DETAILED 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 .
Claims 1-6 are pending in the application.
Examiner’s Note: The examiner has cited particular passages including column and line numbers, paragraphs as designated numerically and/or figures as designated numerically in the references as applied to the claims below for the convenience of the applicant. Although the specified citations are representative of the teachings in the art and are applied to the specific limitations within the individual claims, other passages, paragraphs and figures of any and all cited prior art references may apply as well. It is respectfully requested from the applicant, in preparing an eventual response, to fully consider the context of the passages, paragraphs and figures as taught by the prior art and/or cited by the examiner while including in such consideration the cited prior art references in their entirety as potentially teaching all or part of the claimed invention. MPEP 2141.02 VI: “PRIOR ART MUST BE CONSIDERED IN ITS ENTIRETY, INCLUDING DISCLOSURES THAT TEACH AWAY FROM THE CLAIMS."
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 05/30/2024, 03/07/2025 was filed after the mailing date of the first office action. The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
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 therefore, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1: claim 1 is directed to one of the four statutory categories of invention, namely a non-transitory computer-readable recording medium storing a temperature adjustment program for causing a computer to execute a process.
Step 2A, Prong One: claim 1 recites a judicial exception, namely, a mathematical concept, including mathematical calculations, comparisons, and updating numerical parameters used in an optimization algorithm.
In particular, the claim recites:
"acquiring an average value of values of an evaluation function…performs the search processing of a solution to a combinatorial optimization problem by a replica exchange method by using the plurality of replica circuits that correspond to a plurality of replicas of the evaluation function based on an Ising model obtained by converting the combinatorial optimization problem" (statistical calculation);
"changing the first temperature value based on a comparison result between a first average value ... and a second average value" (mathematical comparison and updating a numerical value);
"newly determining the plurality of temperature values" (computing new numerical values based on fixed and updated values);
"setting the plurality of determined temperature values" for continued execution of the optimization.
These limitations collectively describe mathematical operations performed on numerical values representing temperatures and evaluation-function values during execution of a replica exchange optimization algorithm. Such mathematical relationships, formulas, calculations, and algorithms fall within the "mathematical concepts" grouping of abstract ideas identified in the 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance and MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2).
Although the claim recites that the optimization solves a combinatorial optimization problem based on an Ising model using a replica exchange method, these recitations merely identify the mathematical context in which the claimed calculations are performed. The claimed advance resides in mathematically adjusting the temperature schedule used by the optimization algorithm. Accordingly, claim 1 recites an abstract idea.
Step 2A, Prong Two: the claim as a whole does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
The additional elements include:
a non-transitory computer-readable recording medium;
a computer;
a plurality of replica circuits; and
execution of search processing.
These elements merely provide a generic computing environment in which the mathematical calculations are performed.
The claim does not recite:
an improvement to the functioning of a computer;
an improvement to another technology or technical field beyond the mathematical optimization itself;
a particular machine implementing the calculations in a non-generic manner;
a transformation of an article; or
use of the mathematical calculations to control a physical device or industrial process.
Instead, the claim merely computes revised temperature values and continues execution of the optimization algorithm using those revised numerical values. The output of the claimed process is additional numerical data (updated temperature values), rather than a technological result outside the mathematical computation itself.
Accordingly, the claim does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Step 2B: the additional elements, individually and as an ordered combination, do not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
The claimed computer-readable recording medium and computer perform their ordinary functions of storing instructions and executing calculations.
Likewise, the plurality of replica circuits merely executes the known replica exchange optimization algorithm and serves as the environment in which the mathematical calculations are performed.
The claim does not recite:
specialized computer hardware;
an unconventional computer architecture;
improved processor operation;
improved memory management;
improved network operation; or
any other technological improvement beyond the mathematical algorithm itself.
Although the claimed temperature adjustment technique may represent an improvement over prior temperature scheduling methods for replica exchange optimization, an improvement to a mathematical algorithm does not constitute an inventive concept under 35 U.S.C. § 101. Novelty or non-obviousness of the mathematical algorithm is properly considered under 35 U.S.C. §§ 102 and 103 and does not render the claim patent eligible.
Accordingly, the additional elements merely apply the abstract mathematical concept using generic computer components performing well-understood, routine, and conventional functions and therefore do not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Conclusion: Accordingly, claim 1 is directed to the abstract idea of mathematical concepts, including calculating average values, comparing mathematical values, updating numerical temperature parameters, and recalculating a temperature schedule for a replica exchange optimization algorithm, and the claim does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or recite additional elements amounting to significantly more than the abstract idea. Therefore, claim 1 is not directed to patent-eligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. § 101.
Claims 2–5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 because the claims are directed to a judicial exception, namely a mathematical concept, without reciting significantly more than the exception.
Claim 2 depends from claim 1 and further recites acquiring average values, changing the first temperature value, determining a plurality of temperature values, and setting the determined temperature values every time replica exchange is performed a predetermined number of times during the search processing. These additional limitations merely specify the frequency or timing at which the mathematical calculations of claim 1 are performed and therefore constitute insignificant extra-solution activity that does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application or provide an inventive concept.
Claim 3 depends from claim 1 and further recites dividing a temperature range by a predetermined division number and calculating a plurality of candidate values of the first temperature value. These additional limitations merely recite further mathematical calculations for generating candidate numerical values and therefore remain directed to a mathematical concept. The claim does not recite any improvement to computer functionality or other technology.
Claim 4 depends from claim 3 and further recites changing the first temperature value to a larger or smaller candidate value based on a comparison between the first and second average values. These additional limitations merely recite additional mathematical comparisons and selection of numerical values based on the comparison results. Such mathematical decision-making remains part of the abstract mathematical algorithm and does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Claim 5 recites the invention in the form of a data processing apparatus comprising a memory and a processor configured to perform substantially the same mathematical operations recited in claim 1. The additional recitation of a processor and memory merely invokes generic computer components performing their ordinary functions of storing instructions and executing calculations. Consequently, the claim remains directed to the same abstract mathematical concept and does not recite additional elements amounting to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Accordingly, claims 2–5 are not directed to patent-eligible subject matter because the additional limitations merely refine or implement the underlying mathematical algorithm using generic computer components and do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application or provide an inventive concept.
Independent claim 6 is substantially similar to claim 1 that merely directed to the method to implement the process of claim 1, and does not correct the issues set forth above. The claim is likewise not eligible.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-6 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 101 set forth in this Office Action.
The following is an examiner’s statement of reasons for allowance:
US Pub. No. 2021/0279652 to Dabiri et al. teach a method for automatically adapting the temperature ladder during a replica exchange Markov Chain Monte Carlo process for solving Ising-model combinatorial optimization problem. Specifically, Dabiri et al. teach the operations may also include assigning each replica of the plurality of replicas to a different corresponding temperature of a set of temperatures of the replica exchange MCMC process. The set of temperatures may include the first fixed temperature, the second fixed temperature, and a plurality of variable temperatures that are numerically ordered between the first fixed temperature and the second fixed temperature. The operations may also include obtaining a target swap acceptance probability with respect to swapping, during the replica exchange MCMC process, between replicas that correspond to adjacently ordered variable temperatures of the plurality of variable temperatures. In addition, the operations may include determining a respective average swap acceptance probability with respect to one or more respective adjacent pairs of the plurality of variable temperatures. Each respective swap acceptance probability may be with respect to swaps between replicas assigned to the one or more respective adjacent pairs. Further, the operations may include adjusting, during the replica exchange MCMC process while maintaining the first fixed temperature and the second fixed temperature, one or more of the variable temperatures based on a relationship between the target swap acceptance probability and each of one or more of the respective swap acceptance probabilities. Moreover, the operations may include adjusting, during the replica exchange MCMC process, a number of replicas used during the MCMC process. The adjusting of the number of replicas may be based on a difference between the second fixed temperature and a particular variable temperature that is ordered adjacently to the second fixed temperature. The operations may also include identifying, based on an output of the replica exchange MCMC process, a particular state of the system as a solution to the optimization problem associated with the system.
US Pub. No. 2020/0338843 to Parizy et al. teach a system configured to execute an annealing operation; individually hold, in the memory, a temperature corresponding to replica state identification information that identifies a replica state corresponding to an annealing operation of N times previously executed wherein N is a positive integer, a plurality of parameters corresponding to the replica state, and energy corresponding to the replica state; individually calculate a barycenter of a plurality of parameters corresponding to each replica state of N times held in the memory; hold, in the memory, the barycenter of the plurality of parameters corresponding to the each replica state of N times; determine whether or not a barycenter is within a predetermined distance, for each of a plurality of sets of replica states corresponding to a temperature equal to or lower than a predetermined temperature, among the replica states of N times held in the memory; change a temperature corresponding to any one of replica states included in a set of replica states determined to have a barycenter within the predetermined distance, to a temperature exceeding the predetermined temperature; and use the changed temperature and a plurality of parameters corresponding to a replica state corresponding to the temperature, to perform the annealing operation.
US Pub. No. 2021/0192109 to Sasaki et al. teach an optimization apparatus includes electronic circuits configured to perform calculating, for a plurality of annealing units to which respective states and respective, different temperatures are assigned, respective evaluation function values responsive to the respective states, and causing a transition in the states with probabilities responsive to the temperatures and the evaluation function values, exchanging the temperatures or the states between the plurality of annealing units with predetermined probabilities based on the temperatures and the evaluation function values, and changing a temperature of an annealing unit of interest, such that a probability of exchange between the annealing unit of interest and a first annealing unit situated next thereto on a lower temperature side in a sequence arranged in order of temperature approaches a probability of exchange between the annealing unit of interest and a second annealing unit situated next thereto on a higher temperature side in the sequence.
Claims 1-6 are considered allowable since when reading the claims in light of the specification, as per, MPEP §2111.01 or Toro Co. v. White Consolidated Industries Inc., 199 F.3d 1295, 1301, 53 USPQ2d 1065, 1069 (Fed. Cir. 1999), none of the references of record alone or in combination disclose or suggest the combination of limitations specified in the independent claim(s). Specifically, the prior art of record does not teach or suggest either individually or in combination the process comprising “acquiring an average value of values of an evaluation function obtained in a search processing by a replica circuit in which a first temperature value higher than a minimum temperature value by n (n is an integer of 1 or more) is set” and “changing the first temperature value based on a comparison result between a first average value among the average values acquired the plurality of times and a second average value acquired before the first average value.”
Any comments considered necessary by applicant must be submitted no later than the payment of the issue fee and, to avoid processing delays, should preferably accompany the issue fee. Such submissions should be clearly labeled “Comments on Statement of Reasons for Allowance.”
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to VINCENT HUY TRAN whose telephone number is (571)272-7210. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7:00-4:00.
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, Kamini S Shah can be reached at 571-272-2279. 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.
VINCENT H TRAN
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2115
/VINCENT H TRAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2115
Prosecution Insights