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 .
Detailed Action
The following action is in response to the communication(s) received on 09/17/2026.
As of the claims filed 09/17/2026:
Claims 1 and 11 have been amended.
Claims 1-20 are pending.
Claims 1 and 11 are independent claims.
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 05/07/2025 has been entered.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed 09/17/2026 have been fully considered, but are not fully persuasive.
With respect to the rejection under 35 USC § 101:
Applicant asserts that, when taken as a whole, the claims recite an improvement to a technological problem in autonomous mobile robots which depend on the sensors whose reliability may change during operation (p.7 ¶3). Examiner respectfully submits that the improvements are merely directed towards performing an inference using the selected subset of features based on the ranking based on the combined feature importance, all of which are abstract ideas. Thus, the details regarding the robot environment are merely generally linked to the recited abstract ideas.
Applicant further asserts that claim 1 does not merely recite an “improved inference’ but rather an affirmative operative effect of an autonomous robot in its environment (p.8 last ¶). Examiner respectfully submits that the action of the robot (thus a computer) provides no additional details to the claimed invention other than a mere application of the identified abstract ideas (i.e., the claims merely recite that the robot “perform[s] an operation in response to a condition in the environment”); thus, the autonomous mobile robot as currently recited cannot provide significantly more than the abstract ideas.
Applicant further asserts that the claims recite a specific technological function in which the resulting inference is used to operate the AMR (p.9 ¶2). However, the claims as currently recited do not show the particular technological operations occurring on the AMR to suggest a technological improvement to such operation of the AMR. Thus, this limitation remains generally linked to the abstract idea.
Applicant further asserts that the eligibility rejection is characterized at an unduly high level of abstraction (p.9¶4). Examiner respectfully submits that, as described above, the particular operations, such as details to the architecture of the AMR in response to the inference are not recited in the claims. Thus, the claims cannot be more than directed towards abstract ideas of an inference method in a generally linked robot environment.
Applicant further asserts that the dynamic determination causes real-time inference for the operation of the AMR (p.9 last ¶). Examiner respectfully submits that, as described above, the particular operations, such as details to the architecture of the AMR in response to the inference are not recited in the claims. Thus, the claims cannot be more than directed towards abstract ideas of an inference method in a generally linked robot environment.
Thus, the claims remain ineligible.
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 an abstract idea without significantly more.
Claim 1 recites method, thus a process, one of the four statutory categories of patentable subject matter (Step 1). However, Claim 1 further recites:
calculating, at inference time for the data point, a lazy feature importance for an available feature of the data point, the lazy feature importance corresponding to an importance of a feature value of the data point for classifying that data point, which is an evaluation or judgement that can be performed in the human mind;
combining the lazy feature importance with a health score of a sensor that collected data associated with the available feature, to obtain a final feature score for the available feature, wherein the health score indicates reliability of the sensor at the time of inference, which is an evaluation or judgement that can be performed in the human mind;
ranking the features of the data point based on the respective final feature scores to generate a feature ranking for the data point, which is an evaluation or judgement that can be performed in the human mind;
selecting a subset of features of the data point based on the feature ranking such that higher ranked features are selected and features associated with unreliable sensors are excluded from the subset, which is an evaluation or judgement that can be performed in the human mind;
performing... an inference, using only those features in the subset of features, and the inference concerns an aspect of the autonomous mobile robot or the environment., which is an evaluation or judgement that can be performed in the human mind.
Thus, the claim recites an abstract idea under Step 2A Prong 1.
Under Step 2A Prong 2, the claim does not include any additional elements which integrate the abstract idea into a practical application, since the additional elements consist of:
consolidating a data point concerning an autonomous mobile robot that operates in an environment, which is merely an insignificant extra-solution activity of data gathering, which by MPEP 2106.05(g) cannot integrate an abstract idea into a practical application;
…, with a machine learning model configured to accept a variable number of input features, an inference…, , as the performance of an abstract idea on a computer is not more than instructions to "apply it" on a computer, which by MPEP 2106.05(f) cannot integrate an abstract idea into a practical application;
wherein the subset of features is dynamically determined for the data point and the inference is performed in real time at an edge device of the autonomous mobile robot…, which merely specifies the particular field of use or particular technological environment in which the abstract idea is to be performed, which by MPEP 2106.05(h) cannot integrate the abstract idea into a practical application;
and, based on the inference, causing the autonomous mobile robot to perform an operation in response to a condition in the environment…, as the performance of an abstract idea on a computer is not more than instructions to "apply it" on a computer, which by MPEP 2106.05(f) cannot integrate an abstract idea into a practical application.
Thus, the claim is directed towards an 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)); the particular field of use or particular technological environment (MPEP 2106.05(h)) cannot provide significantly more; and the activity of data gathering(MPEP 2106.05(g)) cannot provide significantly more, as storing and retrieving information in memory is well understood, routine, and conventional (MPEP 2106.05(d)(II)(iv)) and the combination of additional elements does not provide an inventive concept. Thus, the claim is ineligible.
Claim 2, dependent upon Claim 1, further recites
the data point comprises a set of feature values that each pertain to a respective feature, which is merely a detail of an abstract idea (calculating a lazy feature importance for an available feature of the data point).
Thus, the claim recites an abstract idea under Step 2A Prong 1.
Under Step 2A Prong 2 and 2B, the claim does not recite any new additional elements which could integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or provide significantly more than the abstract idea itself. Thus, the claim is ineligible.
Claim 3, dependent upon Claim 1, further recites no additional abstract ideas. However:
Under Step 2A Prong 2, the claim does not include any additional elements which integrate the abstract idea into a practical application, since the additional elements consist of:
the available feature is a feature of either the autonomous mobile robot, or of the environment, which merely specifies the particular field of use or particular technological environment in which the abstract idea is to be performed, which by MPEP 2106.05(h) cannot integrate the abstract idea into a practical application.
Thus, the claim is directed towards an abstract idea.
Further, under Step 2B, the additional element does not provide significantly more than the abstract idea itself, because the particular field of use or particular technological environment (MPEP 2106.05(h)) cannot provide significantly more. Thus, the claim is ineligible.
Claim 4, dependent upon Claim 1, further recites no additional abstract ideas. However:
Under Step 2A Prong 2, the claim does not include any additional elements which integrate the abstract idea into a practical application, since the additional elements consist of:
the inference comprises a prediction or classification of an event detected, or anticipated, in the environment by the autonomous mobile robot., which merely specifies the particular field of use or particular technological environment in which the abstract idea is to be performed, which by MPEP 2106.05(h) cannot integrate the abstract idea into a practical application.
Thus, the claim is directed towards an abstract idea.
Further, under Step 2B, the additional element does not provide significantly more than the abstract idea itself, because the particular field of use or particular technological environment (MPEP 2106.05(h)) cannot provide significantly more. Thus, the claim is ineligible.
Claim 5, dependent upon Claim 1, further recites no additional abstract ideas. However:
Under Step 2A Prong 2, the claim does not include any additional elements which integrate the abstract idea into a practical application, since the additional elements consist of:
the model comprises a lazy learner classifier, as the performance of an abstract idea on a computer is not more than instructions to "apply it" on a computer, which by MPEP 2106.05(f) cannot integrate an abstract idea into a practical application.
Thus, the claim is directed towards an abstract idea.
Further, under Step 2B, the additional element does not provide significantly more than the abstract idea itself, because implementation on a computer (MPEP 2106.05(f)) cannot provide significantly more. Thus, the claim is ineligible.
Claim 6, dependent upon Claim 1, further recites no additional abstract ideas. However:
Under Step 2A Prong 2, the claim does not include any additional elements which integrate the abstract idea into a practical application, since the additional elements consist of:
the model is operable to run on an edge device, as the performance of an abstract idea on a computer is not more than instructions to "apply it" on a computer, which by MPEP 2106.05(f) cannot integrate an abstract idea into a practical application.
Thus, the claim is directed towards an abstract idea.
Further, under Step 2B, the additional element does not provide significantly more than the abstract idea itself, because implementation on a computer (MPEP 2106.05(f)) cannot provide significantly more. Thus, the claim is ineligible.
Claim 7, dependent upon Claim 1, further recites
the health score indicates a level of reliability of the sensor, which is merely a detail of an abstract idea (combining the lazy feature importance with a health score of a sensor…);
Thus, the claim recites an abstract idea under Step 2A Prong 1.
Under Step 2A Prong 2 and 2B, the claim does not recite any new additional elements which could integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or provide significantly more than the abstract idea itself. Thus, the claim is ineligible.
Claim 8, dependent upon Claim 1, further recites
the lazy feature importance is determined based on data collected by the sensor, which is merely a detail of an abstract idea (calculating a lazy feature importance…).
Thus, the claim recites an abstract idea under Step 2A Prong 1.
Under Step 2A Prong 2 and 2B, the claim does not recite any new additional elements which could integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or provide significantly more than the abstract idea itself. Thus, the claim is ineligible.
Claim 9, dependent upon Claim 1, further recites no additional abstract ideas. However:
Under Step 2A Prong 2, the claim does not include any additional elements which integrate the abstract idea into a practical application, since the additional elements consist of:
the sensor comprises a sensor deployed on the autonomous mobile robot, or a sensor in the environment, which merely specifies the particular field of use or particular technological environment in which the abstract idea is to be performed, which by MPEP 2106.05(h) cannot integrate the abstract idea into a practical application.
Thus, the claim is directed towards an abstract idea.
Further, under Step 2B, the additional element does not provide significantly more than the abstract idea itself, because the particular field of use or particular technological environment (MPEP 2106.05(h)) cannot provide significantly more. Thus, the claim is ineligible.
Claim 10, dependent upon Claim 1, further recites no additional abstract ideas. However:
Under Step 2A Prong 2, the claim does not include any additional elements which integrate the abstract idea into a practical application, since the additional elements consist of:
the machine learning model is updated, with the features in the subset of features, in real time, which merely specifies the particular field of use or particular technological environment in which the abstract idea is to be performed, which by MPEP 2106.05(h) cannot integrate the abstract idea into a practical application.
Thus, the claim is directed towards an abstract idea.
Further, under Step 2B, the additional element does not provide significantly more than the abstract idea itself, because the particular field of use or particular technological environment (MPEP 2106.05(h)) cannot provide significantly more. Thus, the claim is ineligible.
Claims 11-20 recite A non-transitory storage medium, thus an article of manufacture, one of the four statutory categories of patentable subject matter. However, Claims 11-20 recite having stored therein instructions that are executable by one or more hardware processors to perform operations comprising precisely the abstract ideas and additional elements of Claims 1-10, respectively. Therefore, Step 2A Prong 1 analysis remains the same. As for Step 2A Prong 2 and Step 2B: performance on a computer cannot integrate an abstract idea into a practical application (Step 2A Prong 2) nor provide significantly more than the abstract idea itself (Step 2B) (MPEP 2106.05(f)), Claims 11-20 are rejected as subject-matter ineligible for reasons set forth in the rejections of Claims 1-10, respectively.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-20 have been searched, but no prior art which teaches them has been uncovered.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JOSEP HAN whose telephone number is (703)756-1346. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 9am-5pm.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Kakali Chaki can be reached on (571) 272-3719. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/J.H./Examiner, Art Unit 2122
/MICHAEL H HOANG/PRIMARY EXAMINER, Art Unit 2122
