Detailed Action
This action is in response to the amendment filed 10/08/2025 for application 17/789,715, in which:
Claims 1, 17, and 18 are independent claims.
Claims 7 and 16 are cancelled.
Claims 1-6, 8-15, 17, and 18 are amended.
Claims 1-6, 8-15, 17, and 18 are currently pending.
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 .
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant’s claim for foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. 119 (a)-(d). The certified copy has been filed in parent Application No. JP2020-001590, filed on 01/08/2020.
Regarding the Specification:
Applicant's amendment of the title of the invention overcomes the objection due to the title not being clearly indicative of the invention which the claims are directed; thus, the objection has been withdrawn.
Regarding the 35 USC § 112 Interpretations/Rejections:
Applicant's amendments to Claims 1 & 2 overcome the previous 35 U.S.C. 112 Interpretations/Rejections.
Regarding the 35 USC § 102/103 Rejections:
Applicant's amendments to the independent Claims have overcome the previous 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 rejections.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 10/08/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Regarding the 35 U.S.C. § 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.
Applicant disagrees and traverses the rejections of claims 1-18 (Pages 11-13), as the claims are inextricably tied to a machine and do not describe an abstract ideas such as mathematical concepts/mental-processes/methods-of-organizing-human-activity. The applicant further supports their assertion by noting that the amended independent claim recites “recite receiving sensor data from multiple sensors, evaluating behaviors from different viewpoints based on the sensor data through independent and parallel processing, determining behavior execution based on evaluation results, and controlling actual robot or autonomous vehicle operations based on these determinations” which cannot be considered an abstract idea (Step 2A Prong One).
Examiner respectfully disagrees. For the reasons given below and in the 35 U.S.C. § 101 rejections, 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). The amended claims recite evaluate a behavior from a self-viewpoint based on the sensor data (a human being can mentally apply evaluation to evaluate a behavior from a self-viewpoint based on specific data), evaluate the behavior from an external viewpoint based on the sensor data … (a human being can mentally apply evaluation to evaluate a behavior from another’s viewpoint based on specific data), and determine whether the behavior is executed based on a first evaluation result associated with the evaluation from the self-viewpoint and a second evaluation result associated with the evaluation from the external viewpoint (a human being can mentally apply evaluation to determine whether the behavior is performed by a first or second evaluation result associated with specific viewpoints); which are all evaluations or judgements that can be performed in the human mind, or by a human using pen and paper.
Applicant asserts (Page 13-17), under 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance even if there was an abstract idea recited… the alleged abstract idea is integrated into a practical implementation (Step 2A Prong Two). The applicant further support their assertion by noting the entire independent claim. The applicant further notes that specification highlights the improvement to provide solutions to a technical problem; thus, a technical improvement. The limitations of the claims individually and in combination amount to significantly more than the abstract idea under Step 2B. Applicant has shown a teaching in the Specification that describes a practical implementation and how the technology has established improvements and the recited features of the amended independent claims are not well-understood, routine, conventional activity in the field. The applicant further supports this assertion by noting that since the combination of claimed features describes an improvement related to coordinated robotic control through multi-perspective behavior evaluation based on real-time sensor data processing, such improvement is by independent and parallel evaluation of behaviors from different viewpoints to accurately determine optimal actions for robotic systems operating in multi-agent environments. Therefore, the limitations of the claims individually and in combination amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. Thus, the independent claim, similar independent claims, and all dependent claims should be reconsidered as being patent eligible subject matter due to similarity/dependence.
Examiner respectfully disagrees. The office action establishes a proper and well-supported prima facie case as the claims are explained to be not patentable via the Patent Subject Matter Eligibility steps within MPEP 2106. The independent claim fails to recite the steps that achieve the improvement. The independent claim is no more detailed than receiving specific data, performing specific evaluations from specific view points and then making a determination based on the evaluations to control an operation. The limitations are unable to provide improvement as they are currently being evaluated as either abstract idea(s) or additional elements that fall within MPEP 2106.05. The claims are directed towards the improvement of an abstract idea. Improvements to an abstract idea are still considered to an abstract idea. Additionally, the Claims do not reflect any improvement in the functioning of a computer or hardware processor rather the additional elements merely use a generic computer component to perform the abstract idea and/or is well-understood, routine and conventional activities of receiving or transmitting data over a network. Therefore, the claims do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application nor amount to significantly more. The claim is not patent eligible. Although the Claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the Claims.
MPEP 2106.05(a) recites:
After the examiner has consulted the specification and determined that the disclosed invention improves technology, the claim must be evaluated to ensure the claim itself reflects the disclosed improvement in technology … the claim must include the components or steps of the invention that provide the improvement described in the specification
…
It is important to note, the judicial exception alone cannot provide the improvement. The improvement can be provided by one or more additional elements. See the discussion of Diamond v. Diehr, 450 U.S. 175, 187 and 191-92, 209 USPQ 1, 10 (1981)) in subsection II, below.
Applicant fails to show how any alleged technical improvement would be provided by anything more than the judicial exception on its own. Additionally, applicant fails to show how the claim includes components or steps that would provide the alleged improvement described in the specification. The independent Claim fails to recite any details as to how the receiving of data, specific viewpoints, evaluations, and controlling of an operation improves the method for performing the abstract ideas. By MPEP 2106.05(f)(1), "the claim recites only the idea of a solution or outcome, i.e. the claim fails to recite details of how a solution to a problem is accomplished". Moreover, the examiner maintains that the Claim does not impose any meaningful limits on the judicial exception. As noted in the rejection, the Claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to an integration of the identified abstract idea into a practical application, thus the claim is directed to an abstract idea. 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. Therefore, for the reasons given above and in the updated rejections below, the rejection to all Claims (including Claim 1 and all dependent Claims) are maintained and updated as necessitated by Claim amendments. More specific details are discussed below within the 35 USC § 101 Rejections.
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 1-6, 8-15, 17, and 18 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 a device, 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 the device comprising of:
evaluate a behavior from a self-viewpoint based on the sensor data (a human being can mentally apply evaluation to evaluate a behavior from a self-viewpoint based on specific data)
evaluate the behavior from an external viewpoint based on the sensor data … (a human being can mentally apply evaluation to evaluate a behavior from another’s viewpoint based on specific data)
determine whether the behavior is executed based on a first evaluation result associated with the evaluation from the self-viewpoint and a second evaluation result associated with the evaluation from the external viewpoint (a human being can mentally apply evaluation to determine whether the behavior is performed by a first or second evaluation result associated with specific viewpoints)
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 recited consists of:
a central processing unit (CPU) configured to: receive sensor data from a plurality of sensor (which is insignificant extra-solution activity of data gathering, by MPEP 2106.05(g))
wherein the external viewpoint is different from the self-viewpoint, and the evaluation of the behavior from the self-viewpoint is independent and parallel to the evaluation of the external viewpoint (which is restricting the abstract idea to a Particular Technological Environment, by MPEP 2106.05(h))
control an operation of a robot or an autonomous vehicle based on a result of the determination (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))
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 recited, alone or in combination, do not provide significantly more than the abstract idea itself. Additional element a falls within MPEP 2106.05(d) as well-understood, routine and conventional activities of receiving or transmitting data over a network (MPEP 2106.05(d)(II): buySAFE, Inc. v. Google, Inc., 765 F.3d 1350, 1355, 112 USPQ2d 1093, 1096 (Fed. Cir. 2014)). Additional element b is only restricting the abstract idea to a Particular Technological Environment (MPEP 2106.05(h)) which cannot provide significantly more. Additional element c is merely applying the abstract idea on a computer (MPEP 2106.05(f)) which cannot provide significantly more. Thus, the claim is subject-matter ineligible.
Regarding Claim 2:
Subject Matter Eligibility Analysis Step 1:
Dependent Claim 2 recites the device of Claim 1. Claim 1 is a device, thus a machine, one of the four statutory categories of patentable subject matter.
Subject Matter Eligibility Analysis Step 2A Prong 1:
However, Claim 2 further recites the device comprising of evaluate the behavior from an objective viewpoint … (a human being can mentally apply evaluation to evaluate the behavior from an objective viewpoint). Claim 2 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 element recited consists of … execute the determination based on a third evaluation result associated with the evaluation from the objective viewpoint (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)).
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 merely applying the abstract idea on a computer (MPEP 2106.05(f)) 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 device of Claim 1. Claim 1 is a device, thus a machine, one of the four statutory categories of patentable subject matter.
Subject Matter Eligibility Analysis Step 2A Prong 1:
However, Claim 3 recites the device comprising of:
convert the behavior into a behavior from the external viewpoint (a human being can mentally apply evaluation to convert the behavior into a behavior from a specific viewpoint)
evaluate the converted behavior (a human being can mentally apply evaluation to evaluate the converted behavior)
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 there are no new additional elements recited.
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 there are no new additional elements recited. The judicial exception alone does not provide significantly more than the abstract idea itself. Thus, the claim is subject-matter ineligible.
Regarding Claim 4:
Subject Matter Eligibility Analysis Step 1:
Dependent Claim 4 recites the device of Claim 1. Claim 1 is a device, thus a machine, one of the four statutory categories of patentable subject matter.
Subject Matter Eligibility Analysis Step 2A Prong 1:
However, Claim 4 does not recite any additional abstract ideas and only inherits the abstract ideas from Claim 1. Claim 4 thus recites an abstract idea.
Subject Matter Eligibility Analysis Step 2A Prong 2:
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the sole additional element recited consists of wherein the behavior is a behavior executed as a candidate by a system or a behavior executed by the system (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)).
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
merely applying the abstract idea on a computer (MPEP 2106.05(f)) which cannot provide significantly more. Thus, the claim is subject-matter ineligible.
Regarding Claim 5:
Subject Matter Eligibility Analysis Step 1:
Dependent Claim 5 recites the device of Claim 1. Claim 1 is a device, thus a machine, one of the four statutory categories of patentable subject matter.
Subject Matter Eligibility Analysis Step 2A Prong 1:
However, Claim 5 does not recite any additional abstract ideas and only inherits the abstract ideas from Claim 1. Claim 5 thus recites an abstract idea.
Subject Matter Eligibility Analysis Step 2A Prong 2:
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the sole additional element recited consists of execute the evaluation of the behavior from the self-viewpoint and the evaluation of the behavior from the external viewpoint based on a learned model learned by reinforced learning (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)).
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
merely applying the abstract idea on a computer (MPEP 2106.05(f)) which cannot provide significantly more. Thus, the claim is subject-matter ineligible.
Regarding Claim 6:
Subject Matter Eligibility Analysis Step 1:
Dependent Claim 6 recites the device of Claim 5. Claim 5 is a device, thus a machine, one of the four statutory categories of patentable subject matter.
Subject Matter Eligibility Analysis Step 2A Prong 1:
However, Claim 6 further recites the device comprising of:
evaluate a remuneration amount predicted when a first system controlled by the information processing device executes the behavior (a human being can mentally apply evaluation to evaluate a remuneration amount)
evaluate an influence of the behavior on a plurality of second systems when the first system controlled by the information processing device executes the behavior (a human being can mentally apply evaluation to evaluate an influence of the behavior on a specific system with specific requirements)
Claim 6 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 there are no new additional elements recited.
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 there are no new additional elements recited. The judicial exception alone does not provide significantly more than the abstract idea itself. Thus, the claim is subject-matter ineligible.
Regarding Claim 8:
Subject Matter Eligibility Analysis Step 1:
Dependent Claim 8 recites the device of Claim 5. Claim 5 is a device, thus a machine, one of the four statutory categories of patentable subject matter.
Subject Matter Eligibility Analysis Step 2A Prong 1:
However, Claim 8 does not recite any additional abstract ideas and only inherits the abstract ideas from Claim 5. Claim 8 thus recites an abstract idea.
Subject Matter Eligibility Analysis Step 2A Prong 2:
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the sole additional element recited consists of execute the evaluation based on the learned model learned from the external viewpoint (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)).
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
merely applying the abstract idea on a computer (MPEP 2106.05(f)) which cannot provide significantly more. Thus, the claim is subject-matter ineligible.
Regarding Claim 9:
Subject Matter Eligibility Analysis Step 1:
Dependent Claim 9 recites the device of Claim 2. Claim 2 is a device, thus a machine, one of the four statutory categories of patentable subject matter.
Subject Matter Eligibility Analysis Step 2A Prong 1:
However, Claim 9 does not recite any additional abstract ideas and only inherits the abstract ideas from Claim 2. Claim 9 thus recites an abstract idea.
Subject Matter Eligibility Analysis Step 2A Prong 2:
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the sole additional element recited consists of execute the evaluation with reference to a database related to a social norm (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)).
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
merely applying the abstract idea on a computer (MPEP 2106.05(f)) which cannot provide significantly more. Thus, the claim is subject-matter ineligible.
Regarding Claim 10:
Subject Matter Eligibility Analysis Step 1:
Dependent Claim 10 recites the device of Claim 2. Claim 2 is a device, thus a machine, one of the four statutory categories of patentable subject matter.
Subject Matter Eligibility Analysis Step 2A Prong 1:
However, Claim 10 recites the device comprising of determine whether the behavior is suppressed based on the first evaluation result, the second evaluation result, and the third evaluation result (a human being can mentally apply evaluation to determine whether the behavior is suppressed using evaluation results). Claim 10 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 there are no new additional elements recited.
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 there are no new additional elements recited. The judicial exception alone does not provide significantly more than the abstract idea itself. Thus, the claim is subject-matter ineligible.
Regarding Claim 11:
Subject Matter Eligibility Analysis Step 1:
Dependent Claim 11 recites the device of Claim 2. Claim 2 is a device, thus a machine, one of the four statutory categories of patentable subject matter.
Subject Matter Eligibility Analysis Step 2A Prong 1:
However, Claim 11 recites the device comprising of determine that the behavior is suppressed when at least two of the first evaluation result, the second evaluation result, and the third evaluation result do not satisfy a standard value (a human being can mentally apply evaluation to determine whether the behavior is suppressed using evaluation results that don’t satisfy a standard value). Claim 11 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 there are no new additional elements recited.
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 there are no new additional elements recited. The judicial exception alone does not provide significantly more than the abstract idea itself. Thus, the claim is subject-matter ineligible.
Regarding Claim 12:
Subject Matter Eligibility Analysis Step 1:
Dependent Claim 12 recites the device of Claim 2. Claim 2 is a device, thus a machine, one of the four statutory categories of patentable subject matter.
Subject Matter Eligibility Analysis Step 2A Prong 1:
However, Claim 12 further recites the device comprising of determine whether the behavior is executed based on a result of the statistics processing (a human being can mentally apply evaluation to determine whether the behavior is performed using a result). Claim 12 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 element recited consists of execute statistics processing on the first evaluation result, the second evaluation result, and the third evaluation result (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)).
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
merely applying the abstract idea on a computer (MPEP 2106.05(f)) which cannot provide significantly more. Thus, the claim is subject-matter ineligible.
Regarding Claim 13:
Subject Matter Eligibility Analysis Step 1:
Dependent Claim 13 recites the device of Claim 1. Claim 1 is a device, thus a machine, one of the four statutory categories of patentable subject matter.
Subject Matter Eligibility Analysis Step 2A Prong 1:
However, Claim 13 further recites the device comprising of:
evaluate whether the behavior maximizes a remuneration amount in the robot or the autonomous vehicle (a human being can mentally apply evaluation to evaluate whether a behavior maximizes a remuneration amount within a device)
evaluate a benefit or a non-benefit of the behavior the robot or the autonomous vehicle to a plurality of autonomous mobile robots (a human being can mentally apply evaluation to evaluate a benefit or non-benefit of the behavior of a device to a plurality of robots via comparison)
Claim 13 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 there are no new additional elements recited.
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 there are no new additional elements recited. The judicial exception alone does not provide significantly more than the abstract idea itself. Thus, the claim is subject-matter ineligible.
Regarding Claim 14:
Subject Matter Eligibility Analysis Step 1:
Dependent Claim 14 recites the device of Claim 2. Claim 2 is a device, thus a machine, one of the four statutory categories of patentable subject matter.
Subject Matter Eligibility Analysis Step 2A Prong 1:
However, Claim 14 further recites the device comprising of:
… generation of a sentence … (a human being can mentally apply evaluation to generate a sentence)
… evaluate whether the sentence is inappropriate compared to a social norm (a human being can mentally apply evaluation to evaluate whether the sentence is inappropriate by comparing)
Claim 14 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 element recited consists of wherein the behavior is … which is presented to a user … (which is insignificant extra-solution activity of data display or output, by MPEP 2106.05(g)).
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 recited, alone or in combination, do not provide significantly more than the abstract idea itself. The additional element falls within MPEP 2106.05(d) as well-understood, routine and conventional activities of presenting offers and gathering statistics (MPEP 2106.05(d)(II): OIP Techs., 788 F.3d at 1362- 63, 115 USPQ2d at 1092-93). Thus, the claim is subject-matter ineligible.
Regarding Claim 15:
Subject Matter Eligibility Analysis Step 1:
Dependent Claim 15 recites the device of Claim 1. Claim 1 is a device, thus a machine, one of the four statutory categories of patentable subject matter.
Subject Matter Eligibility Analysis Step 2A Prong 1:
However, Claim 15 further recites the device comprising of:
… the behavior is a behavior executed by a first user … (a human being (a first user) can mentally apply evaluation to execute the behavior)
evaluate whether the behavior is beneficial to the first user … (a human being can mentally apply evaluation to evaluate whether the behavior is beneficial to a specific user)
evaluate whether the behavior is beneficial to a plurality of second users influenced by the behavior executed by the first user (a human being can mentally apply evaluation to evaluate whether the behavior is beneficial to specific users influenced by the behavior executed by a specific user)
Claim 15 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 there are no new additional elements recited.
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 there are no new additional elements recited. The judicial exception alone does not provide significantly more than the abstract idea itself. Thus, the claim is subject-matter ineligible.
Regarding Claim 17:
Claim 17 incorporate substantively all the limitations of Claims 1 in a method (thus, a process) and further recites no new additional elements; thus, Claim 17 is rejected for reasons set forth in the rejection of Claim 1.
Regarding Claim 18:
Claim 18 incorporate substantively all the limitations of Claims 1 in a program (thus, a manufacture) and further recites non-transitory computer-readable medium having stored thereon, computer-executable instructions which, when executed by a computer, cause the computer to execute operations, the operations comprising (these claim limitations appear 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)) and does not appear to integrate the abstract idea into a particular application; 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, Claim 18 is rejected for reasons set forth in the rejection of Claim 1.
Examiner Comments
Claims 1-6, 8-15, 17, and 18 are currently rejected under 35 USC § 101 only. A complete and thorough search was performed for these claims; however no prior art was uncovered that teach or fairly suggest the features recited claims. Specifically, none of the prior art of record, either alone or in combination, fairly discloses the limitations of the independent Claim 1 and its dependent Claims. In particular, the limitations in Claim 1:
evaluate the behavior from an external viewpoint based on the sensor data, wherein the external viewpoint is different from the self-viewpoint, and the evaluation of the behavior from the self-viewpoint is independent and parallel to the evaluation of the external viewpoint;
determine whether the behavior is executed based on a first evaluation result associated with the evaluation from the self-viewpoint and a second evaluation result associated with the evaluation from the external viewpoint; and
The closest prior art of record is Bussmann et al., “Towards Empathic Deep Q-Learning”, which discloses an information processing device to evaluate behaviors based on sensor data for different viewpoints but does not explicitly disclose the limitations above and also receiving sensor data. Dalal et al., “Safe Exploration in Continuous Action Spaces” discloses receiving sensor data but does not explicitly disclose the limitations above to be motivated for combination between the two different prior art(s) as the combination is not obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention due to the architecture of the learning models (such as the safety layer within Dalal which evaluates the external viewpoints). The combination of these two prior arts do not disclose the expression defined in Claim 1 and it’s dependent claims.
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.
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