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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 11/07/2025 has been entered.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see pgs.11-16, filed 11/07/2025, with respect to claims 1-20 have been fully considered and are persuasive. The 35 USC 103 rejections of 09/08/2025 has been withdrawn.
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 1-20 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Regarding claim 1,
Step 1: Is the claim to a process, machine, manufacture or composition of matter?
Claim 1 is directed to a process.
Step 1: yes.
Step 2A, prong 1: Does the claim recite an abstract idea, law of nature, or natural phenomenon?
preparing,…, a set of examples each including a base state, an action and a next state after performing the action in the base state in an environment, (limitation is directed to a mental process. One can mentally set example of each state and action by use of pen and paper with respect to performing an action.)
wherein a result from the action is converted to one or more noisy logical states (limitation is directed to a mental process. One can mentally convert the results by use of pen and paper with respect to the action being converted to a noisy logical state.)
comprising: computing,…, a respective feature importance of each lifted proposition, comprising: ((limitation is directed to a mental process. One can mentally compute the feature importance by use of pen and paper with respect to each of the lifted propositions.)
generating,…, a test state for a lifted proposition by inverting a lifted proposition in a base state; and (limitation is directed to a mental process. One can mentally generate a test state by use of pen and paper with respect to inverting the lifted proposition of the base state.)
calculating,…, a validity of the generated test state and score the validity by comparing the base state and the test state; (limitation is directed to a mental process. One can mentally calculate a validity score by use of pen and paper with respect to the comparison of the base state and test state.)
computing,…, a validity label for each example in the set of examples (limitation is directed to a mental process. One can mentally compute a validity label by use of pen and paper with respect to each example is the set of examples.)
Step 2A, prong 1: If claim limitations, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitations as a mental process but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the mental process grouping of abstract ideas. According, the claim “recites” an abstract idea.
Step 2A, prong 2: Does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception
into a practical application?
by one or more computer processors (e.g., mere instructions to apply using generic computer components, see MPEP 2106.05(f)).
through one or more sensors; (e.g., mere instructions to apply using generic computer components, see MPEP 2106.05(f)).
performing,…, variable lifting in relation to the set of examples wherein variable lifting discards one or more state propositions relating to at least one object other than one or more objects of the action, wherein the discarded state propositions are non-informative propositions, (e.g., mere instructions to apply using generic computer components, see MPEP 2106.05(f)).
training, by one or more computer processors, a model configured to receive an input state and a representation of an input action and output at least validity of the input action for the input state as a first output by using the set of examples with the validity label, and an effect vector as a second output, wherein the input state is a combination of lifted and grounded representations, wherein noise is added to the grounded representations, and wherein the effect vector respectively indicates whether a corresponding lifted position changes; (e.g., mere instructions to apply using generic computer components, see MPEP 2106.05(f)).
outputting, by one or more computer processors, the precondition of the operator based on the model; (e.g., insignificant extra solution activity of data gathering, see MPEP 2106.05(g)).
outputting, by one or more computer processors, the effect of the operator. (e.g., insignificant extra solution activity of data gathering, see MPEP 2106.05(g)).
Step 2A, prong 2: Since the claim as a whole, looking at the additional elements individually and in combination, does not contain any other additional elements that are indicative of integration into a practical application, the claim is directed to an abstract idea.
Step 2B: Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the
judicial exception?
by one or more computer processors (e.g., mere instructions to apply using generic computer components, see MPEP 2106.05(f))
through one or more sensors; (e.g., mere instructions to apply using generic computer components, see MPEP 2106.05(f)).
performing,…, variable lifting in relation to the set of examples wherein variable lifting discards one or more state propositions relating to at least one object other than one or more objects of the action, wherein the discarded state propositions are non-informative propositions, (e.g., mere instructions to apply using generic computer components, see MPEP 2106.05(f)).
training, by one or more computer processors, a model configured to receive an input state and a representation of an input action and output at least validity of the input action for the input state as a first output by using the set of examples with the validity label, and an effect vector as a second output, wherein the input state is a combination of lifted and grounded representations, wherein noise is added to the grounded representations, and wherein the effect vector respectively indicates whether a corresponding lifted position changes; (e.g., mere instructions to apply using generic computer components, see MPEP 2106.05(f)).
outputting, by one or more computer processors, the precondition of the operator based on the model; (e.g., insignificant extra solution activity of mere data gathering or data output), see MPEP 2106.05(g), using components and functions claimed at a high level of generality have been determined by the courts as being well- understood, routine and conventional activities in the field of computer functions (see MPEP 2106.05(d)(II)(i)). Receiving or transmitting data over a network, e.g., using the Internet to gather data, Symantec, 838 F.3d at 1321, 120 USPQ2d at 1362)
outputting, by one or more computer processors, the effect of the operator. (e.g., insignificant extra solution activity of mere data gathering or data output), see MPEP 2106.05(g), using components and functions claimed at a high level of generality have been determined by the courts as being well- understood, routine and conventional activities in the field of computer functions (see MPEP 2106.05(d)(II)(i)). Receiving or transmitting data over a network, e.g., using the Internet to gather data, Symantec, 838 F.3d at 1321, 120 USPQ2d at 1362)
Step 2B: Considering the additional elements individually and in combination, and the claim as a whole, the additional elements do not provide significantly more than the abstract idea. Therefore, the claim is not patent eligible.
Regarding claim 2 and analogous claims 13 and 18,
Claim 2 incorporates the analysis of the method of claim 1.
wherein preparing the set of examples comprises: interacting, by one or more computer
processors, with an environment by taking the action in the base state and receiving a result of the action to obtain the next state in a manner based on an exploration policy. (e.g., mere instructions to apply using generic computer components, see MPEP 2106.05(f)).
Step 2A, prong 2: Since the claim as a whole, looking at the additional elements individually and in combination, does not contain any other additional elements that are indicative of integration into a practical application, the claim is directed to an abstract idea.
Step 2B: Considering the additional elements individually and in combination, and the claim as a whole, the additional elements do not provide significantly more than the abstract idea. Therefore, the claim is not patent eligible.
Regarding claim 3 and analogous claims 14 and 19,
Claim 3 incorporates the analysis of the method of claim 1.
computing,…, based on the model, importance of each lifted proposition relating to a state; and (limitation is directed to a mental process. One can mentally calculate the importance of each lifted proposition by use of pen and paper with respect to a state.)
enumerating,…, a list of lifted propositions satisfying criteria with respect to the importance as the precondition of the operator. (limitation is directed to a mental process. One can mentally list out lifted propositions by use of pen and paper with respect to the importance of the preconditions.)
Step 2A, prong 1: If claim limitations, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitations as a mental process but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the mental process grouping of abstract ideas. According, the claim “recites” an abstract idea.
Step 2A, prong 2 and Step 2B:
by one or more computer processors (e.g., mere instructions to apply using generic computer components, see MPEP 2106.05(f))
Step 2A, prong 2: Since the claim as a whole, looking at the additional elements individually and in combination, does not contain any other additional elements that are indicative of integration into a practical application, the claim is directed to an abstract idea.
Step 2B: Considering the additional elements individually and in combination, and the claim as a whole, the additional elements do not provide significantly more than the abstract idea. Therefore, the claim is not patent eligible.
Regarding claim 4 and analogous claim 15,
Claim 4 incorporates the analysis of the method of claim 3.
wherein computing the importance of each lifted proposition comprises: generating,…, a test state based on the base state by flipping the lifted proposition (limitation is directed to a mental process. One can mentally generate a test state by use of pen and paper with respect to the importance of each lifted proposition.)
calculating,…, validity of the action for the base state and the test state; and (limitation is directed to a mental process. One can mentally calculate the validity of the action by use of pen and paper with respect to the base and test state.)
scoring,…, the lifted proposition by comparing the validity between the base state and the test state. (limitation is directed to a mental process. One can mentally score the lifted proposition by use of pen and paper with respect to comparing the base and test state.)
Step 2A, prong 1: If claim limitations, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitations as a mental process but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the mental process grouping of abstract ideas. According, the claim “recites” an abstract idea.
Step 2A, prong 2 and Step 2B:
by one or more computer processors (e.g., mere instructions to apply using generic computer components, see MPEP 2106.05(f))
Step 2A, prong 2: Since the claim as a whole, looking at the additional elements individually and in combination, does not contain any other additional elements that are indicative of integration into a practical application, the claim is directed to an abstract idea.
Step 2B: Considering the additional elements individually and in combination, and the claim as a whole, the additional elements do not provide significantly more than the abstract idea. Therefore, the claim is not patent eligible.
Regarding claim 5 and analogous claims 16 and 20,
Claim 5 incorporates the analysis of the method of claim 1.
computing,…, one or more effect labels for each valid example in the set of examples; and (limitation is directed to a mental process. One can mentally compute the effect labels by use of pen and paper with respect to each valid example.)
Step 2A, prong 1: If claim limitations, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitations as a mental process but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the mental process grouping of abstract ideas. According, the claim “recites” an abstract idea.
Step 2A, prong 2 and Step 2B:
wherein training the model comprises: (e.g., mere instructions to apply using generic computer components, see MPEP 2106.05(f))
by one or more computer processors (e.g., mere instructions to apply using generic computer components, see MPEP 2106.05(f))
training,…, the model jointly with the validity as a target for a first output and an effect vector as a target for a second output by using further the one or more effect labels for each valid example, each element in the effect vector indicating whether a corresponding lifted proposition changes or not, the effect of the operator being calculated by using the model. (e.g., mere instructions to apply using generic computer components, see MPEP 2106.05(f)).
Step 2A, prong 2: Since the claim as a whole, looking at the additional elements individually and in combination, does not contain any other additional elements that are indicative of integration into a practical application, the claim is directed to an abstract idea.
Step 2B: Considering the additional elements individually and in combination, and the claim as a whole, the additional elements do not provide significantly more than the abstract idea. Therefore, the claim is not patent eligible.
Regarding claim 6,
Claim 6 incorporates the analysis of the method of claim 1.
computing,…, one or more effect labels for each valid example in the set of examples; and (limitation is directed to a mental process. One can mentally compute the effect labels by use of pen and paper with respect to each valid example.)
Step 2A, prong 1: If claim limitations, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitations as a mental process but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the mental process grouping of abstract ideas. According, the claim “recites” an abstract idea.
Step 2A, prong 2 and Step 2B:
by one or more computer processors (e.g., mere instructions to apply using generic computer components, see MPEP 2106.05(f))
training,…, a second model configured to receive the input state and the representation of the input action and output an effect vector, by using the set of examples with the one or more effect labels, each element in the effect vector indicating whether a corresponding lifted proposition changes or not, the effect of the operator being calculated by using the second model. (e.g., mere instructions to apply using generic computer components, see MPEP 2106.05(f)).
Step 2A, prong 2: Since the claim as a whole, looking at the additional elements individually and in combination, does not contain any other additional elements that are indicative of integration into a practical application, the claim is directed to an abstract idea.
Step 2B: Considering the additional elements individually and in combination, and the claim as a whole, the additional elements do not provide significantly more than the abstract idea. Therefore, the claim is not patent eligible.
Regarding claim 7,
Claim 7 incorporates the analysis of the method of claim 1.
wherein outputting the effect of the operator comprises: calculating,…, one or more effect labels for each valid example in the set of examples; and (limitation is directed to a mental process. One can mentally compute the effect labels by use of pen and paper with respect to each valid example.)
calculating,.., a statistics of each of the one or more effect labels over the valid examples in the set of examples to obtain the effect of the operator. (limitation is directed to a mental process. One can mentally calculate a statistic of each the effect labels by use of pen and paper with respect to each valid example.)
Step 2A, prong 1: If claim limitations, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitations as a mental process but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the mental process grouping of abstract ideas. According, the claim “recites” an abstract idea.
Step 2A, prong 2 and Step 2B:
by one or more computer processors (e.g., mere instructions to apply using generic computer components, see MPEP 2106.05(f))
Step 2A, prong 2: Since the claim as a whole, looking at the additional elements individually and in combination, does not contain any other additional elements that are indicative of integration into a practical application, the claim is directed to an abstract idea.
Step 2B: Considering the additional elements individually and in combination, and the claim as a whole, the additional elements do not provide significantly more than the abstract idea. Therefore, the claim is not patent eligible.
Regarding claim 8,
Claim 8 incorporates the analysis of the method of claim 1.
Step 2A, prong 1:
replacing,…, each object in each remaining state proposition with an abstract variable corresponding one of the one or more parameters. (limitation is directed to a mental process. One can mentally replace each object in the state propositions that remain by use of pen and paper with respect to the one or more paremeters.)
Step 2A, prong 1: If claim limitations, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitations as a mental process but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the mental process grouping of abstract ideas. According, the claim “recites” an abstract idea.
Step 2A, prong 2 and Step 2B:
wherein the operator has one or more parameters and the operator becomes the action once
the one or more parameters are grounded on one or more objects, performing variable lifting
comprising: obtaining, by one or more computer processors, the one or more objects in the action for each example in the set of examples; (e.g., insignificant extra solution activity of mere data gathering or data output), see MPEP 2106.05(g), using components and functions claimed at a high level of generality have been determined by the courts as being well- understood, routine and conventional activities in the field of computer functions (see MPEP 2106.05(d)(II)(i)). Receiving or transmitting data over a network, e.g., using the Internet to gather data, Symantec, 838 F.3d at 1321, 120 USPQ2d at 1362)
discarding, by one or more computer processors, one or more state propositions relating to other than the one or more objects of the action; and (e.g., mere instructions to apply using generic computer components, see MPEP 2106.05(f)).
by one or more computer processors, (e.g., mere instructions to apply using generic computer components, see MPEP 2106.05(f)).
Step 2A, prong 2: Since the claim as a whole, looking at the additional elements individually and in combination, does not contain any other additional elements that are indicative of integration into a practical application, the claim is directed to an abstract idea.
Step 2B: Considering the additional elements individually and in combination, and the claim as a whole, the additional elements do not provide significantly more than the abstract idea. Therefore, the claim is not patent eligible.
Regarding claim 9,
Claim 9 incorporates the analysis of the method of claim 1.
wherein the precondition comprises a list of lifted propositions to be valid to perform an action
of the operator and the effect includes a list of changes in a lifted state after performing an action of the
operator. (limitation is directed to a mental process. One can list preconditions by use of pen and paper with respect to a list of lifted propositions.)
Step 2A, prong 1: If claim limitations, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitations as a mental process but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the mental process grouping of abstract ideas. According, the claim “recites” an abstract idea.
Regarding claim 10,
Claim 10 incorporates the analysis of the method of claim 1.
wherein the precondition and the effect of the operator are used by a planner for planning a
sequence of actions. (limitation is directed to a mental process. One can plan a sequence of actions by use of pen and paper with respect to the preconditions and the effect of the operator.)
Step 2A, prong 1: If claim limitations, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitations as a mental process but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the mental process grouping of abstract ideas. According, the claim “recites” an abstract idea.
Regarding claim 11,
Claim 11 incorporates the analysis of the method of claim 1.
wherein the planner is used by an agent in a model-based reinforcement learning system where
the agent takes an action inferred by the planner and receives a state generated by a semantic parser in a logical form. (e.g., mere instructions to apply the judicial exception, see MPEP 2106.05(f)).
Step 2A, prong 2: Since the claim as a whole, looking at the additional elements individually and in combination, does not contain any other additional elements that are indicative of integration into a practical application, the claim is directed to an abstract idea.
Step 2B: Considering the additional elements individually and in combination, and the claim as a whole, the additional elements do not provide significantly more than the abstract idea. Therefore, the claim is not patent eligible.
Regarding claim 12,
Step 1: Is the claim to a process, machine, manufacture or composition of matter?
Claim 12 is directed to a machine.
Step 1: yes
The rest of the analysis for claim 12 is analogous to claim 1.
Regarding claim 17,
Step 1: Is the claim to a process, machine, manufacture or composition of matter?
Claim 17 is directed to a manufacture.
The rest of the analysis for claim 17 is analogous to claim 1.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SKYLAR K VANWORMER whose telephone number is (703)756-1571. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 6:00am to 3:00 pm.
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, Usmaan Saeed can be reached on (571) 272-4046. 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.
/S.K.V./Examiner, Art Unit 2146 /USMAAN SAEED/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2146