DETAILED ACTION
This correspondence is responsive to the Application and Preliminary Amendment filed on August 8, 2023. Claims 1-4, 6-7,9,12-14, 16-20, 22-24 and 26 are pending in the case, with claims 1, 18, 24 and 26 in independent form. Claims 5, 8, 10-11, 21, 25, 27-28 have been cancelled.
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 .
Summary of Detailed Office Action
I. Claims 1-4, 6-7,9,12-14, 16-17, and 24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite
II. Claims 18-20, 22-23 and 26 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite
Claims 1-4, 6-7,9,12-14, 16-20, 22-24 and 26 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
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.
I. Claims 1-4, 6-7,9,12-14, 16-17, and 24 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. Independent claim 1 recites “for each of the one or more queries, performing a reinforcement learning process.” It is not clear what the reinforcement learning process is or is not. For example, is the reinforcement learning process a model, any model all, or not a model at all? It is further unclear what the reinforcement learning process is learning or not learning. It is yet further unclear how a reinforcement learning process generates a first set of answers based on requirements. It is still yet further unclear how a reinforcement learning process iteratively generating updated sets of answers associated with the query based on a set of rewards associated with a set of answers from a preceding iteration. It is further unclear how the first output of the machine learning model is taken into account when generating the answers. Applicant may cancel claim 1 or amend claim 1 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 2-4, 6-7,9,12-14, 16-17 depend from claim 1 and are rejected for the same reasons discussed above with respect to claim 1.
Claim 24 recites a machine that parallels the method of claim 1 and is rejected for the same reasons discussed above with respect to claim 1.
II. Claims 18-20, 22-23 and 26 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. Independent claim 18 recites “for each of the one or more queries performing a reinforcement learning process.” It is not clear what the reinforcement learning process is or is not. For example, is the reinforcement learning process a model, any model all, or not a model at all? It is further unclear what the reinforcement learning process is learning or not learning. It is yet further unclear how a reinforcement learning process obtains a first set of answers to the query based on the one or more requirements. It is still yet further unclear how a reinforcement learning process obtains iteratively generated updated sets of answers associated with the query based on a set of rewards associated with a set of answers from a preceding iteration. It is further unclear how the first output of the machine learning model is taken into account when obtaining the answers. Applicant may cancel claim 18 or amend claim 18 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 19-20 and 22-23 depend from claim 18 and are rejected for the same reasons discussed above with respect to claim 18.
Claim 26 recites a machine that parallels the method of claim 18 and is rejected for the same reasons discussed above with respect to claim 18.
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 1-4, 6-7,9,12-14, 16-20, 22-24 and 26 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claim(s) recite(s) subject matter at a general, high-level of a method for generating one or more answers relating to a model, the method comprising: wherein the first output of the model is intended to fulfil one or more requirements in an environment; for each of the one or more queries performing a process comprising: generating a first set of answers to the query based on the one or more requirements; wherein each reward in the first set of rewards is associated with a respective answer in the first set of answers, wherein each reward in the first set of rewards is determined based on one or more metrics; and iteratively generating updated sets of answers associated with the query based on a set of rewards associated with a set of answers from a preceding iteration until a terminal set of answers is reached, in which a second set of answers is generated based on the first set of rewards; and responsive to at least one reward from the process associated with each query meeting a first predetermined criterion, initiating implementation of the first output of the model in the environment, which are mental processes or concepts that can be performed in the human mind, including observation, evaluation, judgment or opinion, or by a human using pen and paper. MPEP 210604(a)(2)(III). This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application and the claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Claims 1-4, 6-7,9,12-14, 16-20, 22-24 and 26 recite one of the four statutory categories of patent able subject matter and belong to the statutory class(es) of a process (method claims 1-4, 6-7,9,12-14, 16-20, 22-23), a machine (system/apparatus claims 24, 26), and an article of manufacture (non-transitory computer readable media claims ).
Claim 1 recites a method, thus a process and one of the four statutory categories of patentable subject matter. However, claim 1 further recites for generating one or more answers relating to a model, the method comprising: wherein the first output of the model is intended to fulfil one or more requirements in an environment; for each of the one or more queries performing a process comprising: generating a first set of answers to the query based on the one or more requirements; wherein each reward in the first set of rewards is associated with a respective answer in the first set of answers, wherein each reward in the first set of rewards is determined based on one or more metrics; and iteratively generating updated sets of answers associated with the query based on a set of rewards associated with a set of answers from a preceding iteration until a terminal set of answers is reached, in which a second set of answers is generated based on the first set of rewards; and responsive to at least one reward from the process associated with each query meeting a first predetermined criterion, initiating implementation of the first output of the model in the environment, which are mental processes or concepts that can be performed in the human mind, including observation, evaluation, judgment or opinion, or by a human using pen and paper. MPEP 210604(a)(2)(III).
The claim does not include any additional elements which integrate the abstract idea into a practical application since the additional elements consist of:
in a first node (an additional element merely recites the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or merely includes instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea. See also, MPEP 2106.05(f), MPEP 2106.04(d), 2019 Guidance, 84 FR 50 at 55, footnote 30.).
machine learning, ML (This additional element amounts to merely the words to “apply it” (or an equivalent) or are mere instructions to implement an abstract idea or other exception on a computer. MPEP 2106.05(f).) Also, this additional element amounts to no more than generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technologic environment or field of use - The application or use of the judicial exception in this manner does not meaningfully limit the claim by going beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment. MPEP 2106.05(h)).
obtaining one or more queries relating to a first output of the ML model (An additional element of extra-solution activity that courts have identified is well understood, routine and conventional activity for receiving or transmitting data over a network, e.g., using the internet to gather data. See also, MPEP 2106.05(d)(II), MPEP 2106.05(g), 2019 Guidance, 84 FR 50 at 55, 2019 Guidance, 84 FR 50, footnote 31.).
machine learning, ML (This additional element amounts to merely the words to “apply it” (or an equivalent) or are mere instructions to implement an abstract idea or other exception on a computer. MPEP 2106.05(f).) Also, this additional element amounts to no more than generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technologic environment or field of use - The application or use of the judicial exception in this manner does not meaningfully limit the claim by going beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment. MPEP 2106.05(h)).
reinforcement learning (This additional element amounts to merely the words to “apply it” (or an equivalent) or are mere instructions to implement an abstract idea or other exception on a computer. MPEP 2106.05(f).) Also, this additional element amounts to no more than generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technologic environment or field of use - The application or use of the judicial exception in this manner does not meaningfully limit the claim by going beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment. MPEP 2106.05(h)).
obtaining a first set of rewards associated with the query (An additional element of extra-solution activity that courts have identified is well understood, routine and conventional activity for receiving or transmitting data over a network, e.g., using the internet to gather data. See also, MPEP 2106.05(d)(II), MPEP 2106.05(g), 2019 Guidance, 84 FR 50 at 55, 2019 Guidance, 84 FR 50, footnote 31.).
reinforcement learning (This additional element amounts to merely the words to “apply it” (or an equivalent) or are mere instructions to implement an abstract idea or other exception on a computer. MPEP 2106.05(f).) Also, this additional element amounts to no more than generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technologic environment or field of use - The application or use of the judicial exception in this manner does not meaningfully limit the claim by going beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment. MPEP 2106.05(h)).
ML (This additional element amounts to merely the words to “apply it” (or an equivalent) or are mere instructions to implement an abstract idea or other exception on a computer. MPEP 2106.05(f).) Also, this additional element amounts to no more than generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technologic environment or field of use - The application or use of the judicial exception in this manner does not meaningfully limit the claim by going beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment. MPEP 2106.05(h)).
Thus, the claim is directed to the abstract idea.
Further, the additional elements, alone or in combination, do not provide significantly more than the abstract idea itself, because implementation on a computer (MPEP 2106.05(f)) cannot provide significantly more, and generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological field of use does not meaningfully limit the claims (MPEP 2106.04(d)), and transmitting data over a network is well-understood, routine and conventional (MPEP 2106.05(d), and the combination of additional elements does not provide an inventive concept. Thus, the claim is ineligible.
Claim 2, dependent on claim 1, recites only additional abstract ideas for wherein the step of iteratively generating updated sets of answers comprises: generating an updated set of answers to the query based on a set of rewards from a preceding iteration and the one or more requirements; and obtaining an updated set of rewards associated with the query, wherein each reward in the updated set of rewards is associated with a respective answer from the updated set of answers, which are mental processes or concepts that can be performed in the human mind, including observation, evaluation, judgment or opinion, or by a human using pen and paper. MPEP 210604(a)(2)(III).
Claim 3, dependent on claim 2, recites only additional abstract ideas for further comprising performing the step of generating an updated set of answers responsive to a determination that one or more updated answers can be provided that could be associated with a reward that is greater than any of the rewards generated in any previous iteration, which are mental processes or concepts that can be performed in the human mind, including observation, evaluation, judgment or opinion, or by a human using pen and paper. MPEP 210604(a)(2)(III).
Claim 4, dependent on claim 2, recites additional abstract ideas for further comprising: responsive to a determination that one or more answers cannot be provided that could be associated with a reward that is greater than any of the rewards generated in any previous iteration, setting a last generated updated set of answers as the terminal set of answers, or responsive to at least one reward from the process associated with each query meeting a first predetermined criterion, setting a last generated set of answers as the terminal set of answers, which are mental processes or concepts that can be performed in the human mind, including observation, evaluation, judgment or opinion, or by a human using pen and paper. MPEP 210604(a)(2)(III).
The claim does not include any additional elements which integrate the abstract idea into a practical application since the additional elements consist of:
reinforcement learning (This additional element amounts to merely the words to “apply it” (or an equivalent) or are mere instructions to implement an abstract idea or other exception on a computer. MPEP 2106.05(f).) Also, this additional element amounts to no more than generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technologic environment or field of use - The application or use of the judicial exception in this manner does not meaningfully limit the claim by going beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment. MPEP 2106.05(h)).
Claim 6, dependent on claim 1, recites only additional abstract ideas for wherein the step of generating a first set of answers to the query based on the one or more requirements comprises generating a first set of answer (which are mental processes or concepts that can be performed in the human mind, including observation, evaluation, judgment or opinion, or by a human using pen and paper. MPEP 210604(a)(2)(III).) using a Markov Decision Process (which are mathematical concepts including mathematical relationships, mathematical formulas or equations, and mathematical calculations. MPEP 210604(a)(2)(I).).
Claim 7, dependent on claim 1, recites only additional abstract ideas for wherein each answer within the first set of answers is based on a respective templated format, and each respective templated format comprises a Easy Approach to Requirements Syntax template, which are mental processes or concepts that can be performed in the human mind, including observation, evaluation, judgment or opinion, or by a human using pen and paper. MPEP 210604(a)(2)(III).
Claim 9, dependent on claim 1, recites only additional abstract ideas for wherein each answer within the first set of answers comprise at least one of the one or more requirements, at least one answer within each iteration of the updated set of answers comprises a composite answer formed of at least two of the one or more requirements, and the step of iteratively generating updated sets of answers associated with the query until a terminal set of answers is reached comprises iteratively generating updated sets of composite answers associated with the query, which are mental processes or concepts that can be performed in the human mind, including observation, evaluation, judgment or opinion, or by a human using pen and paper. MPEP 210604(a)(2)(III).
Claim 12, dependent on claim 1, does not include any additional elements which integrate the abstract idea into a practical application since the additional elements consist of:
for each of the one or more queries, storing a terminal answer template based on the structure of the terminal set of answers to the query (An additional element of extra-solution activity that courts have identified is well understood, routine and conventional activity for receiving or transmitting data over a network, e.g., using the internet to gather and store data. See also, MPEP 2106.05(d)(II), MPEP 2106.05(g), 2019 Guidance, 84 FR 50 at 55, 2019 Guidance, 84 FR 50, footnote 31.).
Claim 13, dependent on claim 12, does not include any additional elements which integrate the abstract idea into a practical application since the additional elements consist of:
for each of the one or more queries, storing the terminal answer template associated with a query template for the query and/or an indication of a type of a part of the first output that the query referred to (An additional element of extra-solution activity that courts have identified is well understood, routine and conventional activity for receiving or transmitting data over a network, e.g., using the internet to gather and store data. See also, MPEP 2106.05(d)(II), MPEP 2106.05(g), 2019 Guidance, 84 FR 50 at 55, 2019 Guidance, 84 FR 50, footnote 31.).
Claim 14, dependent on claim 12, recites additional abstract ideas for further comprising generating one or more answers to one or more additional queries relating to the second output of the model, wherein the one or more answers are generated based on the terminal answer template, which are mental processes or concepts that can be performed in the human mind, including observation, evaluation, judgment or opinion, or by a human using pen and paper. MPEP 210604(a)(2)(III).
The claim does not include any additional elements which integrate the abstract idea into a practical application since the additional elements consist of:
responsive to receiving one or more queries relating to a second output of the ML model (An additional element of extra-solution activity that courts have identified is well understood, routine and conventional activity for receiving or transmitting data over a network, e.g., using the internet to gather data. See also, MPEP 2106.05(d)(II), MPEP 2106.05(g), 2019 Guidance, 84 FR 50 at 55, 2019 Guidance, 84 FR 50, footnote 31.).
ML (This additional element amounts to merely the words to “apply it” (or an equivalent) or are mere instructions to implement an abstract idea or other exception on a computer. MPEP 2106.05(f).) Also, this additional element amounts to no more than generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technologic environment or field of use - The application or use of the judicial exception in this manner does not meaningfully limit the claim by going beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment. MPEP 2106.05(h)).
Claim 15, dependent on claim 1, recites additional abstract ideas for further comprising wherein the one or more queries are generated based on one or more respective query templates associated with a type of the first output of the model, which are mental processes or concepts that can be performed in the human mind, including observation, evaluation, judgment or opinion, or by a human using pen and paper. MPEP 210604(a)(2)(III).
The claim does not include any additional elements which integrate the abstract idea into a practical application since the additional elements consist of:
ML (This additional element amounts to merely the words to “apply it” (or an equivalent) or are mere instructions to implement an abstract idea or other exception on a computer. MPEP 2106.05(f).) Also, this additional element amounts to no more than generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technologic environment or field of use - The application or use of the judicial exception in this manner does not meaningfully limit the claim by going beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment. MPEP 2106.05(h)).
Claim 16, dependent on claim 1, recites only additional abstract ideas for wherein the one or more metrics comprise one or metrics determined based on one or more of: a comprehensibility of each answer, a succinctness of each answer, an actionability of each answer, a reusability of each answer, an accuracy of each answer and a completeness of each answer, which are mental processes or concepts that can be performed in the human mind, including observation, evaluation, judgment or opinion, or by a human using pen and paper. MPEP 210604(a)(2)(III).
Claim 17, dependent on claim 1, recites additional abstract ideas for wherein the model is configured to determine at least one plan, which are mental processes or concepts that can be performed in the human mind, including observation, evaluation, judgment or opinion, or by a human using pen and paper. MPEP 210604(a)(2)(III).
The claim does not include any additional elements which integrate the abstract idea into a practical application since the additional elements consist of:
ML (This additional element amounts to merely the words to “apply it” (or an equivalent) or are mere instructions to implement an abstract idea or other exception on a computer. MPEP 2106.05(f).) Also, this additional element amounts to no more than generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technologic environment or field of use - The application or use of the judicial exception in this manner does not meaningfully limit the claim by going beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment. MPEP 2106.05(h)).
for a drone to inspect one or more defects in a telecommunication system (This additional element amounts to merely the words to “apply it” (or an equivalent) or are mere instructions to implement an abstract idea or other exception on a computer. MPEP 2106.05(f).) Also, this additional element amounts to no more than generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technologic environment or field of use - The application or use of the judicial exception in this manner does not meaningfully limit the claim by going beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment. MPEP 2106.05(h)).
Claim 18 recites a method, thus a process and one of the four statutory categories of patentable subject matter. However, claim 18 further recites the method comprising: wherein the first output of the model is intended to fulfil one or more requirements in an environment; for each of the one or more queries performing a process comprising: generating a first set of rewards associated with the query based on one or more metrics, wherein each reward in the first set of rewards is associated with a respective answer in the first set of answers; in which a second set of answers is generated based on the first set of rewards; and responsive to at least one reward from the process associated with each query meeting a first predetermined criterion, initiating implementation of the first output of the model in the environment, which are mental processes or concepts that can be performed in the human mind, including observation, evaluation, judgment or opinion, or by a human using pen and paper. MPEP 210604(a)(2)(III).
The claim does not include any additional elements which integrate the abstract idea into a practical application since the additional elements consist of:
in a second node (an additional element merely recites the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or merely includes instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea. See also, MPEP 2106.05(f), MPEP 2106.04(d), 2019 Guidance, 84 FR 50 at 55, footnote 30.).
for obtaining one or more answers relating to a machine learning model (An additional element of extra-solution activity that courts have identified is well understood, routine and conventional activity for receiving or transmitting data over a network, e.g., using the internet to gather data. See also, MPEP 2106.05(d)(II), MPEP 2106.05(g), 2019 Guidance, 84 FR 50 at 55, 2019 Guidance, 84 FR 50, footnote 31.).
obtaining one or more queries relating to a first output of the ML model (An additional element of extra-solution activity that courts have identified is well understood, routine and conventional activity for receiving or transmitting data over a network, e.g., using the internet to gather data. See also, MPEP 2106.05(d)(II), MPEP 2106.05(g), 2019 Guidance, 84 FR 50 at 55, 2019 Guidance, 84 FR 50, footnote 31.).
machine learning, ML (This additional element amounts to merely the words to “apply it” (or an equivalent) or are mere instructions to implement an abstract idea or other exception on a computer. MPEP 2106.05(f).) Also, this additional element amounts to no more than generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technologic environment or field of use - The application or use of the judicial exception in this manner does not meaningfully limit the claim by going beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment. MPEP 2106.05(h)).
reinforcement learning (This additional element amounts to merely the words to “apply it” (or an equivalent) or are mere instructions to implement an abstract idea or other exception on a computer. MPEP 2106.05(f).) Also, this additional element amounts to no more than generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technologic environment or field of use - The application or use of the judicial exception in this manner does not meaningfully limit the claim by going beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment. MPEP 2106.05(h)).
obtaining a first set of answers to the query based on the one or more requirements (An additional element of extra-solution activity that courts have identified is well understood, routine and conventional activity for receiving or transmitting data over a network, e.g., using the internet to gather data. See also, MPEP 2106.05(d)(II), MPEP 2106.05(g), 2019 Guidance, 84 FR 50 at 55, 2019 Guidance, 84 FR 50, footnote 31.).
obtaining iteratively generated updated sets of answers associated with the query based on a set of rewards associated with a set of answers from a preceding iteration until a terminal set of answers is reached (An additional element of extra-solution activity that courts have identified is well understood, routine and conventional activity for receiving or transmitting data over a network, e.g., using the internet to gather data. See also, MPEP 2106.05(d)(II), MPEP 2106.05(g), 2019 Guidance, 84 FR 50 at 55, 2019 Guidance, 84 FR 50, footnote 31.).
reinforcement learning (This additional element amounts to merely the words to “apply it” (or an equivalent) or are mere instructions to implement an abstract idea or other exception on a computer. MPEP 2106.05(f).) Also, this additional element amounts to no more than generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technologic environment or field of use - The application or use of the judicial exception in this manner does not meaningfully limit the claim by going beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment. MPEP 2106.05(h)).
ML (This additional element amounts to merely the words to “apply it” (or an equivalent) or are mere instructions to implement an abstract idea or other exception on a computer. MPEP 2106.05(f).) Also, this additional element amounts to no more than generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technologic environment or field of use - The application or use of the judicial exception in this manner does not meaningfully limit the claim by going beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment. MPEP 2106.05(h)).
Thus, the claim is directed to the abstract idea.
Further, the additional elements, alone or in combination, do not provide significantly more than the abstract idea itself, because implementation on a computer (MPEP 2106.05(f)) cannot provide significantly more, and generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological field of use does not meaningfully limit the claims (MPEP 2106.04(d)), and transmitting data over a network is well-understood, routine and conventional (MPEP 2106.05(d), and the combination of additional elements does not provide an inventive concept. Thus, the claim is ineligible.
Claim 19, dependent on claim 18, recites additional abstract ideas for further comprising generating the one or more queries based on one or more respective query templates associated with a type of the first output of the model, which are mental processes or concepts that can be performed in the human mind, including observation, evaluation, judgment or opinion, or by a human using pen and paper. MPEP 210604(a)(2)(III).
The claim does not include any additional elements which integrate the abstract idea into a practical application since the additional elements consist of:
ML (This additional element amounts to merely the words to “apply it” (or an equivalent) or are mere instructions to implement an abstract idea or other exception on a computer. MPEP 2106.05(f).) Also, this additional element amounts to no more than generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technologic environment or field of use - The application or use of the judicial exception in this manner does not meaningfully limit the claim by going beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment. MPEP 2106.05(h)).
Claim 20, dependent on claim 18, recites only additional abstract ideas for wherein each answer within the first set of answers is based on a respective templated format, and each respective templated format comprises a Easy Approach to Requirements Syntax template, which are mental processes or concepts that can be performed in the human mind, including observation, evaluation, judgment or opinion, or by a human using pen and paper. MPEP 210604(a)(2)(III).
Claim 22, dependent on claim 18, recites only additional abstract ideas for wherein the one or more metrics comprise one or metrics determined based on one or more of: a comprehensibility of each answer, a succinctness of each answer, an actionability of each answer, a reusability of each answer, an accuracy of each answer and a completeness of each answer, which are mental processes or concepts that can be performed in the human mind, including observation, evaluation, judgment or opinion, or by a human using pen and paper. MPEP 210604(a)(2)(III).
Claim 23, dependent on claim 18, recites additional abstract ideas for wherein the model is configured to determine at least one plan, which are mental processes or concepts that can be performed in the human mind, including observation, evaluation, judgment or opinion, or by a human using pen and paper. MPEP 210604(a)(2)(III).
The claim does not include any additional elements which integrate the abstract idea into a practical application since the additional elements consist of:
ML (This additional element amounts to merely the words to “apply it” (or an equivalent) or are mere instructions to implement an abstract idea or other exception on a computer. MPEP 2106.05(f).) Also, this additional element amounts to no more than generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technologic environment or field of use - The application or use of the judicial exception in this manner does not meaningfully limit the claim by going beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment. MPEP 2106.05(h)).
for a drone to inspect one or more defects in a telecommunication system (This additional element amounts to merely the words to “apply it” (or an equivalent) or are mere instructions to implement an abstract idea or other exception on a computer. MPEP 2106.05(f).) Also, this additional element amounts to no more than generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technologic environment or field of use - The application or use of the judicial exception in this manner does not meaningfully limit the claim by going beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment. MPEP 2106.05(h)).
Claim 24 recites A first node, the first node comprising processing circuitry, thus a machine and one of the four statutory categories of patentable subject matter. However, claim 24 further recites for generating one or more answers relating to a model, wherein the first output of the model is intended to fulfil one or more requirements in an environment; for each of the one or more queries perform a process comprising: generating a first set of answers to the query based on the one or more requirements; wherein each reward in the first set of rewards is associated with a respective answer in the first set of answers, wherein each reward in the first set of rewards is determined based on one or more metrics; and iteratively generating updated sets of answers associated with the query based on a set of rewards associated with a set of answers from a preceding iteration until a terminal set of answers is reached, in which a second set of answers is generated based on the first set of rewards; and responsive to at least one reward from the process associated with each query meeting a first predetermined criterion, initiate implementation of the first output of the model in the environment, which are mental processes or concepts that can be performed in the human mind, including observation, evaluation, judgment or opinion, or by a human using pen and paper. MPEP 210604(a)(2)(III).
The claim does not include any additional elements which integrate the abstract idea into a practical application since the additional elements consist of:
A first node (an additional element merely recites the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or merely includes instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea. See also, MPEP 2106.05(f), MPEP 2106.04(d), 2019 Guidance, 84 FR 50 at 55, footnote 30.).
machine learning, ML (This additional element amounts to merely the words to “apply it” (or an equivalent) or are mere instructions to implement an abstract idea or other exception on a computer. MPEP 2106.05(f).) Also, this additional element amounts to no more than generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technologic environment or field of use - The application or use of the judicial exception in this manner does not meaningfully limit the claim by going beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment. MPEP 2106.05(h)).
the first node comprising processing circuitry configured to cause the first node to (an additional element merely recites the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or merely includes instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea. See also, MPEP 2106.05(f), MPEP 2106.04(d), 2019 Guidance, 84 FR 50 at 55, footnote 30.).
obtain one or more queries relating to a first output of the ML model (An additional element of extra-solution activity that courts have identified is well understood, routine and conventional activity for receiving or transmitting data over a network, e.g., using the internet to gather data. See also, MPEP 2106.05(d)(II), MPEP 2106.05(g), 2019 Guidance, 84 FR 50 at 55, 2019 Guidance, 84 FR 50, footnote 31.).
machine learning, ML (This additional element amounts to merely the words to “apply it” (or an equivalent) or are mere instructions to implement an abstract idea or other exception on a computer. MPEP 2106.05(f).) Also, this additional element amounts to no more than generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technologic environment or field of use - The application or use of the judicial exception in this manner does not meaningfully limit the claim by going beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment. MPEP 2106.05(h)).
reinforcement learning (This additional element amounts to merely the words to “apply it” (or an equivalent) or are mere instructions to implement an abstract idea or other exception on a computer. MPEP 2106.05(f).) Also, this additional element amounts to no more than generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technologic environment or field of use - The application or use of the judicial exception in this manner does not meaningfully limit the claim by going beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment. MPEP 2106.05(h)).
obtaining a first set of rewards associated with the query (An additional element of extra-solution activity that courts have identified is well understood, routine and conventional activity for receiving or transmitting data over a network, e.g., using the internet to gather data. See also, MPEP 2106.05(d)(II), MPEP 2106.05(g), 2019 Guidance, 84 FR 50 at 55, 2019 Guidance, 84 FR 50, footnote 31.).
reinforcement learning(This additional element amounts to merely the words to “apply it” (or an equivalent) or are mere instructions to implement an abstract idea or other exception on a computer. MPEP 2106.05(f).) Also, this additional element amounts to no more than generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technologic environment or field of use - The application or use of the judicial exception in this manner does not meaningfully limit the claim by going beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment. MPEP 2106.05(h)).
ML (This additional element amounts to merely the words to “apply it” (or an equivalent) or are mere instructions to implement an abstract idea or other exception on a computer. MPEP 2106.05(f).) Also, this additional element amounts to no more than generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technologic environment or field of use - The application or use of the judicial exception in this manner does not meaningfully limit the claim by going beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment. MPEP 2106.05(h)).
Thus, the claim is directed to the abstract idea.
Further, the additional elements, alone or in combination, do not provide significantly more than the abstract idea itself, because implementation on a computer (MPEP 2106.05(f)) cannot provide significantly more, and generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological field of use does not meaningfully limit the claims (MPEP 2106.04(d)), and transmitting data over a network is well-understood, routine and conventional (MPEP 2106.05(d), and the combination of additional elements does not provide an inventive concept. Thus, the claim is ineligible.
Claim 26 recites A second node, second node comprising processing circuitry, thus a machine and one of the four statutory categories of patentable subject matter. However, claim 26 further recites for the wherein the first output of the model is intended to fulfil one or more requirements in an environment; for each of the one or more queries perform a process comprising: generating a first set of rewards associated with the query based on one or more metrics, wherein each reward in the first set of rewards is associated with a respective answer in the first set of answers; in which a second set of answers is generated based on the first set of rewards; and responsive to at least one reward from the reinforcement learning process associated with each query meeting a first predetermined criterion, initiate implementation of the first output of the model in the environment, which are mental processes or concepts that can be performed in the human mind, including observation, evaluation, judgment or opinion, or by a human using pen and paper. MPEP 210604(a)(2)(III).
The claim does not include any additional elements which integrate the abstract idea into a practical application since the additional elements consist of:
A second node (an additional element merely recites the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or merely includes instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea. See also, MPEP 2106.05(f), MPEP 2106.04(d), 2019 Guidance, 84 FR 50 at 55, footnote 30.).
obtaining one or more answers relating to a machine learning model (An additional element of extra-solution activity that courts have identified is well understood, routine and conventional activity for receiving or transmitting data over a network, e.g., using the internet to gather data. See also, MPEP 2106.05(d)(II), MPEP 2106.05(g), 2019 Guidance, 84 FR 50 at 55, 2019 Guidance, 84 FR 50, footnote 31.).
second node comprising processing circuitry configured to cause the second node to (an additional element merely recites the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or merely includes instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea. See also, MPEP 2106.05(f), MPEP 2106.04(d), 2019 Guidance, 84 FR 50 at 55, footnote 30.).
obtain one or more queries relating to a first output of the ML model (An additional element of extra-solution activity that courts have identified is well understood, routine and conventional activity for receiving or transmitting data over a network, e.g., using the internet to gather data. See also, MPEP 2106.05(d)(II), MPEP 2106.05(g), 2019 Guidance, 84 FR 50 at 55, 2019 Guidance, 84 FR 50, footnote 31.).
machine learning, ML (This additional element amounts to merely the words to “apply it” (or an equivalent) or are mere instructions to implement an abstract idea or other exception on a computer. MPEP 2106.05(f).) Also, this additional element amounts to no more than generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technologic environment or field of use - The application or use of the judicial exception in this manner does not meaningfully limit the claim by going beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment. MPEP 2106.05(h)).
reinforcement learning (This additional element amounts to merely the words to “apply it” (or an equivalent) or are mere instructions to implement an abstract idea or other exception on a computer. MPEP 2106.05(f).) Also, this additional element amounts to no more than generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technologic environment or field of use - The application or use of the judicial exception in this manner does not meaningfully limit the claim by going beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment. MPEP 2106.05(h)).
obtaining a first set of answers to the query based on the one or more requirements (An additional element of extra-solution activity that courts have identified is well understood, routine and conventional activity for receiving or transmitting data over a network, e.g., using the internet to gather data. See also, MPEP 2106.05(d)(II), MPEP 2106.05(g), 2019 Guidance, 84 FR 50 at 55, 2019 Guidance, 84 FR 50, footnote 31.).
obtaining iteratively generated updated sets of answers associated with the query based on a set of rewards associated with a set of answers from a preceding iteration until a terminal set of answers is reached, (An additional element of extra-solution activity that courts have identified is well understood, routine and conventional activity for receiving or transmitting data over a network, e.g., using the internet to gather data. See also, MPEP 2106.05(d)(II), MPEP 2106.05(g), 2019 Guidance, 84 FR 50 at 55, 2019 Guidance, 84 FR 50, footnote 31.).
ML (This additional element amounts to merely the words to “apply it” (or an equivalent) or are mere instructions to implement an abstract idea or other exception on a computer. MPEP 2106.05(f).) Also, this additional element amounts to no more than generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technologic environment or field of use - The application or use of the judicial exception in this manner does not meaningfully limit the claim by going beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment. MPEP 2106.05(h)).
Thus, the claim is directed to the abstract idea.
Further, the additional elements, alone or in combination, do not provide significantly more than the abstract idea itself, because implementation on a computer (MPEP 2106.05(f)) cannot provide significantly more, and generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological field of use does not meaningfully limit the claims (MPEP 2106.04(d)), and transmitting data over a network is well-understood, routine and conventional (MPEP 2106.05(d), and the combination of additional elements does not provide an inventive concept. Thus, the claim is ineligible.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-4, 6-7,9,12-14, 16-17, and 24 would be allowable if the rejections under
35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being indefinite are overcome and if the rejections under 35 U.S.C. 101 as being directed to an abstract idea without significantly more are overcome.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. US-20210232940-A1, US-20210150341-A1, US-20210152581-A1, US-20200143005-A1, US-11228505-B1, US-20200320435-A1, US-10986126-B2, US-20200012681-A1
Heuillet, Alexandre et al. Explainability in Deep Reinforcement Learning, Knowledge-Based Systems, Volume 214, 2021, 106685, ISSN 0950-7051, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.knosys.2020.106685 (https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0950705120308145) (Year: 2020
Wang et al., “A Reinforcement Learning Framework for Explainable Recommendation”, retrieved from «https://www.microsoft.com/en-us/research/uploads/prod/2018/08/main.pdf», 2018, 10 pages.
Prashan Madumal, et al., "Explainable Reinforcement Learning Through a Causal Lens", arXiv:1905.10958v2 [cs.LG] Cornell University, 2019. (Year: 2019)
Marco Tulio Ribeiro et al, KDD '16: Proceedings of the 22nd ACM SIGKDD International Conference on Knowledge Discovery and Data Mining "Why Should I Trust You?": Explaining the Predictions of Any Classifier Pages 1135 â 1144, DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1145/2939672.2939778 (Year: 2016)
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BARBARA LEVEL whose telephone number is (303)297-4748. The examiner can normally be reached Monday through Friday 8:00 AM - 5:00 PM MT.
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, Mariela Reyes can be reached at (571) 270-1006. 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.
/BARBARA M LEVEL/ Examiner, Art Unit 2142
Prosecution Insights