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 .
Claims 1-3 and 5-7 have been amended. Claims 1-8 are pending and have been examined.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement filed 6/24/2026 fails to comply with 37 CFR 1.98(a)(2), which requires a legible copy of each cited foreign patent document; each non-patent literature publication or that portion which caused it to be listed; and all other information or that portion which caused it to be listed.
Response to Amendment
In light of the amendments made to claim 1, the rejection under 35 USB 112(a) has been withdrawn.
The amendments made on claims 1-3 and 5-7 do not overcome the rejection under 35 USC 101. See updated rejection below.
Response to Arguments
Applicants’ arguments regarding the rejection under 35 USB 112(a) have been fully considered and are persuasive. The rejection under 35 USB 112(a) has been withdrawn.
Applicant’s arguments regarding the rejection under 35 USC 101 have been fully considered but are not persuasive.
Regarding Applicant’s arguments:
The claims now recite: "collecting observation information and behavior information of a surrounding agent via communication with the surrounding agent or by direct observation by the main agent" (and the identical limitation for the second collecting step). This limitation is supported by the specification ( [0033], [0035]). The data-collection steps are therefore particular and integral to the claimed process-they specifically feed the multi-character RL model for character inference and behavior prediction. They are not the generic "every computer program must be fed with data" activity the Examiner identified.
Examiner’s response:
Examiner respectfully disagrees. The claims do not describe any specific way in which the data is collected. The recitation that it is collected via communication with the surrounding agent or by direct observation by a main agent does not restrict or describe any particular way in which either of the claimed agents collect the data. Therefore, the “collecting” limitations are still drafted as a generically claimed additional element that fails to integrate the judicial exception into a practical application or that amounts to more than the judicial exception itself.
Regarding Applicant’s argument:
The main agent is now expressly anchored in a technological context
The independent claims now recite: "wherein the main agent is an autonomous
mobile entity configured to perform computer-implemented decision-making in a multi- agent environment." This limitation is fully supported by the specification's broad definitional language, which states that agents "are not limited to a specific object, but may include all objects which are capable of making a decision or deciding a behavior" ( [0036]), while the decision-making apparatus itself is expressly a processor-implemented system ( [0001], [0033]-[0036], Fig. 1). The main agent is therefore necessarily a computer-implemented autonomous mobile system, and limiting it as such in the claims forecloses any reading of the claimed invention as a mental process or abstract decision-making exercise. The claims are directed to a computer-implemented improvement in autonomous mobile system decision-making-a recognized technological field encompassing autonomous vehicles, humanoid robots, quadrupedal robots, logistics robots, and other autonomous mobile platforms. Surrounding agents, which serve solely as environmental inputs to the main agent's system, need not be restricted, consistent with the specification's express disclosure that surrounding agents may include any moving entity, including humans ([0036]).
Examiner’s response:
Examiner respectfully disagrees. With the exception of computer-implemented steps, there is nothing in the claims themselves that foreclose them from being performed by a human mentally and the argument has not provided any evidence as to why the particular steps identified as mental processes cannot be performed mentally. As per MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III)(C)), a claim that requires a computer may still recite a mental process. Furthermore, paragraph [0036] cited in Applicant’s argument and provided by the examiner in previous response to argument states: “The second information collecting unit 112 collects observation information of the main agent and observation information of the surrounding agent at the first time point, that is, the observation information of all the multi-agents. The agent is not limited to a specific object, but may include all objects which are capable of making a decision or deciding a behavior, such as humans and vehicles. This paragraph clearly states that the main agent and the surrounding agent could be anything that is capable of making decisions or deciding behaviors such as humans. Therefore, the claim is directed to making decisions or deciding behaviors which are mental processes performed by humans.
Regarding Applicant’s argument:
Step 2A, Prong 1
The ordered combination (trained multi-character RL model + maximum-likelihood character inference via Equation 1 + classical-physics future-state inference + autonomous mobile entity collision avoidance) cannot practically be performed in the human mind. The main agent is a computer-implemented autonomous mobile system executing processor- implemented algorithms; this is not a process that can be carried out mentally.
Examiner’s response:
Examiner respectfully disagrees. None of these features were identified as mental processes, they were identified as additional elements that fail to integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. Furthermore, the argument does not explain how the human mind could not perform the steps identified as mental processes.
Regarding Applicant’s argument:
Step 2A, Prong 2 & Step 2B
The claims integrate any alleged judicial exception into a practical application and
include an inventive concept. The invention solves the specific technical problem identified in the background ( [0004]): unsafe behavior in dynamic multi-agent environments where an autonomous mobile system must predict the behavior of surrounding agents and make collision- avoiding decisions in real time. By combining episodic future thinking, character inference via maximum likelihood, and classical-physics future-state prediction, the claims enable collision- free decisions that achieve measurably higher RL rewards ( [0058]-[0060], Fig. 5). This is a technological improvement to the functioning of a computer-implemented autonomous mobile system, not an abstract improvement in "decision making." The Examiner's concern that surrounding agents "could be anything, including humans" (FOA, pp. 4-5) does not undermine patent eligibility: surrounding agents are merely environmental inputs observed by the main agent's system. Their nature-vehicle, pedestrian, or other moving entity-is irrelevant to the technological character of the claimed invention, just as the nature of environmental obstacles does not affect the eligibility of other computer-implemented navigation claims. What is claimed is the computer-implemented decision-making architecture of the autonomous mobile main agent, which is unambiguously a technological system.
Examiner’s response:
Examiner respectfully disagrees. Making decisions to avoid collisions is not a technological problem, it is an abstract idea. Essentially, the argument conflates a mental process performed using a computer with a technological solution. Many mental processes may be performed using a computer, but are not technological.
Regarding the argument “…the claims enable collision- free decisions that achieve measurably higher RL rewards ( [0058]-[0060], Fig. 5). This is a technological improvement to the functioning of a computer-implemented autonomous mobile system, not an abstract improvement in "decision making", the claim does not reflect such alleged improvement in the functioning of a computer, since the claim does not recite any training or updating of the model to increase the RL rewards.
Regarding the argument about the main agent, the claim does not recite that the autonomous mobile entity (whatever this may be) actually makes the decision of how to navigate in the environment to avoid collisions and implement that decision to modify its trajectory to avoid collisions. Therefore, the decision could be made by a person and the claim is directed to a mental process.
Regarding Applicant’s argument:
Applicant respectfully submits that the amendments and arguments above directly rebut the Office's positions on data collection and the technological context of the agents. The independent claims now unambiguously define the main agent as a computer-implemented autonomous mobile entity, anchoring the claims in a recognized technological field, while surrounding agents are appropriately left unrestricted consistent with the specification's own disclosure. The application is now in condition for allowance. An early notice to that effect is respectfully requested.
Examiner’s response:
Examiner respectfully disagrees. Both of these arguments have been addressed above and are not persuasive.
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 1-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because they are directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1 analysis for all claims:
In the instant case, claims 1-4 are directed to a method (process) and claims 5-8 are directed to an apparatus (manufacture). Thus, each of the claims falls within one of the four statutory categories of invention.
Claim 1:
Step 2A, Prong 1 analysis:
The claim(s) recite(s) in part:
determining a character coefficient of the surrounding agent using the maximum likelihood method by inputting the observation information of the surrounding agent. As drafted, this limitation encompasses a mathematical concept.
predicting a behavior of the surrounding agent by inputting the observation information of the main agent and the surrounding agent at the first time point and the character coefficient of the surrounding agent. As drafted and under its broadest reasonable interpretation, this limitation covers performance of the limitation in the mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion) or with the aid of pencil and. For example, this limitation encompasses analyzing the observation information of the main agent and the surrounding agent along with the character coefficient to predict the action that the surrounding agent should or will take.
inferring expected observation information of the main agent including the surrounding agent and the environment at a second time point corresponding to the behavior prediction result of the surrounding agent to estimate positions and speeds at the second time point using classical physics. As drafted and under its broadest reasonable interpretation, this limitation covers performance of the limitation in the mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion) or with the aid of pencil and. For example, this limitation encompasses analyzing the prediction obtained to determine factors (observation information) that could lead to a future action and evaluating that to estimate the position and the speed of the agent at a future point in time. Additionally, as drafted, this limitation encompasses a mathematical concept or a law of nature.
deciding a behavior of the main agent at the first time point to maximize a reward by avoiding a collision indicated by the expected observation information of the main agent including the surrounding agent and the environment at the second time point. As drafted and under its broadest reasonable interpretation, this limitation covers performance of the limitation in the mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion) or with the aid of pencil and. For example, this limitation encompasses deciding what action the main agent should take based on what is expected to happen in the future.
wherein the behavior of the main agent is decided to avoid collision with the surrounding agent in a multi-agent environment by considering predicted future collisions. As drafted and under its broadest reasonable interpretation, this limitation covers performance of the limitation in the mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion) or with the aid of pencil and. For example, this limitation encompasses analyzing data to determine the best way to move trough an environment to avoid collisions with other objects.
Step 2A, Prong 2 analysis:
The claim recites in part:
collecting observation information and behavior information of a surrounding agent via communication with the surrounding agent or by direct observation by a main agent. As drafted, this limitation amounts to extra-solution activity of gathering data for use in the claimed process. As described in MPEP 2106.05(g), limitations that amount to merely adding insignificant extra-solution activity to a judicial exception do not amount to significantly more than the exception itself and cannot integrate a judicial exception into a practical application.
collecting observation information of a main agent and the surrounding agent at a first time point, via communication with the surrounding agent or by direct observation by a main agent. As drafted, this limitation amounts to extra-solution activity of gathering data for use in the claimed process. As described in MPEP 2106.05(g), limitations that amount to merely adding insignificant extra-solution activity to a judicial exception do not amount to significantly more than the exception itself and cannot integrate a judicial exception into a practical application.
The “one or more processors”, “first information collecting unit”, “character inferring unit”, “second information collecting unit”, “by inputting…to the multi-character reinforcement learning model trained in advance” and “behavior predicting unit” are computer elements for performing the limitations which are recited at a high-level of generality such that they amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component (See MPEP 2106.05(f)).
The “main agent” and “surrounding agent” amounts to no more than generally linking the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use. As explained by the Supreme Court, a claim directed to a judicial exception cannot be made eligible "simply by having the Applicant acquiesce to limiting the reach of the patent for the formula to a particular technological use." Diamond v. Diehr, 450 U.S. 175, 192 n.14, 209 USPQ 1, 10 n. 14 (1981). Thus, limitations that amount to merely indicating a field of use or technological environment in which to apply a judicial exception do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application (MPEP § 2106.05(h)).
wherein the main agent is an autonomous mobile entity configured to perform computer-implemented decision-making in a multi-agent traffic environment. This limitation is recited at a high-level of generality and amounts to no more than adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea. Accordingly, this additional element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea (See MPEP 2106.05(f)). In addition, this limitation also amounts to no more than generally linking the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use (autonomous mobile entity in a multi-agent traffic environment). As explained by the Supreme Court, a claim directed to a judicial exception cannot be made eligible "simply by having the Applicant acquiesce to limiting the reach of the patent for the formula to a particular technological use." Diamond v. Diehr, 450 U.S. 175, 192 n.14, 209 USPQ 1, 10 n. 14 (1981). Thus, limitations that amount to merely indicating a field of use or technological environment in which to apply a judicial exception do not amount to significantly more than the exception itself, and cannot integrate a judicial exception into a practical application.
Accordingly, at Step 2A, Prong 2 the additional elements individually or in combination do not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application.
Step 2B:
As discussed above, the additional elements of “collecting observation information and behavior information of a surrounding agent, via communication with the surrounding agent or by direct observation by a main agent” and “collecting observation information of a main agent and the surrounding agent at a first time point, via communication with the surrounding agent or by direct observation by a main agent” amount to extra-solution activity of gathering data for use in the claimed process. The courts have found limitations directed to obtaining information electronically, recited at a high level of generality, to be well-understood, routine, and conventional (see MPEP 2106.05(d)(II), “receiving or transmitting data over a network”, "electronic record keeping," and "storing and retrieving information in memory").
As discussed above, the “first information collecting unit”, “character inferring unit”, “second information collecting unit” and “behavior predicting unit” are computer elements for performing the limitations which are recited at a high-level of generality such that they amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component (See MPEP 2106.05(f)).
As discussed above, the “main agent” and “surrounding agent” amounts to no more than generally linking the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use. As explained by the Supreme Court, a claim directed to a judicial exception cannot be made eligible "simply by having the Applicant acquiesce to limiting the reach of the patent for the formula to a particular technological use." Diamond v. Diehr, 450 U.S. 175, 192 n.14, 209 USPQ 1, 10 n. 14 (1981). Thus, limitations that amount to merely indicating a field of use or technological environment in which to apply a judicial exception do not amount to significantly more than the exception itself (MPEP § 2106.05(h)).
As discussed above, controlling an operation of the main agent to avoid collision of the main agent with the surrounding agent based on a result of the deciding the behavior of the main agent such that the behavior of the main agent is decided to improve safety in a multi- agent environment by considering predicted future collisions, as validated by reinforcement learning rewards. This limitation is recited at a high-level of generality and amounts to no more than adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea. Accordingly, this additional element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea (See MPEP 2106.05(f)). In addition, this limitation also amounts to no more than generally linking the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use (the claimed agent). As explained by the Supreme Court, a claim directed to a judicial exception cannot be made eligible "simply by having the Applicant acquiesce to limiting the reach of the patent for the formula to a particular technological use." Diamond v. Diehr, 450 U.S. 175, 192 n.14, 209 USPQ 1, 10 n. 14 (1981). Thus, limitations that amount to merely indicating a field of use or technological environment in which to apply a judicial exception do not amount to significantly more than the exception itself, and cannot integrate a judicial exception into a practical application.
wherein the main agent is an autonomous mobile entity configured to perform computer-implemented decision-making in a multi-agent traffic environment This limitation is recited at a high-level of generality and amounts to no more than adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea. Accordingly, this additional element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea (See MPEP 2106.05(f)). In addition, this limitation also amounts to no more than generally linking the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use (autonomous mobile entity in a multi-agent traffic environment). As explained by the Supreme Court, a claim directed to a judicial exception cannot be made eligible "simply by having the Applicant acquiesce to limiting the reach of the patent for the formula to a particular technological use." Diamond v. Diehr, 450 U.S. 175, 192 n.14, 209 USPQ 1, 10 n. 14 (1981). Thus, limitations that amount to merely indicating a field of use or technological environment in which to apply a judicial exception do not amount to significantly more than the exception itself, and cannot integrate a judicial exception into a practical application.
Accordingly, at Step 2B the additional elements individually or in combination do not amount to significantly more than the exception itself.
Claim 2
Step 2A, Prong 1 analysis:
The claim recites in part:
randomly initializing an estimated character coefficient of the surrounding agent. As drafted and under its broadest reasonable interpretation, this limitation covers performance of the limitation in the mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion) or with the aid of pencil and. For example, this limitation encompasses thinking of a random number for the character coefficient.
sampling a behavior of the surrounding agent using the estimated character coefficient, the observation information, and a multi-character reinforcement learning model. As drafted and under its broadest reasonable interpretation, this limitation covers performance of the limitation in the mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion) or with the aid of pencil and. For example, this limitation encompasses determining a behavior of the surrounding agent by analyzing the estimated character coefficient, the observation information and the result of a multi-character reinforcement learning model.
determining the character coefficient of the surrounding agent by comparing the sampled behavior and the behavior information. As drafted and under its broadest reasonable interpretation, this limitation covers performance of the limitation in the mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion) or with the aid of pencil and. For example, this limitation encompasses performing an analysis of the sampled behavior vs the behavior information do determine a character coefficient.
Step 2A, Prong 2 analysis:
The clam recites using a multi-character reinforcement learning model. This limitation is recited at a high-level of generality such that it amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component (See MPEP 2106.05(f)).
Step 2B
As set forth above, the clam recites using a multi-character reinforcement learning model. This limitation is recited at a high-level of generality such that it amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component (See MPEP 2106.05(f)).
Claim 3
Step 2A, Prong 1 analysis:
The claim recites “wherein the estimated character coefficient of the surrounding agent is updated by the following Equation 1…”. This limitation encompasses a mathematical concept. Therefore, the claim is directed to an abstract idea.
Step 2A, Prong 2 analysis:
The claim does not recite any additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Step 2B
The claim does not recite any additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Claim 4
Step 2A, Prong 1 analysis:
The claim recites “wherein in the predicting of a behavior of the surrounding agent, the behavior of the surrounding agent is predicted using observation information of the surrounding agent excluding the observation information of the main agent, among observation information”. As drafted and under its broadest reasonable interpretation, this limitation covers performance of the limitation in the mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion) or with the aid of pencil and. For example, this limitation encompasses making the prediction of the behavior of the surrounding agent without considering the observation information of the main agent.
Step 2A, Prong 2 analysis:
The claim does not recite any additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Step 2B
The claim does not recite any additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Claim 5
The clam recites substantially the same limitations as claim 1 and is rejected on the same basis. The claim further recites “one or more processors which execute an instruction”.
Step 2A, Prong 2 analysis:
The claim recites “one or mor processors” which are recited at a high-level of generality such that it amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component (See MPEP 2106.05(f)).
Step 2B
As set forth above, the claim recites “one or mor processors” are recited at a high-level of generality such that it amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component (See MPEP 2106.05(f)).
Claims 6-8
Claims 6-8 recite the same limitations as claims 2-4 and are rejected on the same basis.
CONCLUSION
Claims 1-8 are rejected.
CORRESPONDENCE INFORMATION
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Omar F Fernandez Rivas whose telephone number is (571)272-2589. The examiner can normally be reached on Mon-Fri 5:30-3:00.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, David Wiley can be reached on (571) 272-4150. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/OMAR F FERNANDEZ RIVAS/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2128
Prosecution Insights