DETAILED ACTION
This Non-Final action is responsive to the application filed 4/14/2022.
In the application Claims 1-5, 7, 11-14, 17, 22-24, 26, 29-30 and 36-38 are pending. Claims 6, 8-10, 15-16, 18-21, 25, 27-28 and 31-35 were canceled. Claims 1, 36 and 38 are the independent claims.
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements (IDS) submitted on 4/14/2022, 9/1/2022, 4/21/2023, 7/19/2023, 2/2/2024 and 5/12/2025 has been entered, and considered by the examiner.
Priority
5. Acknowledgement is made to applicant’s claim for priority to PCT/EP2020/061232, filed 4/22/2020 which claims foreign priority to 2001308.2 (UK), filed 1/30/2020 & PCT/EP2019/078072 & PCT/EP2019/078062 (EPO) filed 10/16/2019.
Drawings
6. The Drawings filed on 4/14/2022 have been approved.
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.
7. Claims 1, 36 and 38 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 applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 1 recites: “the presence” & “the associated goals” & “the viability”
Claim 36 recites: “the mobile robot” & “the viability”
Claim 38 recites: “the agent” & “the mobile robot” & “the associated goal” & “the viability”
However, there is insufficient antecedent basis for the underlined terms in the claim has it fails to provide an earlier recitation. It is therefore unclear what specific [presence, associated goals, viability, mobile robot and agent are being referenced thereby rendering the scope of the claim indefinite. Appropriate corrections are required.
The claims further recite “…to access the viability…”; however, the term “viability” is a relative and subjective term that lacks clear boundaries. The claim and specification fail to provide objective criteria for determining what constitutes “viable” versus “non-viable”, leaving the scope of the claim unclear. For example, the specification describes explainability and justification of autonomous system decisions in paragraphs 3, 66-67 and 129, it fails to establish if “viability” corresponds to “explainability”, nor does it provide a standard or metric by which viability is assessed. As such a person of ordinary skill in the art would not be able to determine the scope of the claim with reasonable certainty.
Dependent claims 2-5, 7, 11-14, 17, 22-24, 26, 29-30 and 37 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) has they inherit the deficiency of the Independent claim.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
8. 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.
9. Claims 1-5, 7, 11-14, 17, 22-24, 26, 29-30 and 36-38 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e. abstract idea) without significantly more.
The determination of whether a claim recites patent ineligible subject matter is a 2-step inquiry.
STEP 1: the claim does not fall within one of the four statutory categories of invention (process, machine, manufacture or composition of matter), see MPEP 2106.03, or
STEP 2: the claim recites a judicial exception, e.g. an abstract idea, without reciting additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception, as determined using the following analysis: see MPEP 2106.04
STEP 2A (PRONG 1): Does the claim recite an abstract idea, law of nature, or natural phenomenon? see MPEP 2106.04(II)(A)(1)
STEP 2A (PRONG 2): Does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application? see MPEP 2106.04(II)(A)(2) and 2106.05(a) thru (d) for explanations.
STEP 2B: Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception? see MPEP 2106.05
101 Analysis – Step 1
Claim 1 is directed to “A computer-implemented method…” (process). Claim 36 is directed to “A computer system comprising:” (machine). Claim 38 is directed to “A computer program comprising…” (manufacture). Therefore, the claims are within at least one of the four statutory categories.
101 Analysis – Step 2A, Prong I
Regarding Prong I of the Step 2A analysis, the claims are to be analyzed to determine whether they recite subject matter that falls within one of the follow groups of abstract ideas: a) mathematical concepts, b) certain methods of organizing human activity, and/or c) mental processes. see MPEP 2106(A)(II)(1) and MPEP 2106.04(a)-(c)
Independent claim 1 includes limitations that recite an abstract idea (emphasized below [with the category of abstract idea in brackets]). In addition, claims 36 and 38 recite similar subject mater has in claim 1 and are rejected under the same rationale.
Claim 1. A computer-implemented method of autonomously planning ego actions for a mobile robot in the presence of at least one agent, the method comprising:
receiving an observed trajectory of the agent [MPEP 2106.05(g) Insignificant Extra-Solution Activity, pre-solution activity, data gathering];
in a sampling phase: sampling a goal for the agent from a set of available goals based on a probabilistic goal distribution, the observed trajectory used to determine the probabilistic goal distribution, and sampling an agent trajectory, from a set of possible trajectories associated with the sampled goal, based on a probabilistic trajectory distribution, each trajectory of the set of possible trajectories reaching a location of the associated goal [mathematical concept & mental process]; and
in a simulation phase: selecting for the mobile robot an ego action from a set of available ego actions, and based on the selected ego action, the sampled agent trajectory, and a current state of the mobile robot, simulating (i) behaviour of the mobile robot, and (ii) simultaneous behaviour of the agent, in order to assess the viability of the selected ego action given the current mobile robot state [mathematical concept & mental process].
The Examiner submits that the foregoing bolded limitation(s) above: constitute “mathematical concept” and a “mental process” because under its broadest reasonable interpretation, the claim covers performance of the limitation in the human mind.
The claims describe sampling a goal from a set of goals based on probabilistic goal distribution and computing probability distribution which fall under a mathematical operation of statistical sampling. In addition, relationship between trajectories and goal locations describe mathematical constraints. Simulating behavior of the agent is mathematical modeling.
Selecting from possibilities and inferring goals based on observations falls under a mental process. In addition, making a selection from alternatives and performing evaluation/assessment to determine viability of result verification is a mental process that involves evaluation/judgement steps.
Accordingly, the claim recites at least one abstract idea.
101 Analysis – Step 2A, Prong II
Regarding Prong II of the Step 2A analysis, the claims are to be analyzed to determine whether the claim, as a whole, integrates the abstract into a practical application. see MPEP 2106.04(II)(A)(2) and MPEP 2106.04(d)(2). It must be determined whether any additional elements in the claim beyond the abstract idea integrate the exception into a practical application in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on the judicial exception. The courts have indicated that additional elements merely using a computer to implement an abstract idea, adding insignificant extra solution activity, or generally linking use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use do not integrate a judicial exception into a “practical application.”
In the present case, the additional limitations beyond the above-noted abstract idea are as follows (where the underlined portions are the “additional limitations”, while the bolded portions continue to represent the “abstract idea”.):
For the following reason(s), the examiner submits that the above identified additional limitations do not integrate the above-noted abstract idea into a practical application. Regarding the additional limitations of “receiving an observed trajectory”. The Examiner submits that these limitations are insignificant extra-solution activities that amount to pre-solution activity and data gathering via data collection of an observed trajectory for later processing.
Thus, taken alone, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Further, looking at the additional limitation(s) as an ordered combination or as a whole, the limitation(s) add nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually. For instance, there is no indication that the additional elements, when considered as a whole, reflect an improvement in the functioning of a computer or an improvement to another technology or technical field, apply or use the above-noted judicial exception to effect a particular treatment or prophylaxis for a disease or medical condition, implement/use the above-noted judicial exception with a particular machine or manufacture that is integral to the claim, effect a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing, or apply or use the judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment, such that the claim as a whole is not more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception (MPEP § 2106.05). Accordingly, the additional limitation(s) do/does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
101 Analysis – Step 2B
Regarding Step 2B of the Revised Guidance, representative claims does not include additional elements (considered both individually and as an ordered combination) that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception for the same reasons to those discussed above with respect to determining that the claim does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional element of using a computer having hardware processor amounts to nothing more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. And as discussed above, the additional limitation of “receiving an observed trajectory”, the examiner submits that these limitations are insignificant extra-solution activities. See MPEP 2106.05(d)(II), and the cases cited therein, including Intellectual Ventures I, LLC v. Symantec Corp., 838 F.3d 1307, 1321 (Fed. Cir. 2016), TLI Communications LLC v. AV Auto. LLC, 823 F.3d 607, 610 (Fed. Cir. 2016), and OIP Techs., Inc., v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363 (Fed. Cir. 2015) in addition to -Collecting information, analyzing it, and displaying certain results of the collection and analysis (Electric Power Group), Collecting data, recognizing certain data within the collected data set and storing the recognized data in memory (Content Extraction).
Dependent claims 2-5, 7, 11-14, 17, 22-24, 26 and 30, -do not recite any further limitations that cause the claim(s) to be patent eligible. Rather, the limitations of dependent claim are directed toward additional aspects of the judicial exception and do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. The claims describe computing differences, statistical probability calculation, optimization, cost function simplification, tree search algorithm etc., these features add mathematical/algorithmic details via (Bayesian probability, exponential functions, reward optimization, backpropagation) which fall under mathematical concepts. Therefore, the claims are not patent eligible under the same rationale as provided for in the rejection of the Independent claims. Therefore, the claims are ineligible under 35 USC §101.
Dependent claims 29 and 37, -do not recite any further limitations that cause the claim(s) to be patent eligible. Rather, the limitations of dependent claim are directed toward additional aspects of the judicial exception and do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. The claims describe implementing in a planner to plan an optimal ego action for the mobile robot which is generic application to planning. In addition, the claim describes implementation in mobile robot or simulator which is physical implementation location and fall into field of use [MPEP 2106.05(h) Field of Use and Technological Environment]. Therefore, the claims are not patent eligible under the same rationale as provided for in the rejection of the Independent claims. Therefore, the claims are ineligible under 35 USC §101.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MANGLESH M PATEL whose telephone number is (571)272-5937. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F from 11 am to 7 pm.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Erin D. Bishop, can be reached at telephone number 571-270-3713. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from Patent Center. Status information for published applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Patent Center for authorized users only. Should you have questions about access to Patent Center, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free).
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) Form at https://www.uspto.gov/patents/uspto-automated- interview-request-air-form.
/Manglesh M Patel/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3665
2/6/2026