration into a practical application or adding something significantly more to the abstract idea. The claim is not patent eligible.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-7 include allowable subject matter since when reading the claims in light of the specification, as per, MPEP §2111.01 or Toro Co. v. White Consolidated Industries Inc., 199F.3d 1295, 1301, 53 USPQ2d 1065, 1069, 1069 (Fed.Cir. 1999), none of the references of record alone or in combination disclose or suggest the combination of limitations specified in claims 1-7.
In interpreting the claims, in light of the specification filed on 30 April 2024, the Examiner finds the claimed invention to be patentably distinct from the prior arts of record.
Regarding the amended independent claims, the primary reason for the allowance is the inclusion of the specific process / structure of constrained combinatorial optimization with quantization-gating update for penalty-function handling.
None of the cited prior art references, singly or in combination, fully teaches all limitations of independent claims 1, 6 and 7.
Regarding the dependent claims, which include all the limitations of the independent claims, are also allowed.
The followings are references close to the invention claimed:
Abiko et al., US-PGPUB NO.20020036717A1 [hereafter Abiko] teaches optimization with evaluation function. However Abiko does not teach the specific process / structure of constrained combinatorial optimization with quantization-gating update for penalty-function handling.
Kanda et al., US-PGPUB NO.20210303754A1 [hereafter Kanda] teaches constrained optimization. However Kanda does not teach the specific process / structure of constrained combinatorial optimization with quantization-gating update for penalty-function handling.
Koyama et al., US-PATENT NO.11199884B2 [hereafter Koyama] teaches combinatory optimization with constraints. However Koyama does not teach the specific process / structure of constrained combinatorial optimization with quantization-gating update for penalty-function handling.
Chaux et al., “A spatial regularization approach for vector quantization”, J. Math Imaging Vis (2011) 41:23-38, 2011 [hereafter Chaux] teaches vector quantization with constraints. However Chaux does not teach the specific process / structure of constrained combinatorial optimization with quantization-gating update for penalty-function handling.
Furue et al., “Efficient correlation-based discretization of continuous variables for annealing machines”, arXiv:2301.07244v1 [quant-ph] 18 Jan_2023 [hereafter Furue] teaches multi-variable functional optimization with simulated annealing. However Furue does not teach the specific process / structure of constrained combinatorial optimization with quantization-gating update for penalty-function handling.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to TSU-CHANG LEE whose telephone number is 571-272-3567. The fax number is 571-273-3567.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Omar Fernandez Rivas, can be reached 571-272-2589.
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.
/TSU-CHANG LEE/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2128
Prosecution Insights