DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
This action is responsive to the original application filed on 9/1/2023 and the Remarks and Amendments filed on 6/24/2026. Acknowledgment is made with respect to a claim of priority to Japanese Application JP2022-202278 filed on 12/19/2022.
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 1-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The analysis of the claims will follow the 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. 50 (“2019 PEG”).
When considering subject matter eligibility under 35 U.S.C. 101, it must be determined whether the claim is directed to one of the four statutory categories of invention, i.e., process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter (Step 1). If the claim does fall within one of the statutory categories, the second step in the analysis is to determine whether the claim is directed to a judicial exception (Step 2A). The Step 2A analysis is broken into two prongs. In the first prong (Step 2A, Prong 1), it is determined whether or not the claims recite a judicial exception (e.g., mathematical concepts, mental processes, certain methods of organizing human activity). If it is determined in Step 2A, Prong 1 that the claims recite a judicial exception, the analysis proceeds to the second prong (Step 2A, Prong 2), where it is determined whether or not the claims integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. If it is determined at step 2A, Prong 2 that the claims do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application, the analysis proceeds to determining whether the claim is a patent-eligible application of the exception (Step 2B). If an abstract idea is present in the claim, any element or combination of elements in the claim must be sufficient to ensure that the claim integrates the judicial exception into a practical application, or else amounts to significantly more than the abstract idea itself.
Claim 1
Step 1: The claim recites a method; therefore, it is directed to the statutory category of a process.
Step 2A Prong 1: The claim recites, inter alia:
calculating a probability distribution indicating a distribution of a probability density or a distribution of a probability at which actions are selected, based on the current observation data and a control parameter: Under its broadest reasonable interpretation in light of the specification, this limitation encompasses the mathematical concept of calculating a probability distribution, which is performed through mathematical computation.
selecting a first action among the actions based on the probability distribution: Under its broadest reasonable interpretation in light of the specification, this limitation encompasses the mental process of selecting an action based on a distribution, which is an evaluation or observation that is practically capable of being performed in the human mind with the assistance of pen and paper.
calculating a probability density or a probability of the first action from the probability distribution: Under its broadest reasonable interpretation in light of the specification, this limitation encompasses the mathematical concept of calculating a probability or probability density, which is performed through mathematical computation.
correcting the first reward based on the probability density of the first action or the probability of the first action: Under its broadest reasonable interpretation in light of the specification, this limitation encompasses the mental process of correcting a reward, which is an evaluation or observation that is practically capable of being performed in the human mind with the assistance of pen and paper.
updating the control parameter based on the current observation data, the first action, the next observation data, and the corrected first reward: Under its broadest reasonable interpretation in light of the specification, this limitation encompasses the mental process of updating a parameter based on particular data, which is an evaluation or observation that is practically capable of being performed in the human mind with the assistance of pen and paper.
correcting the first reward comprises calculating a second reward: Under its broadest reasonable interpretation in light of the specification, this limitation encompasses the mathematical concept of calculating a second reward, which is performed through mathematical computation.
correcting the first reward based on the second reward such that the second reward increases as the probability density of the first action or the probability of the first action decreases, thereby increasing exploration of actions having low probability density or probability and suppressing convergence of learning to a local optimum: Under its broadest reasonable interpretation in light of the specification, this limitation encompasses the mental process of correcting a reward, which is an evaluation or observation that is practically capable of being performed in the human mind with the assistance of pen and paper.
Step 2A Prong 2: The claim does not recite any additional limitations which integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Specifically, the additional elements consist of “receiving current observation data”, “causing a control target to execute the first action, wherein the first action includes a physical action of the control target”, “receiving a first reward and next observation data observed after the control target has executed the first action”, and “inputting the probability density of the first action or the probability of the first action into a look-up table stored in a memory”.
The additional element of “causing a control target to execute the first action, wherein the first action includes a physical action of the control target” amount to reciting only the idea of a solution or outcome i.e., the claim fails to recite details of how a solution to a problem is accomplished because it is not clear how the control target is broadly caused to execute a physical action. Thus, the additional elements amount to no more than a recitation of the words "apply it" (or an equivalent) or are more than mere instructions to implement an abstract idea or other exception on a computer (see MPEP § 2106.05(f)).
The additional elements “receiving current observation data”, “receiving a first reward and next observation data observed after the control target has executed the first action”, and “inputting the probability density of the first action or the probability of the first action into a look-up table stored in a memory” are insignificant extra-solution activities required for any uses of the abstract ideas (see MPEP § 2106.05(g)).
Thus, even when viewed individually and as an ordered combination, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application and the claim is thus directed to the abstract idea.
Step 2B: Finally, the claim taken as a whole does not contain an inventive concept which provides significantly more than the abstract idea.
The additional element of “causing a control target to execute the first action, wherein the first action includes a physical action of the control target” amount to reciting only the idea of a solution or outcome i.e., the claim fails to recite details of how a solution to a problem is accomplished because it is not clear how the control target is broadly caused to execute a physical action. Thus, the additional elements amount to no more than a recitation of the words "apply it" (or an equivalent) or are more than mere instructions to implement an abstract idea or other exception on a computer (see MPEP § 2106.05(f)).
The additional elements “receiving current observation data”, “receiving a first reward and next observation data observed after the control target has executed the first action”, and “inputting the probability density of the first action or the probability of the first action into a look-up table stored in a memory” are insignificant extra-solution activities required for any uses of the abstract ideas (see MPEP § 2106.05(g)), and are well-understood, routine, conventional activities (see MPEP § 2106.05(d)(II)(i); “Receiving or transmitting data over a network”, “Storing and retrieving information in memory”).
Taken alone or in combination, the additional elements of the claim do not provide an inventive concept and thus the claim is subject-matter ineligible.
Claim 2
Step 1: A process, as above.
Step 2A Prong 1: The claim recites, inter alia:
updating the control parameter for each control period of the control target: Under its broadest reasonable interpretation in light of the specification, this limitation encompasses the mental process of updating a parameter based on particular data, which is an evaluation or observation that is practically capable of being performed in the human mind with the assistance of pen and paper.
Step 2A Prong 2, Step 2B: The claim does not recite any additional elements that are sufficient to integrate the judicial exceptions into a practical application or amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As such, the claim is ineligible.
Claim 3
Step 1: A process, as above.
Step 2A Prong 1: The claim recites the abstract ideas of the preceding claims from which it depends.
Step 2A Prong 2, Step 2B: The additional element “inputting the current observation data to a neural network whose input/output characteristics vary according to the control parameter, the neural network outputting the probability distribution” is an insignificant extra-solution activity required for any uses of the mental processes (see MPEP § 2106.05(g)), and is a well-understood, routine, conventional activity (see MPEP § 2106.05(d)(II)(i); “Receiving or transmitting data over a network”). Taken alone or in combination, the additional elements of the claim do not provide an inventive concept, integrate the abstract ideas into a practical application, or provide significantly more than the abstract ideas of the claim and thus the claim is subject-matter ineligible.
Claim 4
Step 1: A process, as above.
Step 2A Prong 1: The claim recites the abstract ideas of the preceding claims from which it depends.
Step 2A Prong 2, Step 2B: The additional element “wherein a frequency of selecting the first action increases as the first reward increases” amounts to no more than generally linking the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use (see MPEP § 2106.05(h). Taken alone or in combination, the additional elements of the claim do not provide an inventive concept, integrate the abstract ideas into a practical application, or provide significantly more than the abstract ideas of the claim and thus the claim is subject-matter ineligible.
Claim 5
Step 1: A process, as above.
Step 2A Prong 1: The claim recites, inter alia:
adding the second reward to the first reward: Under its broadest reasonable interpretation in light of the specification, this limitation encompasses the mental process of correcting a reward, which is an evaluation or observation that is practically capable of being performed in the human mind with the assistance of pen and paper.
Step 2A Prong 2, Step 2B: The additional element “the second reward increases as the probability density or the probability decreases” amounts to no more than generally linking the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use (see MPEP § 2106.05(h). Taken alone or in combination, the additional elements of the claim do not provide an inventive concept, integrate the abstract ideas into a practical application, or provide significantly more than the abstract ideas of the claim and thus the claim is subject-matter ineligible.
Claim 6
Step 1: A process, as above.
Step 2A Prong 1: The claim recites, inter alia:
correcting the first reward by multiplying the first reward by a factor: Under its broadest reasonable interpretation in light of the specification, this limitation encompasses the mental process of correcting a reward, which is an evaluation or observation that is practically capable of being performed in the human mind with the assistance of pen and paper or is a mathematical concept.
Step 2A Prong 2, Step 2B: The additional element “the factor increases as the probability density or probability decreases” amounts to no more than generally linking the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use (see MPEP § 2106.05(h). Taken alone or in combination, the additional elements of the claim do not provide an inventive concept, integrate the abstract ideas into a practical application, or provide significantly more than the abstract ideas of the claim and thus the claim is subject-matter ineligible.
Claim 7
Claim 7 recites a learning device (step 1: a machine) using a processor to perform the steps of claim 1, which by MPEP 2106.05(f) (“apply it”) cannot integrate an abstract idea into a practical application or provide significantly more than the abstract idea by itself, and is thus rejected for the same reasons set forth in the rejection of claim 1.
Claim 8
Claim 8 recites a non-transitory computer readable storage medium (step 1: a manufacture) using a computer to perform the steps of claim 1, which by MPEP 2106.05(f) (“apply it”) cannot integrate an abstract idea into a practical application or provide significantly more than the abstract idea by itself, and is thus rejected for the same reasons set forth in the rejection of claim 1.
Claim 9
Step 1: The claim recites a method; therefore, it is directed to the statutory category of a process.
Step 2A Prong 1: The claim recites, inter alia:
calculating a probability distribution indicating a distribution of a probability density or a distribution of a probability at which actions are selected, based on the current observation data and a control parameter updated by the learning method of claim 1: Under its broadest reasonable interpretation in light of the specification, this limitation encompasses the mathematical concept of calculating a probability distribution, which is performed through mathematical computation.
selecting a first action among the actions based on the probability distribution: Under its broadest reasonable interpretation in light of the specification, this limitation encompasses the mental process of selecting an action based on a distribution, which is an evaluation or observation that is practically capable of being performed in the human mind with the assistance of pen and paper.
Step 2A Prong 2: The claim does not recite any additional limitations which integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Specifically, the additional elements consist of “receiving current observation data” and “causing a control target to execute the first action”.
The additional element of “causing a control target to execute the first action” amount to reciting only the idea of a solution or outcome i.e., the claim fails to recite details of how a solution to a problem is accomplished because it is not clear how the control target is broadly caused to execute an action. Thus, the additional elements amount to no more than a recitation of the words "apply it" (or an equivalent) or are more than mere instructions to implement an abstract idea or other exception on a computer (see MPEP § 2106.05(f)).
The additional element “receiving current observation data” is an insignificant extra-solution activity required for any uses of the abstract ideas (see MPEP § 2106.05(g)).
Thus, even when viewed individually and as an ordered combination, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application and the claim is thus directed to the abstract idea.
Step 2B: Finally, the claim taken as a whole does not contain an inventive concept which provides significantly more than the abstract idea.
The additional element of “causing a control target to execute the first action” amount to reciting only the idea of a solution or outcome i.e., the claim fails to recite details of how a solution to a problem is accomplished because it is not clear how the control target is broadly caused to execute an action. Thus, the additional elements amount to no more than a recitation of the words "apply it" (or an equivalent) or are more than mere instructions to implement an abstract idea or other exception on a computer (see MPEP § 2106.05(f)).
The additional element “receiving current observation data” is an insignificant extra-solution activity required for any uses of the abstract ideas (see MPEP § 2106.05(g)), and is a well-understood, routine, conventional activities (see MPEP § 2106.05(d)(II)(i); “Receiving or transmitting data over a network”).
Taken alone or in combination, the additional elements of the claim do not provide an inventive concept and thus the claim is subject-matter ineligible.
Claim 10
Step 1: The claim recites a control device; therefore, it is directed to the statutory category of a machine.
Step 2A Prong 1: The claim recites, inter alia:
calculate a probability distribution indicating a distribution of a probability density or a distribution of a probability at which actions are selected, based on the current observation data and a control parameter: Under its broadest reasonable interpretation in light of the specification, this limitation encompasses the mathematical concept of calculating a probability distribution, which is performed through mathematical computation.
select a first action among the actions based on the probability distribution: Under its broadest reasonable interpretation in light of the specification, this limitation encompasses the mental process of selecting an action based on a distribution, which is an evaluation or observation that is practically capable of being performed in the human mind with the assistance of pen and paper.
the control parameter is calculated based on the current observation data and the control parameter: Under its broadest reasonable interpretation in light of the specification, this limitation encompasses the mathematical concept of calculating a control parameter, which is performed through mathematical computation.
the control parameter is updated based on the probability distribution and a first reward, wherein a frequency of selecting the first action increases as the first reward increases: Under its broadest reasonable interpretation in light of the specification, this limitation encompasses the mental process of updating a control parameter, which is an evaluation or observation that is practically capable of being performed in the human mind with the assistance of pen and paper.
the first reward is corrected by calculating a second reward: Under its broadest reasonable interpretation in light of the specification, this limitation encompasses the mathematical concept of calculating a second reward, which is performed through mathematical computation.
correcting the first reward based on the second reward such that the second reward increases as the probability density of the first action or the probability of the first action decreases, thereby increasing exploration of actions having low probability density or probability and suppressing convergence of learning to a local optimum: Under its broadest reasonable interpretation in light of the specification, this limitation encompasses the mental process of correcting a reward, which is an evaluation or observation that is practically capable of being performed in the human mind with the assistance of pen and paper.
Step 2A Prong 2: The claim does not recite any additional limitations which integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Specifically, the additional elements consist of “receive current observation data”, “cause a control target to execute the first action”, and “inputting the probability density of the first action or the probability of the first action into a look-up table stored in a memory”.
The additional element of “cause a control target to execute the first action, wherein the first action includes a physical action of the control target” amount to reciting only the idea of a solution or outcome i.e., the claim fails to recite details of how a solution to a problem is accomplished because it is not clear how the control target is broadly caused to execute a physical action. Thus, the additional elements amount to no more than a recitation of the words "apply it" (or an equivalent) or are more than mere instructions to implement an abstract idea or other exception on a computer (see MPEP § 2106.05(f)).
The additional elements “receive current observation data” and “inputting the probability density of the first action or the probability of the first action into a look-up table stored in a memory” are insignificant extra-solution activities required for any uses of the abstract ideas (see MPEP § 2106.05(g)).
Thus, even when viewed individually and as an ordered combination, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application and the claim is thus directed to the abstract idea.
Step 2B: Finally, the claim taken as a whole does not contain an inventive concept which provides significantly more than the abstract idea.
The additional element of “cause a control target to execute the first action, wherein the first action includes a physical action of the control target” amount to reciting only the idea of a solution or outcome i.e., the claim fails to recite details of how a solution to a problem is accomplished because it is not clear how the control target is broadly caused to execute a physical action. Thus, the additional elements amount to no more than a recitation of the words "apply it" (or an equivalent) or are more than mere instructions to implement an abstract idea or other exception on a computer (see MPEP § 2106.05(f)).
The additional elements “receive current observation data” and “inputting the probability density of the first action or the probability of the first action into a look-up table stored in a memory” are insignificant extra-solution activities required for any uses of the abstract ideas (see MPEP § 2106.05(g)), and are well-understood, routine, conventional activities (see MPEP § 2106.05(d)(II)(i); “Receiving or transmitting data over a network” and “Storing and retrieving information in memory”).
Taken alone or in combination, the additional elements of the claim do not provide an inventive concept and thus the claim is subject-matter ineligible.
Claim 11
Claim 11 recites a non-transitory computer readable storage medium (step 1: a manufacture) using a computer to perform the steps of claim 10, which by MPEP 2106.05(f) (“apply it”) cannot integrate an abstract idea into a practical application or provide significantly more than the abstract idea by itself, and is thus rejected for the same reasons set forth in the rejection of claim 10.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments and amendments, filed on 6/24/2026, with respect to the objection to the specification/title have been fully considered and are persuasive. The objection to the specification/title is withdrawn.
Applicant’s arguments and amendments, filed on 6/24/2026, with respect to the 35 U.S.C. 112(f) interpretation of the claims have been fully considered and are persuasive. The 35 U.S.C. 112(f) interpretation of the claims is withdrawn.
Applicant’s arguments and amendments, filed on 6/24/2026, with respect to the 35 U.S.C. 112(b) rejection of claims 4, 10, and 11 have been fully considered and are persuasive. The 35 U.S.C. 112(b) rejection of claims 4, 10, and 11 is withdrawn.
Applicant’s arguments and amendments, filed on 6/24/2026, with respect to the 35 U.S.C. 101 rejection of the pending claims have been fully considered and are not persuasive.
Applicant argues “amended independent claims 1, 7, 8, 10 and 11 are not directed merely to mathematical calculations or mental processes. Rather, the claims recite a specific reinforcement learning technique in which a control target executes a physical action and a reward is corrected based on an action selection probability to increase exploration of low probability actions and suppress convergence of learning to a local optimum. The claimed reward correction mechanism improves the operation of reinforcement learning control systems themselves by reducing premature convergence and improving learning performance of the control target. Accordingly, the claims integrate any alleged judicial exception into a practical application and, at a minimum, recite significantly more than any alleged abstract idea”. Examiner respectfully disagrees.
Applicant has failed to provide any evidence from the claim language or originally filed specification that demonstrates that the amended independent claims are not directed toward abstract ideas in the form of mental processes or mathematical concepts. Rather, Applicant concludes that the claims, broadly speaking, are not directed towards abstract ideas. Applicant further asserts that the claims recite a “specific technique” for performing reinforcement learning that results in an improvement of RL control systems without identifying any claim language that reflects this alleged improvement. Applicant has failed to identify any claim language in the independent claims that are additional elements beyond abstract ideas that reflect a technical improvement, integrate abstract ideas into a practical application, or provide significantly more than the abstract ideas.
Accordingly, Applicant’s arguments and amendments are not persuasive to overcome the rejection, and the 35 USC § 101 rejection of the pending claims is maintained.
Applicant’s arguments and amendments, filed on 6/24/2026, with respect to the 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) rejection of the pending claims have been fully considered and are persuasive.
The closest prior art of record Haarnoja et al., “Soft Actor-Critic: Off-Policy Maximum Entropy Deep Reinforcement Learning with a Stochastic Actor”, discloses soft actor-critic, an off-policy actor-critic deep RL algorithm based on the maximum entropy reinforcement learning framework. that aims to maximize expected reward while also maximizing entropy, but fails to explicitly disclose the first reward is corrected by calculating a second reward by inputting the probability density of the first action or the probability of the first action into a look-up table stored in a memory, and correcting the first reward based on the second reward such that the second reward increases as the probability density of the first action or the probability of the first action decreases, thereby increasing exploration of actions having low probability density or probability and suppressing convergence of learning to a local optimum, all taught in the context of the remaining claim limitations and when considered as a whole, as claimed.
Accordingly, the 35 USC § 102(a)(1) rejection of the pending claims is withdrawn.
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 Brent Hoover whose telephone number is (303)297-4403. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 9-5 MST.
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, Abdullah Kawsar can be reached on 571-270-3169. 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.
/BRENT JOHNSTON HOOVER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2127
Prosecution Insights