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
This is Non-Final Office Action, in responses to Patent Application filed 06/28/2023; claims Priority from Provisional Application 63508494, filed 06/15/2023. Claim(s) 1-20 are pending. Claim(s) 1, 15-16 and 19 is/are independent.
In addition, 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.
Information Disclosure Statement
A signed and dated copy of applicant’s IDS, which was filed 06/28/2023 and 08/22/2025 is/are attached to this Office Action.
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.
Claim 15 recites the limitation(s) said, "15. The method of claim (???... Emphasis added) wherein generating the heuristics on the planning problem (see claim 10... Emphasis added) comprises: determining, by the one or more processors, a first optimal solution; and utilizing, by the one or more processors, the heuristics to perform the K* search over the pruned search space, wherein the K* search comprises utilizing the stubborn sets to prune successor nodes to the first optimal solution to generate the set of solutions"... in claim 15.
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) 1-20 fail to recite statutory subject matter, as defined in 35 U.S.C. 101, because: The claimed invention is/are directed to a judicial exception (i.e., abstract idea) without significantly more.
Step 1: YES (Claim(s) is/are process, machine, manufacture or composition of the matter). ... for generating a set of solutions for a planning problem comprising:
obtaining, by one or more processors, a planning problem; obtaining, by the one or more processors, one or more bounding conditions for each solution in the set of solutions for the planning problem;
based on the one or more bounding conditions, transforming, by the one or more processors, the planning problem into a single-goal form of the planning problem;
computing, by the one or more processors, stubborn sets over the single-goal form of the planning problem;
defining, by the one or more processors, a pruned search space utilizing the single-goal form of the planning problem and the stubborn sets;
performing, by the one or more processors, a K* search over the pruned search space; and obtaining, by the one or more processors, based on the K* search, the set of solutions... and therefore, fall into one of the four categories of patent eligible subject matter (process, machine, manufacture or composition of the matter).
Step 2A : Prong One: ( whether a claim recites a judicial exception ?) the claim(s) recite ... a computer method/system/medium... for “generating a set of solutions for a planning problem” comprising:
obtaining, by one or more processors, a planning problem; “obtaining”, by the one or more processors, one or more “bounding conditions for each solution” in the set of solutions for the planning problem;
“based on the one or more bounding conditions, transforming”, by the one or more processors, the planning problem into a single-goal form of the planning problem;
“computing, by the one or more processors, stubborn sets over the single-goal form of the planning problem”;
“defining”, by the one or more processors, “a pruned search space” utilizing the single-goal form of the planning problem and the stubborn sets;
performing, by the one or more processors, “a K* search over the pruned search space”; and obtaining, by the one or more processors, “based on the K* search”, the set of solutions...
These limitation(s) recite mental processes and mathematical calculation...since... “computing, ... stubborn sets over the single-goal form of the planning problem ...and performing a K* search over the pruned search space” .... [is a high level mathematical calculation(s) (see the current specifications USPGPUB 20240420020 A1 Para 37 for this interpretations...] ...then [APPLY IT] to “generate a set of solutions for a planning problem”....Thus these limitation(s) recite mental processes and mathematical calculation(s).
--------------Step 2A : Prong Two: (Do the claim(s) recite “additional element(s) that integrate the “Judicial Exception” into “A Practical Application” ? The claim(s) recite additional limitation(s) such as “computer” for computing, ... the stubborn sets over the single-goal form of the planning problem ...and performing a K* search over the pruned search space...then [APPLY IT] to “generating a set of solutions for a planning problem”....it is noted, the improvement in the abstract idea itself ... but do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application, i.e., the computing, ... stubborn sets over the single-goal form of the planning problem ...and performing a K* search over the pruned search space” ...then [APPLY IT] to “generate a set of solutions for a planning problem”...
These limitation(s) only recite a generic computer component(s) that only amounts to mere instructions to implement the abstract idea on a computer, and therefore, do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. (MPEP 2106.04(d), 2106.05(f)).
Step 2B: (Whether a Claim Amounts to Significantly More) ? The claim(s) recite additional limitation(s) such as ... “computer” for computing, ... stubborn sets over the single-goal form of the planning problem ...and performing a K* search over the pruned search space...then [APPLY IT] to “generate a set of solutions for a planning problem”......These limitation(s) only recite a generic computer component(s) that only amounts to mere instructions to implement the abstract idea on a computer, and therefore, do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself (MPEP 2106.05, 2106.04(d) and 2106.05(f)).
As to the dependent claim(s) 2-14, 16-18 and 20 further recite, addition limitation(s) such as, (a top-quality plan addressing the planning problem, set of solutions does not include solutions that comprise re-orderings of other solutions in the set, solution cost and time, total time value, the set of solutions for duplicates; and removing, top-quality plan comprises tasks, heuristics on the planning problem; and utilizing, by the one or more processors, the heuristics to perform the K* search over the pruned search space, A* search and Eppstein's algorithm (EA) to extract the heuristics from an explicit graph including an A* search space, graph solutions, graph solutions do not comprise a threshold number of graph solutions, , continuing the A* search until meeting a pre-defined switching criteria, bounding condition is a cost bounding, optimal solution and utilizing the stubborn sets to prune successor nodes to the first optimal solution to generate the set of solutions, etc.,) These limitation(s) only amounts to mere instructions to implement the abstract idea ...and do not include elements that amount to significantly more than the abstract idea and are also rejected under the same rational.
Accordingly, claims 1-20 fail to recite statutory subject matter, as defined in 35 U.S.C. 101.
In addition, Claim(s) 19-20 recite “a computer readable storage media”. The Specification in USPGPUB 20240420020 A1, paragraph 23 (i.e.,...These computer readable program instructions are stored in various types of computer readable storage media, such as cache 121 and the other storage media discussed below. The program instructions, and associated data, are accessed by processor set 110 to control and direct performance of the inventive methods. In computing environment 100, at least some of the instructions for performing the inventive methods may be stored in block 150 in persistent storage 11...). Thus, the computer readable storage media is construed broadly as a “transmitting media/signal...” etc. Accordingly, Claim(s) 19-20 fail to recite statutory subject matter, as defined in 35 U.S.C. 101.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim(s) 1-20 would be allowable if rewritten and/or amending to remedy the 101 and 112 rejection(s).
Reason for Allowance
Under the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claimed limitation which is consistence with the Applicant's Specification, the prior arts of recorded when taken individually or in combination do not expressly teach or render obvious the limitations recited in claim(s) 1, 15-16 and 19 when taken in the context of the claims as a whole, especially the concept of, … “generating a set of solutions for a planning problem comprising: obtaining, by one or more processors, a planning problem; obtaining, by the one or more processors, one or more bounding conditions for each solution in the set of solutions for the planning problem; based on the one or more bounding conditions, transforming, by the one or more processors, the planning problem into a single-goal form of the planning problem; computing, by the one or more processors, stubborn sets over the single-goal form of the planning problem; defining, by the one or more processors, a pruned search space utilizing the single-goal form of the planning problem and the stubborn sets; performing, by the one or more processors, a K* search over the pruned search space; and obtaining, by the one or more processors, based on the K* search, the set of solutions ..”. As claimed and further supports in the specifications PGPUB 20240420020 A1- The Abstract and Para(s) 5-6.
In addition, neither a reference uncovered that would have provided a basis of evidence for asserting a motivation, nor one of ordinary skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, would have combined them to arrive at the present invention as recited in the context of independent claim(s) 1, 15-16 and 19 as a whole.
Thus, claim(s) 1, 15-16 and 19 is/are allowed over the prior arts of record. Dependent claims 2-14, 17-18 and 20 are also allowable due to its dependency of independent claim(s) 1, 15-16 and 19.
Any comments considered necessary by applicant must be submitted no later than the payment of the issue fee and, to avoid processing delays, should preferably accompany the issue fee. Such submissions should be clearly labeled “Comments on Statement of Reasons for Allowance.”
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Azyurt et al.(“ US 20110137830 A1” filed 10/01/2010, relates to identifying a plurality of sub-solvers may be acquired. The plurality of sub-solvers may be used in a first attempt to find at least one solution to a problem that may be defined in the acquired information. At least two of the sub-solvers in the plurality of sub-solvers may be of different sub-solver types. The sub-solvers may be identified based on the acquired information. One or more starting points for the identified sub-solvers may be identified and transferred to the identified sub-solvers. One or more outputs, that indicate one or more results associated with the first attempt to find at least one solution to the problem, may be acquired from the identified sub-solvers. One or more sub-solvers may be identified, based on the acquired one or more outputs, for use in a second attempt to find at least one solution to the problem... [the Abstract].
Anton et al., NPL (“New Algorithms for the Top-K Planning Problem” Published 2014 by IBM Research Division, 8 pages, describing, Cost-optimal planning is a variant of a general planning problem, where all actions have non-negative costs, and the solution is a valid plan that minimizes the sum of the costs of all actions included in the plan. ln this paper, we propose a new planning problem formulation. top-k planning, which is a generalization of cost-optimal planning with applications in plan recognition, diagnosis, explanation generation, and other domains. No existing planners can solve this problem out of the box..... implemented and compared a total of four new planning algorithms for top-k planning. Two of the algori1hms are based on the k shortest paths algorithm by Epstein and a recently proposed variant of that algorithm for dynamic graphs called K*, by Aljazzar and Loue..... also implemented a branch and bound algorithm, and an iterative replanting algorithm based on LAMA. Our experiments show that the top-k planning problem can be solved efficiently. In time comparable to cost-optimal planning..... also show that the implementation of top-k planning based on the K* algorithm out performs other algorithms.. [The Abstract].
Babaki et al., NPL (“Solving Classical AI Planning Problems Using Planning-Independent CP Modeling and Search” Published 2020, 9 pages, describing The combinatorial problems that constraint programming typically solves belong to the class of NP-hard problems. The Al planning community focuses on even harder problems: for example, classical planning is PSPACE-HARD. A natural and well-known constraint programming approach to classical planning solves a succession of fixed planning problems, though to date it has had limited success. We revisit this approach in light of recent progress on general-purpose branching heuristics. We conduct an empirical comparison to show the importance of using effective combinatorial search heuristics with this approach and that the quality of the plans produced is sometimes comparable to that of state-of-the-art planners.. [The Abstract].
Blum et al., NPL (“MetaRoute: fast search for relevant metabolic routes for interactive network navigation and visualization” Published 2008, 2 pages, presents MetaRoute, an efficient search algorithm based on atom mapping rules and path weighting schemes that returns relevant or textbook-like routes between a source and a product metabolite within seconds for genome-scale networks. Its speed allows the algorithm to be used interactively through a web interface to visualize relevant routes and local networks for one or multiple organisms based on data from KEGG.. [The Abstract].
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to QUOC A TRAN whose telephone number is (571)272-8664. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9am-5pm EST.
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, Cesar Paula can be reached at 571-272-4128. 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.
/QUOC A TRAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2145