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 .
Response to Amendment
The present application was filed on 07/31/2020. This action is in response to the amendments and remarks filed on 02/03/2026. In the current amendments, claims 1-2, 4-5, 7, 9-10, 15-16, 18-20 and 23 were amended, claim 24 was added and no claims were cancelled. As such, claims 1-24 are pending and have been examined.
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 1-24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The analysis below of the claims’ subject matter eligibility follows the 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. 50-57 (January 7, 2019) (“2019 PEG”) and the 2024 Guidance Update on Patent Subject Matter Eligibility, Including on Artificial Intelligence, 89 Fed. Reg. 58128-58138 (July 17, 2024) (“2024 AI SME Update”).
When considering subject matter eligibility under 35 U.S.C. 101, it must be determined whether the claim is directed to one of the four statutory categories of invention, i.e., process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter (Step 1). If the claim does fall within one of the statutory categories, the second step in the analysis is to determine whether the claim is directed to a judicial exception (Step 2A). The Step 2A analysis is broken into two prongs. In the first prong (Step 2A, Prong 1), it is determined whether or not the claims recite a judicial exception (e.g., mathematical concepts, mental processes, certain methods of organizing human activity). If it is determined in Step 2A, Prong 1 that the claims recite a judicial exception, the analysis proceeds to the second prong (Step 2A, Prong 2), where it is determined whether or not the claims integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. If it is determined at step 2A, Prong 2 that the claims do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application, the analysis proceeds to determining whether the claim is a patent-eligible application of the exception (Step 2B). If an abstract idea is present in the claim, any element or combination of elements in the claim must be sufficient to ensure that the claim integrates the judicial exception into a practical application, or else amounts to significantly more than the abstract idea itself.
Step 1 Analysis: Claim 1 is directed to a computer-implemented method, corresponding to a process, which is one of the statutory categories.
Step 2A Prong one Analysis: The claim is directed to a method for performing a task. The claim, which contains the following limitations:
processing a pool of contexts sampled from one or more previous episodes of the task…to generate a distribution of a global latent context variable…a type of the task to be performed by an agent
processing one or more contexts sampled at one or more previous time steps of a current episode of the task…to generate a distribution of a local latent context variable…a current sub-task within the task to be performed by the agent at a current time step
causing the agent to perform an action related to carrying out the task based on the distribution of the global latent context variable, the distribution of the local latent context variable, and a current state associated with the current time step
as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation (BRI), covers performance of the limitation in the mind - concepts performed in the human mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion) but for mere instructions to apply language and the recitation of insignificant extra-solution activity. The above limitations in the context of this claim processing a pool...(corresponds to evaluation and judgment for evaluating a task to be performed based on the prior exposure), processing one or more contexts...(corresponds to evaluation and judgment by evaluating and using judgment to provide output); causing the agent to perform…(corresponds to evaluating a task based on the judgment of distribution).
Step 2A Prong Two Analysis: The recitation of additional elements of “via a first trained encoder neural network”; “via a second trained encoder neural network”; “a first encoded representation”; “a second encoded representation”, as drafted, amount to mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely use a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea.
Regarding the first and second “trained encoder neural network”, aside from them being encoder neural networks, no details of the neural networks or their training are recited, and the networks are recited at a high level of generality and can be constructed by hand with pen and paper. The first and second “trained encoder neural network”, under the BRI, in light of the specification, could be constructed and then modified by hand with pen and paper based on a reasonable amount of observed data (i.e., the “pool of contexts sampled”). Regarding the first and second encoder neural networks, no details of the networks, the “encoded representation” of the encoders or their training are recited, and the encoders are recited at a high level of generality and can be constructed by hand with pen and paper.
Accordingly, the 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 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 with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional element directed to mere instructions to apply the judicial exception. Mere instruction to apply a judicial exception does not amount to significant more. See MPEP 2106.05(f). Therefore, the claim is not patent eligible.
Claim 2:
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1 Analysis: Claim 2 is directed to a computer-implemented method, corresponding to a process, one of the statutory categories. Claim 2 is directed to a method as depending from claim 1, thus the analysis for patent eligibility of claim 1 is incorporated herein.
Step 2A Prong one Analysis: Please see analysis of independent claim 1.
Step 2A Prong Two Analysis: The recitation of additional elements of “a first neural network to generate the first trained neural network, and a second neural network to generate the second trained encoder neural network”, as drafted, amount to mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely use a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea. Furthermore, the recitation of “training the agent…based on one or more sequences of experiences encountered by a random initialization of the agent during one or more training tasks” is directed to insignificant extra-solution activity. Accordingly, the 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 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 with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional element directed to mere instructions to apply the judicial exception. Mere instruction to apply a judicial exception does not amount to significant more. See MPEP 2106.05(f). The recitation of “training the agent…” is directed to insignificant extra-solution activity that is well known, routine and conventional (“the seq2seq model is typically trained by employing the cross-entropy strategy, while it is evaluated by applying nondifferentiable and discrete evaluation metrics, such as perplexity [2] and BiLingual Evaluation Understudy (BLEU) [5] at test time. Second, the standard MLE training will lead to the “exposure bias” problem [6] because of the discrepancy between the training and testing phases”, (Yang, Multitask Learning and Reinforcement Learning for Personalized Dialog Generation: An Empirical Study, Section I. INTRODUCTION & Page 50, 1st column) teaches typically training interpreted as conventionality of training). Therefore, the claim is not patent eligible.
Claim 3:
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1 Analysis: Claim 3 is directed to a computer-implemented method, corresponding to a process, one of the statutory categories. Claim 3 is directed to a method as depending from claim 1, thus the analysis for patent eligibility of claim 1 is incorporated herein.
Step 2A Prong one Analysis: Please see analysis of the independent claim 1.
Step 2A Prong Two Analysis: This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. The recitation of additional elements(s) of “updating the type of the task and the current sub-task based on a current context comprising the current state, the action, a next state reached after the action is performed, and a reward associated with the current state or the action” are directed to mere data gathering (See MPEP 2106.05(g)). Accordingly, the 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 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. The recitation of “updating….” is directed to insignificant extra-solution activity that is well known, routine and conventional because the limitation is directed to receiving data (See MPEP 2106.05(d)(II), “Receiving or transmitting data over a network, e.g., using the Internet to gather data”). Therefore, the claim is not patent eligible.
Claim 4:
Independent claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1 Analysis: Claim 4 is directed to a computer-implemented method, corresponding to a process, which is one of the statutory categories.
Step 2A Prong one Analysis: The claim is directed to a method for performing a task. The claim, which contains the following limitations:
processing a pool of contexts sampled from one or more previous episodes of the task…to generate a first posterior distribution of a global latent context variable…for the task
processing one or more recent contexts sampled at one or more previous time steps of a current episode of the task…to generate a second posterior distribution of a local latent context variable…for a current time step in the current episode
causing an agent to perform an action related to carrying out the task based on the first posterior distribution, the second posterior distribution, and a current state associated with the current time step
as drafted, is a process that, under its BRI, covers performance of the limitation in the mind (concepts performed in the human mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion)) but for mere instructions to apply language and the recitation of insignificant extra-solution activity. The above limitations in the context of this claim encompass processing a pool of contexts (corresponds to evaluation and judgment to generate a task to be performed based on the previous episodes); processing one or more recent contexts (corresponds to evaluation and judgment for generating a task to be performed based on the previous episodes); causing an agent to perform….(corresponds to evaluating a task based on judgment of the distribution).
Step 2A Prong Two Analysis: This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. The recitation of additional elements of “via a trained global context encoder neural network”; “via a trained local context encoder neural network”; “that comprises a first encoded representation”; “that comprises a second encoded representation”, as drafted, amount to mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely use a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea.
Regarding the “global context encoder neural network” and a first and second “encoded representation”, no details of the encoder or its training are recited, and the encoder neural network is recited at a high level of generality and can be constructed by hand with pen and paper. The “trained global context encoder neural network”, under the BRI, in light of the specification, could be constructed and then modified by hand with pen and paper based on a reasonable amount of observed data (i.e., the “pool of contexts sampled”).
Accordingly, the 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 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 with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional element directed to mere instructions to apply the judicial exception. Mere instruction to apply a judicial exception does not amount to significant more. See MPEP 2106.05(f). Therefore, the claim is not patent eligible.
Claim 5:
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1 Analysis: Claim 5 is directed to a computer-implemented method, corresponding to a process, which is one of the statutory categories. Claim 5 is directed to a method as depending from claim 1, thus the analysis for patent eligibility of claim 4 is incorporated herein.
Step 2A Prong one Analysis: Please see analysis of independent claim 4.
Step 2A Prong Two Analysis: This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. The recitation of additional elements(s) of “sampling the global latent context variable and the local latent context variable based on one or more contexts associated with a batch of trajectories collected during a training task for the agent” is directed to mere data gathering (See MPEP 2106.05(g)). Furthermore, the recitation of additional elements “updating parameters of a global context encoder neural network to generate the trained global context encoder neural network, a local context encoder neural network to generate the trained local context encoder neural network, and the agent based on one or more losses associated with the batch of trajectories, the sampled global latent context variable, and the sampled local latent context variable” is directed to insignificant extra-solution activity. Accordingly, the 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 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. The recitation of “sampling…” is directed to insignificant extra-solution activity that is well known, routine and conventional because the limitation is directed to receiving data (See MPEP 2106.05(d)(II), “Receiving or transmitting data over a network, e.g., using the Internet to gather data”). The recitation of “updating...” is directed to insignificant extra-solution activity that is well known, routine and conventional (“Stacked denoising auto-encoder [29] is one of the most well-known DNN models which can be used for image restoration. Xie et al. [32] combined sparse coding and DNN pre-trained with denoising auto-encoder for low-level vision tasks such as image denoising and inpainting”, (Mao, h, Section I. INTRODUCTION & Page 2) teaches encoder is very common). Therefore, the claim is not patent eligible.
Claim 6:
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1 Analysis: Claim 6 is directed to a computer-implemented method, corresponding to a process, which is one of the statutory categories. Claim 6 is directed to a method as depending from claim 5, thus the analysis for patent eligibilities of claim 5 and of base claim 4 are incorporated herein.
Step 2A Prong one Analysis: Please see analysis of claim 5.
Step 2A Prong Two Analysis: The recitation of additional element(s) of “collecting the batch of trajectories and the one or more contexts based on selection, by a random initialization of the agent, of one or more actions associated with the training task” are directed to mere data gathering (See MPEP 2106.05(g)). Accordingly, the 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 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. The recitation of “collecting…” is directed to insignificant extra-solution activity that is well known, routine and conventional because the limitation is directed to receiving data (See MPEP 2106.05(d)(II), “Receiving or transmitting data over a network, e.g., using the Internet to gather data”). Therefore, the claim is not patent eligible.
Claim 7:
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1 Analysis: Claim 7 is directed to a computer-implemented method, corresponding to a process, which is one of the statutory categories. Claim 7 is directed to a method as depending from claim 5, thus the analysis for patent eligibilities of claim 5 and of base claim 4 are incorporated herein.
Step 2A Prong one Analysis: Please see analysis of claim 5.
Step 2A Prong Two Analysis: This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. The recitation of additional elements “wherein updating the parameters of the global context encoder neural network, the local context encoder neural network, and the agent comprises: updating an actor policy associated with the agent based on an actor loss associated with the batch of trajectories, the sampled global latent context variable, and the sampled local latent context variable”; “updating a critic policy associated with the agent based on a critic loss associated with the batch of trajectories, the sampled global latent context variable, and the sampled local latent context variable” are directed to mere data gathering (See MPEP 2106.05(g)). Furthermore, the recitation of additional elements “updating the global context encoder neural network and the local context encoder neural network based on (i) the critic loss and (ii) a divergence loss representing one or more divergences between one or more posterior distributions of the global latent context variable and the local latent context variable and one or more prior distributions of the global latent context variable and the local latent context variable” is directed to insignificant extra-solution activity. Accordingly, the 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 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. The recitation of “wherein updating the parameter…”; “updating a critical policy…” are directed to mere data gathering (See MPEP 2106.05(g)) are directed to insignificant Extra-Solution Activity that is well known, routine and conventional because the limitation is directed to receiving data (See MPEP 2106.05(d)(II), “Receiving or transmitting data over a network, e.g., using the Internet to gather data”). The recitation of “updating the global context encoder…” is directed to insignificant extra-solution activity that is well known, routine and conventional (“Stacked denoising auto-encoder [29] is one of the most well-known DNN models which can be used for image restoration. Xie et al. [32] combined sparse coding and DNN pre-trained with denoising auto-encoder for low-level vision tasks such as image denoising and inpainting”, (Mao, h, Section I. INTRODUCTION & Page 2) teaches encoder is very common). Therefore, the claim is not patent eligible.
Claim 8:
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1 Analysis: Claim 8 is directed to a computer-implemented method, corresponding to a process, which is one of the statutory categories. Claim 8 is directed to a method as depending from claim 4, thus the analysis for patent eligibility of claim 4 is incorporated herein.
Step 2A Prong one Analysis: Please see analysis of the independent claim 4.
Step 2A Prong Two Analysis: This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. The recitation of additional elements “updating the pool of contexts and the one or more recent contexts based on a current context comprising the current state, the action, a next state reached after the action is performed, and a reward associated with the current state or the action” is directed to mere data gathering (See MPEP 2106.05(g)). Accordingly, the 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 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. The recitation of “updating…” is directed to mere data gathering (See MPEP 2106.05(g)) are directed to insignificant Extra-Solution Activity that is well known, routine and conventional because the limitation is directed to receiving data (See MPEP 2106.05(d)(II), “Receiving or transmitting data over a network, e.g., using the Internet to gather data”). Therefore, the claim is not patent eligible.
Claim 9:
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1 Analysis: Claim 9 is directed to a computer-implemented method, corresponding to a process, which is one of the statutory categories. Claim 9 is directed to a method as depending from claim 4, thus the analysis for patent eligibility of claim 4 is incorporated herein.
Step 2A Prong one Analysis: The claim recites:
wherein processing the pool of contexts sampled from the one or more previous episodes of the task
- this limitation, as drafted, is a process that, under its BRI, covers performance of the limitation in the mind (concepts performed in the human mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion)) but for mere instructions to apply language and the recitation of insignificant extra-solution activity. The above limitations in the context of this claim encompass wherein processing the pool….(corresponds to evaluation and judgment for evaluating contexts sampled).
Step 2A Prong Two Analysis: This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. The recitation of additional elements(s) of “via the trained global context encoder neural network”; “the trained global context encoder neural network that comprises a Deep Sets architecture”; “the Deep Sets architecture”, as drafted, amount to mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely use a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea. See MPEP 2106.05(f). The recitation of additional elements(s) of “inputting the pool of contexts sampled from the one or more previous episodes of the task”; “obtaining the first posterior distribution of the global latent context variable as output” are directed to mere data gathering (See MPEP 2106.05(g)). Accordingly, the 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 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 with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional element directed to mere instructions to apply the judicial exception. Mere instruction to apply a judicial exception does not amount to significant more. See MPEP 2106.05(f). Furthermore, the recitation of “inputting…”; “obtaining…” are directed to insignificant extra-solution activity that is well known, routine and conventional because the limitation is directed to receiving data (See MPEP 2106.05(d)(II), “Receiving or transmitting data over a network, e.g., using the Internet to gather data”). Therefore, the claim is not patent eligible.
Claim 10:
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1 Analysis: Claim 10 is directed to a computer-implemented method, corresponding to a process, one of the statutory categories. Claim 10 is directed to a method as depending from claim 4, thus the analysis for patent eligibility of claim 4 is incorporated herein.
Step 2A Prong one Analysis: The claim is directed to a method for performing a task. The claim, which contains the following limitations:
wherein processing the one or more recent contexts sampled at the one or more previous time steps of the current episode
- this limitation, as drafted, is a process that, under its BRI, covers performance of the limitation in the mind (concepts performed in the human mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion)) but for mere instructions to apply language and the recitation of insignificant extra-solution activity. The above limitations in the context of this claim encompass wherein processing the one or more recent….(corresponds to evaluation and judgment for evaluating contexts sampled).
Step 2A Prong Two Analysis: This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. The recitation of additional elements(s) of “via the trained local context encoder neural network”; “the trained local context encoder neural network that comprises a variational recurrent neural network”; “the variational recurrent neural network”, as drafted, amount to mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely use a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea. See MPEP 2106.05(f). The recitation of additional elements(s) of “inputting the one or more recent contexts sampled at the one or more previous time steps of the current episode”; “obtaining the second posterior distribution of the local latent context variable as output” are directed to mere data gathering (See MPEP 2106.05(g)). Accordingly, the 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 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 with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional element directed to mere instructions to apply the judicial exception. Mere instruction to apply a judicial exception does not amount to significant more. See MPEP 2106.05(f). Furthermore, the recitation of “inputting…”; “obtaining…” are directed to insignificant extra-solution activity that is well known, routine and conventional because the limitation is directed to receiving data (See MPEP 2106.05(d)(II), “Receiving or transmitting data over a network, e.g., using the Internet to gather data”). Therefore, the claim is not patent eligible.
Claim 11:
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1 Analysis: Claim 11 is directed to a computer-implemented method, corresponding to a process, which is one of the statutory categories. Claim 11 is directed to a method as depending from claim 10, thus the analysis for patent eligibilities of claim 10 and of base claim 4 are incorporated herein.
Step 2A Prong one Analysis: Please see analysis of claim 10.
Step 2A Prong Two Analysis: This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim recites additional elements “the variational recurrent neural network” that are mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely use a computer tool to perform an abstract idea. See MPEP 2106.05(f). The recitation of additional elements(s) of “a conditional prior for the local latent context variable that is conditioned on a previous hidden state”; “a transition component that updates a current hidden state…based on the one or more recent contexts, the conditional prior, and the previous hidden state”; “an inference component that determines the second posterior distribution of the local latent context variable based on the current hidden state…the one or more recent contexts” area directed to mere data gathering (See MPEP 2106.05(g)). Accordingly, the 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 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 with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional element directed to mere instructions to apply the judicial exception. Mere instruction to apply a judicial exception does not amount to significant more. See MPEP 2106.05(f). Furthermore, the recitation of “a conditional prior for the local latent…”; “a transition…” and “an inference…” are directed to insignificant extra-solution activity that is well known, routine and conventional because the limitation is directed to receiving data (See MPEP 2106.05(d)(II), “Receiving or transmitting data over a network, e.g., using the Internet to gather data”). Therefore, the claim is not patent eligible.
Claim 12:
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1 Analysis: Claim 12 is directed to a computer-implemented method, corresponding to a process, which is one of the statutory categories. Claim 12 is directed to a method as depending from claim 4, thus the analysis for patent eligibility of claim 4 is incorporated herein.
Step 2A Prong one Analysis: Please see analysis of the independent claim 4.
Step 2A Prong Two Analysis: This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. The recitation of additional elements(s) of “wherein causing the agent to perform the action comprises sampling the action from a distribution of actions outputted by a policy for the agent given the current state, a first sample from the first posterior distribution, and a second sample from the second posterior distribution” is directed to mere data gathering (See MPEP 2106.05(g)). Accordingly, the 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 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 with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional element directed to mere instructions to apply the judicial exception. Mere instruction to apply a judicial exception does not amount to significant more. See MPEP 2106.05(f). Furthermore, the recitation of “wherein causing…” is directed to insignificant extra-solution activity that is well known, routine and conventional because the limitation is directed to receiving data (See MPEP 2106.05(d)(II), “Receiving or transmitting data over a network, e.g., using the Internet to gather data”). Therefore, the claim is not patent eligible.
Claim 13:
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1 Analysis: Claim 13 is directed to a computer-implemented method, corresponding to a process, which is one of the statutory categories. Claim 13 is directed to a method as depending from claim 4, thus the analysis for patent eligibility of claim 4 is incorporated herein.
Step 2A Prong one Analysis: The claim is directed to a method for performing a task. The claim, which contains the following limitations:
wherein the first posterior distribution or the second posterior distribution comprises at least one of a categorical distribution, a Dirichlet distribution, a logistic normal distribution, or a composite distribution
- these limitations, as drafted, are process that, under its BRI, covers performance of the limitation in the mind (concepts performed in the human mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion)) and mathematical process but for mere instructions to apply language and the recitation of insignificant extra-solution activity. The above limitations in the context of this claim encompass wherein the first posterior distribution….(corresponds to a mathematical process because Specification Para [0040] discloses “such as an isotropic Gaussian or uniform categorical distribution. After the initial time step, dependencies among distributions of local latent context variable 260 are captured by conditioning the prior distribution of on the previous hidden state”).
Step 2A Prong Two Analysis: Please see analysis of the independent claim 4.
Step 2B Analysis: Please see analysis of the independent claim 4.
Claim 14:
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1 Analysis: Claim 14 is directed to a computer-implemented method, corresponding to a process, which is one of the statutory categories. Claim 14 is directed to a method as depending from claim 4, thus the analysis for patent eligibility of claim 4 is incorporated herein.
Step 2A Prong one Analysis: Please see analysis of the independent claim 4.
Step 2A Prong Two Analysis: This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. The recitation of additional elements(s) of “sampling the local latent context variable at an initial time step in the current episode from an uninformative prior” is directed to mere data gathering (See MPEP 2106.05(g)). Accordingly, the 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 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. The recitation of “sampling…” is directed to insignificant extra-solution activity that is well known, routine and conventional because the limitation is directed to receiving data (See MPEP 2106.05(d)(II), “Receiving or transmitting data over a network, e.g., using the Internet to gather data”). Therefore, the claim is not patent eligible.
Claim 15:
Independent claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1 Analysis: Claim 15 is directed to a non-transitory computer readable medium, corresponding to an article of manufacture, which is one of the statutory categories.
Step 2A Prong one Analysis: The claim is directed to a non-transitory computer readable medium. The claim, which contains the following limitations:
processing a pool of contexts sampled from one or more previous episodes of a task…to generate a first posterior distribution of a global latent context variable…for the task
processing one or more recent contexts sampled at one or more previous time steps of a current episode of the task…to generate a second posterior distribution of a local latent context variable…for a current time step in the current episode
causing an agent to perform an action related to carrying out the task based on the first posterior distribution, the second posterior distribution, and a current state associated with the current time step
as drafted, is a process that, under its BRI, covers performance of the limitation in the mind (concepts performed in the human mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion)) but for mere instructions to apply language and the recitation of insignificant extra-solution activity. The above limitations in the context of this claim encompass processing a pool….(corresponds to evaluation and judgment to generate a distribution of a context variable for a task); processing one or more recent….(corresponds to evaluation and judgment to generate another distribution of the context variable for a task to be performed based on the previous episodes); causing an agent….(corresponds to evaluating a task based on judgment of the distributions).
Step 2A Prong Two Analysis: This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim recites additional elements “storing instructions that, when executed by a processor, cause the processor to perform the steps of”; “via a trained global context encoder neural network”; “via a trained local context encoder neural network”; “that comprises a first encoded representation”; “that comprises a second encoded representation” that are mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea. See MPEP 2106.05(f).
Regarding the “global context encoder neural network”; a first and second “encoded representation”, no details of the encoder or its training are recited, and the encoder is recited at a high level of generality and can be constructed by hand with pen and paper. The “trained global context encoder neural network”, under the BRI, in light of the specification, could be constructed and then modified by hand with pen and paper based on a reasonable amount of observed data (i.e., the “pool of contexts sampled”).
Accordingly, the 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 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 with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional element directed to mere instructions to apply the judicial exception. Mere instruction to apply a judicial exception does not amount to significant more. See MPEP 2106.05(f). Therefore, the claim is not patent eligible.
Claim 16:
Claim 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1 Analysis: Claim 16 is directed to a non-transitory computer readable medium, corresponding to an article of manufacture, which is one of the statutory categories. Claim 16 is directed to a non-transitory computer readable medium as depending from claim 15, thus the analysis for patent eligibility of claim 15 is incorporated herein.
Step 2A Prong One Analysis: Please see analysis of the independent claim 15.
Step 2A Prong Two Analysis: This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. The recitation of additional elements(s) of “collecting one or more batches of trajectories and one or more contexts associated with the one or more batches of trajectories based on selection, by a random initialization of the agent, of one or more actions associated with a training task”; “sampling the global latent context variable and the local latent context variable based on the collected one or more contexts” are directed to mere data gathering (See MPEP 2106.05(g)). Furthermore, the recitation of additional elements “updating parameters of a global context encoder neural network to generate the trained global context encoder neural network, a local context encoder neural network to generate the trained local context encoder neural network, and the agent based on one or more losses associated with the one or more batches of trajectories, the sampled global latent context variable, and the sampled local latent context variable” is directed to insignificant extra-solution activity. Accordingly, the 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 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. Furthermore, the recitation of “collecting…”; “sampling…” are directed to insignificant extra-solution activity that is well known, routine and conventional because the limitation is directed to receiving data (See MPEP 2106.05(d)(II), “Receiving or transmitting data over a network, e.g., using the Internet to gather data”). The recitation of “updating...” is directed to insignificant extra-solution activity that is well known, routine and conventional (“Stacked denoising auto-encoder [29] is one of the most well-known DNN models which can be used for image restoration. Xie et al. [32] combined sparse coding and DNN pre-trained with denoising auto-encoder for low-level vision tasks such as image denoising and inpainting”, (Mao, h, Section I. INTRODUCTION & Page 2) teaches encoder is very common). Therefore, the claim is not patent eligible.
Claim 17:
Claim 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1 Analysis: Claim 17 is directed to a non-transitory computer readable medium, corresponding to an article of manufacture, one of the statutory categories. Claim 17 is directed to a non-transitory computer readable medium as depending from claim 16, thus the analysis for patent eligibilities of claim 16 and of base claim 15 are incorporated herein.
Step 2A Prong one Analysis: Please see analysis of claim 16.
Step 2A Prong Two Analysis: This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. The recitation of additional elements(s) of “an actor loss associated with the one or more batches of trajectories, the sampled global latent context variable, and the sampled local latent context variable”; “a critic loss associated with the one or more batches of trajectories, the sampled global latent context variable, and the sampled local latent context variable”; “a divergence loss representing one or more divergences between one or more posterior distributions of the global latent context variable and the local latent context variable and one or more prior distributions of the global latent context variable and the local latent context variable” are directed to mere data gathering (See MPEP 2106.05(g)). Accordingly, the 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 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. Furthermore, the recitation of “an actor loss…”, “a critical loss…” and “a diversion loss…” are directed to insignificant extra-solution activity that is well known, routine and conventional because the limitation is directed to receiving data (See MPEP 2106.05(d)(II), “Receiving or transmitting data over a network, e.g., using the Internet to gather data”). Therefore, the claim is not patent eligible.
Claim 18:
Claim 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1 Analysis: Claim 18 is directed to a non-transitory computer readable medium storing, corresponding to an article of manufacture, which is one of the statutory categories. Claim 18 is directed to a non-transitory computer readable medium as depending from claim 15, thus the analysis for patent eligibility of claim 15 is incorporated herein.
Step 2A Prong one Analysis: The claim is directed to a non-transitory computer readable medium, cause the processor to perform the steps. The claim, which contains the following limitations:
processing the pool of contexts sampled from the one or more previous episodes of the task…occurs at a beginning of each episode of the task
processing the one or more recent contexts sampled at the one or more previous time steps of the current episode…occurs at the beginning of each time step in each episode of the task.
- these limitations, as drafted, are a process that, under its BRI, cover performance of the limitation in the mind (concepts performed in the human mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion)) but for mere instructions to apply language and the recitation of insignificant extra-solution activity. The above limitations in the context of this claim encompass processing the pool of contexts….(corresponds to evaluation and judgment to update an evaluation based on judgment of the current state); processing the one or more recent contexts….(corresponds to evaluation and judgment to update an evaluation based on the judgment of the current state).
Step 2A Prong Two Analysis: This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim recites additional elements “via the trained global context encoder neural network”; “via the trained local context encoder neural network” that are mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely use a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea. See MPEP 2106.05(f). Accordingly, the 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 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 with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional element directed to mere instructions to apply the judicial exception. Mere instruction to apply a judicial exception does not amount to significant more. See MPEP 2106.05(f). Therefore, the claim is not patent eligible.
Claim 19:
Claim 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1 Analysis: Claim 19 is directed to a non-transitory computer readable medium, corresponding to an article of manufacture, which is one of the statutory categories. Claim 19 is directed to a non-transitory computer readable medium as depending from claim 15, thus the analysis for patent eligibility of claim 15 is incorporated herein.
Step 2A Prong one Analysis: The claim is directed to a non-transitory computer readable medium. The claim, which contains the following limitation:
wherein processing the pool of contexts sampled from the one or more previous episodes of the task
- this limitation, as drafted, is a process that, under its BRI, covers performance of the limitation in the mind (concepts performed in the human mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion)) but for mere instructions to apply language and the recitation of insignificant extra-solution activity. The above limitations in the context of this claim encompass wherein….(corresponds to evaluating contexts sampled based on judgment of a previous task ).
Step 2A Prong Two Analysis: This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim recites additional element “via the trained global context encoder neural network”; “the trained global context encoder that comprises neural network a Deep Sets architecture” that are mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely use a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea. See MPEP 2106.05(f). The recitation of additional elements(s) of “inputting the pool of contexts sampled from the one or more previous episodes of the task into”; “obtaining the first posterior distribution of the global latent context variable as output of the Deep Sets architecture” are directed to mere data gathering (See MPEP 2106.05(g)). Accordingly, the 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 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 with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional element directed to mere instructions to apply the judicial exception. Mere instruction to apply a judicial exception does not amount to significant more. See MPEP 2106.05(f). Furthermore, the recitation of “inputting…”; “obtaining…” are directed to insignificant extra-solution activity that is well known, routine and conventional because the limitation is directed to receiving data (See MPEP 2106.05(d)(II), “Receiving or transmitting data over a network, e.g., using the Internet to gather data”). Therefore, the claim is not patent eligible.
Claim 20:
Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1 Analysis: Claim 20 is directed to a non-transitory computer readable medium, corresponding to an article of manufacture, which is one of the statutory categories. Claim 20 is directed to a non-transitory computer readable medium as depending from claim 15, thus the analysis for patent eligibility of claim 15 is incorporated herein.
Step 2A Prong one Analysis: The claim is directed to a non-transitory computer readable medium. The claim, which contains the following limitation:
wherein processing the one or more recent contexts sampled at the one or more previous time steps of the current episode
- this limitation, as drafted, is a process that, under its BRI, covers performance of the limitation in the mind (concepts performed in the human mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion)) but for mere instructions to apply language and the recitation of insignificant extra-solution activity. The above limitations in the context of this claim encompass wherein processing the one or more….(corresponds to evaluating contexts sampled based on judgment of a previous task).
Step 2A Prong Two Analysis: This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim recites additional elements “via the trained local context encoder neural network”; “the trained local context encoder neural network that comprises a variational recurrent neural network”; “the variational recurrent neural network” that are mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea. See MPEP 2106.05(f). The recitation of additional elements(s) of “inputting the one or more recent contexts sampled at the one or more previous time steps of the current episode into”; “obtaining the second posterior distribution of the local latent context variable as output” are directed to mere data gathering (See MPEP 2106.05(g)). Accordingly, the 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 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 with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional element directed to mere instructions to apply the judicial exception. Mere instruction to apply a judicial exception does not amount to significant more. See MPEP 2106.05(f). Furthermore, the recitation of “inputting…”; “obtaining…” are directed to insignificant extra-solution activity that is well known, routine and conventional because the limitation is directed to receiving data (See MPEP 2106.05(d)(II), “Receiving or transmitting data over a network, e.g., using the Internet to gather data”). Therefore, the claim is not patent eligible.
Claim 21:
Claim 21 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more
Step 1 Analysis: Claim 21 is directed to a non-transitory computer readable medium, corresponding to an article of manufacture, which is one of the statutory categories. . Claim 21 is directed to a non-transitory computer readable medium as depending from claim 15, thus the analysis for patent eligibility of claim 15 is incorporated herein.
Step 2A Prong One Analysis: Please see analysis of the independent claim 15.
Step 2A Prong Two Analysis: This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. The recitation of additional elements(s) of “causing the agent to perform the action comprises sampling the action from a distribution of actions outputted by a policy for the agent given the current state, a first sample from the first posterior distribution, and a second sample from the second posterior distribution” is directed to mere data gathering (See MPEP 2106.05(g)). Accordingly, the 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 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 with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional element directed to mere instructions to apply the judicial exception. Mere instruction to apply a judicial exception does not amount to significant more. See MPEP 2106.05(f). Furthermore, the recitation of “causing…” is directed to insignificant extra-solution activity that is well known, routine and conventional because the limitation is directed to receiving data (See MPEP 2106.05(d)(II), “Receiving or transmitting data over a network, e.g., using the Internet to gather data”). Therefore, the claim is not patent eligible.
Claim 22:
Claim 22 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1 Analysis: Claim 22 is directed to a non-transitory computer readable medium, corresponding to an article of manufacture, which is one of the statutory categories. Claim 22 is directed to a non-transitory computer readable medium as depending from claim 15, thus the analysis for patent eligibility of claim 15 is incorporated herein.
Step 2A Prong one Analysis: The claim is directed to a non-transitory computer readable medium. The claim, which contains the following limitation:
wherein the first posterior distribution or the second posterior distribution comprises at least one of a categorical distribution, a Dirichlet distribution, a logistic normal distribution, or a composite distribution
- this limitation, as drafted, is a process that, under its BRI, covers performance of the limitation in the mind (concepts performed in the human mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion)) and mathematical process but for mere instructions to apply language and the recitation of insignificant extra-solution activity. The above limitations in the context of this claim encompass wherein the first posterior distribution….(corresponds to a mathematical process because Specification Para [0040] discloses “such as an isotropic Gaussian or uniform categorical distribution. After the initial time step, dependencies among distributions of local latent context variable 260 are captured by conditioning the prior distribution of on the previous hidden state”).
Step 2A Prong Two Analysis: Please see analysis of the independent claim 15.
Step 2B Analysis: Please see analysis of the independent claim 15.
Claim 23:
Independent claim 23 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1 Analysis: Claim 23 is directed to a system, which is directed to a machine, which is one of the statutory categories.
Step 2A Prong one Analysis: The claim is directed to a machine. The claim, which contains the following limitations:
process a pool of contexts sampled from one or more previous episodes of a task…to generate a first posterior distribution of a global latent context variable…for the task;
process one or more recent contexts sampled at one or more previous time steps of a current episode of the task…to generate a second posterior distribution of a local latent context variable…for a current time step in the current episode;
cause an agent to perform an action related to carrying out the task based on the first posterior distribution, the second posterior distribution, and a current state associated with the current time step.
- these limitations, as drafted, are a process that, under its BRI, covers performance of the limitation in the mind (concepts performed in the human mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion)) but for mere instructions to apply language and the recitation of insignificant extra-solution activity.
The above limitations in the context of this claim encompass processing a pool….(corresponds to evaluation and judgment to generate a distribution of a context variable for a task); processing one or more recent….(corresponds to evaluation and judgment to generate another distribution of the context variable for a task to be performed based on the previous episodes); causing an agent….(corresponds to evaluating a task based on judgment of the distributions).
Step 2A Prong Two Analysis: This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim recites additional elements “a memory that stores instructions, and a processor that is coupled to the memory and, when executing the instructions”; “via a trained global context encoder neural network”; “via a trained local context encoder neural network”; “that comprises a first encoded representation”; “that comprises a second encoded representation” that are mere instruction to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer tools to perform an abstract idea. See MPEP 2106.05(f).
Regarding the “global context encoder neural network”; “local context encoder neural network”, and a first and second “encoded representation”, no details of the encoder neural networks or their training are recited, and the encoder neural networks are recited at a high level of generality and can be constructed by hand with pen and paper. The “trained global context encoder neural network” and “trained local context encoder neural network”, under the BRI, in light of the specification, could be constructed and then modified by hand with pen and paper based on a reasonable amount of observed data (i.e., the “pool of contexts sampled”).
Accordingly, the 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 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 with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional element directed to mere instructions to apply the judicial exception. Mere instruction to apply a judicial exception does not amount to significant more. See MPEP 2106.05(f). Therefore, the claim is not patent eligible.
Claim 24:
Claim 24 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1 Analysis: Claim 24 is directed to a computer-implemented method, corresponding to a process, which is one of the statutory categories. Claim 24 is directed to a method as depending from claim 1, thus the analysis for patent eligibility of claim 1 is incorporated herein.
Step 2A Prong one Analysis: Please see analysis of the independent claim 1.
Step 2A Prong Two Analysis: The recitation of additional elements of “wherein the first trained encoder neural network, the second trained encoder neural network, and the agent are executed by an inference engine”, as drafted, amount to mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely use a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea.
The 1st and 2nd “encoder neural network”, “agent” and “inference engine” are each recited at a high level of generality as mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer and amounts to the recitation of the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) or amount to no more than mere instructions to implement an abstract idea or other exception on a computer or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea (i.e., as generic computer components performing generic computer functions). See MPEP 2106.05(f).
Regarding the first and second “the first trained encoder neural network, the second trained encoder neural network”, no details of the neural networks or their training are recited, and the networks are recited at a high level of generality and can be constructed by hand with pen and paper. The 1st and 2nd “trained encoder neural network”, under the BRI, in light of the specification, could be constructed and then modified by hand with pen and paper based on a reasonable amount of observed data (i.e., the “pool of contexts sampled” of base claim 1).
Accordingly, the 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 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 with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional element directed to mere instructions to apply the judicial exception. Mere instruction to apply a judicial exception does not amount to significant more. See MPEP 2106.05(f). Therefore, the claim is not patent eligible.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 02/03/2026 with respect to 35 U.S.C. §112(b) rejections of claims 1-14 have been fully considered and they are persuasive. The previous rejections of claims 1-14 under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) are withdrawn in view of applicant's remarks.
Applicant's arguments filed 02/03/2026 with respect to 35 U.S.C. §101 rejections of claims 1-23 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Regarding independent claims 1, 4, 15 and 23, Applicant states “the Examiner asserts in the Office Action that (1) under step 2A, prong one, the claimed steps, under the broadest reasonable interpretation, cover performance of the limitations in the human mind, because the steps correspond to evaluation and judgement; and (2) under step 2A, prong two, the claims do not include additional elements that integrate an abstract idea into a practical application because the additional elements are directed to mere instructions to apply the judicial exception. See Office Action at 3-39.” (Remarks Pg. 11). Applicant then asserts “Consistent with the 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance issued by the United States Patent and Trademark Office ("2019 Guidance"), Applicant submits that the amended claims are not abstract. See Manual of Patent Examining Procedure (MPEP) § 2106(1) (9th Ed., Rev. 10.2019, Last Revised Jun. 2020)… For example, as amended, independent claim 1 recites the limitations of (1) processing a pool of contexts sampled from one or more previous episodes of the task via a first trained encoder neural network to generate a distribution of a global latent context variable that comprises a first encoded representation of a type of the task to be performed by an agent, and (2) processing one or more contexts sampled at one or more previous time steps of a current episode of the task via a second trained encoder neural network to generate a distribution of a local latent context variable that comprises a second encoded representation of a current sub-task within the task to be performed by the agent at a current time step. Each of independent claims 4, 15, and 23 recites similar limitations” (Remarks Pg. 11).
Examiner Response:
The examiner respectfully disagrees. As indicated claim “processing a pool...” corresponds to evaluation and judgment for evaluating a task to be performed based on the prior exposure, “processing one or more contexts...”corresponds to evaluation and judgment because evaluating and using judgment provide output and “causing an agent…” corresponds to evaluating a task based on the distribution The first and second “trained neural network”, a first and second “encoded representation” under the BRI, in light of the specification, could be constructed and then modified by hand with pen and paper based on a reasonable amount of observed data (i.e., the “pool of contexts sampled”). Therefore, the rejections of claims 1-23 under section 101 are being maintained.
With continued reference to independent claims 1, 4, 15 and 23, Applicant generally asserts that “the amended claims are similar to claim 3 in Example 48 of the July 2024 Subject Matter Eligibility Examples. Example 48 states that claim steps requiring "converting a cluster of points in feature space into speech signals in the time domain" and "extracting spectral features from only one target source sd of the N separated signals from the output of step" cannot practically be performed in the human mind. See July 2024 Subject Matter Eligibility Examples at 26-27 (emphasis added). Similar to speech signals and spectral features, the claimed global latent context variable, which comprises a first encoded representation of a type of the task to be performed by an agent, and the claimed local latent context variable, which comprises a second encoded representation of a current sub-task within the task to be performed by the agent at a current time step, involve complex numeral representations of a type of task and a current sub-task. The generation of such complex encoded representations via trained encoder neural networks, as recited in the amended claims, is not something that can practically be performed entirely in the human mind” (Remarks Pg. 13).
Examiner Response:
The examiner respectfully disagrees. In response to applicant’s above-noted assertions vis-à-vis Example 48 of claim 3, applicant’s reliance on Example 48 of claim 3 from the “Subject Matter Eligibility Examples” issued in conjunction with the 2024 AI SME Update is misplaced.
Example 48 of claim 3 recites artificial intelligence based methods of analyzing speech signals and separating desired speech from background speech. Unlike applicant’s claim 3 of Example 48 are concerned with speech separation for mixed speech signals where the claimed subject matter from claim 3 in Example 48 recite, inter alia, “(e) converting the masked clusters into a time domain to obtain N separated speech signals corresponding to the different sources sn; and (f) extracting spectral features from a target source sd of the N separated speech signals and generating a sequence of words from the spectral features to produce a transcript of the speech signal corresponding to the target source s”, respectively.
Unlike applicant’s claims, per the Example, the above claim of example 48 is eligible because in claim 3 “Step (e) requires converting a cluster of points in feature space into speech signals in the time domain, which is not a process that can be practically performed in the human mind.” and in step (f) of claim 3, “Extracting spectral features from a signal and generating a sequence of words from these extracted features to produce a transcript is not a process that can practically be performed in the human mind. … Therefore, steps (e) and (f) do not recite a judicial exception” (Examples, pages 26-27).
By contrast, the instant claims are not, by their terms, limited to machine learning applications of data that cannot be mentally manipulated or cannot be practically performed in the human mind. In contrast to claims 3 (portions reproduced above) in the relied-upon Example 48, none of applicant’s pending claims, including independent claims 1, 4, 15 and 23, generally alleged by applicant to be similar to Example 48 in claim 3 because “Similar to speech signals and spectral features” (Remarks, page 12), recite anything comparable to steps (e) and (f) of claim 3 of Example 48.Therefore, the rejections of claims 1-23 under section 101 are being maintained.
Applicant asserts regarding claims 1, 4, 15 and 23, “In Ex Parte Desjardins, the Appeals Review Panel of the Patent Trial and Appeal Board explained that "[o]n the one hand, claims '[g]enerally linking the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use' are not patent eligible.... On the other, claims directed to an improvement in the functioning of a computer, or an improvement to other technology or technical field are patent eligible." See Ex Parte Desiardins, Decision on Request for Rehearing at 7-8; see also Memorandum: Reminders on evaluating subject matter eligibility of claims under 35 U.S.C. 101 at 4-5 ("[i]n computer-related technologies, examiners can conclude that claims are eligible in Step 2A Prong Two by finding that a claim reflects an improvement to the functioning of a computer or to another technology or technical field, integrating a recited judicial exception into a practical application of the exception"); MPEP § 2106.04(d). The Appeals Review Panel also found that improvements to how a machine learning model operates can integrate an abstract idea into a practical application. See Ex Parte Desiardins, Decision on Request for Rehearing at 8-9” (Remarks Pg. 13-14).
Examiner Response:
The examiner respectfully disagrees. Regarding applicant’s apparent reliance on the decision of the Appeals Review Panel in Ex parte Desjardins, No. 2024-000567 (P.T.A.B. Sept. 26, 2025), in Desjardins, unlike in the claims at issue here, the appellants specifically argued that the claimed invention was directed to an improvement and noted that “claims directed to an improvement in the functioning of a computer, or an improvement to other technology or technical field are patent eligible”. Desjardins, op. at 7-8. That is, the appellant in Desjardins specifically alleged that the claimed subject matter improves machine learning itself. By contrast, Applicant in the instant case does not point to any specific claim language that characterizing an improvement, and does not point to any claim language that is analogous to the claims at issue in Desjardins. The eligibility determination was grounded in a finding that the claims improved machine learning technology, rather than merely applying mental processes. In contrast, the present claims do not recite the functioning of a neural network or to machine learning technology itself. The claims merely recite using a neural network to estimate an integral over time and to generate control signal, without specifying any improvement to how the neural network is used a tool to perform an action carrying out the task, rather than being the subject of a technological improvement. Therefore, the rejections under 35 U.S.C. 101 are maintained.
With continued reference to independent claims 1, 4, 15 and 23, Applicant further asserts “the claimed approach improves machine learning technology by lowering the computing resources required to solve tasks using reinforcement learning (RL) agents that execute on computers, increasing performance of the RL agents, and improving the efficiency of learning a task distribution. See Application at [0006], [0093]. RL agents are machine learning models, so the claimed approach improves how such machine learning models operate. This improvement to machine learning technology is effectuated by the specifically claimed steps of "processing a pool of contexts sampled from one or more previous episodes of the task via a first trained encoder neural network to generate a distribution of a global latent context variable that comprises a first encoded representation of a type of the task to be performed by an agent"; "processing one or more contexts sampled at one or more previous time steps of a current episode of the task via a second trained encoder neural network to generate a distribution of a local latent context variable that comprises a second encoded representation of a current sub-task within the task to be performed by the agent at a current time step"; and "causing the agent to perform an action related to carrying out the task based on the distribution of the global latent context variable, the distribution of the local latent context variable, and a current state associated with the current time step." Because the claimed limitations improve machine learning technology, including how RL agents operate, the amended claims integrate any purported abstract idea into a practical application” (Remarks Pg. 14).
Examiner Response:
The examiner respectfully disagrees. The independent claims recite, using respective similar language, “via a first trained encoder neural network”, “via a second trained encoder neural network”, “a first encoded representation” and “a second encoded representation”, and these limitations are directed to mere instructions to apply the judicial exception. As detailed in the rejections above, the first and second “trained encoder neural network”; under the BRI, in light of the specification, could be constructed and then modified by hand with pen and paper based on a reasonable amount of observed data (i.e., the “pool of contexts sampled”). Therefore, the rejections of claims 1-23 under section 101 are being maintained.
Regarding new claim 24, applicant asserts “See Memorandum: Reminders on evaluating subject matter eligibility of claims under 35 U.S.C. 101 at 2; see also MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)(III)(A). The human mind is not equipped to act as an inference engine having the claimed architecture, namely an inference engine that executes a first trained encoder neural network, a second trained encoder neural network, and an agent in the claimed manner. Because the human mind is not equipped to perform the steps of new claim 24, claim 24 recites limitations that cannot practically be performed in the human mind. See MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)(III)(A).” before concluding “Therefore, the new claim 24 does not recite a mental process.” (Remarks Pg. 16).
With continued reference to claim 24, applicant further asserts that “new claim 24 recites limitations that integrate any purported abstract idea into a practical application. See MPEP § 2106.04(d). Similar to the discussion above with respect to the amended claims, new claim 24 improves machine learning technology by lowering the computing resources required to solve tasks using RL agents that execute on computers, increasing performance of the RL agents, and improving the efficiency of learning a task distribution. See Application at [0006], [0093]. Further, new claim 24 recites limitations that are specific to the implementing this improvement to machine learning technology, namely that the first trained encoder neural network, the second trained encoder neural network, and the agent are executed by an inference engine” (Remarks Pg. 16).
Examiner Response:
Applicant’s arguments regarding subject matter eligibility and allowability of claim 24 have been considered, but are unpersuasive. As discussed in the section 101 rejections above, newly-added claim 24 is rejected under section 101. Claim 24 recites “wherein the first trained encoder neural network, the second trained encoder neural network, and the agent are executed by an inference engine”. This wherein clause, as drafted, amounts to mere instructions to implement an abstract idea (i.e., the above-noted abstract idea/mental process of base claim 1) on a computer, or merely use a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea.
As also detailed in the section 101 rejection of claim 24, the 1st and 2nd “encoder neural network”, “agent” and “inference engine” are each recited at a high level of generality as mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer and amounts to the recitation of the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) or amount to no more than mere instructions to implement an abstract idea or other exception on a computer or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea (i.e., as generic computer components performing generic computer functions). See MPEP 2106.05(f).
Regarding the 1st and 2nd “trained encoder neural network” recited in claim 24, no details of the neural networks or their training are recited, and the networks are recited at a high level of generality and can be constructed by hand with pen and paper. The 1st and 2nd “trained encoder neural network”, under the BRI, in light of the specification, could be constructed and then modified by hand with pen and paper based on a reasonable amount of observed data (i.e., the “pool of contexts sampled” of base claim 1).
As such, the additional elements of claim 24 do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
The prior art made of record, listed on form PTO-892, and not relied upon, is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
For example, Deng et al. (U.S. Patent Application Pub. No. 2020/0372352 A1, hereinafter “Deng”) discloses that “A variational hyper recurrent neural network (VHRNN) can be trained by … determining a hidden state from a recurrent neural network (RNN) of the VHRNN using an observation state, the latent variable and the initial hidden state; determining an approximate posterior probability distribution for the latent variable from an encoder network of the VHRNN using the observation state and … generating probability distribution for the observation state from a decoder network of the VHRNN using the latent variable and the initial hidden state” where “A prior distribution conditioned on the contextual information and a variational posterior is proposed at each time step to optimize a step-wise variational lower bound. Sampled latent variables from the variational posterior are decoded into the observation at the current time step.” and “the parameters of the approximate posterior probability distribution are determined from an encoder network” (see, Abstract and paragraphs 56 and 95).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to RANDY K BALDWIN whose telephone number is (571)270-5222. The examiner can normally be reached on Mon - Fri 9:00-6:00.
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, Kamran Afshar can be reached at (571) 272-7796. 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.
/RANDALL K. BALDWIN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2125
Prosecution Insights