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 .
This action is in response to the application filed on 04/29/2025, in which:
Claim 1, 5, and 9 are independent claims.
Claims 1, 3, 5, 7, 9, and 11 are amended.
Claims 2, 4, 6, 8, 10, and 12 are cancelled.
Claims 1, 3, 5, 7, 9, and 11 are currently pending.
Regarding the Claim Objections:
Applicant's amendments to Claims 1, 5, and 9 overcome the previous Claim Objections due to minor informalities.
Regarding the 35 USC § 112 Rejections:
Applicant's amendments to Claims 1, 5, and 9 overcome the previous 35 U.S.C. 112(b) rejections due to indefiniteness.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 04/29/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Regarding the 35 USC § 101 Rejections:
Applicant's arguments regarding the 35 U.S.C. 101 rejections of the previous office action have been fully considered, but are unpersuasive.
Argument:
Applicant argues “… that the amended independent claims are patent subject matter eligible, such that the other pending claims are as well at least because they depend from independent claims that are patent subject matter eligible.
The amended independent claims recite generating a hypothesis candidate, and in a case where the hypothesis candidate includes a temporal contradiction, correcting a value of the index that is appended to the hypothesis candidate - note that the index is the cost (e.g., the cost of the hypothesis candidate). The remaining dependent claims further recite, in a case where the hypothesis candidate includes the temporal contradiction, eliminating the hypothesis candidate.
Therefore, the claims provide for a technical improvement in that when a hypothesis candidate includes a temporal contradiction, the cost of the candidate is corrected, or the hypothesis candidate is even simply eliminated …
Accordingly, the claims are patent subject matter eligible”.
Examiner’s Response:
Examiner respectfully disagrees. The pending Claims are directed to a judicial exception due to reciting “mental processes” where the judicial exception is unable to be directed to significantly more than the judicial exception due to the pending Claims not including additional elements that contribute to an “inventive concept”. For the reasons given below and in the rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 101 below, the claims are directed to an abstract idea (Step 2A Prong 1) and do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application (Step 2A Prong 2). Although the Claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the Claims. The pending claims recite abstract ideas that fall in at least one of the permissible groups, and noted within the office action below in more details. The independent claims fail to recite any details as to how the inferences/costs/rules/candidates/appending/index/predicates are identified or modified, i.e. fails to recite the steps that achieve the improvement. The independent claims are no more detailed than "performing inferences based on rules utilizing time based data" which is not a technical solution to a technical problem.
In terms of the generate a hypothesis candidate …, … correct a value of the index, and … eliminate the hypothesis candidate limitations they are interpreted as mental processes within the updated rejection below. While the in a case where the hypothesis candidate includes a temporal contradiction … limitation is interpreted as an additional element of restricting the abstract idea to a Particular Technological Environment (see MPEP 2106.05(h)). Please also note that the applicant has not cited any specific additional elements from the Claim which the applicant believes would integrate the abstract ideas into a practical application.
The rejections have been updated below, the rejection to all Claims (including Claim 1, analogous independent Claims, and all dependent Claims) are maintained and updated as necessitated by Claim amendments. Applicant's arguments are not persuasive.
Regarding the 35 USC § 102 Rejections:
Applicant's arguments regarding the 35 U.S.C. 102 rejections of the previous office action have been fully considered, but are unpersuasive.
Argument:
Applicant argues “… that the independent claims are patentable, such that the other claims are patentable at least because they depend from patentable base independent claims.
Applicant submits that the independent claims are patentable, such that the other claims are patentable at least because they depend from patentable base independent claims. Applicant has reviewed the specification vis-a-vis the applied art to identify subject matter disclosed in the specification as to which the applied art is silent. Applicant has accordingly amended the claims to recite this subject matter.
Therefore, since the applied art is silent as to the amended claim language, the pending claims are patentable”.
Examiner’s Response:
Examiner respectfully disagrees. Molineaux teaches the newly amended limitations within Claim 1 when examined under the broadest reasonable interpretation and are explained within the office action’s updated rejections. Please also note that the applicant has not cited any limitations from the Claims or elements from the prior art in which the applicant believes indicates a difference between the invention and the prior art. Applicant’s arguments regarding the other independent and dependent claims rely upon the same assertions as with respect to Claim 1, and are thus likewise unpersuasive.
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, 3, 5, 7, 9, and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Regarding Claim 1:
Subject Matter Eligibility Analysis Step 1:
Claim 1 recites an apparatus, thus a machine, one of the four statutory categories of patentable subject matter.
Subject Matter Eligibility Analysis Step 2A Prong 1:
However, Claim 1 further recites:
perform inference by applying inference knowledge that includes information indicating a temporal sequence to an observation in which facts that have been observed are expressed using logical expressions (a human being can mentally apply evaluation to perform inferences based on inference knowledge based on temporal sequence information of an observation)
generate a hypothesis candidate from which the observation can be derived (a human being can mentally apply evaluation to generate a hypothesis candidate based on observations)
calculate a cost during … (a human being can mentally apply evaluation to calculate a cost during a mental process such as part of generating a hypothesis candidate where there is a step of calculating a cost)
use the calculated cost as an index (a human being can mentally apply evaluation to use a value as an index)
append the index to the generated hypothesis candidate, wherein the index indicates a possibility of the hypothesis candidate not holding true (a human being can mentally apply evaluation to append an index)
… determine, based on the information indicating a temporal sequence, whether or not the generated hypothesis candidate includes a temporal contradiction (a human being can mentally apply evaluation to determine whether a hypothesis candidate includes a temporal contradiction)
a predicate indicating a temporal order relationship as the information indicating a temporal sequence (a human being can mentally apply evaluation to create a predicate for a specific indication)
a predicate indicating a state in which a specific event has occurred as an antecedent (a human being can mentally apply evaluation to create a predicate for a specific indication)
a predicate indicating a state in which an event subsequent to the specific event has occurred as a consequent (a human being can mentally apply evaluation to create a predicate for a specific indication)
… correct a value of the index (a human being can mentally apply a judgement to correct a value of the index)
Claim 1 thus recites an abstract idea (that falls into the “mental processes” group of abstract ideas).
Subject Matter Eligibility Analysis Step 2A Prong 2:
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the additional elements consist of:
An inference apparatus comprising: at least one memory storing instructions; and at least one processor configured to execute the instructions to: (to perform a mental process and the performance of an abstract idea on a computer is no more than instructions to “apply it” on a computer, by MPEP 2106.05(f))
wherein the inference knowledge includes a plurality of rules, and at least one of the plurality of rules includes (which is restricting the abstract idea to a Particular Technological Environment, by MPEP 2106.05(h))
in case where the hypothesis candidate includes the temporal contradiction …(which is restricting the abstract idea to a Particular Technological Environment, by MPEP 2106.05(h))
Subject Matter Eligibility Analysis Step 2B:
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the additional elements, alone or in combination, do not provide significantly more than the abstract idea itself. Additional element a is merely applying the abstract idea on a computer (MPEP 2106.05(f)) which cannot provide significantly more. . Additional element b and c are only restricting the abstract idea to a Particular Technological Environment (MPEP 2106.05(h)) which cannot provide significantly more. Thus, the claim is subject-matter ineligible.
Regarding Claim 3:
Subject Matter Eligibility Analysis Step 1:
Dependent Claim 3 recites the apparatus of Claim 1. Claim 1 is an apparatus, thus a machine, one of the four statutory categories of patentable subject matter.
Subject Matter Eligibility Analysis Step 2A Prong 1:
However, Claim 3 further recites … eliminate the hypothesis candidate (a human being can mentally apply evaluation to eliminate the hypothesis candidate). Claim 3 thus recites an abstract idea (that falls into the “mental processes” group of abstract ideas).
Subject Matter Eligibility Analysis Step 2A Prong 2:
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the sole additional elements consists of wherein further at least one processor configured to execute the instructions to: (which is restricting the abstract idea to a Particular Technological Environment, by MPEP 2106.05(h)).
Subject Matter Eligibility Analysis Step 2B:
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the new sole additional element recited, alone or in combination, does not provide significantly more than the abstract idea itself. The additional element is only restricting the abstract idea to a Particular Technological Environment (MPEP 2106.05(h)) which cannot provide significantly more. Thus, the claim is subject-matter ineligible.
Regarding Claims 5 and 7:
Claims 5 and 7 incorporate substantively all the limitations of Claims 1 and 3 in a method (thus, a process) and further recites no new additional elements; thus, Claims 5 and 7 are rejected for reasons set forth in the rejections of Claims 1 and 3, respectively.
Regarding Claims 9 and 11:
Claims 9 and 11 incorporate substantively all the limitations of Claims 1 and 3 in a non-transitory computer readable medium (thus, a manufacture) and further recites a new additional element … storing a program, executable by a computer to perform processing comprising … (to perform a mental process and the performance of an abstract idea on a computer is no more than instructions to “apply it” on a computer, by MPEP 2106.05(f); thus, the claim is subject matter ineligible as it does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the additional elements, alone or in combination, do not provide significantly more than the abstract idea itself); thus, Claims 9 and 11 are rejected for reasons set forth in the rejections of Claims 1 and 3, respectively.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1, 3, 5, 7, 9, and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Molineaux et al., “Understanding What May Have Happened in Dynamic, Partially Observable Environments”.
Regarding Claim 1:
Molineaux teaches:
An inference apparatus comprising: at least one memory storing instructions; and at least one processor configured to execute the instructions to:
(Molineaux, Page 2, [1 Introduction], Paragraph 2, “… a novel goal-based agent that uses these capabilities, DHAgent, is able to achieve its goals more reliably … when compared to other goal-based agents using identical knowledge”. Page 125, [7.5.2 Experiment Description], Paragraph 2, “… machine using 4 Xeon X5650 CPUs and 24GB of physical memory. Each iteration was allocated 4GB of process space and 1 CPU”. The autonomous agents perform inferences based on observations/knowledge base and are tested within a test environment to compare performance and optimization. The machine utilizes memory and processors to execute the instructions/algorithms performed by the autonomous agents to allow for inferencing).
perform inference by applying inference knowledge (Molineaux, Page 127, [7.6 Results], Paragraph 2, “We believe that the reason for higher performance here is the high number of actions, which increases the branching factor of a deductive search relative to an abductive search, which generally has a higher cost per search node to perform inference”; Page 89, [4.6 DHAgent], “DHAgent … demonstrates how to use managed knowledge together with planning to improve execution performance of an agent”. The agents taught within the experiments perform inference based on different search/inference methods including abductive searching/reasoning (which is interpreted as performing inference by applying inference knowledge by the examiner as abductive search utilizes abductive reasoning to find the most likely explanation for a set of observations/actions from a knowledge base) that includes information indicating a temporal sequence to an observation in which facts that have been observed are expressed using logical expressions; (Molineaux, Figure 4.1; Page 61, [4.3 Definitions], “We introduce the term occurrence to refer to an inference or assumption about the environment at a particular time. An observation occurrence is a pair of the form <obs, id> where obs is an observation”; Page 12, [1.2 Problem Statement], Paragraph 2, “The output of explanation generation is a set of hypotheses about the environment, each of which consists of a set of unproven logical statements about the environment, including statements about the occurrence of events and exogenous actions, and a set of initial state assumptions, and a set of transition discontinuities that describe gaps …”; Page 60, [4.2.1 Psychology], Paragraph 2, “By constructing occurrence histories, an agent creates a logical sequence of events to explain to itself why the changes it observes happened, thereby understanding them better”. The knowledge base includes information including observation and action occurrences which are temporal sequences as they are events occurring at a particular time. Figure 4.1 shows an example of an inconsistent temporal sequence of observations/actions/events occurring using logical statements/sequences (which is interpreted by the examiner as observed logical expressions)).
generate a hypothesis candidate from which the observation can be derived;
(Molineaux, Page 58, [4 DiscoverHistory], Paragraph 1, “… the hypothesis generation problem is intended to find plausible hypotheses … A plausible hypothesis, taken together with the agent's actions and environment model, must imply the observations received”. Plausible hypotheses (which is interpreted by the examiner as hypothesis candidate) are generated and must imply observations received from the agent’s actions/environment model (which is interpreted by the examiner as observation can be derived from the generated plausible hypothesis candidate));
calculate a cost during generation of the hypothesis candidate;
(Molineaux, Page 127, [7.6 Results], Paragraph 2, “… which generally has a higher cost per search node to perform inference”; Page 121, Figure 7.4: ‘Resulting explanations with computed explanation costs (ASSUMPTION COST = 10, EVENT COST = 6)’; Figure 7.4 shows an example of the Multi-Agent DiscoverHistory search process which shows computed explanation costs to compare multiple explanations (1-3) to apply refinements to the process of generating plausible hypothesis candidates; where each explanation scenario (1-3) are plausible hypothesis candidates where a cost is calculated during generation).
use the calculated cost as an index;
(Molineaux, Page 138, Paragraph 5, “… search attempts to find minimally discontinuous explanations by performing a best-first search based on a cost metric, using DiscoverHistory for expansion”; Page 115, [7.4.4 Search Configuration], Paragraph 1, “Plausibility is measured as the sum of three metrics: Age … Precedence ambiguity … Assumption cost …”. DiscoverHistory expansion searches by 3 supplemental metrics (indicators; thus, an index) including Assumption cost. Thus, DiscoverHistory uses the calculated cost as an index for searching. The higher the cost the higher chance the hypothesis candidate does not hold true).
append the index to the generated hypothesis candidate, wherein the index indicates a possibility of the hypothesis candidate not holding true;
(Molineaux, Page 59, [4.1 Design Decisions], Paragraph 2, “… instead, we concentrate on finding a smaller set of hypotheses which are optimistic. This means that the assumptions made in those hypotheses are minimal”; Page 138, Paragraph 5, “… search attempts to find minimally discontinuous explanations by performing a best-first search based on a cost metric, using DiscoverHistory for expansion”. DiscoverHistory expansion searches the generated plausible hypotheses and appends the search by the cost metric index (indicator for the possibility of the hypothesis not holding true as the higher the Assumption Cost the higher possibility of the hypothesis candidate not holding true) where the . The higher the cost the higher chance the hypothesis candidate does not hold true).
determine, based on the information indicating a temporal sequence, whether or not the generated hypothesis candidate includes a temporal contradiction,
(Molineaux, Page 66, [4.3.2 Plausible Explanations], Paragraph 4, “An inconsistency describes a contradiction between a pair of occurrences…”; Figure 4.1; Page 73, [4.4.1 Checking Invariant], Paragraph 1, “The ordering relation -- will become inconsistent if any cycle is added to R, causing an occurrence o to precede itself … As such, the function InvariantsMet checks for this problem and DiscoverHistory discards any explanation in which such a cycle has been created as impossible … ”. Figure 4.1 shows an example of an inconsistency/contradiction within the temporal sequence of events; thus, a temporal contradiction. The function InvariantsMet checks for inconsistencies/contradictions and the DiscoverHistory search algorithm further searches and eliminates impossible explanations (temporal contradiction); thus, the search algorithm incorporating DiscoveryHistory determines if there are any temporal contradictions based on the information indicating a temporal sequence (which is shown in Figure 4.1)).
wherein the inference knowledge includes a plurality of rules, and at least one of the plurality of rules includes:
a predicate indicating a temporal order relationship as the information indicating a temporal sequence; …
(Molineaux, Page 43, Bullet Point #5, “an enumerated set of relation symbols or predicate symbols, which are used to describe relationships between objects”; Page 12, [1.2 Problem Statement], Paragraph 3, “… containing actions … and a total order - describing the temporal ordering of actions and observations”. The predicate symbols within Molineaux are within an enumerated set describing temporal order relationships (which is interpreted by the examiner as objects connected based on time) which describe the temporal ordering between objects (actions, observations, events, states, etc.)).
a predicate indicating a state in which a specific event has occurred as an antecedent; and
(Molineaux, Page 62, Paragraph 5, “Now we define the functions knownbefore … and knownafter, which are used to determine environment state and detect inconsistencies in an explanation. We use knownbefore(i, o, v) and knownafter(i, o, v) to refer to the value v of a relation or function instance i immediately before or after occurrence …”. The knownbefore function indicates a state in which a specific event has occurred as an antecedent as it notes relation/instance immediately before an occurrence).
a predicate indicating a state in which an event subsequent to the specific event has occurred as a consequent; and
(Molineaux, Page 62, Paragraph 5, “Now we define the functions knownbefore … and knownafter, which are used to determine environment state and detect inconsistencies in an explanation. We use knownbefore(i, o, v) and knownafter(i, o, v) to refer to the value v of a relation or function instance i immediately before or after occurrence …”. The knownafter function indicates a state in which an event subsequent to the specific event has occurred as a consequent as it notes relation/instance immediately after an occurrence).
in case where the hypothesis candidate includes the temporal contradiction, correct a value of the index.
(Molineaux, Page 62, Paragraph 5, “… knownbefore … and knownafter … are used to determine environment state and detect inconsistencies in an explanation …”; Figure 7.4; Page 115, [7.4.4 Search Configuration], Paragraph 3, “The efficiency component of the explanation cost function includes two factors: Search depth … Event load penalizes events added by the AddMinimal refinement. This is counted as EVENT_COST for each event in the revision history. This biases the search toward explanations with fewer abductively inferred events …”. The search algorithm utilizes event load which penalizes refinements/revisions to eliminate inconsistencies (which are interpreted by the examiner as temporal contradictions) and further corrects the value of the index (cost) as revisions are needed to fix the contradictions (inconsistencies). Figure 7.4 shows example explanations when applying refinement rules (corrections) of omitting information carried from the initial explanation for the agent to choose the most plausible explanation (hypothesis candidate)).
Regarding Claim 3:
Molineaux teaches the inference apparatus of Claim 1 and further teaches:
wherein the at least one processor is configured to execute the instructions to further: in case where the hypothesis candidate includes the temporal contradiction, eliminate the hypothesis candidate.
(Molineaux, Figure 4.3; Page 74, [4.4.2 Refinement Operators], Paragraph 4, “… a new occurrence must be added between oi+2 and oi+3 (see Figure 4.3) … There is a new inconsistency in the resulting explanation -X2 (see Figure 4.3). The new inconsistency occurs because another precondition of the rover-moves event requires that the value of relation literal (ATTEMPTING-MOVE R WEST) be TRUE, but it is FALSE after the most recent relevant occurrence, obs0. This inconsistency, <(ATTEMPTING-MOVE R WEST), obs0, onew, TRUE> could be eliminated by calling DiscoverHistory on -X2, typically as a result of further search … Another possible way to resolve an inconsistency <i, o, o’, v, c > … is to create a new explanation in which either o or o’ is removed”. Inconsistencies within Molineaux are interpreted as contradictions and are eliminated/removed to maintain consistent sequential events/actions/states (temporal sequences) which is depicted in Figure 4.3).
Regarding Claims 5 and 7:
Claims 5 and 7 incorporate substantively all the limitations of Claims 1 and 3 in a method (Molineaux, [Abstract], “We propose methods a goal-based agent can use to construct internal, causal explanations of its observations based on a model of its environment”) and further recites no new additional elements; thus, Claims 5 and 7 are rejected for reasons set forth in the rejections of Claims 1 and 3, respectively.
Regarding Claims 9 and 11:
Claims 9 and 11 incorporate substantively all the limitations of Claims 1 and 3 in a non-transitory computer readable medium and further recites a new additional element … storing a program, executable by a computer to perform processing comprising … (Molineaux, Page 125, [7.5.2 Experiment Description], Paragraph 2, “… machine using 4 Xeon X5650 CPUs and 24GB of physical memory. Each iteration was allocated 4GB of process space and 1 CPU”. The test machine (interpreted as a non-transitory computer readable medium); thus, Claims 9 and 11 are rejected for reasons set forth in the rejections of Claims 1 and 3, respectively.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to IBRAHIM RAHMAN whose telephone number is (703)756-1646. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8am-5pm.
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, Kakali Chaki can be reached at (571) 272-3719. 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.
/I.R./Examiner, Art Unit 2122
/KAKALI CHAKI/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2122
Prosecution Insights