The present application, filed on or after 16 March 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
DETAILED ACTION
This office action is in response to Applicant’s submission filed on 6 July 2026. THIS ACTION IS FINAL.
Status of Claims
Claims 1-20 are pending.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as indefinite.
Claim 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 for being directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more.
There is no art rejection for claims 1-20.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
112(b) Rejection
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.
A claim is indefinite if, when read in light of the specification, it fails to inform, with reasonable certainty, those skilled in the art about the scope of the invention. Nautilus, Inc. v. Biosig Instruments, Inc., 110 USPQ.2d 1688, U.S. Supreme Court (2014).
Claims 1-20 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.
Regarding claims 1 / 10 / 19: “… to the problem solving a computationally difficult process in order to provide to provide …”, difficult is a relative term and the specification does not provide clear definition to determine the boundary, the claim is therefore indefinite. For the purpose of applying prior art, this limitation “… to the problem solving a computationally difficult process in order to provide to provide …” is construed to be “… in order to provide …”
Regarding claims 2-9 / 11-18 / 20, which depend on above rejected claim 1 / 10 / 19, are rejected for the same reason.
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.
Judicial Exception
Claims 1-20 of the claimed invention are directed to a judicial exception, an abstract idea, without significantly more.
(Independent Claims) With regards to claim 1 / 10 / 19, the claim recites a process / machine / article of manufacturing, which falls into one of the statutory categories.
2A – Prong 1: the claim, in part, recites “creating two or more sub-MDPs, each sub-MDP comprising a portion of the set of state variables and the set of actions, wherein each sub- MDP comprises less than the set of state variables in an MDP with a complete set of the set of state variables, and wherein each sub- MDP comprises a same reward function; executing … each sub-MDP, wherein results of execution of a sub-MDP of the two or more sub-MDPs comprises a policy and an expected reward from the reward function, the policy of the sub-MDP maps states of the sub-MDP to actions; aggregating, based on the expected rewards of the results, the actions of the policies of the sub-MDPs to create a resultant policy comprising a set of resultant actions; and generating … using state entries for the set of state variables, results to the problem based on the resultant policy, the results to the problem solving a computationally difficult process in order to provide an acceptable solution using a fraction of time and computational resource” (mental process and/or math concept), as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components. That is, other than reciting generic computer elements, nothing in the claim element precludes the step from practically being performed in the mind. For example, but for the language about generic computer elements, “creating”, “executing”, “aggregating”, “generating”, in the limitation citied above encompasses evaluating a problem defined in finite states to create / process / evaluate state data / generate desired results based on MDP, which is based on observation, evaluation, judgement, and/or opinion, that could be performed by human using paper / pen / calculator. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
2A – Prong 2: This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim recites the additional elements of: (a) generic computer elements (merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea, MPEP 2106.05(f)); (b) “receiving data elements for a problem, wherein the data elements comprise finite state data for a set of state variables and a finite set of actions, a portion of the state data corresponding to each of the set of state variables representing a state, and wherein the problem is to be formulated using a Markov Decision Process ("MDP"), the MDP providing a framework for modeling decision making in situations where outcomes are partly random and partly under control of a decision maker” (insignificant extra solution activity, MPEP 2106.05(g) and/or WURC (MPEP 2106.05(d)(II))). For (a), these computer components are recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as a generic processor performing a generic computer function) which is mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea, as discussed in MPEP 2106.05(f). For (b), these steps are recited at a high level of generality and amounts to extra-solution activity of data input/output as described in MPEP.2106.05(g). 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"). Accordingly, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to an abstract idea.
2B Analysis: The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above, the additional element of generic computer element merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea (MPEP 2106.05(f)). the additional element of “receiving data elements for a problem, wherein the data elements comprise finite state data for a set of state variables and a finite set of actions, a portion of the state data corresponding to each of the set of state variables representing a state, and wherein the problem is to be formulated using a Markov Decision Process ("MDP"), the MDP providing a framework for modeling decision making in situations where outcomes are partly random and partly under control of a decision maker”, is insignificant extra solution activity (MPEP 2106.05(g)) and/or WURC (MPEP 2106.05(d)(II)). The claim is not patent eligible.
(Dependent claims)
Claims 2-9 are dependent on claim 1 and include all the limitations of claim 1. Therefore, claims 2-9 recite the same abstract ideas.
With regards to claim 2, the claim recites further limitation of “wherein aggregating the policies of the sub-MDPs comprises: averaging at least a portion of the policies of two or more of the two or more sub-MDPs; and/or using majority voting for at least a portion of the actions of the policies of the two or more sub-MDPs”, which is further steps for MDP based data processing, which is based on observation, evaluation, judgement, and/or opinion, that could be performed by human using paper / pen / calculator, hence a mental process. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Except citing generic computer elements to implement the abstract idea, there is no additional element showing integration into a practical application or adding something significantly more to the abstract idea. The claim is not patent eligible.
With regards to claim 3, the claim recites further limitation of “wherein aggregating the actions of the sub-MDPs comprises: determining that the expected reward of a sub-MDP of the two or more sub-MDPs is an outlier with respect to the expected rewards of other sub-MDPs of the two or more sub-MDPs; and excluding the sub-MDP with the expected reward determined to be an outlier from aggregation of the actions of the sub-MDPs”, which is further steps for MDP based data processing, which is based on observation, evaluation, judgement, and/or opinion, that could be performed by human using paper / pen / calculator, hence a mental process. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Except citing generic computer elements to implement the abstract idea, there is no additional element showing integration into a practical application or adding something significantly more to the abstract idea. The claim is not patent eligible.
With regards to claim4, the claim recites further limitation of “wherein the method further comprises ordering the state variables of the set of state variables prior to creating the two or more sub-MDPs according to a state importance criteria”, which is further steps for MDP based data processing, which is based on observation, evaluation, judgement, and/or opinion, that could be performed by human using paper / pen / calculator, hence a mental process. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Except citing generic computer elements to implement the abstract idea, there is no additional element showing integration into a practical application or adding something significantly more to the abstract idea. The claim is not patent eligible.
With regards to claim 5, the claim recites further limitation of “wherein a combination of the set of state variables of each of the two or more sub-MDPs equals the state variables of the set of state variables of the data elements”, which is further steps for MDP based data processing, which is based on observation, evaluation, judgement, and/or opinion, that could be performed by human using paper / pen / calculator, hence a mental process. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Except citing generic computer elements to implement the abstract idea, there is no additional element showing integration into a practical application or adding something significantly more to the abstract idea. The claim is not patent eligible.
With regards to claim 6, the claim recites further limitation of “wherein each sub-MDP comprises a transition probabilities matrix determining transition probabilities between states of the sub-MDP once actions of the set of actions of the sub-MDP are performed”, which is further steps for MDP based data processing, which is based on observation, evaluation, judgement, and/or opinion, that could be performed by human using paper / pen / calculator, hence a mental process. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Except citing generic computer elements to implement the abstract idea, there is no additional element showing integration into a practical application or adding something significantly more to the abstract idea. The claim is not patent eligible.
With regards to claim 7, the claim recites further limitation of “wherein the expected reward of a sub-MDP of the two or more sub-MDPs is determined for a pair of a state of the sub-MDP and an action of the set of actions of the sub-MDP”, which is further steps for MDP based data processing, which is based on observation, evaluation, judgement, and/or opinion, that could be performed by human using paper / pen / calculator, hence a mental process. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Except citing generic computer elements to implement the abstract idea, there is no additional element showing integration into a practical application or adding something significantly more to the abstract idea. The claim is not patent eligible.
With regards to claim 8, the claim recites further limitation of “further comprising determining a binning strategy for each state variable and each action, wherein a binning strategy for a state variable comprises constraining the state variable to one of a limited number of possible values and a binning strategy for an action comprises constraining the action to one of a limited number of possible values”, which is further steps for MDP based data processing, which is based on observation, evaluation, judgement, and/or opinion, that could be performed by human using paper / pen / calculator, hence a mental process. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Except citing generic computer elements to implement the abstract idea, there is no additional element showing integration into a practical application or adding something significantly more to the abstract idea. The claim is not patent eligible.
With regards to claim 9, the claim recites further limitation of “wherein the problem comprises: a controls process comprising a controller wherein the resultant set of actions is implemented in the controller; a manufacturing process comprising optimization of the manufacturing process; and/or a queueing system”, which is further steps for MDP based data processing, which is based on observation, evaluation, judgement, and/or opinion, that could be performed by human using paper / pen / calculator, hence a mental process. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Except citing generic computer elements to implement the abstract idea, there is no additional element showing integration into a practical application or adding something significantly more to the abstract idea. The claim is not patent eligible.
Claims 11-18, 20 are substantially similar to claims 2-10, 19. The arguments as given above for claims 2-10, 19, are applied, mutatis mutandis, to claims 11-18, 20, therefore the rejection of claims 2-10, 19 are applied accordingly.
Response to Argument
Applicant’s arguments filed 6 July 2026 has been fully considered but they are not fully persuasive.
Regarding 101 rejections,
1)Applicant amended the independent claims to add “… solving a computationally difficult process …”, then cited some court cases and argued that human mind cannot perform the steps (p.8-13).
Examiner replies: First “difficult” is a relative term, without including in the claim the scope and bound into the claim, it introduced indefiniteness into the claim. Second, Applicant did not provide evidence why any of the elements claimed cannot be performed by human. The 101 rejection is maintained.
2) Applicant argued that the claims are amended toward the “practical application” of “utilize[ing] digital capabilities to assist in food preparation” … and reiterative it is a difficult task which cannot be processed by human mind (p.13-p.18).
Examiner replies: The “food preparation application” does not appear in the amended claim. As stated above, the amended claims do not include any element showing complexity that human cannot handle. The 101 rejection is maintained.
3) To overcome the issues, suggest Applicant to include additional inventive concept elements into claims: (1) to show integration into a practical application; and/or (2) to show a specific physical implementation that is not WURC; (3) that is not practical for human mind to process and not WURC.
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 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 TSU-CHANG LEE whose telephone number is 571-272-3567. The fax number is 571-273-3567.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Omar Fernandez Rivas, can be reached 571-272-2589.
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.
/TSU-CHANG LEE/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2128
Prosecution Insights