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 5/12/2026. Claims 1-13 and 18-20 are currently pending and claim 14 is cancelled. 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 and 18 are objected to because of the following informalities:
As per claims 1 and 18, they recite “A computer-implemented method for…identify/identifying candidate deployment policies from a set of tuning policies, 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…”. The examiner would like to point out that while the claims previously recite “a set of tuning policies”, the claims do not previously clarify that the “tuning policies” are “stored in a policy database” before reciting “the set of tuning policies stored in a policy database”, and as such, for clarity the examiner would like to recommend the wording/phrasing “A computer-implemented method for…identify candidate deployment policies from a set of tuning policies stored in a 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…” to make clear that the “set of tuning policies stored in a policy database” that is referred to as “the set of tuning policies” is the previously recited “set of tuning policies”.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
As per claim 9, it recites the limitation "The computer-implemented method of claim 2, wherein the respective target distribution is based on a fixed uniform distribution over the m-tuple of test cases”, however, while claim 2 previously recites “respective target distributions” and “sampling one of the k policies and respective target distributions…, it does not previously explicitly recite a singular “respective target distribution”, and as such there is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For the purpose of examination, the examiner will consider these limitations to be “…wherein the sampled one of the respective target distributions is based on a fixed uniform distribution over the m-tuple of test cases.”
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 tuning policies, 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; 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 stored and used by the development server to determine the candidate deployment policies, wherein the candidate deployment policies are policies for an artificial agent in a competitive racing simulation.”
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”, and “selecting the subset of test cases based on a plurality of rounds of the two-player game formulation”, and “wherein the subset of test cases are used…to determine the candidate deployment policies, wherein the candidate deployment policies are policies for an artificial agent in a competitive racing simulation” 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/etc. test cases/subset of test cases/etc., and may mentally judge/decide/ identify/determine/select/etc. deployment policies intended to be used for an agent in a racing simulation. 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, comprising”, “by a/the development server”, “from the set of tuning policies stored in a policy database”, and “wherein the subset of test cases are stored”. 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 from a set of tuning policies, comprising”, “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 the set of tuning policies stored in a policy database” and “wherein the subset of test cases are stored” do nothing more than add insignificant extra solution activity to the judicial exception of merely storing data/tuning policies/test cases/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 respective target distribution 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.
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. 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 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 subset of test cases are stored and used by the development server to determine the candidate deployment policies, after evaluating 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; when the subset of test cases are selected from a set of test cases and identify candidate deployment policies form a set of policies, and when the candidate deployment policies are policies for an artificial agent in a competitive racing simulation as required by the independent claims.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 5/12/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
As per the summary of the status of claims on pg. 7 par. 1 of the remarks arguments that claims 1-20 were pending, claims 1-20 are rejected, claims 1, 15, and 18 are amended, no claims are cancelled, and no new claims are added, and therefore claims 1-20 are pending, the examiner, respectfully, disagrees.
The examiner would first like to point out that the claims were subject to restriction, and on 1/16/2026 the applicant filed a reply electing, without traverse, claims 1-14 and 18-20 for examination, and as such claims 1-14 and 18-20 are subject to examination. Examiner would further like to point out that the amended claims submitted on 5/12/2026 currently subject to examination cancelled claim 14 (and did not cancel the unelected restricted claims 15-17). As such, the examiner would like to point out that the current status of the claims is that claims 1-13 and 18-20 are pending and subject to examination.
As per the augments on pg. 7 par. 7-8 of the remarks that the claims have been amended to overcome the claim objections, and therefore the claim objections should be withdrawn, the examiner would like to point out that the amendments to the claims introduced new informalities, and as such new objections have been raised, as seen in the objections of claims 1 and 18, above.
Therefore, the examiner finds these arguments unpersuasive and maintains that the claim objections are proper.
As per the 112 arguments on pg. 7 par. 9-pg. 8 par. 1 of the remarks that the claims have been amended to overcome the 112 issues, and therefore the claims are allowable under 35 USC 112, the examiner would like to point out that the amendments to the claims introduced new 112 issues in claim 9, as seen in the rejection of claim 9 under 35 USC 112.
Therefore, the examiner finds these arguments unpersuasive and maintains that the rejections under 35 USC 112 are proper.
As per the 101 arguments on pg. 8 par. 2-pg. 14 par. 3 of the remarks that independent claim 1 is directed to a process and independent claim 18 is directed to a machine and therefore the claims fall within statutory classes; that the specifics of the amended claims are specifically rooted in computer technology and can not be performed by a human as the human mind is not equipped to perform the claim elements/limitations as recited by the claims, as the human mind cannot practically use 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 as such the amended claim elements/limitations do not recite a mental process and are therefore patent eligible; that the claim integrates any abstract ideas/mental process into a practical application as the amended claim limitations/elements link any judicial exception to the particular technological environment/field of use of a racing game environment and further improve the functioning of a computer/technology by improving artificial intelligence training technology by providing systems/methods for selecting a small number of test cases from a larger pool that minimizes reduction in test quality; and that the claims, when taken as a whole, are significantly more than an abstract idea/mental process as they are clearly outside any “mental process” grouping of abstract ideas and provide an improvement to computers/technology, and therefore the amended independent claims and their respective dependent claims are allowable, the examiner, respectfully, disagrees.
The examiner would first like to point out that amended independent claim 18 recites “A computer-implemented method for…” and as such is directed to a method/process and not a machine. The examiner would further like to point out that while the amended 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” may not be practically performed in the human mind, and as such is not/is outside/etc. a mental process, it does not necessarily root the limitation in computer technology as the amended limitation merely recites an abstract idea of a mathematical concept, as seen in the rejection of claim 1, above. Additionally, the examiner would like to point out that the actual wording/phrasing of the amended independent claims does not actually recite that training of an artificial intelligence agent while minimizing a reduction in test quality; and while the amended limitations/elements do provide that the judged/selected/determined candidate deployment policies resulting from an abstract idea/mental process/judgment/determining/deciding/etc. are intended to be “for an artificial agent in a competitive racing simulation”, it does not clarify/require how the policies are used, what the artificial agent does with the policies, what the artificial agent does in the racing simulation, etc., and as such, with broadest reasonable interpretation, the clarification of an intended/potential use of the policies does not link/require/etc. the abstract idea to a particular field, recite an improvement to computers/technology, integrate the abstract ideas into a practical application, and are not significantly more than the abstract ideas/mental process and mathematical concepts, as seen in the rejection of claim 1 under 35 USC 101, above. If applicant intended for the broadest reasonable interpretation of the independent claims to include training an artificial intelligence agent used in a racing simulation while minimizing reduction in test quality, the examiner would recommend further clarification/amendment to positively recite/include these elements in the claims, and potentially overcome the 101 issues.
Therefore, the examiner finds these arguments unpersuasive and maintains that the rejection under 35 USC 101 is proper.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
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
Prosecution Insights