DETAILED ACTION
Claims 1-6 have been examined.
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 .
Claim Rejections - 35 U.S.C. § 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.
The invention, as taught in Claims 1-6, is directed to “mental steps” and “mathematical steps” without significantly more.
The claims recite:
• optimal solution
• optimization problem
• matching
• first node / second node
• acquire parameter information
• probability function
• appearance probability of the first node for a plurality of times
• reward assigned when an edge is matched with a set of edges associating a set of first nodes with a set of second nodes for the plurality of times
• period of time required until the second node corresponding to the matched edge is available again for the plurality of times
• define a first optimization problem
• parameter information
• determine, by solving the formulated first optimization problem, a variable for controlling the reward of the edge and the appearance probability
• matching strategy for designating the second node to be allocated to the appearing first node as the optimal solution
Claim 1
Step 1 inquiry: Does this claim fall within a statutory category?
The preamble of the claim recites “1. An online matching optimization device used to determine an optimal solution from an optimization problem defined in online matching for allocating a second node prepared in advance to a first node appearing at an arbitrary time, the online matching optimization device comprising…” Therefore, it is a “device” (or “apparatus”), which is a statutory category of invention. Therefore, the answer to the inquiry is: “YES.”
Step 2A (Prong One) inquiry:
Are there limitations in Claim 1 that recite abstract ideas?
YES. The following limitations in Claim 1 recite abstract ideas that fall within at least one of the groupings of abstract ideas enumerated in the 2019 PEG. Specifically, they are “mental steps” and “mathematical steps”:
• optimal solution
• optimization problem
• matching
• first node / second node
• acquire parameter information
• probability function
• appearance probability of the first node for a plurality of times
• reward assigned when an edge is matched with a set of edges associating a set of first nodes with a set of second nodes for the plurality of times
• period of time required until the second node corresponding to the matched edge is available again for the plurality of times
• define a first optimization problem
• parameter information
• determine, by solving the formulated first optimization problem, a variable for controlling the reward of the edge and the appearance probability
• matching strategy for designating the second node to be allocated to the appearing first node as the optimal solution
Step 2A (Prong Two) inquiry:
Are there additional elements or a combination of elements in the claim that apply, rely on, or use the judicial exception in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on the judicial exception, such that it is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception?
Applicant’s claims contain the following “additional elements”:
(1) A “parameter acquisition processing unit”/ “formulation processing unit”/ “optimization processing unit”/ “output processing unit”
(1) A “parameter acquisition processing unit”/ “formulation processing unit”/ “optimization processing unit”/ “output processing unit” is a broad term which is described at a high level and includes general purpose computers. M.P.E.P. § 2106.05(f) recites:
For claim limitations that do not amount to more than a recitation of the words “apply it” (or an equivalent), such as mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, examiners should explain why they do not meaningfully limit the claim in an eligibility rejection. For example, an examiner could explain that implementing an abstract idea on a generic computer, does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application in Step 2A Prong Two…
Further, M.P.E.P. § 2106.05(f)(2) recites:
(2) Whether the claim invokes computers or other machinery merely as a tool to perform an existing process. Use of a computer or other machinery in its ordinary capacity for economic or other tasks (e.g., to receive, store, or transmit data) or simply adding a general purpose computer or computer components after the fact to an abstract idea (e.g., a fundamental economic practice or mathematical equation) does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more. See Affinity Labs v. DirecTV, 838 F.3d 1253, 1262, 120 USPQ2d 1201, 1207 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (cellular telephone); TLI Communications LLC v. AV Auto, LLC, 823 F.3d 607, 613, 118 USPQ2d 1744, 1748 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (computer server and telephone unit). Similarly, “claiming the improved speed or efficiency inherent with applying the abstract idea on a computer” does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide an inventive concept. Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Capital One Bank (USA), 792 F.3d 1363, 1367, 115 USPQ2d 1636, 1639 (Fed. Cir. 2015). In contrast, a claim that purports to improve computer capabilities or to improve an existing technology may integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more. McRO, Inc. v. Bandai Namco Games Am. Inc., 837 F.3d 1299, 1314-15, 120 USPQ2d 1091, 1101-02 (Fed. Cir. 2016); Enfish, LLC v. Microsoft Corp., 822 F.3d 1327, 1335-36, 118 USPQ2d 1684, 1688-89 (Fed. Cir. 2016). See MPEP §§ 2106.04(d)(1) and 2106.05(a) for a discussion of improvements to the functioning of a computer or to another technology or technical field.
This “parameter acquisition processing unit”/ “formulation processing unit”/ “optimization processing unit”/ “output processing unit” limitation does not integrate the additional element into a practical application and represents “insignificant extra-solution activity”. (See, M.P.E.P. § 2106.05(I)(A)).
The answer to the inquiry is “NO”, no additional elements integrate the claimed abstract idea into a practical application.
Step 2B inquiry:
Does the claim provide an inventive concept, i.e., does the claim recite additional element(s) or a combination of elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception in the claim?
Applicant’s claims contain the following “additional elements”:
(1) A “parameter acquisition processing unit”/ “formulation processing unit”/ “optimization processing unit”/ “output processing unit”
(1) A “parameter acquisition processing unit”/ “formulation processing unit”/ “optimization processing unit”/ “output processing unit” is a broad term which is described at a high level and includes general purpose computers. M.P.E.P. § 2016.05(f) recites:
2106.05(f) Mere Instructions To Apply An Exception [R-10.2019]
Another consideration when determining whether a claim integrates a judicial exception into a practical application in Step 2A Prong Two or recites significantly more than a judicial exception in Step 2B is whether the additional elements amount to more than a recitation of the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) or are more than mere instructions to implement an abstract idea or other exception on a computer. As explained by the Supreme Court, in order to make a claim directed to a judicial exception patent-eligible, the additional element or combination of elements must do “‘more than simply stat[e] the [judicial exception] while adding the words ‘apply it’”. Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank, 573 U.S. 208, 221, 110 USPQ2d 1976, 1982-83 (2014) (quoting Mayo Collaborative Servs. V. Prometheus Labs., Inc., 566 U.S. 66, 72, 101 USPQ2d 1961, 1965). Thus, for example, claims that amount to nothing more than an instruction to apply the abstract idea using a generic computer do not render an abstract idea eligible. Alice Corp., 573 U.S. at 223, 110 USPQ2d at 1983. See also 573 U.S. at 224, 110 USPQ2d at 1984 (warning against a § 101 analysis that turns on “the draftsman’s art”).
Further, M.P.E.P. § 2106.05(f)(2) recites:
(2) Whether the claim invokes computers or other machinery merely as a tool to perform an existing process.
Use of a computer or other machinery in its ordinary capacity for economic or other tasks (e.g., to receive, store, or transmit data) or simply adding a general purpose computer or computer components after the fact to an abstract idea (e.g., a fundamental economic practice or mathematical equation) does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more. See Affinity Labs v. DirecTV, 838 F.3d 1253, 1262, 120 USPQ2d 1201, 1207 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (cellular telephone); TLI Communications LLC v. AV Auto, LLC, 823 F.3d 607, 613, 118 USPQ2d 1744, 1748 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (computer server and telephone unit). Similarly, “claiming the improved speed or efficiency inherent with applying the abstract idea on a computer” does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide an inventive concept. Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Capital One Bank (USA), 792 F.3d 1363, 1367, 115 USPQ2d 1636, 1639 (Fed. Cir. 2015). In contrast, a claim that purports to improve computer capabilities or to improve an existing technology may integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more. McRO, Inc. v. Bandai Namco Games Am. Inc., 837 F.3d 1299, 1314-15, 120 USPQ2d 1091, 1101-02 (Fed. Cir. 2016); Enfish, LLC v. Microsoft Corp., 822 F.3d 1327, 1335-36, 118 USPQ2d 1684, 1688-89 (Fed. Cir. 2016). See MPEP §§ 2106.04(d)(1) and 2106.05(a) for a discussion of improvements to the functioning of a computer or to another technology or technical field.
The recited “processing units” are well-understood, routine, and conventional CPUs. Note that “control unit 1” includes all these “units” (See, paragraph [0028] of Applicant's Specification) and the “control unit 1” is defined as a CPU (See, paragraph [0021] of Applicant's Specification). Specifically, Applicant's Specification recites:
[0028] The control unit 1 includes a parameter acquisition processing unit 11, a formulation processing unit 12, an optimization processing unit 13, and an optimization information output processing unit 14 as processing functions according to an embodiment of the present invention. Each of these processing units 11 to 14 is realized by causing the hardware processor of the control unit 1 to execute an application program stored in the program storage unit 2. The application program may not be stored in the program storage unit 2 in advance, and may be downloaded from, for example, the online control device PF when necessary.
And, “control unit 1” is defined in the Specification as:
[0021] The optimization device OD is configured, for example, of a server computer or a personal computer. The optimization device OD includes a control unit 1 using a hardware processor such as a central processing unit (CPU), and a storage unit including a program storage unit 2 and a data storage unit 3 and an input and output interface (hereinafter the interface is referred to as I/F) unit 4 are connected to the control unit 1 via a bus 5. The optimization device OD may additionally include a communication I/F unit and the like.
Therefore, the claim as a whole does not amount to significantly more than the exception itself (i.e., there is no inventive concept in the claim). (See, M.P.E.P. § 2106.05(II)).
Therefore, the answer to the inquiry is “NO”, no additional elements provide an inventive concept that is significantly more than the claimed abstract ideas the claimed abstract idea into a practical application.
Claim 1 is, therefore, NOT ELIGIBLE subject matter under 35 U.S.C. § 101.
Claim 2
Claim 2 recites:
2. The online matching optimization device according to claim 1, wherein the optimization processing unit includes:
processing for defining a second optimization problem obtained by approximating an objective function of the formulated first optimization problem; and
processing for determining the variable and the matching strategy as the optimal solution by solving the defined second optimization problem.
Applicant’s Claim 2 merely teaches mentally defining a problem, and “determining” (i.e., mentally or through calculation) a variable and a strategy. It does not integrate the abstract idea to a practical application, nor is it anything significantly more than the abstract idea. (See, 2106.05(a)(II).)
Claim 2 is, therefore, NOT ELIGIBLE subject matter under 35 U.S.C. § 101.
Claim 3
Claim 3 recites:
3. The online matching optimization device according to claim 1, wherein the optimization processing unit includes:
processing for defining a second optimization problem obtained by approximating an objective function of the formulated first optimization problem; and
processing for defining a third optimization problem in which the objective function is transformed into a convex function by applying a preset assumption to the defined second optimization problem; and
processing for determining the variable and the matching strategy as the optimal solution by solving the third optimization problem.
Applicant’s Claim 3 merely teaches two mental defining steps, mentally applying an assumption, and “determining the variable” which may be mental or mathematics. It does not integrate the abstract idea to a practical application, nor is it anything significantly more than the abstract idea. (See, 2106.05(a)(II).)
Claim 3 is, therefore, NOT ELIGIBLE subject matter under 35 U.S.C. § 101.
Claim 4
Claim 4 recites:
4. The online matching optimization device according to claim 3, wherein the optimization processing unit determines the variable and the matching strategy as the optimal solution by solving the third optimization problem using a Primal-Dual Hybrid Gradient method.
Applicant’s Claim 4 merely teaches “determining” (i.e., mentally or through calculation) a variable and a strategy. It does not integrate the abstract idea to a practical application, nor is it anything significantly more than the abstract idea. (See, 2106.05(a)(II).)
Claim 4 is, therefore, NOT ELIGIBLE subject matter under 35 U.S.C. § 101.
Claim 5
Step 1 inquiry: Does this claim fall within a statutory category?
The preamble of the claim recites “5. An online matching optimization method executed by a device used to determine an optimal solution from an optimization problem defined in online matching for allocating a second node prepared in advance to a first node appearing at an arbitrary time, the online matching optimization method comprising…” Therefore, it is a “method” (or “process”), which is a statutory category of invention. Therefore, the answer to the inquiry is: “YES.”
Step 2A (Prong One) inquiry:
Are there limitations in Claim 5 that recite abstract ideas?
YES. The following limitations in Claim 5 recite abstract ideas that fall within at least one of the groupings of abstract ideas enumerated in the 2019 PEG. Specifically, they are “mental steps” and “mathematical steps”:
• optimal solution
• optimization problem
• matching
• first node / second node
• acquire parameter information
• probability function
• appearance probability of the first node for a plurality of times
• reward assigned when an edge is matched with a set of edges associating a set of first nodes with a set of second nodes for the plurality of times
• period of time required until the second node corresponding to the matched edge is available again for the plurality of times
• define a first optimization problem
• parameter information
• determine, by solving the formulated first optimization problem, a variable for controlling the reward of the edge and the appearance probability
• matching strategy for designating the second node to be allocated to the appearing first node as the optimal solution
Step 2A (Prong Two) inquiry:
Are there additional elements or a combination of elements in the claim that apply, rely on, or use the judicial exception in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on the judicial exception, such that it is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception?
Applicant’s claims contain the following “additional elements”:
(1) An “outputting the determined variables and matching strategy”
(1) An “outputting the determined variables and matching strategy” is a broad term which is described at a high level. M.P.E.P. § 2106.05(g) recites:
2106.05(g) Insignificant Extra-Solution Activity [R-10.2019]
Another consideration when determining whether a claim integrates the judicial exception into a practical application in Step 2A Prong Two or recites significantly more in Step 2B is whether the additional elements add more than insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception. The term “extra-solution activity” can be understood as activities incidental to the primary process or product that are merely a nominal or tangential addition to the claim. Extra-solution activity includes both pre-solution and post-solution activity.
This “outputting the determined variables and matching strategy” limitation does not integrate the additional element into a practical application and represents “insignificant extra-solution activity”. (See, M.P.E.P. § 2106.05(I)(A)).
The answer to the inquiry is “NO”, no additional elements integrate the claimed abstract idea into a practical application.
Step 2B inquiry:
Does the claim provide an inventive concept, i.e., does the claim recite additional element(s) or a combination of elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception in the claim?
Applicant’s claims contain the following “additional elements”:
(1) An “outputting the determined variables and matching strategy”
(1) An “outputting the determined variables and matching strategy” is a broad term which is described at a high level. M.P.E.P. § 2106.05(d)(II) recites:
The courts have recognized the following computer functions as well‐understood, routine, and conventional functions when they are claimed in a merely generic manner (e.g., at a high level of generality) or as insignificant extra-solution activity.
i. Receiving or transmitting data over a network, e.g., using the Internet to gather data, Symantec, 838 F.3d at 1321, 120 USPQ2d at 1362 (utilizing an intermediary computer to forward information); TLI Communications LLC v. AV Auto. LLC, 823 F.3d 607, 610, 118 USPQ2d 1744, 1745 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (using a telephone for image transmission); OIP Techs., Inc., v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363, 115 USPQ2d 1090, 1093 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (sending messages over a network); buySAFE, Inc. v. Google, Inc., 765 F.3d 1350, 1355, 112 USPQ2d 1093, 1096 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (computer receives and sends information over a network); …
Further, M.P.E.P. § 2106.05(d)(I)(2) recites in part:
2. A factual determination is required to support a conclusion that an additional element (or combination of additional elements) is well-understood, routine, conventional activity. Berkheimer v. HP, Inc., 881 F.3d 1360, 1368, 125 USPQ2d 1649, 1654 (Fed. Cir. 2018). However, this does not mean that a prior art search is necessary to resolve this inquiry. Instead, examiners should rely on what the courts have recognized, or those in the art would recognize, as elements that are well-understood, routine, conventional activity in the relevant field when making the required determination. For example, in many instances, the specification of the application may indicate that additional elements are well-known or conventional. See, e.g., Intellectual Ventures v. Symantec, 838 F.3d at 1317; 120 USPQ2d at 1359 ("The written description is particularly useful in determining what is well-known or conventional"); Internet Patents Corp. v. Active Network, Inc., 790 F.3d 1343, 1348, 115 USPQ2d 1414, 1418 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (relying on specification’s description of additional elements as "well-known", "common" and "conventional"); TLI Communications LLC v. AV Auto. LLC, 823 F.3d 607, 614, 118 USPQ2d 1744, 1748 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (Specification described additional elements as "either performing basic computer functions such as sending and receiving data, or performing functions ‘known’ in the art.").
Merely using the conventional computer to receive data is well known, understood, and conventional. Thus, it adds nothing significantly more to the judicial exception.
Therefore, the claim as a whole does not amount to significantly more than the exception itself (i.e., there is no inventive concept in the claim). (See, M.P.E.P. § 2106.05(II)).
Therefore, the answer to the inquiry is “NO”, no additional elements provide an inventive concept that is significantly more than the claimed abstract ideas the claimed abstract idea into a practical application.
Claim 5 is, therefore, NOT ELIGIBLE subject matter under 35 U.S.C. § 101.
Claim 6
Step 1 inquiry: Does this claim fall within a statutory category?
The preamble of the claim recites “6. A non-transitory computer readable storage medium storing a computer program which is executed by an online matching optimization device used to determine an optimal solution from an optimization problem defined in online matching for allocating a second node prepared in advance to a first node appearing at an arbitrary time, the computer program providing the steps of…” Therefore, it is a “non-transitory computer readable storage medium” (or “product of manufacture”), which is a statutory category of invention. Therefore, the answer to the inquiry is: “YES.”
Step 2A (Prong One) inquiry:
Are there limitations in Claim 6 that recite abstract ideas?
YES. The following limitations in Claim 6 recite abstract ideas that fall within at least one of the groupings of abstract ideas enumerated in the 2019 PEG. Specifically, they are “mental steps” and “mathematical steps”:
• optimal solution
• optimization problem
• matching
• first node / second node
• acquire parameter information
• probability function
• appearance probability of the first node for a plurality of times
• reward assigned when an edge is matched with a set of edges associating a set of first nodes with a set of second nodes for the plurality of times
• period of time required until the second node corresponding to the matched edge is available again for the plurality of times
• define a first optimization problem
• parameter information
• determine, by solving the formulated first optimization problem, a variable for controlling the reward of the edge and the appearance probability
• matching strategy for designating the second node to be allocated to the appearing first node as the optimal solution
Step 2A (Prong Two) inquiry:
Are there additional elements or a combination of elements in the claim that apply, rely on, or use the judicial exception in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on the judicial exception, such that it is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception?
Applicant’s claims contain the following “additional elements”:
(1) An “outputting the determined variables and matching strategy”
(2) An “non-transitory computer readable storage medium”
(1) An “outputting the determined variables and matching strategy” is a broad term which is described at a high level. M.P.E.P. § 2106.05(g) recites:
2106.05(g) Insignificant Extra-Solution Activity [R-10.2019]
Another consideration when determining whether a claim integrates the judicial exception into a practical application in Step 2A Prong Two or recites significantly more in Step 2B is whether the additional elements add more than insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception. The term “extra-solution activity” can be understood as activities incidental to the primary process or product that are merely a nominal or tangential addition to the claim. Extra-solution activity includes both pre-solution and post-solution activity.
This “outputting the determined variables and matching strategy” limitation does not integrate the additional element into a practical application and represents “insignificant extra-solution activity”. (See, M.P.E.P. § 2106.05(I)(A)).
(2) A “non-transitory computer readable storage medium” is a broad term which is described at a high level. M.P.E.P. § 2106.05(g) recites:
2106.05(g) Insignificant Extra-Solution Activity [R-10.2019]
Another consideration when determining whether a claim integrates the judicial exception into a practical application in Step 2A Prong Two or recites significantly more in Step 2B is whether the additional elements add more than insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception. The term “extra-solution activity” can be understood as activities incidental to the primary process or product that are merely a nominal or tangential addition to the claim. Extra-solution activity includes both pre-solution and post-solution activity.
This “non-transitory computer readable storage medium” limitation does not integrate the additional element into a practical application and represents “insignificant extra-solution activity”. (See, M.P.E.P. § 2106.05(I)(A)).
The answer to the inquiry is “NO”, no additional elements integrate the claimed abstract idea into a practical application.
Step 2B inquiry:
Does the claim provide an inventive concept, i.e., does the claim recite additional element(s) or a combination of elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception in the claim?
Applicant’s claims contain the following “additional elements”:
(1) An “outputting the determined variables and matching strategy”
(2) An “non-transitory computer readable storage medium”
(1) An “outputting the determined variables and matching strategy” is a broad term which is described at a high level. M.P.E.P. § 2106.05(d)(II) recites:
The courts have recognized the following computer functions as well‐understood, routine, and conventional functions when they are claimed in a merely generic manner (e.g., at a high level of generality) or as insignificant extra-solution activity.
i. Receiving or transmitting data over a network, e.g., using the Internet to gather data, Symantec, 838 F.3d at 1321, 120 USPQ2d at 1362 (utilizing an intermediary computer to forward information); TLI Communications LLC v. AV Auto. LLC, 823 F.3d 607, 610, 118 USPQ2d 1744, 1745 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (using a telephone for image transmission); OIP Techs., Inc., v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363, 115 USPQ2d 1090, 1093 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (sending messages over a network); buySAFE, Inc. v. Google, Inc., 765 F.3d 1350, 1355, 112 USPQ2d 1093, 1096 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (computer receives and sends information over a network); …
Further, M.P.E.P. § 2106.05(d)(I)(2) recites in part:
2. A factual determination is required to support a conclusion that an additional element (or combination of additional elements) is well-understood, routine, conventional activity. Berkheimer v. HP, Inc., 881 F.3d 1360, 1368, 125 USPQ2d 1649, 1654 (Fed. Cir. 2018). However, this does not mean that a prior art search is necessary to resolve this inquiry. Instead, examiners should rely on what the courts have recognized, or those in the art would recognize, as elements that are well-understood, routine, conventional activity in the relevant field when making the required determination. For example, in many instances, the specification of the application may indicate that additional elements are well-known or conventional. See, e.g., Intellectual Ventures v. Symantec, 838 F.3d at 1317; 120 USPQ2d at 1359 ("The written description is particularly useful in determining what is well-known or conventional"); Internet Patents Corp. v. Active Network, Inc., 790 F.3d 1343, 1348, 115 USPQ2d 1414, 1418 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (relying on specification’s description of additional elements as "well-known", "common" and "conventional"); TLI Communications LLC v. AV Auto. LLC, 823 F.3d 607, 614, 118 USPQ2d 1744, 1748 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (Specification described additional elements as "either performing basic computer functions such as sending and receiving data, or performing functions ‘known’ in the art.").
Merely using the conventional computer to receive data is well known, understood, and conventional. Thus, it adds nothing significantly more to the judicial exception.
Therefore, the claim as a whole does not amount to significantly more than the exception itself (i.e., there is no inventive concept in the claim). (See, M.P.E.P. § 2106.05(II)).
(2) A “non-transitory computer readable storage medium” is a broad term which is described at a high level. M.P.E.P. § 2106.05(f) recites:
For claim limitations that do not amount to more than a recitation of the words “apply it” (or an equivalent), such as mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, examiners should explain why they do not meaningfully limit the claim in an eligibility rejection. For example, an examiner could explain that implementing an abstract idea on a generic computer, does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application in Step 2A Prong Two…
Therefore, the claim as a whole does not amount to significantly more than the exception itself (i.e., there is no inventive concept in the claim). (See, M.P.E.P. § 2106.05(II)).
Therefore, the answer to the inquiry is “NO”, no additional elements provide an inventive concept that is significantly more than the claimed abstract ideas the claimed abstract idea into a practical application.
Claim 6 is, therefore, NOT ELIGIBLE subject matter under 35 U.S.C. § 101.
Reasons for Not Rejecting the Clams Under Art
Claims 1-6 are not rejected since when reading the claims in light of the Specification, as per MPEP § 2111.01, none of the references of record, whether taken alone or in combination, discloses or suggests the combination of limitations specified in independent Claim 1. Specifically, the closest prior art of Breuer, et al., Privacy-Preserving Maximum Matching on General Graphs and its Application to Enable Privacy-Preserving Kidney Exchange, Proceedings of the Twelfth ACM Conference on Data and Application Security and Privacy, 24 APR 2022, pp. 53-64 fails to expressly teach:
Claim 1's "...reward assigned when an edge is matched with a set of edges..."
Claim 1's "...associating a set of first nodes with a set of second nodes..."
Claim 1's "...variable for controlling the reward of the edge and the appearance probability..."
Further, none of the references of record, whether taken alone or in combination, discloses or suggests the combination of limitations specified in independent Claim 5. Specifically, the closest prior art of Breuer, et al. fails to expressly teach:
Claim 5's "...reward assigned when an edge is matched with a set of edges..."
Claim 5's "...associating a set of first nodes with a set of second nodes..."
Claim 5's "...variable for controlling the reward of the edge and the appearance probability..."
Further, none of the references of record, whether taken alone or in combination, discloses or suggests the combination of limitations specified in independent Claim 6. Specifically, the closest prior art of Breuer, et al. fails to expressly teach:
Claim 6's "...reward assigned when an edge is matched with a set of edges..."
Claim 6's "...associating a set of first nodes with a set of second nodes..."
Claim 6's "...variable for controlling the reward of the edge and the appearance probability..."
Only to the extent that these limitations (specifically as defined above) are not found in the prior art of record is the present case not rejected over the prior art.
Conclusion
Any inquiries concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Wilbert L. Starks, Jr., who may be reached Monday through Friday, between 8:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m. EST. or via telephone at (571) 272-3691 or email: Wilbert.Starks@uspto.gov.
If you need to send an Official facsimile transmission, please send it to (571) 273-8300.
If attempts to reach the examiner are unsuccessful the Examiner’s Supervisor (SPE), Kakali Chaki, may be reached at (571) 272-3719.
Hand-delivered responses should be delivered to the Receptionist @ (Customer Service Window Randolph Building 401 Dulany Street, Alexandria, VA 22313), located on the first floor of the south side of the Randolph Building.
Finally, information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Moreover, 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 any questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) toll-free @ 1-866-217-9197.
/WILBERT L STARKS/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2122
WLS
23 JUN 2026
Prosecution Insights