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 office action is in response to communication filed 9/21/2026. Claims 1-13 and 18-20 are currently pending and claims 14-17 are cancelled. Claims 1 and 18 are the independent claims.
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 18-20 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.
As per independent claim 18, it recites “…sampling candidate deployment policies on the selected subset of test cases to determine the candidate deployment policies, wherein each candidate deployment policy represents at least one behavior for an artificial agent operating a car in a racing simulation and each test case of the selected subset represents at least one condition in an environment of the racing simulation; and selecting, by the development server, one or more of the candidate deployment policies as deployment policies based on results of the sampling.” The examiner is unclear as to what is meant by “sampling candidate deployment policies on the selected subset of test cases…” as the examiner understands “sampling” to mean selecting a representative part/portion/subset/etc. of a population/set/etc. (see definition below), and as such the examiner is unclear as to how a portions/subset/part/etc. of the total number/population/etc. of candidate deployment policies is selected “on” the selected subset of test cases. Additionally, the examiner is unclear as to what is meant by “sampling candidate deployment policies…to determine the candidate deployment policies” as the candidate deployment policies are previously recited/known/already determined when they are sampled. For the purpose of examination, the examiner will consider these limitations to be “…sampling candidate deployment policies to generate a sample of candidate deployment policies and executing the sample of candidate deployment policies using the selected subset of test cases to determine deployment policies, wherein each candidate deployment policy represents at least one behavior for an artificial agent operating a car in a racing simulation and each test case of the selected subset represents at least one condition in an environment of the racing simulation; and selecting, by the development server, one or more of the candidate deployment policies as the deployment policies based on results of executing the sample of candidate deployment policies using the selected subset of test cases.”
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/sampling
sampling
1: the act, process, or technique of selecting a suitable sample
specifically: the act, process, or technique of selecting a representative part of a population for the purpose of determining parameters or characteristics of the whole population
2: a small part selected as a sample for inspection or analysis
As per claims 19-20, they incorporate the deficiencies of claim 18, upon which they depend, and fail to correct the deficiencies of claim 18. Therefore, claims 19-20 are rejected for similar reasoning as claim 18, above.
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 1-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
As per claim 1, it recites “A computer-implemented method for determining a subset of test cases, selected from a set of test cases, that identify candidate deployment policies from a set of tuning policies stored in the policy database, comprising: evaluating, by a development server, each tuning policy of a subset of tuning policies, from the set of tuning policies stored in a policy database, with each test case, from the set of test cases, to generate a result matrix of test case results; utilizing a two-player game formulation implemented through iterative regret minimization algorithms to compute a loss function for each of m test cases sampled on each of N sampled policies from the set of tuning policies; selecting the subset of test cases based on a plurality of rounds of the two-player game formulation, wherein the selected subset comprises fewer test cases than the set of test cases; evaluating, by the development server, candidate deployment policies using the selected subset of test cases, wherein each candidate deployment policy represents at least one behavior for an artificial agent operating a car in a racing simulation and each test case of the selected subset represents at least one condition in an environment of the racing simulation; and selecting, by the development server, one or more of the candidate deployment policies as deployment policies based on results of evaluating the candidate deployment policies using the selected subset of test cases.”
The limitations “evaluating…each tuning policy of a subset of tuning policies…with each test case, from the set of test cases, to generate a result matrix of test case results”, “selecting the subset of test cases based on a plurality of rounds of the two-player game formulation, wherein the selected subset comprises fewer test cases than the set of test cases”, “evaluating…candidate deployment policies using the selected subset of test cases, wherein each candidate deployment policy represents at least one behavior for an artificial agent operating a car in a racing simulation and each test case of the selected subset represents at least one condition in an environment of the racing simulation”, and “selecting…one or more of the candidate deployment policies as deployment policies based on results of evaluating the candidate deployment policies using the selected subset of test cases”, as drafted, are functions that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, recite the abstract idea of a mental process. The limitations encompass a human mind carrying out the function through observation, evaluation, judgment, and/or opinion, or even with the aid of pen and paper. For example, a human may mentally/with pen and paper/etc. judge/evaluate/analyze/etc. tuning policies with test cases and write/generate/ determine/judge/etc. a result matrix, may mentally/with pen and paper decide/judge/ select/identify/choose/etc. test cases/subset of test cases/etc., may mentally judge/evaluate/analyze/etc. policies/deployment policies using judged/selected/etc. test cases, and may mentally/with pen and paper/etc. judged/select/identify/decide/etc. one or more policies/candidate deployment policies/etc. based on results of judging/evaluating/etc. the policies/candidate deployment policies using the judged/evaluated/selected/etc. test cases. Therefore, these limitations recite and falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Further, the limitation “utilizing a two-player game formulation implemented through iterative regret minimization algorithms to compute a loss function for each of m test cases sampled on each of N sampled policies from the set of tuning policies”, as drafted, are functions that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, recite the abstract idea of a mathematical concept. The limitations recite using algorithms to compute a loss function/using mathematical equations to perform mathematical calculations/etc. and as such the limitations encompass mathematical formulas/equations and performing mathematical calculations. Therefore, these limitations recite and falls within the “Mathematical Concepts” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites abstract ideas.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. The claim recites the additional elements/limitations “A computer-implemented method for determining a subset of test cases, selected from a set of test cases, that identify candidate deployment policies from a set of tuning policies stored in a policy database, comprising”, “by a/the development server”, and “from the set of tuning policies stored in the policy database”. The additional elements “A computer-implemented method for determining a subset of test cases, selected from a set of test cases, that identify candidate deployment policies… comprising” and “by a/the development server”, with broadest reasonable interpretation, recite that high level/generic computer/computer components/computer and development server/etc. are used to implement/perform the abstract idea/mental process, and as such amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer, and/or mere computer components, which does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Further, the additional elements “from a/the set of tuning policies stored in a/the policy database” do nothing more than add insignificant extra solution activity to the judicial exception of merely storing data/tuning policies/information/etc., which does not integrate the abstract idea/mental process/judicial exception into a practical application and the courts have identified functions such as gathering, displaying, updating, transmitting and storing data as well-understood, routine, conventional activity, see MPEP 2106.05(d). Accordingly, the additional elements do not integrate the recited judicial exception into a practical application and the claim is therefore directed to the judicial exception. See MPEP 2106.05(f), 2106.05(g), etc..
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements amount to no more than mere instructions, or generic computer/computer components to carry out/apply/implement/perform/etc. the exception/abstract idea/mental process, which does not provide an inventive concept and does not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea/mental process, and mere extra solution activities to the abstract idea/mental process/judicial exception of storing data/information, and the courts have identified functions such as gathering, displaying, updating, transmitting and storing data as well-understood, routine, conventional activity, thus do not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception (see MPEP 2106.05(d)). Accordingly, the claims are not patent eligible under 35 USC 101.
As per claim 2, it incorporates the deficiencies of claim 1, upon which it depends, and further recites “…wherein the two-player formulation includes: choosing an m-tuple of test cases, from the set of test cases, and weights for the m-tuple of test cases; sampling N policies to test and target distributions for each of the N policies from an uncertainty distribution; choosing k policies and respective target distributions that maximize the loss function; and sampling one of the k policies and respective target distributions to provide a payoff” which, conceptually, with broadest reasonable interpretation, provides further clarification as to the abstract idea/mental process/judging/choices/decisions/analyzing/etc., which does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application and is not significantly more than the abstract idea/mental process. Therefore, claim 2 fails to correct the deficiencies of claim 1 and is rejected for similar reasoning as claim 1, above.
As per claim 3, it incorporates the deficiencies of claim 1, upon which it depends, and further recites “…wherein the selected subset of test cases and the determined candidate deployment policies are performed simultaneously” which, conceptually, with broadest reasonable interpretation, provides further clarification as to the abstract idea/mental process, which does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application and is not significantly more than the abstract idea/mental process. Therefore, claim 3 fails to correct the deficiencies of claim 1 and is rejected for similar reasoning as claim 1, above.
As per claim 4, it incorporates the deficiencies of claim 1, upon which it depends, and further recites “…wherein the selected subset of test cases and the determined candidate deployment policies are performed in sequence” which, conceptually, with broadest reasonable interpretation, recites performance of the selected test case and tuning policy resulting from performance of the abstract idea/mental process, and is at best the equivalent of merely adding the words “apply it” to the judicial exception, and mere instructions to apply an exception cannot provide an inventive concept. As such, the additional element/limitations of claim 4 do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application and are not significantly more than the abstract idea/mental process. Therefore, claim 4 fails to correct the deficiencies of claim 1 and is rejected for similar reasoning as claim 1, above.
As per claim 5, it incorporates the deficiencies of claim 1, upon which it depends, and further recites “…wherein the selected subset of test cases and the determined candidate deployment policies are performed in sequence and hyperparameter values and constraints are applied, resulting in deterministic behavior” which, conceptually, with broadest reasonable interpretation, recites performance of the selected test case and tuning policy resulting from performance of the abstract idea/mental process, and is at best the equivalent of merely adding the words “apply it” to the judicial exception, and mere instructions to apply an exception cannot provide an inventive concept. As such, the additional element/limitations of claim 5 do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application and are not significantly more than the abstract idea/mental process. Therefore, claim 5 fails to correct the deficiencies of claim 1 and is rejected for similar reasoning as claim 1, above.
As per claim 6, it incorporates the deficiencies of claim 1, upon which it depends, and further recites “…wherein the tuning policies are selected from a reinforcement learning process” which, conceptually, with broadest reasonable interpretation, provides further clarification as to the abstract idea/mental process, which does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application and is not significantly more than the abstract idea/mental process. Therefore, claim 6 fails to correct the deficiencies of claim 1 and is rejected for similar reasoning as claim 1, above.
As per claim 7, it incorporates the deficiencies of claim 1, upon which it depends, and further recites “…wherein the tuning policies are selected to include a collection of skilled and unskilled policies with random variations” which, conceptually, with broadest reasonable interpretation, provides further clarification as to the abstract idea/mental process, which does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application and is not significantly more than the abstract idea/mental process. Therefore, claim 7 fails to correct the deficiencies of claim 1 and is rejected for similar reasoning as claim 1, above.
As per claim 8, it incorporates the deficiencies of claim 1, upon which it depends, and further recites “…wherein the tuning policies are selected with architectural and algorithmic similarities to future development candidate policies” which, conceptually, with broadest reasonable interpretation, provides further clarification as to the abstract idea/mental process, which does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application and is not significantly more than the abstract idea/mental process. Therefore, claim 8 fails to correct the deficiencies of claim 1 and is rejected for similar reasoning as claim 1, above.
As per claim 9, it incorporates the deficiencies of claim 1, upon which it depends, and further recites “…wherein the sampled one of the respective target distributions is based on a fixed uniform distribution over the m-tuple of test cases” which, conceptually, with broadest reasonable interpretation, provides further clarification as to the abstract idea/mental process, which does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application and is not significantly more than the abstract idea/mental process. Therefore, claim 9 fails to correct the deficiencies of claim 1 and is rejected for similar reasoning as claim 1, above.
As per claim 10, it incorporates the deficiencies of claim 1, upon which it depends, and further recites “…wherein test case selection imparts a minimum test accuracy against differences between the tuning policies and the candidate deployment policies” which, conceptually, with broadest reasonable interpretation, provides further clarification as to the abstract idea/mental process, which does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application and is not significantly more than the abstract idea/mental process. Therefore, claim 10 fails to correct the deficiencies of claim 1 and is rejected for similar reasoning as claim 1, above.
As per claim 11, it incorporates the deficiencies of claim 1, upon which it depends, and further recites “…wherein test case selection imparts a minimum test accuracy against differences between the target distribution used during training and an actual target distribution” which, conceptually, with broadest reasonable interpretation, provides further clarification as to the abstract idea/mental process, which does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application and is not significantly more than the abstract idea/mental process. Therefore, claim 11 fails to correct the deficiencies of claim 1 and is rejected for similar reasoning as claim 1, above.
As per claim 12, it incorporates the deficiencies of claim 1, upon which it depends, and further recites “…determining a weighting for each of the subset of test cases” which, conceptually, with broadest reasonable interpretation, provides further clarification as to the abstract idea/mental process, which does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application and is not significantly more than the abstract idea/mental process. Therefore, claim 12 fails to correct the deficiencies of claim 1 and is rejected for similar reasoning as claim 1, above.
As per claim 13, it incorporates the deficiencies of claim 1, upon which it depends, and further recites “…wherein the weighting on each of the subset of test cases is determined by a player” which, conceptually, with broadest reasonable interpretation, provides further clarification as to the abstract idea/mental process, which does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application and is not significantly more than the abstract idea/mental process. Therefore, claim 13 fails to correct the deficiencies of claim 1 and is rejected for similar reasoning as claim 1, above.
Allowable Subject Matter Over Prior Art
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
The prior art of record (Chenguttuvan et al. US Patent 11,327,873 B2, Gotlieb et al. US PG Pub. 2016/0019135 A1, Balakrishnan et al. US Patent 9,753,839 B2, Yalla et al. US Patent 10,949,337 B1, and Kotian US Patent 9,836,297 B2) teaches that test cases/set of test cases/subset of test cases/etc. may be analyzed/evaluated/etc. with policies/requirements/objectives/tuning policies/etc. used to select/determine/etc. test cases/subset of tests/resulting test cases/etc. meeting/matching/etc. the policies/requirements/objectives, that reduction/loss/minimization/etc. of test cases may be determined/loss function for test cases determine/etc. for test cases and policies/requirements/objectives/etc., and that test cases may be iteratively selected/selected in a plurality of rounds/etc. to select subset/multiple/etc. test cases that satisfy/meet/etc. requirements/policies/objectives, that there may be multiple/plural/two/competing/etc. objectives for test cases selected to meet, and that test cases may be used to determine deployment policies/decisions/etc. of software being tested.
However, the prior art of record fails to anticipate or render an obviousness of utilizing a two-player game formulation implemented through iterative regret minimization algorithms to compute a loss function for each of m test cases sampled on each of N sampled policies from the set of tuning policies, and selecting the subset of test cases based on a plurality of rounds of the two-player game formulation, wherein the selected subset comprises fewer test cases than the set of test cases, after evaluating each tuning policy of a subset of tuning policies, from a set of tuning policies stored in a policy database, with each test case, from the set of test cases, to generate a result matrix of test case results; when candidate deployment policies are evaluated using the selected subset of test cases, wherein each candidate deployment policy represents at least one behavior for an artificial agent operating a car in a racing simulation and each test case of the selected subset represents at least one condition in an environment of the racing simulation, and one or more of the candidate deployment policies are selected as deployment policies based on results of evaluating the candidate deployment policies using the selected subset of test cases, as required by independent claim 1; or when candidate deployment policies are sampled to generate a sample of candidate deployment policies and the sample of candidate deployment policies is executed using the selected subset of test cases to determine deployment policies, wherein each candidate deployment policy represents at least one behavior for an artificial agent operating a car in a racing simulation and each test case of the selected subset represents at least one condition in an environment of the racing simulation, and one or more of the candidate deployment policies are selected as the deployment policies based on results of executing the sample of candidate deployment policies using the selected subset of test cases, as required by independent claim 18.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 9/21/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
As per the 112 arguments on pg. 7 par. 6-7 of the remarks that claims 2-5, 9-11, and 13 have been amended to overcome 112 issues and therefore the claims are allowable under 35 USC 112(b), the examiner would like to point out that the amendments to claim 18 introduced new 112(b) issues, as seen above in the rejection of claims 18-20 under 35 USC 112.
Therefore, the examiner finds these arguments unpersuasive and maintains that the rejection under 35 USC 112 is proper.
As per the 101 arguments on pg. 8 par. 3-pg. 17 par. 5 of the remarks that independent claim 1 has been amended to require the candidate deployment policies be evaluated using the subset of test cases produced by the two-player iterative regret minimization process, when the candidate deployment policies represent behaviors of an artificial agent operating a car in a racing simulation and the test cases represent environmental conditions in the racing simulation, and as such the claims do not merely associate the output of any alleged abstract idea/mental process/mathematical concept with an artificial agent or racing simulation but rather expressly require application/execution/etc. of the selected subset of test cases to the computerized evaluation of artificial agent policies and selection of policies for deployment, which is not an abstract idea but rather requires actual computerized execution of the test cases, and integrates any abstract idea into a practical application by executing only a selected/determined/etc. subset/reduced set/etc. of the test cases while minimizing reduction in test quality/approximating complete test using small subset of test cases/providing a minimum test-accuracy guarantee for deployment candidates/etc. which reduces testing and saves time and computational resources, and further that the ordered combination of the limitations/elements is not directed to an abstract idea/mental process as the combination specifies how a computer constructs and applies reduced simulation test to machine learning policies/produces a reduced test set that is subsequently applied in computerized evaluation/test execution/etc. to determine policies to be deployed, which is significantly more than any abstract idea/mental process/mathematical concept/etc. and integrates any abstract idea into a practical application as it determines and reduces computerized testing operations performed resulting in saving time and resources by applying/executing a reduced test set/subset of tests/etc. rather than a complete pool of simulation tests, and therefore the amended independent claims and their respective dependent claims are allowable, the examiner, respectfully, disagrees.
The examiner would like to point out that the actual wording/phrasing of claim 1 is “A computer-implemented method for determining a subset of test cases, selected from a set of test cases, that identify candidate deployment policies from a set of tuning policies stored in the policy database, comprising: evaluating, by a development server, each tuning policy of a subset of tuning policies, from the set of tuning policies stored in a policy database, with each test case, from the set of test cases, to generate a result matrix of test case results; utilizing a two-player game formulation implemented through iterative regret minimization algorithms to compute a loss function for each of m test cases sampled on each of N sampled policies from the set of tuning policies; selecting the subset of test cases based on a plurality of rounds of the two-player game formulation, wherein the selected subset comprises fewer test cases than the set of test cases; evaluating, by the development server, candidate deployment policies using the selected subset of test cases, wherein each candidate deployment policy represents at least one behavior for an artificial agent operating a car in a racing simulation and each test case of the selected subset represents at least one condition in an environment of the racing simulation; and selecting, by the development server, one or more of the candidate deployment policies as deployment policies based on results of evaluating the candidate deployment policies using the selected subset of test cases.” As such, with broadest reasonable interpretation, the claim does not explicitly state/actually recite/require “execution” of the subset of test cases, rather the claim recites “evaluating, by the development server, candidate deployment policies using the selected subset of test cases, wherein each candidate deployment policy represents at least one behavior for an artificial agent operating a car in a racing simulation and each test case of the selected subset represents at least one condition in an environment of the racing simulation” which, with broadest reasonable interpretation, only required/recites that some sort of “evaluation”/analysis/etc. of the candidate deployment policies is performed “using” the subset of test cases, which does not necessarily have to be an execution of the test cases. For example, a human could mentally/with pen and paper/etc. evaluate a candidate deployment policy representing at least one behavior for an artificial agent operating a car in a racing simulation using the selected subset of test cases each representing at least one condition in an environment of the racing simulation by observing/judging/determining/etc. the behavior to be performed the policy and observing/determining/judging/etc. the environment condition represented by test cases and evaluating/judging/analyzing/etc. which test cases/conditions match/apply to/can be used when executing/etc. the policy/behavior, and as such, with broadest reasonable interpretation, an “evaluation” may be any sort of evaluation, not necessarily an actual execution of the test cases, and as such may be a mental process/abstract idea/etc., as seen in the rejection of claim 1 under 35 USC 101, above. If applicant intended for the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claims to be limited to require the execution of the selected subset of test cases on the candidate deployment policies, then examiner would recommend further clarification/amendment clarifying that the evaluation of the candidate deployment policies includes executing the subset of test cases on the candidate deployment policies to potentially overcome the 101 issues.
Therefore, the examiner finds these arguments unpersuasive and maintains that the rejection under 35 USC 101 is proper.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DOUGLAS M SLACHTA whose telephone number is (571)270-0653. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 6:30am-4pm.
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, Chat Do can be reached at 571-272-3721. 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.
/DOUGLAS M SLACHTA/ Examiner, Art Unit 2193
