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 .
Claim Objections
Claims 5 and 19 objected to because of the following informalities:
One of the claims 5 and 19 should be deleted as they contain the same limitations.
Appropriate correction is required.
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 9 is 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
As to claim 9, the limitation “terminating, by the one or more processors, based on exhausting a layer corresponding the bound” is not understood by the examiner. The applicant doesn’t clarify what exactly is being terminated and how a layer (and exhausting of a layer) is connected to the rest of the claims. It is not mandatory for a two-phase search to include a layer. The applicant needs to go into more detail what the layer is and how it is exhausted and how clear steps that define “terminating.” The examiner will interpret the claims as if the iterative search is terminated based on a value being outside the bound.
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.
Step One
Claims 1 - 14 and 19 are directed to a computer-implemented method.
Claims 15 – 18 are directed to a system with structural components.
Thus, each of the claims falls within one of the four statutory categories (i.e., process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter).
Claim 20 recites a “computer-readable storage media” has program instructions executable by a processing circuit. The Specification fails to expressly limit the recited “media” to a statutory embodiment. Thus, the plain and ordinary meaning of the recited "media" includes signals, carrier waves, etc.
Accordingly, the recited “computer-readable storage media’” is not a process, a machine, a manufacture or a composition of matter, and Claim 20 fails to recite statutory subject matter as defined in 35 U.S.C. 101.
As to claims 1,
Step 2A, Prong One
The claim recites in part:
obtaining, by one or more processors, a planning problem;
For example, a person obtaining information describing a problem to be solved, such as reading, hearing, or observing the information.
obtaining, by one or more processors, a bound on a number of plans;
For example, a person obtaining a limit on the number of possible plans by reading it, hearing it, or determining it mentally.
identifying, by the one or more processors, symmetries of the planning problem;
For example, a person can mentally identify equivalent parts of a planning problem by recognizing similarities.
utilizing, by the one or more processors, the symmetries to identify an orbit search space of the planning problem;
For example, a person mentally using the identified similarities to group equivalent planning options and define a reduced set of options to consider.
executing, by the one or more processors, a two-phase search iteratively over the orbit space to identify surrogate plans in the orbit space;
For example, a person mentally conduct a first coarse search or the plans and a second fine search of the remaining plans to select the best plan to solve the problem at hand.
generating, by the one or more processors, new plans, wherein the generating comprises utilizing the surrogate plans and the symmetries of the planning problem to map the surrogate plans to new plans; and
For example, a person can create a plurality of new plans based on updates and modifications of previously selected plans.
extending, by the one or more processors, the new plans with the symmetries, wherein the extended new plans comprise the set of solutions for the planning problem.
For example, a person can create a plurality of new plans based on updates and modifications of previously selected plans to solve newer/different problem.
As drafted and under its broadest reasonable interpretation, these limitation covers performance of the limitation in the mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion) or with the aid of pencil and paper but for the recitation of generic computer components.
Accordingly, at Step 2A, Prong One, the claim is directed to an abstract idea.
Step 2A, Prong Two
The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application.
The claim recites the additional elements of one or more processors, which are recited at a high-level of generality and amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component (See MPEP 2106.05(f)).
The recitation of a two-phase search amounts to generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular environment of field of use (See MPEP 2106.05(h)).
Accordingly, at Step 2A, Prong Two, the additional elements individually or in combination do no integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Step 2B
In accordance with Step 2B, the claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more that the judicial exception.
As discussed above, the additional elements of one or more processors, which are recited at a high-level of generality and amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component (See MPEP 2106.05(f)).
The recitation of a two-phase search amounts to generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular environment of field of use (See MPEP 2106.05(h)).
Accordingly, at Step 2B the additional elements individually or in combination do not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
As to claim 2,
Step 2A, Prong One
The claim is directed to the abstract idea described above in claim 1, but does not recite any other abstract ideas or any other judicial exceptions.
Step 2A, Prong Two
The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application.
The recitation of a “two-phase search comprises a K* search” amounts to generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular environment of field of use (See MPEP 2106.05(h)).
Accordingly, at Step 2A, Prong Two, the additional elements individually or in combination do no integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Step 2B
In accordance with Step 2B, the claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more that the judicial exception.
As discussed above, the recitation of “two-phase search comprises a K* search” amounts to generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular environment of field of use (See MPEP 2106.05(h)).
Accordingly, at Step 2B the additional elements individually or in combination do not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
As to claim 3,
Step 2A, Prong One
The claim is directed to the abstract idea described above in claim 2, but does not recite any other abstract ideas or any other judicial exceptions.
Step 2A, Prong Two
The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application.
The recitation of a “a first phase of the two phase search comprises an A*
search in the orbit search space” amounts to generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular environment of field of use (See MPEP 2106.05(h)).
Accordingly, at Step 2A, Prong Two, the additional elements individually or in combination do no integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Step 2B
In accordance with Step 2B, the claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more that the judicial exception.
As discussed above, the recitation of “a first phase of the two phase search comprises an A* search in the orbit search space” amounts to generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular environment of field of use (See MPEP 2106.05(h)).
Accordingly, at Step 2B the additional elements individually or in combination do not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
As to claim 4,
Step 2A, Prong One
The claim is directed to the abstract idea described above in claim 2, but does not recite any other abstract ideas or any other judicial exceptions.
Step 2A, Prong Two
The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application.
The recitation of a “a second phase of the two phase search utilizes
Eppstein's algorithm” amounts to generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular environment of field of use (See MPEP 2106.05(h)).
Accordingly, at Step 2A, Prong Two, the additional elements individually or in combination do no integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Step 2B
In accordance with Step 2B, the claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more that the judicial exception.
As discussed above, the recitation of “a second phase of the two phase search utilizes Eppstein's algorithm” amounts to generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular environment of field of use (See MPEP 2106.05(h)).
Accordingly, at Step 2B the additional elements individually or in combination do not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
As to claims 5,
Step 2A, Prong One
The claim recites in part:
wherein executing the two phase search comprises terminating the two-phase search if a number of plans identified by the two phase search is the bound or if queues for each phase of the two phase search are exhausted by the executing before the number of plans identified by the two phase search is the bound.
For example, a person mentally conduct a first coarse search or the plans and a second fine search of the remaining plans to select the best plan to solve the problem at hand.
As drafted and under its broadest reasonable interpretation, these limitation covers performance of the limitation in the mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion) or with the aid of pencil and paper but for the recitation of generic computer components.
Accordingly, at Step 2A, Prong One, the claim is directed to an abstract idea.
Step 2A, Prong Two
The claim does not include additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application or amount to significantly more than the judicial exception itself.
Step 2B
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to “significantly more” to the judicial exception.
As to claims 6,
Step 2A, Prong One
The claim recites in part:
wherein each solution of the set of solutions comprises a top-quality plan addressing the planning problem.
For example, a person mentally conduct a first coarse search or the plans and a second fine search of the remaining plans to select the best plan to solve the problem at hand.
As drafted and under its broadest reasonable interpretation, these limitation covers performance of the limitation in the mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion) or with the aid of pencil and paper but for the recitation of generic computer components.
Accordingly, at Step 2A, Prong One, the claim is directed to an abstract idea.
Step 2A, Prong Two
The claim does not include additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application or amount to significantly more than the judicial exception itself.
Step 2B
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to “significantly more” to the judicial exception.
As to claims 7,
Step 2A, Prong One
The claim recites in part:
generating, by the one or more processors, the planning problem.
For example, a person can write down a planning problem based on visual or hearing observations.
As drafted and under its broadest reasonable interpretation, these limitation covers performance of the limitation in the mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion) or with the aid of pencil and paper but for the recitation of generic computer components.
Accordingly, at Step 2A, Prong One, the claim is directed to an abstract idea.
Step 2A, Prong Two
The claim does not include additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application or amount to significantly more than the judicial exception itself.
Step 2B
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to “significantly more” to the judicial exception.
As to claim 8,
Step 2A, Prong One
The claim is directed to the abstract idea described above in claim 1, but does not recite any other abstract ideas or any other judicial exceptions.
Step 2A, Prong Two
The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. The recitation of:
automatically implementing, by the one or more processors, in a computing system, at least one solution of the set of solutions.
is recited at a high-level of generality and amounts to no more than adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea. Accordingly, this additional element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea (See MPEP 2106.05(f))
Accordingly, at Step 2A, Prong Two, the additional elements individually or in combination do no integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Step 2B
In accordance with Step 2B, 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:
automatically implementing, by the one or more processors, in a computing system, at least one solution of the set of solutions.
amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer system which does not provide an inventive concept (See MPEP 2106.05(f)).
Accordingly, at Step 2B the additional elements individually or in combination do not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
As to claims 9,
Step 2A, Prong One
The claim recites in part:
wherein executing the two-phase search comprises: terminating, by the one or more processors, based on exhausting a layer corresponding the bound.
For example, a person can stop searching based on any number of factors.
As drafted and under its broadest reasonable interpretation, these limitation covers performance of the limitation in the mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion) or with the aid of pencil and paper but for the recitation of generic computer components.
Accordingly, at Step 2A, Prong One, the claim is directed to an abstract idea.
Step 2A, Prong Two
The claim does not include additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application or amount to significantly more than the judicial exception itself.
Step 2B
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to “significantly more” to the judicial exception.
As to claims 10,
Step 2A, Prong One
The claim recites in part:
transforming, by the one or more processors, the planning problem into a single-goal form of the planning problem
For example, a person can mentally adjust the multi-goal solution to a single goal solution.
As drafted and under its broadest reasonable interpretation, these limitation covers performance of the limitation in the mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion) or with the aid of pencil and paper but for the recitation of generic computer components.
Accordingly, at Step 2A, Prong One, the claim is directed to an abstract idea.
Step 2A, Prong Two
The claim does not include additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application or amount to significantly more than the judicial exception itself.
Step 2B
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to “significantly more” to the judicial exception.
As to claim 11,
Step 2A, Prong One
The claim is directed to the abstract idea described above in claim 2, but does not recite any other abstract ideas or any other judicial exceptions.
Step 2A, Prong Two
The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. The recitation of:
wherein executing the two-phase search comprises
executing a first phase search in the orbital search space
utilizing Epstein’s algorithm to execute a second phase of the two-phase search
amounts to generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular environment of field of use (See MPEP 2106.05(h)).
Accordingly, at Step 2A, Prong Two, the additional elements individually or in combination do no integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Step 2B
In accordance with Step 2B, the claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more that the judicial exception. As discussed above, the recitation of:
wherein executing the two-phase search comprises
executing a first phase search in the orbital search space
utilizing Epstein’s algorithm to execute a second phase of the two-phase search
amounts to generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular environment of field of use (See MPEP 2106.05(h)).
Accordingly, at Step 2B the additional elements individually or in combination do not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
As to claims 12,
Step 2A, Prong One
The claim recites in part:
wherein executing the first phase comprises: exploring, by the one or more processors, a canonical transition graph for the single-goal form of the planning problem reformulated planning task until a switching event occurs, where the switching event is selected from the group consisting of: exhausting the orbital search space and determining that the second phase of the two-phase search stopped nodes in the orbital search space from expanding.
For example, a person can explore or testing all possible orbital configurations until one is found that meets the solution requirements
As drafted and under its broadest reasonable interpretation, these limitation covers performance of the limitation in the mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion) or with the aid of pencil and paper but for the recitation of generic computer components.
Accordingly, at Step 2A, Prong One, the claim is directed to an abstract idea.
Step 2A, Prong Two
The claim does not include additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application or amount to significantly more than the judicial exception itself.
Step 2B
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to “significantly more” to the judicial exception.
As to claims 13,
Step 2A, Prong One
The claim recites in part:
wherein executing the second phase comprises:
traversing, by the one or more processors, a path graph which is a subgraph of the canonical transition graph for the single-goal form of the planning problem;
based on the traversing, reconstructing, by the one or more processors, the surrogate plans; and
decoding, by the one or more processors, the surrogate plans by utilizing a trace forward algorithm to generate the new plans.
For example, a person mentally follows simplified sequence to reconstruct candidate plans, and then expands each simplified plan step-by-step into a complete new plan.
As drafted and under its broadest reasonable interpretation, these limitation covers performance of the limitation in the mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion) or with the aid of pencil and paper but for the recitation of generic computer components.
Accordingly, at Step 2A, Prong One, the claim is directed to an abstract idea.
Step 2A, Prong Two
The claim does not include additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application or amount to significantly more than the judicial exception itself.
Step 2B
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to “significantly more” to the judicial exception.
As to claims 14,
Step 2A, Prong One
The claim recites in part:
determining, by the one or more processors, that a lowest value in a search queue for the first phase is smaller than a lowest value in a search queue for the second phase; and
switching, by the one or more processors, to the first phase of the two-phase search.
For example, a person compares the smallest number in two lists and, after determining that the first list contains the smaller number, decides to continue searching the first list.
As drafted and under its broadest reasonable interpretation, these limitation covers performance of the limitation in the mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion) or with the aid of pencil and paper but for the recitation of generic computer components.
Accordingly, at Step 2A, Prong One, the claim is directed to an abstract idea.
Step 2A, Prong Two
The claim does not include additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application or amount to significantly more than the judicial exception itself.
Step 2B
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to “significantly more” to the judicial exception.
Claim 15 has similar limitations as claim 1. Therefore, the claim is rejected for the same reasons as above.
The computer system, a memory, and one or more processors are recited at a high-level of generality and amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component (See MPEP 2106.05(f)).
Claim 16 has similar limitations as claim 2. Therefore, the claim is rejected for the same reasons as above.
Claim 17 has similar limitations as claim 3. Therefore, the claim is rejected for the same reasons as above.
Claim 18 has similar limitations as claim 4. Therefore, the claim is rejected for the same reasons as above.
As to claims 19,
Step 2A, Prong One
The claim recites in part:
wherein executing the two phase search comprises terminating the two-phase search if a number of plans identified by the two phase search is the bound or if queues for each phase of the two phase search are exhausted by the executing before the number of plans identified by the two phase search is the bound.
For example, a person searches two lists for possible plans and stops when either the desired number of plans has been found or both lists have been completed reviewed without finding that number.
As drafted and under its broadest reasonable interpretation, these limitation covers performance of the limitation in the mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion) or with the aid of pencil and paper but for the recitation of generic computer components.
Accordingly, at Step 2A, Prong One, the claim is directed to an abstract idea.
Step 2A, Prong Two
The claim does not include additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application or amount to significantly more than the judicial exception itself.
Step 2B
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to “significantly more” to the judicial exception.
Claim 20 has similar limitations as claim 1. Therefore, the claim is rejected for the same reasons as above.
The computer program product, a computer readable storage media, and processing circuit are recited at a high-level of generality and amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component (See MPEP 2106.05(f)).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1, 5-10, 15, 19, and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Christophel et al (US 2014/0258193)
As to claim 1, Christophel et al teaches a computer-implemented method for generating a set of solutions for a planning problem (paragraph [0004]…Various embodiments are generally directed to techniques to refine solutions to linear optimization problems using symmetries) comprising:
obtaining, by one or more processors, a planning problem (paragraph [0025]… The analysis system 100 may comprise the solution refinement application 120. The solution refinement application 120 may be generally arranged to receive an optimization problem 110 composed of an objective 113 and constraints 115)(Examiner’s Note: “receive an optimization problem 110” reads on “obtaining, by one or more processors, a planning problem”);
obtaining, by one or more processors, a bound on a number of plans (paragraph [0026]…The solution refinement application 120 may comprise a configuration component 130. The configuration component 130 may be operative to receive an optimization problem 110 described by an objective 113 and constraints 115 on a plurality of variables)(Examiner’s Note: “configuration component 130 may be operative to receive an optimization problem 110 described by an objective 113 and constraints 115 on a plurality of variables” reads on “obtaining, by one or more processors, a bound on a number of plans”);
identifying, by the one or more processors, symmetries of the planning problem (paragraph [0028]… the symmetries 165 may be provided via generators, mathematical descriptors of the most basic symmetries that can be combined together to produce the entire space of possible symmetries for the constraints 115. The symmetries 165 may be provided by a symmetries component 160);
utilizing, by the one or more processors, the symmetries to identify an orbit search space of the planning problem (paragraph [0053]…the solution refinement application 120 may include an orbit generation component 470. The orbit generation component 470 may be operative to determine one or more orbits 475 based on the symmetries 165. The improvement component 190 may be operative to use the orbits 475 to determine the improved feasible solution 195 to the optimization problem 110)(Examiner’s Note: “”The orbit generation component 470 may be operative to determine one or more orbits 475 based on the symmetries 165” reads on “utilizing, by the one or more processors, the symmetries to identify an orbit search space of the planning problem”);
executing, by the one or more processors, a two-phase search iteratively over the orbit space to identify surrogate plans in the orbit space (paragraph [0056]…Permuting feasible solutions according to the symmetries 165 guarantees that the permutations will also be feasible according to the objective 113. However, a more expansive search space of alternative solution may be created by limiting the values assigned to the variables within each orbit to their summed value across all the variables within that orbit. For example, if an orbit including the first, third, seventh, and twelfth variables have the assigned values (4,0,0,7) for the initial feasible solution 145, the summed value of those variables may be limited to 11, the sum of their values in the initial feasible solution 145) (Examiner’s Note: “Permuting feasible solutions according to the symmetries 165 guarantees that the permutations will also be feasible according to the objective 113. However, a more expansive search space of alternative solution may be created by limiting the values assigned to the variables within each orbit to their summed value across all the variables within that orbit.” reads on “a two-phase search iteratively over the orbit space to identify surrogate plans in the orbit space”);
generating, by the one or more processors, new plans, wherein the generating comprises utilizing the surrogate plans and the symmetries of the planning problem to map the surrogate plans to new plans (paragraph [0047]…The logic flow 300 may determine whether untried permutations are present in the pool of known permutations at block 312. A permutation may be untried if it has not been tested against the current solution to see if it improves it. As such, if a new current solution is determined at block 310, every permutation in the pool may be untried. However, if the existing current solution was maintained at block 310, then in some cases the pool may be exhausted. If the pool is not exhausted, the logic flow 300 proceeds back to block 306 to continue searching through the pool of known solutions. If the pool is exhausted, the logic flow 300 proceeds to block 314)(Examiner’s Note: “A permutation may be untried if it has not been tested against the current solution to see if it improves it. As such, if a new current solution is determined at block 310, every permutation in the pool may be untried” reads on “generating, by the one or more processors, new plans, wherein the generating comprises utilizing the surrogate plans and the symmetries of the planning problem to map the surrogate plans to new plans”); and
extending, by the one or more processors, the new plans with the symmetries, wherein the extended new plans comprise the set of solutions for the planning problem (paragraph [0040]…The logic flow 200 may end at block 218. Ending the logic flow 200 may comprise the termination of the bulk of the work by the improvement component 190, with the exception of returning the current solution as the improved feasible solution 195. As the current solution has been iteratively improved according to the permutations, it may represent the best solution achievable by permuting the initial feasible solution 145. However, in some cases, such as where the logic flow 200 was terminated after a set period of time or fixed number of cycles, it may merely represent the best solution found during the allowed period. If no permutation was found that improved the initial feasible solution 145, the logic flow 200 (and therefore the improvement component 190) may either return the initial feasible solution 145 as the improved feasible solution 195 or may return an indication that no improvement was determined)(Examiner’s Note: “As the current solution has been iteratively improved according to the permutations, it may represent the best solution achievable by permuting the initial feasible solution 145” reads on “extending, by the one or more processors, the new plans with the symmetries, wherein the extended new plans comprise the set of solutions for the planning problem”).
As to claim 5, Christophel et al teaches the method, wherein executing the two phase search comprises terminating the two-phase search if a number of plans identified by the two phase search is the bound or if queues for each phase of the two phase search are exhausted by the executing before the number of plans identified by the two phase search is the bound (paragraph [0039]…The logic flow 200 may determine whether to continue at block 216. In some cases, the logic flow 200 may terminate if all permutations have been attempted with the current solution without improving it. In other cases, the logic flow 200 may be given a limited number of cycles, limited number of time, or other limitation on the extent of its processing that occurs prior to the exhaustion of the possible permutations. In these cases, the logic flow 200 may terminate prior to every permutation being attempted. If the logic flow 200 is determined to continue, it proceeds back to block 206. If the logic flow 200 is determined to not continue, it proceeds to block 218).
As to claim 6, Christophel et al teaches the method wherein each solution of the set of solutions comprises a top-quality plan addressing the planning problem (paragraph [0027]…the solution refinement application 120 may comprise an optimization interface component 150 operative on the processor circuit to receive an initial feasible solution 145 comprising an assignment of values to the plurality of variables).
As to claim 7, Christophel et al teaches the method further comprising: generating, by the one or more processors, the planning problem (paragraph [0041]… FIG. 3 illustrates an example of a logic flow 300 for the analysis system 100. As shown in FIG. 3, the logic flow 300 performs a search of the space of feasible solutions generated by permuting the initial feasible solution 145. It will be appreciated that logic flow 300 illustrates one possible search technique across the space of permuted solutions and that other search techniques may be used in combination with symmetries 165).
As to claim 8, Christophel et al teaches the method further comprising:
automatically implementing, by the one or more processors, in a computing system, at
least one solution of the set of solutions (paragraph [0033]…The logic flow 200 may initialize a current solution to be the received initial feasible solution 145 at block 204. The logic flow 200 may attempt to iteratively improve the current solution by using the symmetries 165 to generate permutations. By beginning with the initial feasible solution 145 the various permutations that comprise the current solution are guaranteed to be additional feasible solutions according to the constraints 115 by the definition of what qualifies as a symmetry of the variables for the constraints).
As to claim 9, Christophel et al teaches the method wherein executing the two phase search comprises: terminating, by the one or more processors, based on exhausting a layer corresponding the bound (paragraph [0039]… The logic flow 200 may determine whether to continue at block 216. In some cases, the logic flow 200 may terminate if all permutations have been attempted with the current solution without improving it. In other cases, the logic flow 200 may be given a limited number of cycles, limited number of time, or other limitation on the extent of its processing that occurs prior to the exhaustion of the possible permutations. In these cases, the logic flow 200 may terminate prior to every permutation being attempted. If the logic flow 200 is determined to continue, it proceeds back to block 206. If the logic flow 200 is determined to not continue, it proceeds to block 218)(Examiner’s Note: “the logic flow 200 may terminate if all permutations have been attempted with the current solution without improving it” reads on “terminating, by the one or more processors, based on exhausting a layer corresponding the bound”).
As to claim 10, Christophel et al teaches the method further comprising: transforming, by the one or more processors, the planning problem into a single-goal
form of the planning problem (paragraph [0019]…The potential solution vector may be multiplied with the objective function vector to determine the single numerical value representing the quality of the potential solution. A linear optimization program attempts to determine a feasible solution that minimizes (or maximizes) this single numerical value, the product of the potential solution vector and the objective function vector. It will be appreciated that any of the known techniques for representing linear optimization problems may be used. Additional information may be specified indicating where one or more of the variables are limited to integer values).
Claim 15 has similar limitations as claim 1. Therefore, the claim is rejected for the same reasons as above.
Claim 19 has similar limitations as claim 4. Therefore, the claim is rejected for the same reasons as above.
Claim 20 has similar limitations as claim 1. Therefore, the claim is rejected for the same reasons as above.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claim(s) 2 – 4 and 16 - 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Christophel et al (US 2014/0258193) in view of RIABOV et al (US 2017/0147923).
As to claim 2, Christophel et al teaches a two-phase search.
Christophel et al fails to explicitly show/teach that the two-phase search comprises a K* search.
However, RIABOV et al teaches a first phase of the two phase search comprises: an A* search in the orbit search space (paragraph [0100]…There are several techniques to computing the top-k plans. In this example the top-k planning planner called TK* is used that is based on the use of a k shortest paths technique called the K* algorithm as it is shown that this planner outperforms other planners or techniques for top-k planning. K shortest paths problem is an extension of the shortest path problem where in addition of finding one shortest path, a set of paths is found, representing the k shortest paths. The K* algorithm is an improved variant of the Eppstein's k shortest paths algorithm (Eppstein 1998) because it does not require the complete graph of states and actions to be available in memory. Informally, k* search switches between A* and Dijkstra searches to evaluate and find the top-k plans. Its main idea is to keep track of what is called a “sidetrack” edges which indicate how far a partial plan is from the optimal plan. For more details of the k* algorithm please see (Riabov et al. 2014). TK*, applies K* to search in state space, with dynamic grounding of actions, similar to how a planner may use A* search. Soundness and completeness of TK* follows directly from the soundness and completeness of the K* algorithm).
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art, at the time the invention was made, for Christophel et al’s two-phase search to comprises a K* search, as in RIABOV et al, for the purpose of evaluating and finding the top-k plans.
As to claim 3, Christophel et al teaches a two-phase search.
Christophel et al fails to explicitly show/teach wherein a first phase of the two phase search comprises an A* search in the orbit search space.
However, RIABOV et al teaches a first phase of the two phase search comprises an A* search in the orbit search space. (paragraph [0100]…There are several techniques to computing the top-k plans. In this example the top-k planning planner called TK* is used that is based on the use of a k shortest paths technique called the K* algorithm as it is shown that this planner outperforms other planners or techniques for top-k planning. K shortest paths problem is an extension of the shortest path problem where in addition of finding one shortest path, a set of paths is found, representing the k shortest paths. The K* algorithm is an improved variant of the Eppstein's k shortest paths algorithm (Eppstein 1998) because it does not require the complete graph of states and actions to be available in memory. Informally, k* search switches between A* and Dijkstra searches to evaluate and find the top-k plans. Its main idea is to keep track of what is called a “sidetrack” edges which indicate how far a partial plan is from the optimal plan. For more details of the k* algorithm please see (Riabov et al. 2014). TK*, applies K* to search in state space, with dynamic grounding of actions, similar to how a planner may use A* search. Soundness and completeness of TK* follows directly from the soundness and completeness of the K* algorithm).
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art, at the time the invention was made, for Christophel et al’s a first phase of the two phase search comprises an A* search in the orbit search space, as in RIABOV et al, for the purpose of soundness and completeness.
As to claim 4, Christophel et al teaches a two-phase search.
Christophel et al fails to explicitly show/teach wherein a second phase of the two phase search utilizes Eppstein’s algorithm.
However, RIABOV et al teaches wherein a second phase of the two phase search utilizes Eppstein’s algorithm. (paragraph [0100]…There are several techniques to computing the top-k plans. In this example the top-k planning planner called TK* is used that is based on the use of a k shortest paths technique called the K* algorithm as it is shown that this planner outperforms other planners or techniques for top-k planning. K shortest paths problem is an extension of the shortest path problem where in addition of finding one shortest path, a set of paths is found, representing the k shortest paths. The K* algorithm is an improved variant of the Eppstein's k shortest paths algorithm (Eppstein 1998) because it does not require the complete graph of states and actions to be available in memory. Informally, k* search switches between A* and Dijkstra searches to evaluate and find the top-k plans. Its main idea is to keep track of what is called a “sidetrack” edges which indicate how far a partial plan is from the optimal plan. For more details of the k* algorithm please see (Riabov et al. 2014). TK*, applies K* to search in state space, with dynamic grounding of actions, similar to how a planner may use A* search. Soundness and completeness of TK* follows directly from the soundness and completeness of the K* algorithm).
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art, at the time the invention was made, for Christophel et al’s a second phase of the two phase search utilizes Eppstein’s algorithm, as in RIABOV et al, for the purpose of soundness and completeness.
Claim 16 has similar limitations as claim 2. Therefore, the claim is rejected for the same reasons as above.
Claim 17 has similar limitations as claim 3. Therefore, the claim is rejected for the same reasons as above.
Claim 18 has similar limitations as claim 4. Therefore, the claim is rejected for the same reasons as above.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BRANDON S COLE whose telephone number is (571)270-5075. The examiner can normally be reached Mon - Fri 7:30pm - 5pm EST (Alternate Friday's Off).
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, Omar Fernandez can be reached at 571-272-2589. 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.
/BRANDON S COLE/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2128
Prosecution Insights