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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 04/24/2026, with respect to claim rejections under 35 U.S.C. 101 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Beginning on page 8, Applicant states that using a type-2 probability system is fundamentally different from type-1 probability systems and that no prior art that teaches using a type-2 system. This is not persuasive because prior art is not part of the evaluation for subject matter eligibility. The claim itself is still drawn to statistical (mathematical) analysis of data, even if it is a type-2 system rather than a conventional type-1 system.
Applicant then states that Type-2 probability realizes technical improvements that Type-1 probability cannot. This is not persuasive, because the “technical improvements” are inherent to using one type of probability over the other, where each type has its own known advantages and disadvantages. The field of statistics nor processors used were improved by using Type-2 over Type-1 probabilities.
Applicant’s remark that the claims are not mental processes is not persuasive because as amended the claims are also drawn to mathematical processes.
The claims are not directed toward a specific technical solution because the claim simply gathers data, provides that data to a statistical model, then, unrelated, makes some alteration in a region where the data was gathered.
The step of altering some object in a region of the event of interest is broad and does not necessarily describe a concrete physical action in the real world.
The sensor and its measurements are broad and are merely data gathering.
Applicant’s arguments, see beginning on page 14, filed 04/24/2026, with respect to claim rejections under 35 US.C. 103 have been fully considered, along with amendments, and are persuasive, insofar that the cited prior art of record does not seem to fairly teach or suggest providing, to a model that operates using a type-2 probability over a set of possible worlds defined by modal logic strict conditionals and encodes probabilistic rules as strict conditionals each having a common consequent representing the event of interest, as the cited prior art teaches using a type 1 probability model. The rejections of claims 1-20 have been withdrawn.
Claim Objections
Claims 1, 9, and 16 objected to because of the following informalities: The listed claims recite: computing, for each set of rules, a product over rule- evidence pairs of a quantity derived from the rule probability and the evidence probability instantiated from the measurements for each respective pair. It seems like the claim should recite “a product of” instead of “over”. Appropriate correction is required.
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 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more.
Specifically, representative Claim 1 recites:
A method comprising:
receiving, from one or more sensors, measurements of evidence of existence of an event of interest;
providing, to a model that operates using a type-2 probability over a set of possible worlds defined by modal logic strict conditionals and encodes probabilistic rules as strict conditionals each having a common consequent representing the event of interest, the measurements of the evidence;
providing, by the model and responsive to the measurements of the evidence, an output indicating a likelihood the event of interest exists, the output is computed by:
assigning, for each possible world in the set of possible worlds, a truth value to each probabilistic rule according to its rule probability and a truth value to each piece of evidence according to its evidence probability instantiated from the measurements;
separately evaluating, for positive evidence rules and negative evidence rules, a probability of valid inference by computing, for each set of rules, a product over rule- evidence pairs of a quantity derived from the rule probability and the evidence probability instantiated from the measurements for each respective pair; and
deriving the output from the separately evaluated probabilities of valid inference for the positive evidence rules and the negative evidence rules; and
altering, based on a communication from an operator, an object in a geographical region of the event of interest.
The claim limitations in the abstract idea have been highlighted in bold above; the remaining limitations are “additional elements”.
Under the Step 1 of the eligibility analysis, we determine whether the claims are to a statutory category by considering whether the claimed subject matter falls within the four statutory categories of patentable subject matter identified by 35 U.S.C. 101: Process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter. The above claim is considered to be in a statutory category (process).
Under the Step 2A, Prong One, we consider whether the claim recites a judicial exception (abstract idea). In the above claim, the highlighted portion constitutes an abstract idea because, under a broadest reasonable interpretation, it recites limitations that fall into/recite an abstract idea exceptions. Specifically, under the 2019 Revised Patent Subject matter Eligibility Guidance, it falls into the grouping of subject matter when recited as such in a claim limitation, that covers mathematical concepts (mathematical relationships, mathematical formulas or equations, mathematical calculations) and mental processes – concepts performed in the human mind including an observation, evaluation, judgement, and/or opinion.
For example, steps of “separately evaluating, for positive evidence rules and negative evidence rules, a probability of valid inference by computing, for each set of rules, a product over rule- evidence pairs of a quantity derived from the rule probability and the evidence probability instantiated from the measurements for each respective pair (multiplication); and
” are treated by the Examiner as belonging to mathematical concept grouping, while the steps of “providing, to a model that operates using a type-2 probability and encodes probabilistic rules, the measurements of the evidence (providing data);
providing, by the model and responsive to the measurements of the evidence, an output indicating a likelihood the event of interest exists (observing an output);
assigning, for each possible world in the set of possible worlds, a truth value to each probabilistic rule according to its rule probability and a truth value to each piece of evidence according to its evidence probability instantiated from the measurements (assigning values);
deriving the output from the separately evaluated probabilities of valid inference for the positive evidence rules and the negative evidence rules (determination based on analysis);
altering, based on a communication from an operator, an object in a geographical region of the event of interest (incorporating a user input)” are treated as belonging to mental process grouping.
Similar limitations comprise the abstract ideas of Claims 9 and 17.
Next, under the Step 2A, Prong Two, we consider whether the claim that recites a judicial exception is integrated into a practical application.
In this step, we evaluate whether the claim recites additional elements that integrate the exception into a practical application of that exception.
The above claims comprise the following additional elements:
Claim 1: receiving, from one or more sensors, measurements of evidence of existence of an event of interest;
Claim 9: processing circuitry; a memory; receiving, from one or more sensors, measurements of evidence of existence of an event of interest;
Claim 17: A non-transitory machine readable medium including instructions that, when executed by a machine, cause the machine to perform operations comprising: receiving, from one or more sensors, measurements of evidence of existence of an event of interest.
The additional element of receiving, from one or more sensors, measurements of evidence of existence of an event of interest represents a mere data gathering step and only adds an insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception. A non-transitory machine readable medium or a memory (generic memory) and processing circuitry (generic processor) are generally recited and are not qualified as particular machines.
In conclusion, the above additional elements, considered individually and in combination with the other claim elements do not reflect an improvement to other technology or technical field, and, therefore, do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. Therefore, the claims are directed to a judicial exception and require further analysis under the Step 2B.
However, the above claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception (Step 2B analysis).
The claims, therefore, are not patent eligible.
With regards to the dependent claims, claims 2-8, 10-16, and 18-20 provide additional features/steps which are part of an expanded algorithm, so these limitations should be considered part of an expanded abstract idea of the independent claims.
Examiner notes that there are currently no prior art rejections.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 CHRISTIAN T BRYANT whose telephone number is (571)272-4194. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday and Alternate Fridays 7:00-4:30.
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, CATHERINE RASTOVSKI can be reached at (571) 270-0349. 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.
/CHRISTIAN T BRYANT/Examiner, Art Unit 2857
/Catherine T. Rastovski/Supervisory Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2857
Prosecution Insights