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 .
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.
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of papers submitted under 35 U.S.C. 119(a)-(d), which papers have been placed of record in the file.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements (IDS) submitted on 08/02/2023 and 03/20/2026 have been considered by the examiner. The submission are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97.
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 - 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b), as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which applicant regards as the invention.
Claims 1 – 14 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 pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention. The claims are indefinite because independent claims 1 and 8 do not clearly set forth the metes and bounds of the patent protection desired because in claims 1 and 8 applicant claims “preparing an agent pre-trained in a first environmental condition (hereinafter referred to as source agent); obtaining training data for training of an agent to be trained in a second environmental condition (hereinafter referred to as target agent) different from the first environmental condition by using the source agent”. The applicant does not define clearly what specific part/portion of preceding claim source agent and target agent refers to? Additionally, it is uncommon to have the wording (hereinafter referred to …) within parenthesis as it is not clear if this limitation is part of the claim. Clarification without introduction of new matter is required. Appropriate correction is required.
Claims 1 - 14 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.
Claims 1 and 8 recites the limitation " the pre-trained target agent in the second environmental condition". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
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(s) 1 - 14 are directed to statutory computer-readable mediums under Step 1 of the eligibility analysis. However, the claims are further directed toward a judicial exception under Step 2A Prong One of the eligibility analysis, namely an abstract idea. Under Step 2A Prong Two of the eligibility analysis, the claim(s) does/do not include additional elements to integrate the exception into a practical application of that exception. Under Step 2B of the eligibility analysis, the claims are not sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because nothing in the asserted claims purports to improve the functioning of the computer itself or effect an improvement in any other technology or technical field. The claim(s) is/are directed to an abstract method and system. This is “organizing information and manipulating information through mathematical correlations, Digitech Image Techs., LLC v. Electronics for Imaging, Inc., 758 F.3d 1344, 1350, 111 USPQ2d 1717, 1721 (Fed. Cir. 2014). The patentee in Digitech claimed methods of generating first and second data by taking existing information, manipulating the data using mathematical functions, and organizing this information into a new form. The court explained that such claims were directed to an abstract idea because they described a process of organizing information through mathematical correlations, like Flook's method of calculating using a mathematical formula. 758 F.3d at 1350, 111 USPQ2d at 1721”, (see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(I)(A)(iv)). “A claim that recites a mathematical calculation, when the claim is given its broadest reasonable interpretation in light of the specification, will be considered as falling within the "mathematical concepts" grouping. A mathematical calculation is a mathematical operation (such as multiplication) or an act of calculating using mathematical methods to determine a variable or number, e.g., performing an arithmetic operation such as exponentiation. There is no particular word or set of words that indicates a claim recites a mathematical calculation. That is, a claim does not have to recite the word "calculating" in order to be considered a mathematical calculation. For example, a step of "determining" a variable or number using mathematical methods or "performing" a mathematical operation may also be considered mathematical calculations when the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claim in light of the specification encompasses a mathematical calculation”. (see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(I)(C)(v. using an algorithm for determining the optimal number of visits by a business representative to a client, In re Maucorps, 609 F.2d 481, 482, 203 USPQ 812, 813 (CCPA 1979)). Furthermore, the claim(s) fail to amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself, (see MPEP 2106.05(f)(i). A commonplace business method or mathematical algorithm being applied on a general purpose computer, Alice Corp. Pty. Ltd. V. CLS Bank Int’l, 573 U.S. 208, 223, 110 USPQ2d 1976, 1983 (2014); Gottschalk v. Benson, 409 U.S. 63, 64, 175 USPQ 673, 674 (1972); Versata Dev. Group, Inc. v. SAP Am., Inc., 793 F.3d 1306, 1334, 115 USPQ2d 1681, 1701 (Fed. Cir. 2015)). Therefore, the claim(s) are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 as being directed to non-statutory subject matter.
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.
Claims 1, 7 – 8, and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by KIM (US PgPub No. 20200050962).
Regarding claim 1, KIM teaches a method for training an agent based on transfer training (abstract; method for learning), which is a method performed by a computer (paragraph 0044; computer), the method comprising: preparing an agent pre-trained in a first environmental condition (hereinafter referred to as source agent) (figure 2 mark training data (W)); obtaining training data for training of an agent to be trained in a second environmental condition (hereinafter referred to as target agent) different from the first environmental condition by using the source agent (figure 2 original training data (X)); pre-training the target agent based on the training data (figure 2 Data embedding Network G); and performing deep reinforcement training-based training on the pre-trained target agent in the second environmental condition (figure 2 Marked Training Data (X’), Discriminator D, and Learning Network F).
Regarding claim 7, as mentioned above in the discussion of claim 1, KIM teaches all of the limitations of the parent claim. Additionally, KIM teaches wherein the performing of the deep reinforcement training-based training on the pre-trained target agent in the second environmental condition includes performing repeatedly the deep reinforcement training-based training until a training condition including at least one of a problem solving success rate corresponding to the second environmental condition and a predefined number of iterations is satisfied (paragraph 0091; the learning device 100, while increasing an integer k from 2 to n, may repeat the processes above up to the n-th learning network Fn, to thereby acquire an n-th data embedding network Gn).
Regarding claim 8, KIM teaches a system for training an agent based on transfer training (abstract; method for learning also paragraph 0056 desired system), the system comprising: a memory storing a program (paragraphs 0044 and 0113) for training an agent pre-trained in a first environmental condition (hereinafter referred to as a source agent) (figure 2 mark training data (W)) and an agent to be trained (hereinafter referred to as a target agent) based on the source agent in a second environmental condition different from the first environmental condition (figure 2 original training data (X)); and a processor which, while executing the program stored in the memory (paragraphs 0044 and 0113), obtains training data for training of the target agent (figure 2 original training data (X)), pre-trains the target agent based on the training data (figure 2 Data embedding Network G), and then performs deep reinforcement training-based training in the second environmental condition with respect to the pre-trained target agent (figure 2 Marked Training Data (X’), Discriminator D, and Learning Network F).
Regarding claim 14, as mentioned above in the discussion of claim 8, KIM teaches all of the limitations of the parent claim. Additionally, KIM teaches wherein the processor is configured to perform repeatedly the deep reinforcement training-based training until a training condition including at least one of a problem solving success rate corresponding to the second environmental condition and a predefined number of iterations is satisfied (paragraph 0091; the learning device 100, while increasing an integer k from 2 to n, may repeat the processes above up to the n-th learning network Fn, to thereby acquire an n-th data embedding network Gn).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Ziraknejad (US patent No. 9430629) teaches a system with processing data via machine learning.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Usman A Khan whose telephone number is (571)270-1131. The examiner can normally be reached on M - Th 5:30 AM - 2 PM, F 5:30 AM - Noon.
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, Sinh Tran can be reached on (571)272-7564. 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.
Usman Khan
/USMAN A KHAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2637
04/21/2026