DETAILED ACTION
This action is responsive to the Application filed on 06/03/2026. Claims 1-20 are pending in the case. Claims 1, 7-9, 12-17 and 20 are amended. Claims 1, 7, and 20 are independent claims.
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 .
Applicant's arguments filed 06/03/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
With respect to 35 U.S.C. 101 rejection:
Applicant argues the claims are analogous to Example Claim 39 because the instant claim does not recite any abstract ideas. Applicant highlights the claim recites storage and a processor and concludes no judicial exception is recited.
Examiner disagrees. The instant claim is not similar to example 39 at least because the functional steps of example claim 39 are related to the processing/transformation of digital facial images. The human mind is not capable of transforming non-abstract constructs such as digital facial images, such transformations are therefore describing the functioning of the technology rather than generalized abstract manipulations of data. In contrast, the claim describes the manipulation/evaluation of abstract data such as “states”, “actions” and “events”, creation or prediction of such abstract information is grounded in abstract information processing capable of being performed in the mind.
Further, Examiner notes this analysis is performed in Step 2A prong one of the flowchart. Mere inclusion in the claims of physical systems such as processors or storage systems does not impact the analysis of whether the claim recites an abstract idea. Such elements are evaluated as additional elements in Step 2A prong two and step 2B.
With respect to 35 U.S.C. 112 rejection:
Applicant presents no particular arguments, but for a suggestions the rejection is moot in view of the amendments.
Examiner notes the amendments ameliorate some prior issues as noted in the updated rejection. However, the rejection is maintained for claims 1-6 for the reasons provided in the updated rejection.
With respect to 35 U.S.C. 102 & 103 rejection:
Applicant presents no particular arguments, but for a suggestions the rejection is moot in view of the amendments.
Examiner notes the rejection is maintained and updated with respect to claims 1-6 in view of the amendments.
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.
Claim 1-20 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claim are directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Regarding Claim 1:
Under step 1, the claim is directed to a method which is directed to a process, one of the statutory categories.
Under Step 2A Prong 1, the claim recites the following limitations which are considered mental evaluations:
encoding time series data values from a first source with events from a second source as output time-series seed data as a variable that represents a relationship between the time series data values and the events
…to learn temporal dynamics of the output time-series seed data
generating synthetic time-series data that follows a step-wise temporal dynamic of the output time-series seed data
… competitively compares and ranks the synthetic time-series data;
generating predictions of future data values from relatively high- ranking synthetic time-series data from the temporal sequential encoder.
Each of these amount to mental evaluation because they describe manipulation of abstract data. Encoding and generating data and predictions are manipulations of data which can be performed in the mind. Learning, comparison and ranking of data is also an organization of data which can be performed in the mind.
Under step 2A Prong 2, The claim recites the following additional element(s):
training a time generative network with the output time-series seed… applying a temporal sequential encoder (which amounts to descriptions which makes use of or applies the abstract idea because under 2106.05(f)(1) “the claim fails to recite details of how a solution to a problem is accomplished”, as no details of the functioning of the training or encoder are claimed.)
Therefore, the claim is directed to a judicial exception.
Under step 2B, the recited additional elements when considered alone or in combination neither integrates the abstract idea into a practical application nor provides significantly more than the abstract idea itself.
Regarding Claim 2:
The rejection of claim 1 is incorporated and further:
The claim does not recite further abstract idea to consider, beyond those recited in the parent claim.
The claim recites the following additional element(s), in addition to those already identified in the parent claim:
wherein training a time generative network comprises training a time generative adversarial network. (which is generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use, see MPEP 2106.05(h))
The recited additional elements when considered alone or in combination neither integrates the abstract idea into a practical application nor provides significantly more than the abstract idea itself.
Regarding Claim 3:
The rejection of claim 1 is incorporated and further:
The claim does not recite further abstract idea to consider, beyond those recited in the parent claim.
The claim recites the following additional element(s), in addition to those already identified in the parent claim:
applying a reinforcement learning process. (which is generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use. No , see MPEP 2106.05(h))
The recited additional elements when considered alone or in combination neither integrates the abstract idea into a practical application nor provides significantly more than the abstract idea itself.
Regarding Claim 4:
The rejection of claim 1 is incorporated and further:
The claim does not recite further abstract idea to consider, beyond those recited in the parent claim.
The claim recites the following additional element(s), in addition to those already identified in the parent claim:
presenting the generated predictions on a user interface. (which amounts to adding insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception, because the limitation describe mere data gathering and/or data output, See MPEP 2106.05(g)
Under step 2B, the additional elements of presenting the generated predictions on a user interface are insignificant extra-solution activities that are considered well-understood, routine, conventional activities. In accordance with the MPEP, the following factual determination is based on the technical publication: [Planas et al., " Towards a model-driven approach for multiexperience AI-based user interfaces (PTO-892)]. Section 2.2 “CUIs are becoming more and more popular every day. The most relevant example is the rise of bots …which are being increasingly adopted in various domains such as e-commerce or customer service, as a direct communication channel between companies and end-users. A bot wraps a CUI as key component but complements it with a behavior specification that defines how the bot should react to a given user message….Bots are classified in different types depending on the channel employed to communicate with the user. For instance, in chatbots the user interaction is through textual messages… a bot are usually designed as a set of intents, where each intent represents a possible user’s goal when interacting with the bot… and finally, the bot produces a response that it is returned to the user via text”. Which discloses that conversational user interfaces are popular and increasingly adopted (which corresponds to routine and conventional), further the reference notes that these CUIs interact via textual messages returned to a user which are predictions of user intent. ( corresponding to presenting the generated predictions on a user interface) As such, the insignificant extra-solution activities are considered well-understood, routine, conventional activities.
Regarding Claim 5:
The rejection of claim 4 is incorporated and further:
The claim does not recite further abstract idea to consider, beyond those recited in the parent claim.
The claim recites the following additional element(s), in addition to those already identified in the parent claim:
presenting is performed responsive to a query received from a user (which amounts to adding insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception, because the limitation describes mere data gathering and/or data output, See MPEP 2106.05(g)
Under step 2B, the additional element of presenting is performed responsive to a query received from a user. are insignificant extra-solution activities that are considered well-understood, routine, conventional activities. In accordance with the MPEP, the following factual determination is based on the technical publication: [Planas et al., " Towards a model-driven approach for multiexperience AI-based user interfaces (PTO-892)]. Section 2.2 “CUIs are becoming more and more popular every day. The most relevant example is the rise of bots …which are being increasingly adopted in various domains such as e-commerce or customer service, as a direct communication channel between companies and end-users. A bot wraps a CUI as key component but complements it with a behavior specification that defines how the bot should react to a given user message….Bots are classified in different types depending on the channel employed to communicate with the user. For instance, in chatbots the user interaction is through textual messages… a bot are usually designed as a set of intents, where each intent represents a possible user’s goal when interacting with the bot… and finally, the bot produces a response that it is returned to the user (via text”
Which discloses that conversational user interfaces are popular and increasingly adopted (which corresponds to routine and conventional), further the reference notes that these CUIs are responsive to user interactions or queries via textual messages returned to a user which are predictions of user intent. ( corresponding to presenting is performed responsive to a query received from a user) As such, the insignificant extra-solution activities are considered well-understood, routine, conventional activities.
Regarding Claim 6:
The rejection of claim 5 is incorporated and further:
The claim does not recite further abstract idea to consider, beyond those recited in the parent claim.
The claim recites the following additional element(s), in addition to those already identified in the parent claim:
the presenting comprises a quantitative graph and/or a natural language answer to the query from the user (which amounts to adding insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception, because the limitation describes mere data gathering and/or data output, See MPEP 2106.05(g)
Under step 2B, the additional element of the presenting comprises a quantitative graph and/or a natural language answer to the query from the user. are insignificant extra-solution activities that are considered well-understood, routine, conventional activities. In accordance with the MPEP, the following factual determination is based on the technical publication: [Planas et al., " Towards a model-driven approach for multiexperience AI-based user interfaces (PTO-892)]. Section 2.2 “CUIs are becoming more and more popular every day. The most relevant example is the rise of bots …which are being increasingly adopted in various domains such as e-commerce or customer service, as a direct communication channel between companies and end-users. A bot wraps a CUI as key component but complements it with a behavior specification that defines how the bot should react to a given user message….Bots are classified in different types depending on the channel employed to communicate with the user. For instance, in chatbots the user interaction is through textual messages… a bot are usually designed as a set of intents, where each intent represents a possible user’s goal when interacting with the bot… and finally, the bot produces a response that it is returned to the user (via text”. Which discloses that conversational user interfaces are popular and increasingly adopted (which corresponds to routine and conventional), further the reference notes that these CUIs are responsive to user interactions or queries via textual messages returned to a user which are natural language answers to a user interaction or query. ( corresponding to the presenting comprises a quantitative graph and/or a natural language answer to the query from the user) As such, the insignificant extra-solution activities are considered well-understood, routine, conventional activities.
Regarding Claim 7:
Under step 1, the claim is directed to a computing system which is directed to a machine, one of the statutory categories.
Under Step 2A Prong 1, the claim recites the following limitations which are considered mental evaluations:
…encode training data comprising time- series data and associated events stored on the storage and to build rewards and states from the training data and to instantiate a reinforcement learning agent associated with a generator
…to produce actions that reflect the rewards and states and that identify how close the time-series data is to individual associated events
…generation seeds to be generated from the actions, the generation seeds comprising a variable that represents a relationship between individual associated events and time-series data;
… to make predictions relating to the time-series data and the associated events based upon the generation seeds
Each of these amount to mental evaluation because they describe manipulation of abstract data. Encoding, generation and prediction of abstract data and actions are descriptions of evaluations of abstract data. No details about how these steps are performed such that they can not be considered abstract ideas. Therefore, the claims recite an abstract idea
Under step 2A Prong 2, The claim recites the following additional element(s):
a processor; and a storage resource storing computer-readable instructions which, when executed by the processor, cause the processor to… the reinforcement learning agent is configured to… and the generator is configured (which amounts to adding the words “apply it” to implement an abstract idea on a generic computer, See 2106.05(f)(1) “the claim fails to recite details of how a solution to a problem is accomplished” At most the claim recites the technology for performing the recited abstract ideas, without details describe the technological functioning.)
Therefore, the claim is directed to a judicial exception.
Under step 2B, the recited additional elements when considered alone or in combination neither integrates the abstract idea into a practical application nor provides significantly more than the abstract idea itself.
Regarding Claim 8:
The rejection of claim 7 is incorporated and further:
The claim does not recite further abstract idea to consider, beyond those recited in the parent claim.
The claim recites the following additional element(s), in addition to those already identified in the parent claim:
wherein generator operates with a generative network that comprises a time generative adversarial network or wherein the generative network comprises a seed based generative decoder. (which is generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use, see MPEP 2106.05(h))
The recited additional elements when considered alone or in combination neither integrates the abstract idea into a practical application nor provides significantly more than the abstract idea itself.
Regarding Claim 9:
The rejection of claim 8 is incorporated and further:
The claim recites further abstract idea(s):
predictions include possible future predictions ((which describes a details relating to the previously recited mental evaluation)
The recited additional elements when considered alone or in combination neither integrates the abstract idea into a practical application nor provides significantly more than the abstract idea itself.
Regarding Claim 10:
The rejection of claim 9 is incorporated and further:
The claim does not recite further abstract idea to consider, beyond those recited in the parent claim.
The claim recites the following additional element(s), in addition to those already identified in the parent claim:
the time generative adversarial network comprises a discriminator (which is generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use, see MPEP 2106.05(h))
configured to receive the possible future predictions and enhance accuracy of the generator. (that amounts to adding insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception, because the limitation describe mere data gathering. See MPEP 2106.05(g))
Further under step 2B, the additional element configured to receive the possible future predictions and enhance accuracy of the generator. (is well understood, routine, and conventional activity because it amounts to “transmitting or receiving data over a network" (see MPEP 2106.05(d)(II)(i))
The recited additional elements when considered alone or in combination neither integrates the abstract idea into a practical application nor provides significantly more than the abstract idea itself.
Regarding Claim 11:
The rejection of claim 10 is incorporated and further:
The claim does not recite further abstract idea to consider, beyond those recited in the parent claim.
The claim recites the following additional element(s), in addition to those already identified in the parent claim:
wherein the discriminator is configured to enhance the accuracy via adversarial training (which is generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use, see MPEP 2106.05(h))
The recited additional elements when considered alone or in combination neither integrates the abstract idea into a practical application nor provides significantly more than the abstract idea itself.
Regarding Claim 12:
The rejection of claim 7 is incorporated and further:
The claim recites further abstract idea(s):
the predictions relate to the time-series data and the associated events that have already occurred in the past (which describes a details relating to the previously recited mental evaluation)
The recited additional elements when considered alone or in combination neither integrates the abstract idea into a practical application nor provides significantly more than the abstract idea itself.
Regarding Claim 13:
The rejection of claim 12 is incorporated and further:
The claim recites further abstract idea(s):
predictions are adjusted with behavior shaping and distance adjustments (which describes a mental evaluation)
The recited additional elements when considered alone or in combination neither integrates the abstract idea into a practical application nor provides significantly more than the abstract idea itself.
Regarding Claim 14:
The rejection of claim 12 is incorporated and further:
The claim recites further abstract idea(s):
wherein the behavior shaping and distance adjustments decrease a delta between the predictions and what actually occurred in the past (which describes a details relating to the previously recited mental evaluation)
The recited additional elements when considered alone or in combination neither integrates the abstract idea into a practical application nor provides significantly more than the abstract idea itself.
Regarding Claim 15:
The rejection of claim 14 is incorporated and further:
The claim recites further abstract idea(s):
wherein behavior shaping and distance adjustments are accomplished by … adjusting the generation seeds (which describes a mental evaluation)
The claim recites the following additional element(s), in addition to those already identified in the parent claim:
by the reinforcement learning agent (which amounts to adding the words “apply it” to implement an abstract idea on a generic computer, See 2106.05(f)(1) “the claim fails to recite details of how a solution to a problem is accomplished”)
The recited additional elements when considered alone or in combination neither integrates the abstract idea into a practical application nor provides significantly more than the abstract idea itself.
Regarding Claim 16:
The rejection of claim 15 is incorporated and further:
The claim recites further abstract idea(s):
iteratively refine a model associated with the generator with the generation seeds to enhance accuracy of the future predictions. (which describes a mental evaluation because refinements broadly include mental evaluations/determinations about parameters of the model)
The claim recites the following additional element(s), in addition to those already identified in the parent claim:
wherein the generative network is configured (which amounts to adding the words “apply it” to implement an abstract idea on a generic computer, See 2106.05(f)(1) “the claim fails to recite details of how a solution to a problem is accomplished”)
The recited additional elements when considered alone or in combination neither integrates the abstract idea into a practical application nor provides significantly more than the abstract idea itself.
Regarding Claim 17:
The rejection of claim 16 is incorporated and further:
The claim recites further abstract idea(s):
control the generator's output by manipulating the generation seeds. (which describes a mental evaluation because manipulation of seeds amounts to abstract data manipulation)
The claim recites the following additional element(s), in addition to those already identified in the parent claim:
the reinforcement learning agent is configured to (which amounts to adding the words “apply it” to implement an abstract idea on a generic computer, See 2106.05(f)(1) “the claim fails to recite details of how a solution to a problem is accomplished”)
The recited additional elements when considered alone or in combination neither integrates the abstract idea into a practical application nor provides significantly more than the abstract idea itself.
Regarding Claim 18:
The rejection of claim 16 is incorporated and further:
The claim recites further abstract idea(s):
provide a latent space for information abstraction that allows latent dynamics of both real and synthetic time-series data to be synchronized through a supervised loss. (which describes a mental evaluation because information abstractions is abstract data manipulation)
The claim recites the following additional element(s), in addition to those already identified in the parent claim:
the generative network comprises an embedding function configured to (which amounts to adding the words “apply it” to implement an abstract idea on a generic computer, See 2106.05(f)(1) “the claim fails to recite details of how a solution to a problem is accomplished”)
The recited additional elements when considered alone or in combination neither integrates the abstract idea into a practical application nor provides significantly more than the abstract idea itself.
Regarding Claim 19:
The rejection of claim 18 is incorporated and further:
The claim recites further abstract idea(s):
behavior shaping and distance adjustments are applied to the model to decrease deltas between possible future predictions and actual values in the time-series data. (which describes a mental evaluation because distance adjustments and behavior shaping is abstract data manipulation)
The recited additional elements when considered alone or in combination neither integrates the abstract idea into a practical application nor provides significantly more than the abstract idea itself.
Regarding Claim 20:
Under step 1, the claim is directed to a computing system which is directed to a machine, one of the statutory categories.
Under Step 2A Prong 1, the claim recites the following limitations which are considered mental evaluations:
… and produce actions … that identifies a distance relationship between the time-series data and the associated events
…create generation seeds from the actions… the generation seeds comprising a variable that represents a relationship between individual associated events and the time-series data;
… generate, …, predictions from the generation seeds; and,
… iteratively refine the predictions by behavior shaping and distance adjustment by manipulating the generation seeds that are fed back to the rewards and states.
Each of these amount to mental evaluation because they describe manipulation of abstract data. Encoding, generation, prediction, and prediction refinement of abstract data and actions are descriptions of evaluations of abstract data. No details about how these steps are performed such that they cannot be considered abstract ideas. Therefore, the claims recite an abstract idea
Under step 2A Prong 2, The claim recites the following additional element(s):
a processor; and a storage resource storing computer-readable instructions which, when executed by the processor, cause the processor to:… with a reinforcement learning trained agent… with a generator (which amounts to adding the words “apply it” to implement an abstract idea on a generic computer, See 2106.05(f)(1) “the claim fails to recite details of how a solution to a problem is accomplished” At most the claim recites the technology for performing the recited abstract ideas, without details describe the technological functioning.)
obtain time-series data relating to a system from a first source; obtain(that amounts to adding insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception, because the limitation describe mere data gathering. See MPEP 2106.05(g))
Therefore, the claim is directed to a judicial exception.
Further under step 2B, the additional element obtain time-series data relating to a system from a first source; obtain (is well understood, routine, and conventional activity because it amounts to “transmitting or receiving data over a network" (see MPEP 2106.05(d)(II)(i))
The recited additional elements when considered alone or in combination neither integrates the abstract idea into a practical application nor provides significantly more than the abstract idea itself.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
The term “relatively high- ranking synthetic time-series data” in claim 1 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “relatively high ranking” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention.
Each of the dependent claims (2-6) are rejected by virtue of dependency on a rejected base claim.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1-3, 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(1) as being anticipated by Kobayashi “Situated GAIL: Multitask imitation using task-conditioned adversarial inverse reinforcement learning”
Claim 1
Kobayashi teaches claim 1
Kobayashi teaches,
encoding time series data values from a first source with events from a second source as output time-series seed data as a variable that represents a relationship between the time series data values and the events; (pg 9-10 “The generator network had five input nodes: two nodes corresponding to the agent’s state and three nodes corresponding to the task variable c, and four output nodes corresponding to the agent’s action” the generator encodes the two types of inputs (states and actions) which corresponds to values from a first source and events from a second source. Further the output time series seed data is the output. pg 4 “At a discrete time t, an agent observes a state st and selects an action at according to the agent’s policy” The states and actions correspond to sampled data at discrete times, this temporal data or time series data as claimed. The variables encoded by the system are a functions of the states, actions and tasks as shown in figure 1, thus representative of the relationship between the states and actions corresponding to the data values and events claimed.)
training a time generative network with the output time-series seed data to learn temporal dynamics of the output time-series seed data (pg 10 “The discriminator network had nine input nodes for the agent’s action, state, and task variable.” Pg 5 “GAIL considers this optimization problem as the learning of a discriminator and a generator. The learning rule of GAN can then be applied where w and θ are the discriminator and generator parameters… D(·) is the output of the discriminator;” the generator is trained according to the learning function. The optimization function uses the output time-series seed data from the generator. Implicitly the learned parameters reflect the temporal dynamics of the output.)
generating synthetic time-series data that follows a step-wise temporal dynamic of the output time-series seed data; applying a temporal sequential encoder that competitively compares and ranks the synthetic time-series data; generating predictions of future data values from relatively high- ranking synthetic time-series data from the temporal sequential encoder. (pg 4 Section 3 “Let the tuple (S,A,P,R,γ,ρ0,T) be a finite-horizon Markov decision process (MDP), where S and A are the state and action spaces respectively, and P : S×A×S → R is the state transition probability of the system dynamics. At a discrete time t, an agent observes a state st and selects an action at according to the agent’s policy” pg 5 “The discriminator learns to correctly identify whether the distribution that generated the state–action pair is a generator or an expert. The generator learns to output the selection probability of the action so that the discriminator confuses the generator’s trajectories with those of the expert” the generator generates a state action pair at a discrete time thus following a step-wise temporal dynamic. The discriminator via identifying the distribution competitively compares and ranks the synthetic time series. The generated state action is future data values which are high ranking synthetic time series.)
Claim 2
Kobayashi teaches claim 1
Kobayashi teaches, training a time generative network comprises training a time generative adversarial network. (pg 3 “That is, the generator learns to produce behaviors similar to those presented by an expert, while the discriminator learns to discriminate the output of the generator from the expert’s behaviors. This competitive learning framework based on the architecture of GAN ensures that it has a unique optimal cost function and policy” pg 5 “GAIL considers this optimization problem as the learning of a discriminator and a generator. The learning rule of GAN…” The GAIL system uses a GAN for training/learning which is a time generative adversarial network.)
Claim 3
Kobayashi teaches, applying a temporal sequential encoder comprises applying a reinforcement learning process. (pg 10 Citation and figure 3 “Figure 3. Structures of the generator, discriminator, and value function networks.” pg 9 Algorithm 1 “
PNG
media_image1.png
204
928
media_image1.png
Greyscale
” the policy gradient algorithm, a reinforcement learning process, which applies the value function, corresponding to the temporal sequential encoder.)
Claim 7
Kobayashi teaches claim 1
Kobayashi teaches, A computing system comprising: a processor; and a storage resource storing computer-readable instructions which, when executed by the processor, cause the processor to ( pg 13 “The second experiment was conducted using a robot-arm simulator. In this experiment, we examined whether the proposed method can learn to imitate robot-arm reaching behavior in a continuous space. We used the Reacher-v2 environment provided by the OpenAI Gym platform using the MuJoCo physical simulator” the system is implemented in OpenAI Gym platform which requires a processor a storage as claimed.)
instantiate a generative network and a temporal sequential encoder (pg 9 algorithm 1
PNG
media_image2.png
152
1016
media_image2.png
Greyscale
the generator and value function, corresponding to the generative network and temporal sequential encoder, are instantiated with initial parameters.)
the generative network configured to model temporal transition dynamics of time-series data to associated complex events; (pg 9-10 “The generator network had five input nodes: two nodes corresponding to the agent’s state and three nodes corresponding to the task variable c, and four output nodes corresponding to the agent’s action” Pg 5 “GAIL considers this optimization problem as the learning of a discriminator and a generator. The learning rule of GAN can then be applied where w and θ are the discriminator and generator parameters” the parameters of the generative network models the transition dynamics of the states and action which correspond to the time series data and the events respectively.)
and, the temporal sequential encoder configured to reason noisy observations associated with the model and to control generation of future predictions by the model. ( Pg 5 “GAIL considers this optimization problem as the learning of a discriminator and a generator. The learning rule of GAN can then be applied where w and θ are the discriminator and generator parameters…The discriminator learns to correctly identify whether the distribution that generated the state–action pair is a generator or an expert” the discriminator identifies the distributions which is reasoning about the noisy observations associated with the generated predictions. Because the discriminator and generator is learned jointly the discriminator in part controls generation of future predictions.)
Claim Rejections - 35 U.S.C. § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. §§ 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. §§ 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. § 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102 of this title, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claim(s) 4-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Kobayashi further in view of Planas “Towards a model-driven approach for multi-experience AI-based user interfaces
Claim 4
Kobayashi teaches claim 1
Kobayashi does not explicitly teach, presenting the generated predictions on a user interface.
Planas when addressing AI based user interfaces teaches, presenting the generated predictions on a user interface. (pg 3 figure 2
PNG
media_image3.png
647
446
media_image3.png
Greyscale
the chat bot presents the generated predictions from the AI system to the user)
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the AI prediction system of Kobayashi to comprise a user interface for receiving user responsive predictions of Planas. One would have been motivated to make such a combination because both Kobayashi and Planas describe predictions generated by AI systems. Further, Planas notes that conversational user interfaces “are not isolated components. Instead, they are a core element of the software system that embeds them… CUIs must interact with the other inter faces of the system and have access to its functionality and resources… this paper has presented a model-based approach for CUIs covering both the design of each individual interface and the discussion of how such design could be combined with other software models for a complete software generation process” (conclusion 7)
Claim 5
Kobayashi/Planas teaches claim 4
Planas teaches, the presenting is performed responsive to a query received from a user (pg 3 figure 2 the chat bot presents the generated predictions from the AI system to the user on an interface responsive to a query)
Kobayashi/Planas are combined for the reasons provided in the rejection of claim 4
Claim 6
Kobayashi/Planas teaches claim 5
Planas teaches, wherein the presenting comprises a quantitative graph and/or a natural language answer to the query from the user. (pg 3 figure 2 the chat bot presents the generated predictions (i.e text, corresponding to natural language answer to the user query) from the AI system to the user on an interface responsive to a query)
Kobayashi/Planas are combined for the reasons provided in the rejection of claim 4
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 7-20 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims. Examiner notes that this is contingent on the remaining non prior art rejections being resolved.
Specifically, none of the reference of record either alone or in combination fairly disclose or suggest the limitations of claim 7
Conclusion
Prior art:
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Salh et al. “Refiner GAN Algorithmically Enabled Deep-RL for Guaranteed Traffic Packets in Real-Time URLLC B5G Communication Systems” describes a reinforcement learning framework in combination with a GAN network to generate synthetic data to refine the deep RL system.
Zhan et al “Human-Guided Robot Behavior Learning: A GAN-Assisted Preference-Based Reinforcement Learning Approach” describes human supervision to guide GAN networks toward learning complex behaviors.
Shen et al. “Learning to Generate Visual Questions with Noisy Supervision” describes a gan network guided by noisy supervision.
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 extension fee 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 JOHNATHAN R GERMICK whose telephone number is (571)272-8363. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9:30-4:30.
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 on 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.
/J.R.G./
Examiner, Art Unit 2122
/KAKALI CHAKI/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2122
Prosecution Insights