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 .
Status of the Application
2. Claim 1, 3-6, and 8-10 have been amended. Claim 2 and 7 have been canceled. Claim 1, 3-6, and 8-10 are in pending status.
Examiner’s Note:
Examiner suggest to add the below limitation or similar limitation at the end of claim 1 and 6 in order to overcome the 35 U.S.C 101 abstract idea rejection.
“and control the control target based on the generated operation command.”
Response to Arguments
3. The specification objection in regard to the title have been withdrawn in light of new title filed on 12/29/25.
4. The 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph rejection for claim 1-5 in regard to 112(f) interpretation and for claim 5, 10 have been withdrawn in light of amendment to the claim filed on 12/29/25.
5. The 35 U.S.C 101 abstract idea rejection is maintained as the amended claim does not include additional elements, individually or in combination, that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception as explained below.
The added limitation of the “construct the model using an entire characteristic of the control target as a state transition matrix; and segment the state transition matrix” that under their broadest reasonable interpretation, enumerates a mathematical concept. Also added "a memory.. ", “a processor…” are considered as do not integrate into practical application and are recited at a high level of generality such that thy amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component (MPEP 2106.05(f)).
6. In regard to 35 U.S.C 101 abstract idea rejection:
Applicant’s First argument: is that, “Further, the Office has failed to point to any specific portion of Applicant's claims 1 and 6 that actually recites a mathematical concept. To the contrary, Applicant's claims do not recite any mathematical concept (mathematical relationships, mathematical formulas or equations, mathematical calculations) as defined in MPEP 2106.04(a).”.
Examiner’s Response: Examiner does not agree with the above argument as the argument is not persuasive. The filed specification (PG Pub: 2023/0400821) disclosed that :
[0053] As a form of a model constructed by the model construction unit 11, a neural network, a radial basis function network, a matrix representing a weight of a neural network and a radial basis function network, or a state transition probability matrix is considered, but the form is not limited to these matrices.
[0065] Specifically, first, the control policy calculation unit 13 predicts a future state by calculating an attenuation-type state transition matrix using models of state transition probability segmented by the problem segmentation unit 12. As a method of calculating the attenuation-type state transition matrix, for example, Equation (1) below can be used. In Equation (1), a storage form of a model is assumed to be a state transition probability matrix T.
[0072] The control policy calculation unit 13 calculates an optimum control law (that is, an optimum operation amount) on the basis of the reward function R and the calculated attenuation-type state transition matrix D to calculate a control policy of the control target 20
As the specification clearly mentioned that the constructing a model using characteristic of the control target as a state transition matrix. Also the Para. [0065]-[0066], and Equation 1 of the filed specification disclosed the mathematical formula for the state transition matrix. Hence the model construction process is clearly includes mathematical concept.
Also in general, Mathematical model construction is an iterative, multi-step process that translates real-world problems into mathematical language to analyze, predict, and solve them. It involves defining the problem, making assumptions, formulating equations, solving them, and validating results against data, frequently requiring refinement for accuracy.
The filed specification further disclosed that “In the example of FIG. 4B, the problem segmentation unit 12 segments a problem into two problems (see two circles in FIG. 4B) by integrating the states s1 to s4 and s5 to s8. In the example of FIG. 4C, the problem segmentation unit 12 segments a problem into two problems (see two circles in FIG. 4C) by integrating the states s1 to s6 and s7 to s8. In both the examples, an integrated cluster is divided into two, that is, the entire problem is divided into two problems and learned.”(Para. [0057] of PG Pub: 2023/0400821). The segmentation process includes integration, divide step which is clearly a mathematical process. Also in general, Model segmentation is a mathematical process that partitions data, such as images or numerical datasets, into distinct, meaningful subsets based on shared characteristics like intensity, texture, or behavioral patterns. It converts complex, raw data into a structured format by applying algorithmic, statistical, and geometric techniques to identify boundaries and regions.
Hence the added limitation of construct a model and segment enumerates a mathematical concept, and are not patent eligible under 35 U.S.C 101 abstract idea.
7. Applicant’s second argument: “Applicant's claims recite features related to a technical solution to a technical problem of improving the functioning of a computer by reducing the amount of memory used for prediction of a future state by segmenting a model and then predicting a future state of a control target”.
Response to the second argument: Examiner does not agree with applicant’s above argument as the argument is nor persuasive. Examiner noted that the claim recites the different steps however does not include the “reducing the amount of memory used for prediction of a future state and improving the functioning of a computer”.
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.
8. Claims 1, 3-6, and 8-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to abstract idea without significantly more as fully discussed below.
9. Regarding Independent claim 1, and 6:
Step 1: Yes
Claim 1 is drawn to a control device and claim 6 is drawn to a control method for generating control command for control target, therefore claim 1, and 6 falls under one of four categories of statutory subject matter (process/method, machines/products/apparatus, manufactures, and compositions of matter).
Step 2A, Prong 1: Yes
Independent claim 1, and 6 are directed to a judicially recognized exception of an abstract idea without significantly more.
Claim 1, and 6 recites claim limitation of “construct a model to simulate a control target, segments a model, predict a future state of the control target, and calculate a control policy of the control target based on the predicted future state; construct the model using an entire characteristic of the control target as a state transition matrix; and segment the state transition matrix” that under their broadest reasonable interpretation, enumerates a mathematical concept. As discloses in the specification the above functions can be part of a mathematical calculation:
[0053] As a form of a model constructed by the model construction unit 11, a neural network, a radial basis function network, a matrix representing a weight of a neural network and a radial basis function network, or a state transition probability matrix is considered, but the form is not limited to these matrices.
[0065] Specifically, first, the control policy calculation unit 13 predicts a future state by calculating an attenuation-type state transition matrix using models of state transition probability segmented by the problem segmentation unit 12. As a method of calculating the attenuation-type state transition matrix, for example, Equation (1) below can be used. In Equation (1), a storage form of a model is assumed to be a state transition probability matrix T.
[0072] The control policy calculation unit 13 calculates an optimum control law (that is, an optimum operation amount) on the basis of the reward function R and the calculated attenuation-type state transition matrix D to calculate a control policy of the control target 20
Thus, these claimed functions are the judicial exceptions that are no more than an abstract idea processed by a mathematical algorithm (See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(I)).
Step 2A, Prong 2: No
Claim 1, and 6 recites additional limitation of “generate an operation command to the control target”. The functions of generates an operation command are forms of insignificant input or output solution activities (i.e., extra solution), such that data outputting are necessary for the use of the judicial exception (See MPEP 2106.05(g)). The combination of these additional elements does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
Claim 1 further recite additional limitation of "a memory.. ", “a processor…” are considered as do not integrate into practical application and are recited at a high level of generality such that thy amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component (MPEP 2106.05(f)).
The combination of these additional elements does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
Step 2B: No
The additional limitation that are a form of insignificant extra-solution activities, do not amount to significantly more than an abstract idea because the court decisions have determined that this additional element as discussed above in step 2A of generates an operation command to be well-understood, routine, and conventional when claimed in a merely generic manner for generates an operation command (outputting step) (See MPEP § 2106.05(d)(II) (i: Receiving or transmitting data over a network, e.g., using the Internet to gather data, Symantec, 838 F.3d at 1321, 120 USPQ2d at 1362 (See Versata Dev. Group, Inc. v. SAP Am., Inc., 793 F.3d 1306, 1334, 115 USPQ2d 1681, 1701 (Fed. Cir. 2015) and Electric Power Group, LLC v. Alstom S.A., 830 F.3d 1350, 119 USPQ2d 1739 (Fed. Cir. 2016)).
As such, claim 1, and 6 are not patent eligible.
Dependent claims 3-5, and 8-10:
Step 1: Yes
Claim 3-5 are drawn to a control device and claim 8-10 are drawn to a control method for generating control command for control target, therefore claim 3-5 and 8-10 are falls under one of four categories of statutory subject matter (process/method, machines/products/apparatus, manufactures, and compositions of matter). Nonetheless, dependent claims 3-5, and 8-10 are also ineligible for the same reasons given with respect to claim 1, and 6.
Step 2A, Prong 1: Yes
Dependent claim 3-5, and 8-10 are directed to a judicially recognized exception of an abstract idea without significantly more.
Claim 3, and 8 recites limitation of “define a state of the state transition matrix by discretizing at least one of operation data and image data of the control target using table reference, adaptive resonance theory, or a vector quantization method”;
and Claim 4, 9 recites limitation of “segment the model constructed by the processor into a plurality of pieces by grouping a plurality of states into one integrated cluster, and further segment the model in a manner that a number of joints coupling integrated clusters is reduced” that under their broadest reasonable interpretation, enumerates a mathematical concept.
Thus, these claimed functions are the judicial exceptions that are no more than an abstract idea processed by a mathematical algorithm (See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(I)).
Step 2A, Prong 2: No
Claim 3-4, and 8-9 does not recite additional limitation while claim 5, and 10 recites additional limitation of “displays at least memory used for storing the model constructed by the processor and memory used for storing the model segmented by the processor.”
The functions of displaying is forms of insignificant input or output solution activities (i.e., extra solution), such that data outputting are necessary for the use of the judicial exception (See MPEP 2106.05(g)). The combination of these additional elements does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
Claim 3-4 further recites limitation of “processor”, and claim 5 recites “display unit” are considered as do not integrate into practical application and are recited at a high level of generality such that thy amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component (MPEP 2106.05(f)).
The combination of these additional elements does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
Step 2B: No
The additional functions that are a form of insignificant extra-solution activities, do not amount to significantly more than an abstract idea because the court decisions have determined that this additional element to be well-understood, routine, and conventional when claimed in a merely generic manner for generates an operation command (outputting step) (See MPEP § 2106.05(d)(II)(i: Receiving or transmitting data over a network, e.g., using the Internet to gather data, Symantec, 838 F.3d at 1321, 120 USPQ2d at 1362 (See Versata Dev. Group, Inc. v. SAP Am., Inc., 793 F.3d 1306, 1334, 115 USPQ2d 1681, 1701 (Fed. Cir. 2015) and Electric Power Group, LLC v. Alstom S.A., 830 F.3d 1350, 119 USPQ2d 1739 (Fed. Cir. 2016)).
As such, dependent claim 3-5, and 8-10 are not patent eligible.
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 JIGNESHKUMAR C PATEL whose telephone number is (571)270-0698. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 7:00 AM - 5:00 PM.
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, Kenneth M. Lo can be reached at (571)272-9774. 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.
/JIGNESHKUMAR C PATEL/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2116