The present application, filed on or after 16 March 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
DETAILED ACTION
This office action is in response to Applicant’s submission filed on 5 May 2022. THIS ACTION IS NON-FINAL.
Status of Claims
Claims 1-20 are pending.
Claims 18-20 are withdrawn.
Claims 1-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as indefinite.
Claims 1, 3-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 for being directed to software per se.
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 for being directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more.
There is no art rejection for claims 1-17.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
A claim is indefinite if, when read in light of the specification, it fails to inform, with reasonable certainty, those skilled in the art about the scope of the invention. Nautilus, Inc. v. Biosig Instruments, Inc., 110 USPQ.2d 1688, U.S. Supreme Court (2014).
Claims 1-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor, or for pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
Regarding claim 17, “(c) that always develops normally through indexed time without conducting a post-selection from multiple trained agents”, the boundary is not clear as the specification does not define what is “normally”, hence the claim is indefinite. For the purpose of applying prior art, this limitation is construed to be “(c) that always develops through indexed time without conducting a post-selection from multiple trained agents”.
Regarding claims 2-17, which depend on above rejected claims 1, are rejected for the same reason.
Regarding claim 2, “a computer process of claim 1) is a …”, lack of antecedent basis, “computer processor” is not mentioned in claim 1, the claim is indefinite. For the purpose of applying prior art, this limitation is construed to be “the nonlinear agent machine of claim 1) is executed by a computing processor which is a …”.
Regarding claims 3-17, “the agent of …”, lack of antecedent basis, the claim is indefinite. For the purpose of applying prior art, “the agent of …” is construed to be ”the nonlinear agent machine of …”.
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.
Non-Statutory Subject Matter
Claims 1, 3-17 are directed to non-statutory subject matter. The claim(s) does/do not fall within at least one of the four categories of patent eligible subject matter because the claimed subject matter can be interpreted as software per se.
Judicial Exception
Claims 1-17 include elements directed an abstract idea. For compact prosecution, they are analyzed for judiciary exception rejection even directed to software per se.
(Independent Claims)
With regards to claim 1,
2A – Prong 1: the claim, in part, recites A nonlinear agent machine in which the relations among obervations, internal representations and motor representations are nonlinear (not related by multiplication of a constant matrix and an addition of a constant vector), including neural networks but also other kinds of nonlinear agents … (a) that has a set of parameters randomly initialized, (b) that learns incrementally by updating a set of parameters at each indexed time and (c) that always develops normally through indexed times without conducting a post-selection from multiple trained agents” (mental process and/or math concept), which under the broadest reasonable interpretation, cover a mental process including an observation, evaluation, judgment or opinion that could be performed in the human mind. . For example, “initialized”, “updating”, “selecting”, “develops” in the limitation citied above could be performed by a human mind with possible aid of pencil / paper / calculator, but for the recitation of a generic computer component (e.g., a human data analysis builder could collect inputs, set initial parameters in the model, incrementally update parameters based on data collected, and generate output to make predictions). If a claim, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers a mental process, but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Process” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
2A – Prong 2: This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, claim 8 recites the additional elements: (a) generic computer elements (computer, processor, memory coupled to processor) (merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea (MPEP 2106.05(f))); (b) “each of which having a single or multiple sensors and a single or multiple effectors” (insignificant extra solution activity (MPEP 2106.05(g)) and/or WURC (MPEP 2106.05(d)(II))). For (a), these computer components are recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as a generic processor performing a generic computer function) which is mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea, as discussed in MPEP 2106.05(f). For (b), these steps are recited at a high level of generality and amounts to extra-solution activity of receiving data, i.e. pre-solution activity of gathering data for use in the claimed process as described in MPEP.2106.05(g). The courts have found limitations directed to obtaining & storing information electronically, recited at a high level of generality, to be well-understood, routine, and conventional (see MPEP 2106.05(d)(II), “receiving or transmitting data over a network”, "electronic record keeping," and "storing and retrieving information in memory"). Accordingly, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to an abstract idea.
2B Analysis: The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above, the additional element of generic computer elements merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea (MPEP 2106.05(f)). The additional element of “each of which having a single or multiple sensors and a single or multiple effectors”, which is recited at a high level of generality and amounts to extra-solution activity of receiving data, i.e. pre-solution activity of gathering data for use in the claimed process. The courts have found limitations directed to obtaining & storing information electronically, recited at a high level of generality, to be well-understood, routine, and conventional (see MPEP 2106.05(d)(II), “receiving or transmitting data over a network”, "electronic record keeping," and "storing and retrieving information in memory"). Hence the additional elements do not add anything significant to the abstract idea. The claim is not patent eligible.
(Dependent claims)
Claims 2-17 are dependent on claim 1 and include all the limitations of claim 1. Therefore, claims 2-17 recite the same abstract ideas.
With regards to claims 2, the claim further includes limitation “computing processor of claim 1) is a Central Processing Unit (CPU), a Graphic Processing Unit (GPU), a Field Programmable Gate Array (FPGA), or an Application Specific Integrated Circuit (ASIC) System on Chip (SOC)”, which mere instructions to apply an exception (MPEP 2106.05(f)). The claim is not patent eligible.
With regards to claim 3, the claim further includes limitation “… that maps from a space of input symbols to a space of class symbols”, which is further steps for model processing. There is no additional element adding anything significantly more to the abstract idea. The claim is not patent eligible.
With regards to claim 4, the claim further includes limitation “… that maps from a 2-tuple joint space of input symbols and context symbols to a space of context symbols wherein the context symbols may include actions”, which is further steps for model processing. There is no additional element adding anything significantly more to the abstract idea. The claim is not patent eligible.
With regards to claim 5, the claim further includes limitation “that maps from a 2-tuple joint space of a vector sensory inputs and a vector context space to a space of the vector context space wherein the context space may include actions”, which is further steps for model processing. There is no additional element adding anything significantly more to the abstract idea. The claim is not patent eligible.
With regards to claim 6, the claim further includes limitation “that maps from a 3-tuple joint space of a sensory space, a hidden space, and a context space to a 2-tuple joint space of the hidden space and the context space wherein the context space may include actions”, which is further steps for model processing. There is no additional element adding anything significantly more to the abstract idea. The claim is not patent eligible.
With regards to claim 7, the claim further includes limitation “wherein the system parameters have two parts, hyper-paramters that are fixed for the agent and weights that are time-varying for the agent”, which is further steps for model processing. There is no additional element adding anything significantly more to the abstract idea. The claim is not patent eligible.
With regards to claim 8, the claim further includes limitation “The agent of claim 1) whose parameters at a time index are updated, in a closed form or iteratively, as those that maximize the probability using the parameters and observations at a previous time index”, which is further steps for model processing. There is no additional element adding anything significantly more to the abstract idea. The claim is not patent eligible.
With regards to claim 9, the claim further includes limitation “wherein the sensitivity of system hyper-parameters is measured in terms of a standard deviation of each hyper-parameter”, which is further steps for model processing. There is no additional element adding anything significantly more to the abstract idea. The claim is not patent eligible.
With regards to claim 10, the claim further includes limitation “wherein the sensitivity of weights is cross-validated by an average of agent 31 performances wherein each agent uses a different set of random initial weights”, which is further steps for model processing. There is no additional element adding anything significantly more to the abstract idea. The claim is not patent eligible.
With regards to claim 11, the claim further includes limitation “wherein the sensitivity of weights is cross-validated by their distributions 2 across different agent performances wherein each agent uses a different set of random initial weights”, which is further steps for model processing. There is no additional element adding anything significantly more to the abstract idea. The claim is not patent eligible.
With regards to claim 12, the claim further includes limitation “wherein the performance is compared based on four conditions, (1) a body including sensors and effectors, (2) a set of restrictions of learning framework, including whether task-specificor task-nonspecific, batch learning or incremental learning, (3) a training experience and (4) a limited amount of computational resources including the number of hidden neurons”, which is further steps for model processing. There is no additional element adding anything significantly more to the abstract idea. The claim is not patent eligible.
With regards to claim 13, the claim further includes limitation “The agent of claim 1) which does not use any statically collected data set, instead, use data sensed from an environment and generated by the agent on the fly”, which is further steps for model processing. There is no additional element adding anything significantly more to the abstract idea. The claim is not patent eligible.
With regards to claim 14, the claim further includes limitation “The agent of claim 1) whose fitting errors, validation errors and test errors at an indexed time are recorded across lifetime so that characteristics of their distributions are reported as trajectories of lifetime learning performance”, which is further steps for model processing. There is no additional element adding anything significantly more to the abstract idea. The claim is not patent eligible.
With regards to claim 15, the claim further includes limitation “The agent of claim 1) which has a developmental procedure containing a prenatal development staget and a postnatal development stage”, which is further steps for model processing. There is no additional element adding anything significantly more to the abstract idea. The claim is not patent eligible.
With regards to claim 16, the claim further includes limitation “The agent of claim 1) where each neuron has its own competition zone”, which is further steps for model processing. There is no additional element adding anything significantly more to the abstract idea. The claim is not patent eligible.
With regards to claim 17, the claim further includes limitation “The agent of claim 1) where neurons in each area share the same competition zon”, which is further steps for model processing. There is no additional element adding anything significantly more to the abstract idea. The claim is not patent eligible.
Allowable Subject Matter Analysis
Claims 1-17 include allowable subject matter since when reading the claims in light of the specification, as per, MPEP §2111.01 or Toro Co. v. White Consolidated Industries Inc., 199F.3d 1295, 1301, 53 USPQ2d 1065, 1069, 1069 (Fed.Cir. 1999), none of the references of record alone or in combination disclose or suggest the combination of limitations specified in claims 1-17.
In interpreting the claims, in light of the specification filed on 5 May 2022, the Examiner finds the claimed invention to be patentably distinct from the prior arts of record.
None of the cited prior art references, singly or in combination, fully teaches all limitations of independent claims 1.
Regarding the dependent claims, which include all the limitations of the independent claims, are also allowed.
The followings are references close to the invention claimed:
Droppo, et al., US-PGPUB NO.20170185897A1 [hereafter Droppo] teaches neural network learning with non-linear functions.
Kranski, et al., US-PGPUB NO.20220314434A1 [hereafter Kranski] teaches neural network parameter learning with random parameter initialization.
Zia, et al., US-PGPUB NO.20230326193A1 [hereafter Zia] teaches neural network processing with sensors and actuators.
Kranski, et al., US-PGPUB NO.20230109398A1 [hereafter Kranski-1] teaches neural network parameter learning with random parameter initialization.
Lemhadri, et al., “LassoNet: A neural network with feature sparsity”, Journal of machine learning research 2 (2021) 1-29, 2021 [hereafter Lemhardri] neural network training using back-propagation.
Examiner's Note
The Examiner respectfully requests of the Applicant in preparing responses, to fully consider the entirety of the reference(s) as potentially teaching all or part of the claimed invention. It is noted, REFERENCES ARE RELEVANT AS PRIOR ART FOR ALL THEY CONTAIN. “The use of patents as references is not limited to what the patentees describe as their own inventions or to the problems with which they are concerned. They are part of the literature of the art, relevant for all they contain.” In re Heck, 699 F.2d 1331, 1332-33, 216 USPQ 1038, 1039 (Fed. Cir. 1983) (quoting In re Lemelson, 397 F.2d 1006, 1009, 158 USPQ 275, 277 (CCPA 1968)). A reference may be relied upon for all that it would have reasonably suggested to one having ordinary skill in the art, including non-preferred embodiments (see MPEP 2123). The Examiner has cited particular locations in the reference(s) as applied to the claim(s) above for the convenience of the Applicant. Although the specified citations are representative of the teachings of the art and are applied to the specific limitations within the individual claim(s), typically other passages and figures will apply as well.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to TSU-CHANG LEE whose telephone number is 571-272-3567. The fax number is 571-273-3567.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Omar Fernandez Rivas, can be reached 571-272-2589.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/TSU-CHANG LEE/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2128