Detailed Action
This action is in response to the RCE filed on 07/14/2026 for the amended claims filed 07/14/2026 for application 17/789,715, in which:
Claims 1, 17, and 18 are independent claims.
Claims 3, 5-8, and 16 are cancelled.
Claims 1, 17, and 18 are currently amended.
Claims 1-2, 4, 9-15, 17, and 18 are currently pending.
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 07/14/2026 has been entered.
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.
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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicants’ arguments filed 07/14/2026 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.
Applicant disagrees and traverses the 101 rejections (Pages 9-10), as the claimed invention is tied to machine which is one of the statutory categories of invention and independent claim 1 does not describe an abstract concept.
Examiner respectfully disagrees. The 35 U.S.C. § 101 rejections for the amended 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 pending Claims are directed to a judicial exception due to reciting limitations which fall within the “mental processes” group of abstract ideas; 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”. Due to the additional elements falling under MPEP 2106.05, the judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application, and the specific details are discussed below within the Examiner’s Responses and 35 USC § 101 Rejections. The claims are directed towards the improvement of an abstract idea. Improvements to an abstract idea are still considered an abstract idea. More specific details are discussed below within the responses and 35 USC § 101 Rejections.
Applicant asserts (Pages 10-12), that the claim recites … evaluate a behavior from a self-viewpoint … input of, at least one candidate behavior of one or more candidate behaviors, to a first learned model learned by reinforced learning, and output, as a first evaluation result, a predicted remuneration amount corresponding to the at least one candidate behavior; convert the at least one candidate behavior from an external viewpoint; evaluate the at least one converted candidate behavior from the external viewpoint … input of the at least one candidate behavior to a second learned model learned by reinforced learning from the external viewpoint, and output of, as a second evaluation result, an evaluation indicating an influence of the at least one converted candidate behavior on a plurality of second systems when a first system controlled by the information processing device executes the behavior, … determine whether the behavior is executed based on the first evaluation result … the second evaluation result … control an operation of a robot or an autonomous vehicle based on a result of the determination. The applicant notes these limitations cannot be evaluated as abstract idea(s) (mental-processes/mathematical-concepts/methods-of-organizing-human-activity) as the limitations are expressly tied to a concrete, sensor-driven, multi model inference pipeline that produces predicted remuneration outputs and governs real-world robotic or autonomous vehicle control, rather than merely reciting an abstract idea or a human judgment process. Thus, the amended independent claim 1 does not recite an abstract concept.
Examiner respectfully disagrees. Applicants merely notes and emphasize limitations from the independent claim and does not note why or how they are not able to be performed by the human mind or are not considered mathematical concepts. Applicants’ arguments amount to a general allegation that the claims define a patentable invention without specifically pointing out how the limitations do not fall under abstract idea(s) with no support. The Office Action below within each limitation in Step 2A Prong 1 have a details within the parentheses of why they are being evaluated as abstract ideas. Eligibility must be assessed based on the claim as a whole. When viewed as an integrated whole, the claims limitation is further applying the abstract idea(s) and merely storing and/or retrieving information in memory. The additional elements recited within the independent claim only recite performance of an abstract idea within a computer, restricting to a particular technological environment, or data gathering for the abstract idea to a particular technological environment; thus, as the additional elements fall within MPEP 2106.05 they are unable to integrate the judicial exception as they are unable to provide significantly more.
Applicant asserts (Pages 12-13), that the claimed solution is necessarily rooted in computer technology in order to solve a problem of controlling robotic systems and autonomous vehicles through multi-perspective behavior evaluation based on real-time sensor data processing. By applying the present technology to coordinated control or behavior learning of autonomous mobile robots. Accordingly, it is possible to improve work efficiency in the plurality of robots. Applicant respectfully submits that claim 1 meets standard for patent eligibility under Prong One of Step 2A of 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance. The Applicant further asserts that even if an abstract idea was mentioned the alleged abstract ideas would be integrated into a practical implementation an re-recites the limitations above.
Examiner respectfully disagrees. Examiner respectfully disagrees. As noted above, the previous and current rejections for the amended 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). Eligibility must be assessed based on the claim as a whole. When viewed as an integrated whole, the additional elements recited within the independent claim only recite performance of an abstract idea within a computer, data gathering, or restricting the abstract idea to a particular technological environment; thus, as the additional elements fall within MPEP 2106.05 they are unable to integrate the judicial exception as they are unable to provide significantly more. The additional elements noted within Step 2A Prong 2 are unable to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception (when evaluated individually and holistically). The claims are not a technical solution to a technical problem as the independent claim is merely performing abstract ideas with specific restrictions within a computer. Thus, the additional elements are not able to integrate the abstract ideas in a practical application. The claims are directed towards the improvement of an abstract idea. Therefore, the claims do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. The independent claim fails to recite the steps that achieve the improvement. The pending Claims are directed to a judicial exception due to reciting limitations which fall within the “mental processes” group of abstract ideas; 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”. The amended claims do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application nor amount to significantly more.
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 asserts (Pages 13-15), that the specification supports the claims utilizing reinforced learning to maximize the benefit of a system in a specific environment. The specification also describes a technical improvement enabling robotic systems and autonomous vehicles to make coordinated decisions in multi-agent environments by processing real-time sensor data through multi-perspective reinforcement-learning evaluations. The applicant then recites limitations and notes that the features address the technical problem that reinforcement-learning agents can interfere with each other in mixed-system environments by generating machine-produced predicted remuneration outputs for both self and other systems to guide coordinated control. Accordingly, the Applicant has shown a teaching in the Specification that describes a practical implementation and how the technology is improved and has thus established a clear nexus between the claim language and the practical implementation of the alleged judicial exception, and improvements in the technology.
Examiner respectfully disagrees. Although the Claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the Claims. The rejections follow the steps of the analysis laid out within the MPEP which was followed for the previous and current examination (see MPEP 2106). The rejection also follows the steps of the analysis as laid out in the MPEP which was followed for the previous and current examination (see MPEP 2106). 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 or by the cited case law. 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 exceptions. As noted in the rejection, due to the additional elements falling under MPEP 2106.05, the judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application.
Applicant asserts (Pages 15-16) and notes Step 2B of the 2019 and submits that taking all the claim elements of amended independent claim 1, individually, and in combination, as a whole amount to significantly more than the alleged abstract idea of mental process. The applicant then re-recites the features of the independent claim. Accordingly, the Applicant respectfully submits that the combination of the features of amended independent claim 1 do not recite well-understood, routine, and conventional activities, because the claim requires coordinated robotic control based on real-time sensor data processing through independent and parallel reinforcement-learning evaluations from a self-viewpoint and an external viewpoint, including converting candidate behavior to the external viewpoint, generating evaluation results (including a predicted remuneration amount and an influence on a plurality of second systems), determining whether the behavior is executed based on those results, and controlling a robot or autonomous vehicle accordingly. Therefore, the features of amended independent claim 1 do not describe an abstract concept, or a concept similar to those found by the Courts to be Abstract, such as a mathematical concept, a mental process, or a method of organizing human activity. Therefore, the Applicant respectfully submits that amended independent claim 1 when taken as a whole qualifies as "significantly more" than an abstract idea. The amended independent claim 1 recites patent eligible subject matter. At least, for this reason, the Applicant respectfully submits that amended independent claim 1 meets the standard for patent eligibility under 35 U.S. C. § 101. The Applicant submits that amended independent claims 17 and 18, recite features similar to those recited in amended independent claim 1. Further, the Applicant submits that dependent claims 2-6 and 8-15 recite patent eligible subject matter based at least on the dependency on amended independent claim 1. Therefore, the Applicant respectfully requests that the rejection of claims 1-6, 8- 15, 17, and 18 under 35 U.S.C. § 101 be withdrawn.
Examiner respectfully disagrees and notes the remarks from above. As noted above, the previous and current rejections for the amended 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). Eligibility must be assessed based on the claim as a whole. When viewed as an integrated whole, the additional elements recited within the independent claim only recite performance of an abstract idea within a computer, data gathering, or restricting the abstract idea to a particular technological environment; thus, as the additional elements fall within MPEP 2106.05 they are unable to integrate the judicial exception as they are unable to provide significantly more. 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; thus, the additional elements noted within Step 2A Prong 2 are unable to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception (when evaluated individually and holistically). The limitations are unable to provide the alleged improvement as they are currently being evaluated as either abstract idea(s) or additional elements that fall within MPEP 2106.05. 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. Applicants’ arguments regarding the other independent and dependent claims rely upon the same assertions with respect to claim 1 and are thus likewise unpersuasive. 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 1-2, 4, 9-15, 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 by (a human being can mentally apply evaluation to evaluate a behavior from another’s viewpoint based on specific data)
convert the at least one candidate behavior from an external viewpoint (a human being can mentally apply evaluation to convert a specific behavior from a specific viewpoint)
determine whether the behavior is executed based on the first evaluation result associated with the evaluation from the self-viewpoint and the 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 the first and/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 consist of:
a central processing unit (CPU) configured 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))
receive sensor data from a plurality of sensor (which is insignificant extra-solution activity of data gathering, by MPEP 2106.05(g))
input of, at least one candidate behavior of one or more candidate behaviors, to a first learned model learned by reinforced learning (which is insignificant extra-solution activity of data gathering, by MPEP 2106.05(g))
output, as a first evaluation result, a predicted remuneration amount corresponding to the at least one candidate behavior (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 and f are merely applying the abstract idea on a computer (MPEP 2106.05(f)) which cannot provide significantly more. Additional element b-d 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 e 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 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 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 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 incorporates substantively all the limitations of claim 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 claim 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 1-2, 4, 9-15, 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 at least one converted candidate behavior from the external viewpoint based on the sensor data by: … 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 the first evaluation result associated with the evaluation from the self-viewpoint and the 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
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