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 1/22/2024. Claims 1-14 and 18-20 are currently pending and claims 1 and 18 are the independent claims.
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of claims 1-14 and 18-20 in the reply filed on 1/16/2026 is acknowledged.
Claim Objections
Claims 1, 2, 9, 14, and 18 are objected to because of the following informalities:
As per claim 1 and 18, they recite “…identify candidate deployment policies from a set of policies, comprising: evaluating each tuning policy of a subset of tuning policies, from the set of policies, 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 for determining a loss function for each of m test cases sampled on each of N sampled policies from the set of policies…”. For clarity/consistency/etc. the examiner would like to recommend the wording/phrasing “…identify candidate deployment policies from a set of tuning policies, comprising: evaluating each tuning policy of a subset of tuning policies, from the set of tuning policies; utilizing a two-player game formulation for determining a loss function for each of M test cases sampled on each of N sampled tuning policies from the set of tuning policies …”.
As per claim 2, it recites “…choosing an m-tuple of test cases, from the set of test cases, and weights for each of the m-tuple of test cases…” when, for clarity, it should recite “…choosing an m-tuple of test cases, from the set of test cases, and weights for the m-tuple of test cases…”.
As per claim 9, it recites “The computer-implemented method of claim 2, wherein the target distribution 1s based on a fixed uniform distribution over the m-tuple of test cases”. The examiner would like to point out that claim 9 depends on claim 2 which previously recites “respective target distribution”, and as such, for clarity, claim 9 should recite “..wherein the respective target distribution is based on…”
As per claim 14, it recites “…wherein the candidate deployment policies are policy for an artificial agent in a competitive racing simulation” when, for grammar/clarity, it should recite “…wherein the candidate deployment policies are policies for an artificial agent…”.
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.
Claims 2-5, 9-11, and 13 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 claim 2, it recites “…choosing the k worst policies and respective target distributions that maximize the loss function; and sampling one of the k words policies and respective target distribution to provide a payoff.” Examiner is unclear as to what is meant by “worst” as different persons of ordinary skill in the art may have different opinions as to what would be considered/make something/etc. “worst”. Examiner would further like to point out that claim 2 depends on claim 1, however neither claim 2 or claim 1 previously recite “k worst policies” and as such there is insufficient antecedent basis for the limitation “the k worst policies” in the claim. For the purpose of examination, the examiner will consider these limitations to be “…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.”
As per claims 9-11, they incorporate the deficiencies of claim 2 and fail to correct the deficiencies of claim 2. Therefore, claims 9-11 are rejected for similar reasoning as claim 2, above.
As per claim 3, it recites the limitation “The computer-implemented method of claim 1, wherein the selected test case and the tuning policy choice are performed simultaneously”. The examiner would like to point out that claim 3 depends on claim 1, and while claim 1 previously recites “selecting the subset of test cases” and “determining the candidate deployment policies”, it does not previously recite selecting a single test case and a tuning policy choice, and as such there is insufficient antecedent basis for these limitations in the claim. For the purpose of examination, the examiner will consider these limitations to be “…wherein the selected subset of test cases and the determined candidate deployment policies are performed simultaneously.”
As per claim 4, it recites the limitation “The computer-implemented method of claim 1, wherein the selected test case and the tuning policy choice are performed in sequence”. The examiner would like to point out that claim 4 depends on claim 1, and while claim 1 previously recites “selecting the subset of test cases” and “determining the candidate deployment policies”, it does not previously recite selecting a single test case and a tuning policy choice, and as such there is insufficient antecedent basis for these limitations in the claim. For the purpose of examination, the examiner will consider these limitations to be “…wherein the selected subset of test cases and the determined candidate deployment policies are performed in sequence.”
As per claim 5, it recites the limitation “The computer-implemented method of claim 1, wherein the selected test case and the tuning policy choice are performed in sequence and…”. The examiner would like to point out that claim 5 depends on claim 1, and while claim 1 previously recites “selecting the subset of test cases” and “determining the candidate deployment policies”, it does not previously recite selecting a single test case and a tuning policy choice, and as such there is insufficient antecedent basis for these limitations in the claim. For the purpose of examination, the examiner will consider these limitations to be “…wherein the selected subset of test cases and the determined candidate deployment policies are performed in sequence and…”.
As per claims 10 and 11, they recite “…wherein test case selection is robust against…”. The examiner is unclear as to what is meant by “robust” as different persons of ordinary skill in the art may have different opinions as to what would be considered/make something/etc. “robust”. For the purpose of examination, the examiner will consider these limitations to be “…wherein test case selection imparts a minimum test accuracy against…” as is similar to par. [0075] of the specification of this application.
As per claim 13, it recites “…wherein the weighting on each of the subset of test cases is determined by expert guidance.” The examiner is unclear as to what is meant by “expert” as different persons of ordinary skill in the art may have different opinions as to what would constitute/make/be considered/qualify someone as/etc. an “expert”. For the purpose of examination, the examiner will consider these limitations to be “…wherein the weighting on each of the subset of test cases is determined by a player.” as is similar to pars. [0070], [0076]-[0077], etc. of the specification of this application.
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 and 18-20 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 policies, comprising: evaluating each tuning policy of a subset of tuning policies, from the set of policies, 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 for determining a loss function for each of m test cases sampled on each of N sampled policies from the set of policies; and selecting the subset of test cases based on a plurality of rounds of the two-player game formulation, wherein the subset of test cases are operable for determining the candidate deployment policies.”
The limitations “evaluating each tuning policy of a subset of tuning policies, from the set of policies, 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 for determining a loss function for each of m test cases sampled on each of N sampled policies from the set of policies”, and “selecting the subset of test cases based on a plurality of rounds of the two-player game formulation, wherein the subset of test cases are operable for determining the candidate deployment policies” 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/etc. judge/decide/determine/identify/etc. a loss function for test cases sampled on policies using a two-player game formulation, and may mentally/with pen and paper decide/judge/select/identify/etc. test cases/subset of test cases/etc.. Therefore, these limitations recite and falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of 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 policies, comprising” which, with broadest reasonable interpretation, recite that high level/generic computer/computer components 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. 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 which does not provide an inventive concept and does not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea/mental process. 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 each of 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 the k worst policies and respective target distributions that maximize the loss function; and sampling one of the k words policies and respective target distribution 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 test case and the tuning policy choice 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 test case and the tuning policy choice 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 test case and the tuning policy choice 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 target distribution 1s 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 is robust 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 is robust 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 expert guidance” 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.
As per claim 14, it incorporates the deficiencies of claim 1, upon which it depends, and further recites “…wherein the candidate deployment policies are policy for an artificial agent in a competitive racing simulation” 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 14 fails to correct the deficiencies of claim 1 and is rejected for similar reasoning as claim 1, above.
As per claim 18, it recites a computer-implemented method having similar limitations as the computer-implemented method of claim 1, and as such recites similar abstract idea/mental process and has similar deficiencies as claim 1, above. Claim 18 recites the further additional element/limitation “sampling the set of policies on the subset of test cases to determine the candidate deployment policies” which, with broadest reasonable interpretation, provides a further clarification as to the abstract idea/mental process/judging/selecting/choosing/deciding/sampling/determining/ identifying/etc. performed, which does not integrate the abstract idea/mental process into a practical application and is not significantly more than the abstract idea/mental process. As such, the additional elements/limitations of claim 18 fail to correct the deficiencies of claim 1, and therefore claim 18 is rejected for similar reasoning as claim 1, above.
As per claims 19 and 20, they recite computer-implemented methods having similar limitations as the computer-implemented methods of claims 12 and 7, respectively, and are therefore rejected for similar reasoning as claims 12 and 7, respectively, 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 for determining a loss function for each of m test cases sampled on each of N sampled policies from a set of policies, and selecting a subset of test cases based on a plurality of rounds of the two-player game formulation, wherein the subset of test cases are operable for determining candidate deployment policies, after evaluating each tuning policy of a subset of tuning policies, from the set of policies, with each test case, from the set of test cases, to generate a result matrix of test case results; and when the subset of test cases are selected from a set of test cases and identify candidate deployment policies form a set of policies, as required by the independent claims.
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