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
The claims are objected to because the lines are crowded too closely together, making reading difficult. Substitute claims with lines one and one-half or double spaced on good quality paper are required. See 37 CFR 1.52(b).
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.
Claims 1-14 and 23 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.
Regarding claim 1, “the one or more selected second frames of reference” lacks antecedent basis in the claims.
Regarding claims 5 and 23, “an environment or problem” and “the environment or problem” renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear if antecedence is claimed to the already recited environment or problem of claim 1.
Regarding claim 6, “the environment or problem” renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear if antecedence is claimed to the already recited environment or problem of claim 1.
Regarding claim 6, “the portion of the environment or problem space” lacks antecedent basis in the claims.
Regarding claim 6, “the lower-level action vectors” lacks antecedent basis in the claims.
Regarding claim 9, it is unclear if each recitation of “embedding inputs” refers to the same embedding inputs or if different sets of inputs are claimed.
Claims 2-14 are indefinite by virtue of dependency on claim 1.
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 1-3, 5, 7-11, and 13-24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Claim 1
Step 1: Is the claim to a process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter?
Yes. Claim 1 is drawn to a process
Step 2A, Prong One: Does the claim recite an abstract idea, law of nature, or natural phenomenon?
Yes. Claim 1 recites the following abstract ideas:
“determine a current state of the first frame of reference” - This is an observation, evaluation, judgement, or opinion, i.e. a concept performed in the human mind. See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2), III.
“select a second frame of reference which is a selected portion of the first frame of reference” - This is an observation, evaluation, judgement, or opinion, i.e. a concept performed in the human mind. See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2), III.
“determine a current sate of the selected second frame of reference” - This is an observation, evaluation, judgement, or opinion, i.e. a concept performed in the human mind. See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2), III.
“analyze or perform an action with respect to the current state of the selected second frame of reference” - This is an observation, evaluation, judgement, or opinion, i.e. a concept performed in the human mind. See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2), III.
Step 2A, Prong Two: Does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application?
No. Claim 1 recites the following additional elements:
“generating and using an active predictive coding network (APCN) implemented on at least one computing device” - merely reciting the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or merely including instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely using a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea. See MPEP 2106.05(f).
“inputting a representation of an object, environment or problem to the APCN” – This constitutes insignificant extra-solution activity in the form of mere data gathering, see MPEP 2106.05(g).
“initializing a higher-level state vector based on a first frame of reference which represents all or a part of the object, environment or problem” – This constitutes insignificant extra-solution activity in the form of mere data gathering, see MPEP 2106.05(g).
“iteratively performing one or more macrosteps to sub-divide the first frame of reference into portions” – Performing repetitive calculations is a well understood, routine, or conventional activity, see MPEP 2106.05(d).
“updating the higher-level state vector using a higher-level state neural network trained to determine a current state of the first frame of reference” - Performing repetitive calculations is a well understood, routine, or conventional activity, see MPEP 2106.05(d).
“updating a higher-level action vector with a higher-level action neural network trained to select a second frame of reference which is a selected portion of the first frame of reference wherein the higher-level action vector indicates the selected second frame of reference” – Performing repetitive calculations is a well understood, routine, or conventional activity, see MPEP 2106.05(d).
“generating or updating a lower-level state neural network with a first trained hypernetwork by providing the updated higher-level state vector as an input to the first trained hypernetwork” - Performing repetitive calculations is a well understood, routine, or conventional activity, see MPEP 2106.05(d).
“generating or updating a lower-level action neural network with a second trained hypernetwork by providing the updated higher-level action vector as an input to the second trained hypernetwork” - Performing repetitive calculations is a well understood, routine, or conventional activity, see MPEP 2106.05(d).
“iteratively performing one or more microsteps on the selected second frame of reference” - Performing repetitive calculations is a well understood, routine, or conventional activity, see MPEP 2106.05(d).
“updating a lower-level state vector with the lower-level state neural network, wherein the lower-level state neural network is trained to determine a current state of the selected second frame of reference” - Performing repetitive calculations is a well understood, routine, or conventional activity, see MPEP 2106.05(d).
“updating a lower-level action vector with the lower-level action neural network, wherein the lower-level action neural network is trained to analyze or perform an action with respect to the current state of the selected second frame of reference” - Performing repetitive calculations is a well understood, routine, or conventional activity, see MPEP 2106.05(d).
“wherein the APCN assembles a solution with respect to the first frame of reference based on solutions determined with respect to the one or more selected second frames of reference” - Performing repetitive calculations is a well understood, routine, or conventional activity, see MPEP 2106.05(d).
Step 2B: Does the claim recite additional elements that amount ot significantly more than the judicial exception?
No. Claim 1 recites the following additional elements:
“generating and using an active predictive coding network (APCN) implemented on at least one computing device” - merely reciting the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or merely including instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely using a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea. See MPEP 2106.05(f).
“inputting a representation of an object, environment or problem to the APCN” – This constitutes insignificant extra-solution activity in the form of mere data gathering, see MPEP 2106.05(g).
“initializing a higher-level state vector based on a first frame of reference which represents all or a part of the object, environment or problem” – This constitutes insignificant extra-solution activity in the form of mere data gathering, see MPEP 2106.05(g).
“iteratively performing one or more macrosteps to sub-divide the first frame of reference into portions” – Performing repetitive calculations is a well understood, routine, or conventional activity, see MPEP 2106.05(d).
“updating the higher-level state vector using a higher-level state neural network trained to determine a current state of the first frame of reference” - Performing repetitive calculations is a well understood, routine, or conventional activity, see MPEP 2106.05(d).
“updating a higher-level action vector with a higher-level action neural network trained to select a second frame of reference which is a selected portion of the first frame of reference wherein the higher-level action vector indicates the selected second frame of reference” – Performing repetitive calculations is a well understood, routine, or conventional activity, see MPEP 2106.05(d).
“generating or updating a lower-level state neural network with a first trained hypernetwork by providing the updated higher-level state vector as an input to the first trained hypernetwork” - Performing repetitive calculations is a well understood, routine, or conventional activity, see MPEP 2106.05(d).
“generating or updating a lower-level action neural network with a second trained hypernetwork by providing the updated higher-level action vector as an input to the second trained hypernetwork” - Performing repetitive calculations is a well understood, routine, or conventional activity, see MPEP 2106.05(d).
“iteratively performing one or more microsteps on the selected second frame of reference” - Performing repetitive calculations is a well understood, routine, or conventional activity, see MPEP 2106.05(d).
“updating a lower-level state vector with the lower-level state neural network, wherein the lower-level state neural network is trained to determine a current state of the selected second frame of reference” - Performing repetitive calculations is a well understood, routine, or conventional activity, see MPEP 2106.05(d).
“updating a lower-level action vector with the lower-level action neural network, wherein the lower-level action neural network is trained to analyze or perform an action with respect to the current state of the selected second frame of reference” - Performing repetitive calculations is a well understood, routine, or conventional activity, see MPEP 2106.05(d).
“wherein the APCN assembles a solution with respect to the first frame of reference based on solutions determined with respect to the one or more selected second frames of reference” - Performing repetitive calculations is a well understood, routine, or conventional activity, see MPEP 2106.05(d).
Claim 2
Step 1: Is the claim to a process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter?
Yes. Claim 2 is drawn to a process
Step 2A, Prong One: Does the claim recite an abstract idea, law of nature, or natural phenomenon?
Yes. Claim 2 recites the following abstract ideas:
“learns a part-whole hierarchy of the one or more objects” - This is an observation, evaluation, judgement, or opinion, i.e. a concept performed in the human mind. See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2), III.
Step 2A, Prong Two: Does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application?
No. Claim 2 recites the following additional elements:
“the APCN is trained” - merely reciting the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or merely including instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely using a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea. See MPEP 2106.05(f).
“wherein the APCN learns” - merely reciting the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or merely including instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely using a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea. See MPEP 2106.05(f).
“receive an image which includes one or more objects as an input” – This constitutes insignificant extra-solution activity in the form of mere data gathering, see MPEP 2106.05(g).
“output a classification or reconstruction of the object based on the updated higher-level state vector at the end of the one or more macrosteps” – This constitutes insignificant extra-solution activity in the form of mere data gathering, see MPEP 2106.05(g).
Step 2B: Does the claim recite additional elements that amount ot significantly more than the judicial exception?
No. Claim 2 recites the following additional elements:
“the APCN is trained” - merely reciting the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or merely including instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely using a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea. See MPEP 2106.05(f).
“wherein the APCN learns” - merely reciting the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or merely including instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely using a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea. See MPEP 2106.05(f).
“receive an image which includes one or more objects as an input” – This constitutes insignificant extra-solution activity in the form of mere data gathering, see MPEP 2106.05(g).
“output a classification or reconstruction of the object based on the updated higher-level state vector at the end of the one or more macrosteps” – This constitutes insignificant extra-solution activity in the form of mere data gathering, see MPEP 2106.05(g).
Claim 3
Step 1: Is the claim to a process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter?
Yes. Claim 3 is drawn to a process
Step 2A, Prong One: Does the claim recite an abstract idea, law of nature, or natural phenomenon?
Yes. Claim 3 recites the following abstract ideas:
“select the second frame of reference by selecting a portion of the image including a selected portion of the object…select sub-regions within the second frame of reference used to update the estimation of the selected portion” - This is an observation, evaluation, judgement, or opinion, i.e. a concept performed in the human mind. See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2), III.
Step 2A, Prong Two: Does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application?
No. Claim 3 recites the following additional elements:
“the higher-level action neural network is trained” - merely reciting the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or merely including instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely using a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea. See MPEP 2106.05(f).
“the lower-level action neural network is trained” - merely reciting the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or merely including instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely using a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea. See MPEP 2106.05(f).
“the higher-level state vector represents the APCN’s current estimation or reconstruction of the object” – This constitutes insignificant extra-solution activity in the form of mere data gathering, see MPEP 2106.05(g).
“the lower-level state vector represents the APCN’s current estimate of the selected portion of the image” – This constitutes insignificant extra-solution activity in the form of mere data gathering, see MPEP 2106.05(g).
“the higher-level state vector is updated based on the lower-level state vector at the end of performing the one or more microsteps” – This constitutes insignificant extra-solution activity in the form of mere data gathering, see MPEP 2106.05(g).
Step 2B: Does the claim recite additional elements that amount ot significantly more than the judicial exception?
No. Claim 2 recites the following additional elements:
No. Claim 3 recites the following additional elements:
“the higher-level action neural network is trained” - merely reciting the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or merely including instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely using a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea. See MPEP 2106.05(f).
“the lower-level action neural network is trained” - merely reciting the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or merely including instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely using a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea. See MPEP 2106.05(f).
“the higher-level state vector represents the APCN’s current estimation or reconstruction of the object” – This constitutes insignificant extra-solution activity in the form of mere data gathering, see MPEP 2106.05(g).
“the lower-level state vector represents the APCN’s current estimate of the selected portion of the image” – This constitutes insignificant extra-solution activity in the form of mere data gathering, see MPEP 2106.05(g).
“the higher-level state vector is updated based on the lower-level state vector at the end of performing the one or more microsteps” – This constitutes insignificant extra-solution activity in the form of mere data gathering, see MPEP 2106.05(g).
Claim 5
Step 2A, Prong Two: Does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application?
No. Claim 5 recites the following additional elements:
“receive an input which includes information about an environment or problem, a starting location or state of an agent, and a goal state” – This constitutes insignificant extra-solution activity in the form of mere data gathering, see MPEP 2106.05(g).
“output a set of instructions which navigate the agent through the environment or problem to the goal state based on the higher-level action vector” – This constitutes insignificant extra-solution activity in the form of mere data gathering, see MPEP 2106.05(g).
Step 2B: Does the claim recite additional elements that amount ot significantly more than the judicial exception?
No. Claim 5 recites the following additional elements:
“receive an input which includes information about an environment or problem, a starting location or state of an agent, and a goal state” – This constitutes insignificant extra-solution activity in the form of mere data gathering, see MPEP 2106.05(g).
“output a set of instructions which navigate the agent through the environment or problem to the goal state based on the higher-level action vector” – This constitutes insignificant extra-solution activity in the form of mere data gathering, see MPEP 2106.05(g).
Claim 7
Step 2A, Prong Two: Does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application?
No. Claim 7 recites the following additional elements:
“performing a fixed number of microsteps before performing the next macrostep” - Performing repetitive calculations is a well understood, routine, or conventional activity, see MPEP 2106.05(d).
Step 2B: Does the claim recite additional elements that amount ot significantly more than the judicial exception?
No. Claim 7 recites the following additional elements:
“performing a fixed number of microsteps before performing the next macrostep” - Performing repetitive calculations is a well understood, routine, or conventional activity, see MPEP 2106.05(d).
Claim 8
Step 2A, Prong Two: Does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application?
No. Claim 8 recites the following additional elements:
“performing microsteps until a termination condition is reached before performing the next macrostep” - Performing repetitive calculations is a well understood, routine, or conventional activity, see MPEP 2106.05(d).
Step 2B: Does the claim recite additional elements that amount ot significantly more than the judicial exception?
No. Claim 8 recites the following additional elements:
“performing microsteps until a termination condition is reached before performing the next macrostep” - Performing repetitive calculations is a well understood, routine, or conventional activity, see MPEP 2106.05(d).
Claim 9
Step 2A, Prong Two: Does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application?
No. Claim 9 recites the following additional elements:
“generating weights and biases of or updating, via embedding inputs, the lower-level state neural network with the first hypernetwork based on the updated higher-level state vector” – This constitutes insignificant extra-solution activity in the form of mere data gathering, see MPEP 2106.05(g).
“generating weights and biases of or updating, via embedding inputs, the lower-level action neural network with the second hypernetwork based on the updated higher-level action vector” – This constitutes insignificant extra-solution activity in the form of mere data gathering, see MPEP 2106.05(g).
Step 2B: Does the claim recite additional elements that amount ot significantly more than the judicial exception?
No. Claim 9 recites the following additional elements:
“generating weights and biases of or updating, via embedding inputs, the lower-level state neural network with the first hypernetwork based on the updated higher-level state vector” – This constitutes insignificant extra-solution activity in the form of mere data gathering, see MPEP 2106.05(g).
“generating weights and biases of or updating, via embedding inputs, the lower-level action neural network with the second hypernetwork based on the updated higher-level action vector” – This constitutes insignificant extra-solution activity in the form of mere data gathering, see MPEP 2106.05(g).
Claim 10
Step 2A, Prong Two: Does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application?
No. Claim 10 recites the following additional elements:
“wherein the higher-level state neural network, the lower-level state neural network, the higher-level action neural network and the lower-level action neural network are recurrent neural networks (RNNs) or transformer networks” - merely reciting the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or merely including instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely using a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea. See MPEP 2106.05(f).
Step 2B: Does the claim recite additional elements that amount ot significantly more than the judicial exception?
No. Claim 10 recites the following additional elements:
“wherein the higher-level state neural network, the lower-level state neural network, the higher-level action neural network and the lower-level action neural network are recurrent neural networks (RNNs) or transformer networks” - merely reciting the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or merely including instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely using a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea. See MPEP 2106.05(f).
Claim 11
Step 2A, Prong Two: Does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application?
No. Claim 11 recites the following additional elements:
“updating at least one of the higher-level state vector or the higher-level action vector based on the updated lower-level state vector, the updated lower-level state vector, or combinations thereof at the end of iteratively performing the one or more microsteps” – This constitutes insignificant extra-solution activity in the form of mere data gathering, see MPEP 2106.05(g).
Step 2B: Does the claim recite additional elements that amount ot significantly more than the judicial exception?
No. Claim 11 recites the following additional elements:
“updating at least one of the higher-level state vector or the higher-level action vector based on the updated lower-level state vector, the updated lower-level state vector, or combinations thereof at the end of iteratively performing the one or more microsteps” – This constitutes insignificant extra-solution activity in the form of mere data gathering, see MPEP 2106.05(g).
Claim 13
Step 2A, Prong Two: Does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application?
No. Claim 13 recites the following additional elements:
“updating the higher-level state vector by providing a previous higher-level state vector and a previous higher-level action vector as inputs to the higher-level state neural network; and updating the higher-level action vector by providing the updated higher-level state vector and the previous higher-level action vector as inputs to the higher-level action neural network” – This constitutes insignificant extra-solution activity in the form of mere data gathering, see MPEP 2106.05(g).
Step 2B: Does the claim recite additional elements that amount ot significantly more than the judicial exception?
No. Claim 13 recites the following additional elements:
“updating the higher-level state vector by providing a previous higher-level state vector and a previous higher-level action vector as inputs to the higher-level state neural network; and updating the higher-level action vector by providing the updated higher-level state vector and the previous higher-level action vector as inputs to the higher-level action neural network” – This constitutes insignificant extra-solution activity in the form of mere data gathering, see MPEP 2106.05(g).
Claim 14
Step 2A, Prong Two: Does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application?
No. Claim 14 recites the following additional elements:
“initializing the lower-level state vector with an initialization network based on the higher-level state vector at a first of the microsteps; and initializing the lower-level action vector with the lower-level action network based on the initialized lower-level state vector at the first of the microsteps” – This constitutes insignificant extra-solution activity in the form of mere data gathering, see MPEP 2106.05(g).
Step 2B: Does the claim recite additional elements that amount ot significantly more than the judicial exception?
No. Claim 14 recites the following additional elements:
“initializing the lower-level state vector with an initialization network based on the higher-level state vector at a first of the microsteps; and initializing the lower-level action vector with the lower-level action network based on the initialized lower-level state vector at the first of the microsteps” – This constitutes insignificant extra-solution activity in the form of mere data gathering, see MPEP 2106.05(g).
Claim 15
Step 1: Is the claim to a process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter?
Yes. Claim 1 is drawn to an apparatus.
Step 2A, Prong One: Does the claim recite an abstract idea, law of nature, or natural phenomenon?
Yes. Claim 15 recites the following abstract ideas:
See the analysis with respect to claim 1.
Step 2A, Prong Two: Does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application?
No. Claim 15 recites the following additional elements:
See the analysis with respect to claim 1.
“a processor; non-transitory media configured to store instructions which, when executed by the processor” - merely reciting the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or merely including instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely using a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea. See MPEP 2106.05(f).
Step 2B: Does the claim recite additional elements that amount ot significantly more than the judicial exception?
No. Claim 15 recites the following additional elements:
See the analysis with respect to claim 1.
“a processor; non-transitory media configured to store instructions which, when executed by the processor” - merely reciting the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or merely including instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely using a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea. See MPEP 2106.05(f).
Claim 16
Step 2A, Prong Two: Does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application?
No. Claim 16 recites the following additional elements:
“cause the apparatus to, as part of the macrostep, update the higher-level state vector based on the lower-level state vector, update the higher-level action vector based on the lower-level action vector, or combinations thereof” – This constitutes insignificant extra-solution activity in the form of mere data gathering, see MPEP 2106.05(g).
Step 2B: Does the claim recite additional elements that amount ot significantly more than the judicial exception?
No. Claim 16 recites the following additional elements:
“cause the apparatus to, as part of the macrostep, update the higher-level state vector based on the lower-level state vector, update the higher-level action vector based on the lower-level action vector, or combinations thereof” – This constitutes insignificant extra-solution activity in the form of mere data gathering, see MPEP 2106.05(g).
Claim 17
Step 2A, Prong Two: Does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application?
No. Claim 17 recites the following additional elements:
“initialize the lower-level state vector based on the higher-level state vector at a first of the at least one microsteps; and initialize the lower-level action vector based on the initialized lower-level state vector at the first of the at least one microsteps” – This constitutes insignificant extra-solution activity in the form of mere data gathering, see MPEP 2106.05(g).
Step 2B: Does the claim recite additional elements that amount ot significantly more than the judicial exception?
No. Claim 17 recites the following additional elements:
“initialize the lower-level state vector based on the higher-level state vector at a first of the at least one microsteps; and initialize the lower-level action vector based on the initialized lower-level state vector at the first of the at least one microsteps” – This constitutes insignificant extra-solution activity in the form of mere data gathering, see MPEP 2106.05(g).
Claim 18
Step 2A, Prong Two: Does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application?
No. Claim 18 recites the following additional elements:
“train a state hypernetwork based, in part, on a training data set or data generated from interactions with the environment or problem; and train an action hypernetwork based, in part, on a training data set or data generated from interactions with the environment or problem” - merely reciting the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or merely including instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely using a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea. See MPEP 2106.05(f).
Step 2B: Does the claim recite additional elements that amount ot significantly more than the judicial exception?
No. Claim 18 recites the following additional elements:
“train a state hypernetwork based, in part, on a training data set or data generated from interactions with the environment or problem; and train an action hypernetwork based, in part, on a training data set or data generated from interactions with the environment or problem” - merely reciting the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or merely including instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely using a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea. See MPEP 2106.05(f).
Claim 19
Step 2A, Prong Two: Does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application?
No. Claim 19 recites the following additional elements:
“generate or update the lower-level state network with the state hypernetwork; and generate or update the lower-level action network with the action hypernetwork” – This constitutes insignificant extra-solution activity in the form of mere data gathering, see MPEP 2106.05(g).
Step 2B: Does the claim recite additional elements that amount ot significantly more than the judicial exception?
No. Claim 19 recites the following additional elements:
“generate or update the lower-level state network with the state hypernetwork; and generate or update the lower-level action network with the action hypernetwork” – This constitutes insignificant extra-solution activity in the form of mere data gathering, see MPEP 2106.05(g).
Claim 20
See the analysis with respect to claims 1 and 15.
Claim 21
Step 2A, Prong Two: Does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application?
No. Claim 21 recites the following additional elements:
“generate or modulate the lower-level state network and the lower-level action network respectively using hypernetworks or an embedding network” – This constitutes insignificant extra-solution activity in the form of mere data gathering, see MPEP 2106.05(g).
Step 2B: Does the claim recite additional elements that amount ot significantly more than the judicial exception?
No. Claim 21 recites the following additional elements:
“generate or modulate the lower-level state network and the lower-level action network respectively using hypernetworks or an embedding network” – This constitutes insignificant extra-solution activity in the form of mere data gathering, see MPEP 2106.05(g).
Claim 22
Step 2A, Prong Two: Does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application?
No. Claim 22 recites the following additional elements:
“the object is an image and the state represents integrated scene information provided by the lower-level state neural network and the lower-level action neural network and the action represents which portion of the object should be selected next for examination by the lower-level state neural network and the lower-level action neural network” – This constitutes insignificant extra-solution activity in the form of mere data gathering, see MPEP 2106.05(g).
Step 2B: Does the claim recite additional elements that amount ot significantly more than the judicial exception?
No. Claim 22 recites the following additional elements:
“the object is an image and the state represents integrated scene information provided by the lower-level state neural network and the lower-level action neural network and the action represents which portion of the object should be selected next for examination by the lower-level state neural network and the lower-level action neural network” – This constitutes insignificant extra-solution activity in the form of mere data gathering, see MPEP 2106.05(g).
Claim 23
Step 2A, Prong Two: Does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application?
No. Claim 23 recites the following additional elements:
“the object represents an environment or problem and the action represents a set of steps to move an agent towards a goal state in the environment or problem space, and wherein the lower level generates a lower-level state which represents a sub-unit of the environment or problem and a lower-level action which represents a path through the sub-unit” – This constitutes insignificant extra-solution activity in the form of mere data gathering, see MPEP 2106.05(g).
Step 2B: Does the claim recite additional elements that amount ot significantly more than the judicial exception?
No. Claim 23 recites the following additional elements:
“the object represents an environment or problem and the action represents a set of steps to move an agent towards a goal state in the environment or problem space, and wherein the lower level generates a lower-level state which represents a sub-unit of the environment or problem and a lower-level action which represents a path through the sub-unit” – This constitutes insignificant extra-solution activity in the form of mere data gathering, see MPEP 2106.05(g).
Claim 24
Step 2A, Prong Two: Does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application?
No. Claim 24 recites the following additional elements:
“the lower-level state function and the lower-level action function execute for a fixed number of steps or until a lower-level goal is reached” – Performing repetitive calculations is a well understood, routine, or conventional activity, see MPEP 2106.05(d).
Step 2B: Does the claim recite additional elements that amount ot significantly more than the judicial exception?
No. Claim 24 recites the following additional elements:
“the lower-level state function and the lower-level action function execute for a fixed number of steps or until a lower-level goal is reached” – Performing repetitive calculations is a well understood, routine, or conventional activity, see MPEP 2106.05(d).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-24 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome rejections under 35 USC 101 and 35 USC 112(b).
With regards to 35 USC 102 and 35 USC 103, the prior art fails to anticipate or render obvious the limitations of claims 1, 15, and 20 (the independent claims).
The independent claims describe active predictive coding networks (APCN). The closest prior art is represented by Mnih (Mnih, Volodymyr, et al. "Recurrent models of visual attention." Advances in neural information processing systems 27 (2014)), Jiang (Jiang, Linxing Preston, Dimitrios C. Gklezakos, and Rajesh PN Rao. "Dynamic predictive coding with hypernetworks." bioRxiv (2021): 2021-02.), and Jiang (Jiang, Linxing Preston, and Rajesh PN Rao. "Predictive coding theories of cortical function." arXiv preprint arXiv:2112.10048 (2021)). None of these references anticipate the independent claims and there is insufficient teaching, suggestion, and/or motivation to arrive at the claimed invention from any combination of these references.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SCHYLER S SANKS whose telephone number is (571)272-6125. The examiner can normally be reached 06:30 - 15:30 Central Time, M-F.
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, Michael Huntley can be reached at (303) 297-4307. 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.
/SCHYLER S SANKS/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2129
Prosecution Insights