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 .
Status of Claims
Office Action is in response to the Applicant's amendments and remarks filed7/19/2024. Claims 5-13, 15, 20-21, 24 and 27 were amended. Claims 17-19, 22-23, 25-26 and 28-30 were cancelled. Claims 1-16, 20-21, 24 and 27 are presently pending and presented for examination.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 7/19/2024 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 therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1-16, 20-21, 24 and 27 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claim recites method for optimization problem transformation for facilitated resolution.
Step 2A – Prong 1
Independent Claims 1 and 16 as a whole recite a method of organizing human activity. The limitations from exemplary Claim 1 reciting “method for transformation of an optimization problem to facilitate its resolution, the method comprising: casting the optimization problem into a quadratic unconstrained binary ; and transforming the optimization problem into an optimization problem having the quadratic unconstrained binary with reduced connectivity, wherein transforming the optimization problem comprises: partitioning decision variables in the quadratic unconstrained binary into two or more groups, each of the two or more groups comprising at least one decision variable ; and introducing a register variable between adjacent pairs of the at least one decision variable in the two or more groups to hold partial values of a sum in a linear constraint to form the optimization problem with reduced connectivity” is a method of managing interactions between people, which falls into the certain methods of organizing human activity grouping, additionally mathematical concepts such as mathematical relationships, mathematical formulas or equations and mathematical calculations as the model can be computed using pen and paper to provide a mathematical predictions/suggestions to resolve the optimization problem. The mere recitation of a generic computer (computer-implemented method, model, node of claim 1; processor, storage, model and node of claim 16) does not take the claim out of the methods of organizing human activity grouping. Thus, the claim recites an abstract idea.
Step 2A - Prong 2: Claims 1-16, 20-21, 24 and 27 and their underlining limitations, steps, features and terms, are further inspected by the Examiner under the current examining guidelines, and found, both individually and as a whole, not to include additional elements that are sufficient to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. The limitations are directed to limitations referenced in MPEP 2106.05 that are not enough to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Limitations that are not enough include, as a non-limiting or non-exclusive examples, such as: (i) adding the words "apply it" (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, e.g., a claim to an abstract idea requiring no more than a generic computer to perform generic computer functions, (ii) insignificant extra solution activity, and/or (iii) generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the claim recites the additional elements of (computer-implemented method, model, node of claim 1; processor, storage, model and node of claim 16). The computer-implemented method, model, node of claim 1; processor, storage, model and node of claim 16, are recited at a high level of generality and are generically recited computer elements. The generically recited computer elements amount to simply implementing the abstract idea on a computer. The combination of these additional elements are additional elements do no more than generally link the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use. Accordingly, in combination, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
The claim do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because, as discussed above, the additional elements do no more than generally link the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use. Thus, even when viewed as an ordered combination, nothing in the claims add significantly more (i.e. an inventive concept) to the abstract idea. The claims are ineligible.
Dependent claims 2-15, 20-21, 24 and 27 are also directed to same grouping of methods of organizing human activity. The additional elements of the model in claims 2, 5, 9, 13, 15, 20 and 24; node of claim 3-4, 6, 8, 10, 12, 14, 21 and 27; processor in claims 20-21 and 27; graphical visualization in claims 2-3; graph network in claims 3, 14; edges in claims 3, 6 and 21; qubits in claims 4; Houdayer move in claims 13-14; quantum system in claims 15, are additional elements do no more than generally link the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use. Accordingly, in combination, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
Citation of Pertinent Prior Art
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Adrien Vandenbroucque, A Dive into Cluster Monte-Carlo Algorithms, teaches converting the optimization problem to the QUBO formulation and the aim of reducing the graphic connectivity.
Israel, 20150193692, teaches the finding of quantum binary optimization problems and associated gap values employing a variety of techniques, iterating over an expansion of the probe set and a configuration of helper variables to solve a first linear program for a quadratic unconstrained binary optimization (QUBO) problem and an energy gap which corresponds to the QUBO problem.
Rose, 20160321559, teaches unsupervised or semi-supervised features learning, the quantum processor is programmed to achieve Hierarchal Deep Learning (referred to as HDL) over one or more data sets. Systems and methods search for, parse, and detect maximally repeating patterns in one or more data sets or across data or data sets.
Novel/Non-Obvious Subject Matter
Examiner has determined that all of Applicant’s claims have overcome having prior art rejections. The reason for this is that Examiner does not believe that, at the time of Applicant’s priority date, it would have been obvious for a person of ordinary skill in the art to combine prior art disclosures to result in the particular combination of elements/limitations in that claim, including the particular configuration of the elements/limitations with respect to each other in the particular combination, without the use of impermissible hindsight.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to IBRAHIM EL-BATHY whose telephone number is (571)272-7545. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 9am - 7pm.
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, Shannon Campbell can be reached at 5712725587. 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.
/IBRAHIM N EL-BATHY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3626
Prosecution Insights