DETAILED ACTION
This action is in response to the Applicant Response filed 01 July 2026 for application 18/481,164 filed 04 October 2023.
Claim(s) 1-2, 5, 9-10, 13, 17-18 is/are currently amended.
Claim(s) 1-20 is/are pending.
Claim(s) 1-20 is/are rejected.
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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments regarding the objections to the claims have been fully considered and, in light of the amendments to the claims, are persuasive.
Applicant's arguments regarding the 35 U.S.C. 112(b) rejection(s) of claim(s) 1-20 have been fully considered and, in light of the amendments to the claims, are persuasive. The 35 U.S.C. 112(b) rejection(s) of claim(s) 1-20 has/have been withdrawn.
Applicant’s arguments regarding the 35 U.S.C. 101 rejection of the claims are based on the newly amended subject matter. All arguments are addressed in the 35 U.S.C. 101 rejection of the claims below.
Claim Objections
Claim(s) 17-20 is/are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 17, line 15, according to the program code to compute should read “according to the agent action selection module to compute”
Claims 18-20 are objected to due to their dependence, either directly or indirectly, on claim 17
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are:
agent control module to control (claim 17) ...
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(b)
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 17-20 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.
Regarding claim 17, various claim limitations reciting agent control module to control (claim 17) ... invoke 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed functions and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the functions. The specification is devoid of adequate structure to perform the claimed functions. There is no clear disclosure of the particular structure, either explicitly or inherently, to perform the functions of the claims. As would be recognized by those of ordinary skill in the art, the functions can be performed in any number of ways including in hardware, in software, or a combination of the two. The specification does not provide sufficient details such that one of ordinary skill in the art would understand which structure or structures perform(s) the claimed functions.
Therefore, the claim is indefinite and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph.
Applicant may:
(a) Amend the claim so that the claim limitation will no longer be interpreted as a limitation under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph;
(b) Amend the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites what structure, material, or acts perform the entire claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(c) Amend the written description of the specification such that it clearly links the structure, material, or acts disclosed therein to the function recited in the claim, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)).
If applicant is of the opinion that the written description of the specification already implicitly or inherently discloses the corresponding structure, material, or acts and clearly links them to the function so that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize what structure, material, or acts perform the claimed function, applicant should clarify the record by either:
(a) Amending the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function and clearly links or associates the structure, material, or acts to the claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(b) Stating on the record what the corresponding structure, material, or acts, which are implicitly or inherently set forth in the written description of the specification, perform the claimed function. For more information, see 37 CFR 1.75(d) and MPEP §§ 608.01(o) and 2181.
Claim 18-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) due to their dependence, either directly or indirectly, on claim 17.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(a)
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 17-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement.
Claim 17 contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for pre AIA the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. As discussed above, the disclosure does not provide adequate structure to perform the claimed functions of:
agent control module to control (claim 17) ...
The specification does not demonstrate that applicant has made an invention that achieves the claimed function because the invention is not described with sufficient detail such that one of ordinary skill in the art can reasonably conclude that the inventor had possession of the claimed invention.
Claim 18-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) due to their dependence, either directly or indirectly, on claim 17.
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.
Claim(s) 1-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101, because the claim(s) is/are directed to an abstract idea, and because the claim elements, whether considered individually or in combination, do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea, see Alice Corporation Pty. Ltd. V. CLS Bank International et al., 573 US 208 (2014).
Regarding claim 1, the claim is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1 Analysis: Claim 1 is directed to a method, which is directed to a process, one of the statutory categories.
Step 2A Prong One Analysis: The claim recites a(n) method for a task-agnostic policy filter control system.
The limitation of encoding a current observation, a previous latent state, and a previous action to output a new latent state, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers a mathematical concept. The limitation encompasses encoding values.
The limitation of computing, by a neural ordinary differential equations (ODE) module, learned latent state-space dynamic models for the new latent state, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers a mathematical concept. The limitation encompasses computing values.
The limitation of inferring, by an in-distribution barrier function (iDBF) model, an iDBF value in response to the new latent state, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers a mathematical concept. The limitation encompasses inferring values.
The limitation of computing a current action based on the learned latent state-space dynamic models, the iDBF value and a reference control input for a current timestep, in which the current action keeps the task-agnostic policy filter control system in-distribution with respect to an offline-collected dataset of safe demonstrations, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers a mathematical concept. The limitation encompasses computing values.
If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of mathematical concepts, then it falls within the "Mathematical Concepts" grouping. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
Step 2A Prong Two Analysis: With respect to the abstract idea, the judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application.
The claim recites additional element(s) – task-agnostic policy filter control system, neural ordinary differential equations (ODE) module, in-distribution barrier function (iDBF) model, learned latent state-space dynamic models. The additional element(s) is/are recited at a high-level of generality such that it amounts to no more than indicating a field of use or technological environment in which to apply the judicial exception (MPEP 2106.05(h)).
The claim recites controlling an autonomous agent to perform an agent control action based on the current action according to the computing which is simply controlling an agent recited at a high level of generality and amounts to the recitation of the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) or amounts to no more than mere instructions to implement an abstract idea or other exception on a computer (MPEP 2106.05(f)).
Accordingly, the additional element(s) do(es) not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because the additional element(s) do(es) not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea, and, therefore, the claim is directed to an abstract idea.
Step 2B Analysis: 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 the integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional element(s) of:
controlling an agent amount(s) to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception (MPEP 2106.05(f))
task-agnostic policy filter control system, neural ordinary differential equations (ODE) module, in-distribution barrier function (iDBF) model, learned latent state-space dynamic models amount(s) to no more than indicating a field of use or technological environment in which to apply the judicial exception (MPEP 2106.05(h))
The additional element(s) do(es) not provide an inventive concept, and, therefore, the claim is not patent eligible.
Regarding claim 2, the claim is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1 Analysis: Claim 2 is directed to a method, which is directed to a process, one of the statutory categories.
Step 2A Prong One Analysis: The claim recites a(n) method for a task-agnostic policy filter control system. The Step 2A Prong One Analysis for claim 1 is applicable here since claim 2 carries out the method of claim 1 but for the recitation of additional element(s) of collecting an off-line collected dataset of safe demonstrations; and training the iDBF model to learn latent-space barrier functions from the off-line dataset of safe demonstrations.
Step 2A Prong Two Analysis: With respect to the abstract idea, the judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application.
The claim recites additional element(s) – latent-space barrier functions. The additional element(s) is/are recited at a high-level of generality such that it amounts to no more than indicating a field of use or technological environment in which to apply the judicial exception (MPEP 2106.05(h)).
The claim recites training the iDBF model to learn latent-space barrier functions from the off-line dataset of safe demonstrations which is simply generic training to perform the abstract idea of calculating values and amounts to mere instructions to apply the exception (MPEP 2106.05(f)).
The claim recites collecting an off-line collected dataset of safe demonstrations, which is simply receiving data recited at a high level of generality. This is nothing more than insignificant extra-solution activity (MPEP 2106.05(g)).
Accordingly, the additional element(s) do(es) not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because the additional element(s) do(es) not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea, and, therefore, the claim is directed to an abstract idea.
Step 2B Analysis: 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 the integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional element(s) of:
generic training to perform the abstract idea amount(s) to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception (MPEP 2106.05(f))
receiving data amount(s) to no more than insignificant extra-solution activity (MPEP 2106.05(g)), wherein the insignificant extra-solution activity is the well-understood routine and conventional activit(y/ies) of receiving or transmitting data over a network and/or storing and retrieving information in memory (MPEP 2016.05(d))
latent-space barrier functions amount(s) to no more than indicating a field of use or technological environment in which to apply the judicial exception (MPEP 2106.05(h))
The additional element(s) do(es) not provide an inventive concept, and, therefore, the claim is not patent eligible.
Regarding claim 3, the claim is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1 Analysis: Claim 3 is directed to a method, which is directed to a process, one of the statutory categories.
Step 2A Prong One Analysis: The claim recites a(n) method for a task-agnostic policy filter control system. The Step 2A Prong One Analysis for claim 1 is applicable here since claim 3 carries out the method of claim 1 but for the recitation of additional element(s) of acquiring observations and control inputs from a safe dataset derived during training; and reconstructing, by a decoder, the acquired observations according to a latent space.
Step 2A Prong Two Analysis: With respect to the abstract idea, the judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application.
The claim recites additional element(s) – decoder. The additional element(s) is/are recited at a high-level of generality such that it amounts to no more than indicating a field of use or technological environment in which to apply the judicial exception (MPEP 2106.05(h)).
The claim recites acquiring observations and control inputs from a safe dataset derived during training, which is simply receiving data recited at a high level of generality. This is nothing more than insignificant extra-solution activity (MPEP 2106.05(g)).
The claim recites reconstructing, by a decoder, the acquired observations according to a latent space which is simply applying a model recited at a high level of generality and amounts to the recitation of the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) or amounts to no more than mere instructions to implement an abstract idea or other exception on a computer (MPEP 2106.05(f)).
Accordingly, the additional element(s) do(es) not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because the additional element(s) do(es) not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea, and, therefore, the claim is directed to an abstract idea.
Step 2B Analysis: 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 the integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional element(s) of:
applying a model amount(s) to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception (MPEP 2106.05(f))
receiving data amount(s) to no more than insignificant extra-solution activity (MPEP 2106.05(g)), wherein the insignificant extra-solution activity is the well-understood routine and conventional activit(y/ies) of receiving or transmitting data over a network and/or storing and retrieving information in memory (MPEP 2016.05(d))
decoder amount(s) to no more than indicating a field of use or technological environment in which to apply the judicial exception (MPEP 2106.05(h))
The additional element(s) do(es) not provide an inventive concept, and, therefore, the claim is not patent eligible.
Regarding claim 4, the claim is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1 Analysis: Claim 4 is directed to a method, which is directed to a process, one of the statutory categories.
Step 2A Prong One Analysis: The claim recites a(n) method for a task-agnostic policy filter control system.
The limitation of synthetically generating unsafe demonstrations ... for comparisons with true safe demonstrations to enable training using noise-contrastive learning, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers a mental process. The limitation is directed to observation, evaluation, judgment and opinion and is a process capable of being performed by a human mentally or using pen and paper.
If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind, then it falls within the "Mental Processes" grouping. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
Step 2A Prong Two Analysis: With respect to the abstract idea, the judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application.
The claim recites additional element(s) – pre-trained behavior cloning model, noise-contrastive learning. The additional element(s) is/are recited at a high-level of generality such that it amounts to no more than indicating a field of use or technological environment in which to apply the judicial exception (MPEP 2106.05(h)).
Accordingly, the additional element(s) do(es) not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because the additional element(s) do(es) not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea, and, therefore, the claim is directed to an abstract idea.
Step 2B Analysis: 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 the integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional element(s) of:
pre-trained behavior cloning model, noise-contrastive learning amount(s) to no more than indicating a field of use or technological environment in which to apply the judicial exception (MPEP 2106.05(h))
The additional element(s) do(es) not provide an inventive concept, and, therefore, the claim is not patent eligible.
Regarding claim 5, the claim is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1 Analysis: Claim 5 is directed to a method, which is directed to a process, one of the statutory categories.
Step 2A Prong One Analysis: The claim recites a(n) method for a task-agnostic policy filter control system. The Step 2A Prong One Analysis for claim 1 is applicable here since claim 5 carries out the method of claim 1 but for the recitation of additional element(s) of in which computing the learned latent state-space dynamic models comprises utilizing a neural ordinary differential equation (ODE) that describes learned dynamics in the new latent state based on training the learned latent state-space dynamic models using noise-contrastive learning.
Step 2A Prong Two Analysis: With respect to the abstract idea, the judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim recites additional information regarding the model and the element(s) do(es) not apply the exception in a meaningful way (MPEP 2106.05(e)). Accordingly, the additional element(s) do(es) not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because the additional element(s) do(es) not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea, and, therefore, the claim is directed to an abstract idea.
Step 2B Analysis: 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 the integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional element(s) of additional information regarding the model do(es) not apply the exception in a meaningful way (MPEP 2106.05(e)). Not applying the exception in a meaningful way does not provide an inventive concept, and, therefore, the claim is not patent eligible.
Regarding claim 6, the claim is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1 Analysis: Claim 6 is directed to a method, which is directed to a process, one of the statutory categories.
Step 2A Prong One Analysis: The claim recites a(n) method for a task-agnostic policy filter control system.
The limitation of in which inferring the iDBF value comprises measuring, using a control barrier function (CBF), a safety score of the new latent state to yield an optimization-based safe controller, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers a mathematical concept. The limitation encompasses calculating a score.
If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of mathematical concepts, then it falls within the "Mathematical Concepts" grouping. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
Step 2A Prong Two Analysis: With respect to the abstract idea, the judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application.
The claim recites additional element(s) – control barrier function (CBF). The additional element(s) is/are recited at a high-level of generality such that it amounts to no more than indicating a field of use or technological environment in which to apply the judicial exception (MPEP 2106.05(h)).
Accordingly, the additional element(s) do(es) not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because the additional element(s) do(es) not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea, and, therefore, the claim is directed to an abstract idea.
Step 2B Analysis: 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 the integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional element(s) of:
control barrier function (CBF) amount(s) to no more than indicating a field of use or technological environment in which to apply the judicial exception (MPEP 2106.05(h))
The additional element(s) do(es) not provide an inventive concept, and, therefore, the claim is not patent eligible.
Regarding claim 7, the claim is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1 Analysis: Claim 7 is directed to a method, which is directed to a process, one of the statutory categories.
Step 2A Prong One Analysis: The claim recites a(n) method for a task-agnostic policy filter control system.
The limitation of filtering unsafe inputs ... to direct the task-agnostic policy filter control system, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers a mental process. The limitation is directed to observation, evaluation, judgment and opinion and is a process capable of being performed by a human mentally or using pen and paper.
If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind, then it falls within the "Mental Processes" grouping. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
Step 2A Prong Two Analysis: With respect to the abstract idea, the judicial exception is not integrated
into a practical application. The claim does not recite any additional elements which integrate the
abstract idea into a practical application and, therefore, does not impose any meaningful limits on
practicing the abstract idea. Therefore, the claim is directed to an abstract idea.
Step 2B Analysis: 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 the integration of the
abstract idea into a practical application, the claim does not recite any additional elements which
provide an inventive concept, and, therefore, the claim is not patent eligible.
Regarding claim 8, the claim is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1 Analysis: Claim 8 is directed to a method, which is directed to a process, one of the statutory categories.
Step 2A Prong One Analysis: The claim recites a(n) method for a task-agnostic policy filter control system. The Step 2A Prong One Analysis for claim 1 is applicable here since claim 8 carries out the method of claim 1 but for the recitation of additional element(s) of leveraging offline safe demonstrations from raw sensor observations; and feeding a real-time output of a reference policy into the iDBF model to prevent the task-agnostic policy filter control system from entering unsafe situations at runtime.
Step 2A Prong Two Analysis: With respect to the abstract idea, the judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application.
The claim recites feeding a real-time output of a reference policy into the iDBF model to prevent the task-agnostic policy filter control system from entering unsafe situations at runtime which is simply applying a model recited at a high level of generality and amounts to the recitation of the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) or amounts to no more than mere instructions to implement an abstract idea or other exception on a computer (MPEP 2106.05(f)).
The claim recites leveraging offline safe demonstrations from raw sensor observations, which is simply receiving data recited at a high level of generality. This is nothing more than insignificant extra-solution activity (MPEP 2106.05(g)).
Accordingly, the additional element(s) do(es) not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because the additional element(s) do(es) not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea, and, therefore, the claim is directed to an abstract idea.
Step 2B Analysis: 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 the integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional element(s) of:
applying a model amount(s) to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception (MPEP 2106.05(f))
receiving data amount(s) to no more than insignificant extra-solution activity (MPEP 2106.05(g)), wherein the insignificant extra-solution activity is the well-understood routine and conventional activit(y/ies) of receiving or transmitting data over a network and/or storing and retrieving information in memory (MPEP 2016.05(d))
The additional element(s) do(es) not provide an inventive concept, and, therefore, the claim is not patent eligible.
Regarding claim 9, the claim is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1 Analysis: Claim 9 is directed to a computer-readable medium, which is directed to an article of manufacture, one of the statutory categories.
Step 2A Prong One Analysis: The claim recites a(n) computer-readable medium … for a task-agnostic policy filter control system.
The limitation of ... encode a current observation, a previous latent state, and a previous action to output a new latent state, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers a mathematical concept. The limitation encompasses encoding values.
The limitation of ... compute, by a neural ordinary differential equations (ODE) module, learned latent state-space dynamic models for the new latent state, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers a mathematical concept. The limitation encompasses computing values.
The limitation of ... infer, by an in-distribution barrier function (iDBF) model, an iDBF value in response to the new latent state, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers a mathematical concept. The limitation encompasses inferring values.
The limitation of ... compute a current action based on the learned latent state-space dynamic models, the iDBF value and a reference control input for a current timestep, in which the current action keeps the task-agnostic policy filter control system in-distribution with respect to an offline-collected dataset of safe demonstrations, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers a mathematical concept. The limitation encompasses computing values.
If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of mathematical concepts, then it falls within the "Mathematical Concepts" grouping. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
Step 2A Prong Two Analysis: With respect to the abstract idea, the judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application.
The claim recites additional element(s) – computer-readable medium, program code, processor. The additional element(s) is/are recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as generic computer components performing generic computer functions of executing instructions on the computers) such that it amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components (MPEP 2106.05(b)).
The claim recites additional element(s) – task-agnostic policy filter control system, neural ordinary differential equations (ODE) module, in-distribution barrier function (iDBF) model, learned latent state-space dynamic models. The additional element(s) is/are recited at a high-level of generality such that it amounts to no more than indicating a field of use or technological environment in which to apply the judicial exception (MPEP 2106.05(h)).
The claim recites ... control an autonomous agent to perform an agent control action based on the current action according to the program code to compute which is simply controlling an agent recited at a high level of generality and amounts to the recitation of the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) or amounts to no more than mere instructions to implement an abstract idea or other exception on a computer (MPEP 2106.05(f)).
Accordingly, the additional element(s) do(es) not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because the additional element(s) do(es) not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea, and, therefore, the claim is directed to an abstract idea.
Step 2B Analysis: 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 the integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional element(s) of:
computer-readable medium, program code, processor amount(s) to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components (MPEP 2106.05(b))
controlling an agent amount(s) to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception (MPEP 2106.05(f))
task-agnostic policy filter control system, neural ordinary differential equations (ODE) module, in-distribution barrier function (iDBF) model, learned latent state-space dynamic models amount(s) to no more than indicating a field of use or technological environment in which to apply the judicial exception (MPEP 2106.05(h))
The additional element(s) do(es) not provide an inventive concept, and, therefore, the claim is not patent eligible.
Regarding claim 10, the claim is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1 Analysis: Claim 10 is directed to a computer-readable medium, which is directed to an article of manufacture, one of the statutory categories.
Step 2A Prong One Analysis: The claim recites a(n) computer-readable medium … for a task-agnostic policy filter control system. The Step 2A Prong One Analysis for claim 9 is applicable here since claim 10 carries out the computer-readable medium of claim 9 but for the recitation of additional element(s) of ... collect an off-line collected dataset of safe demonstrations; and ... train the iDBF model to learn latent-space barrier functions from the off-line dataset of safe demonstrations.
Step 2A Prong Two Analysis: With respect to the abstract idea, the judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application.
The claim recites additional element(s) – latent-space barrier functions. The additional element(s) is/are recited at a high-level of generality such that it amounts to no more than indicating a field of use or technological environment in which to apply the judicial exception (MPEP 2106.05(h)).
The claim recites ... train the iDBF model to learn latent-space barrier functions from the off-line dataset of safe demonstrations which is simply generic training to perform the abstract idea of calculating values and amounts to mere instructions to apply the exception (MPEP 2106.05(f)).
The claim recites ... collect an off-line collected dataset of safe demonstrations, which is simply receiving data recited at a high level of generality. This is nothing more than insignificant extra-solution activity (MPEP 2106.05(g)).
Accordingly, the additional element(s) do(es) not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because the additional element(s) do(es) not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea, and, therefore, the claim is directed to an abstract idea.
Step 2B Analysis: 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 the integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional element(s) of:
generic training to perform the abstract idea amount(s) to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception (MPEP 2106.05(f))
receiving data amount(s) to no more than insignificant extra-solution activity (MPEP 2106.05(g)), wherein the insignificant extra-solution activity is the well-understood routine and conventional activit(y/ies) of receiving or transmitting data over a network and/or storing and retrieving information in memory (MPEP 2016.05(d))
latent-space barrier functions amount(s) to no more than indicating a field of use or technological environment in which to apply the judicial exception (MPEP 2106.05(h))
The additional element(s) do(es) not provide an inventive concept, and, therefore, the claim is not patent eligible.
Regarding claim 11, the claim is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1 Analysis: Claim 11 is directed to a computer-readable medium, which is directed to an article of manufacture, one of the statutory categories.
Step 2A Prong One Analysis: The claim recites a(n) computer-readable medium … for a task-agnostic policy filter control system. The Step 2A Prong One Analysis for claim 9 is applicable here since claim 11 carries out the computer-readable medium of claim 9 but for the recitation of additional element(s) of ... acquire observations and control inputs from a safe dataset derived during training; and ... reconstruct, by a decoder, the acquired observations according to a latent space.
Step 2A Prong Two Analysis: With respect to the abstract idea, the judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application.
The claim recites additional element(s) – decoder. The additional element(s) is/are recited at a high-level of generality such that it amounts to no more than indicating a field of use or technological environment in which to apply the judicial exception (MPEP 2106.05(h)).
The claim recites ... acquire observations and control inputs from a safe dataset derived during training, which is simply receiving data recited at a high level of generality. This is nothing more than insignificant extra-solution activity (MPEP 2106.05(g)).
The claim recites ... reconstruct, by a decoder, the acquired observations according to a latent space which is simply applying a model recited at a high level of generality and amounts to the recitation of the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) or amounts to no more than mere instructions to implement an abstract idea or other exception on a computer (MPEP 2106.05(f)).
Accordingly, the additional element(s) do(es) not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because the additional element(s) do(es) not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea, and, therefore, the claim is directed to an abstract idea.
Step 2B Analysis: 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 the integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional element(s) of:
applying a model amount(s) to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception (MPEP 2106.05(f))
receiving data amount(s) to no more than insignificant extra-solution activity (MPEP 2106.05(g)), wherein the insignificant extra-solution activity is the well-understood routine and conventional activit(y/ies) of receiving or transmitting data over a network and/or storing and retrieving information in memory (MPEP 2016.05(d))
decoder amount(s) to no more than indicating a field of use or technological environment in which to apply the judicial exception (MPEP 2106.05(h))
The additional element(s) do(es) not provide an inventive concept, and, therefore, the claim is not patent eligible.
Regarding claim 12, the claim is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1 Analysis: Claim 12 is directed to a computer-readable medium, which is directed to an article of manufacture, one of the statutory categories.
Step 2A Prong One Analysis: The claim recites a(n) computer-readable medium … for a task-agnostic policy filter control system.
The limitation of ... synthetically generate unsafe demonstrations ... for comparisons with true safe demonstrations to enable training using noise-contrastive learning, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers a mental process. The limitation is directed to observation, evaluation, judgment and opinion and is a process capable of being performed by a human mentally or using pen and paper.
If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind, then it falls within the "Mental Processes" grouping. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
Step 2A Prong Two Analysis: With respect to the abstract idea, the judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application.
The claim recites additional element(s) – pre-trained behavior cloning model, noise-contrastive learning. The additional element(s) is/are recited at a high-level of generality such that it amounts to no more than indicating a field of use or technological environment in which to apply the judicial exception (MPEP 2106.05(h)).
Accordingly, the additional element(s) do(es) not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because the additional element(s) do(es) not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea, and, therefore, the claim is directed to an abstract idea.
Step 2B Analysis: 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 the integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional element(s) of:
pre-trained behavior cloning model, noise-contrastive learning amount(s) to no more than indicating a field of use or technological environment in which to apply the judicial exception (MPEP 2106.05(h))
The additional element(s) do(es) not provide an inventive concept, and, therefore, the claim is not patent eligible.
Regarding claim 13, the claim is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1 Analysis: Claim 13 is directed to a computer-readable medium, which is directed to an article of manufacture, one of the statutory categories.
Step 2A Prong One Analysis: The claim recites a(n) computer-readable medium … for a task-agnostic policy filter control system. The Step 2A Prong One Analysis for claim 9 is applicable here since claim 13 carries out the computer-readable medium of claim 9 but for the recitation of additional element(s) of in which the program code to compute the learned latent state-space dynamic models comprises program code to utilize a neural ordinary differential equation (ODE) that describes learned dynamics in the new latent state based on training the learned latent state-space dynamic models using noise-contrastive learning.
Step 2A Prong Two Analysis: With respect to the abstract idea, the judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim recites additional information regarding the model and the element(s) do(es) not apply the exception in a meaningful way (MPEP 2106.05(e)). Accordingly, the additional element(s) do(es) not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because the additional element(s) do(es) not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea, and, therefore, the claim is directed to an abstract idea.
Step 2B Analysis: 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 the integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional element(s) of additional information regarding the model do(es) not apply the exception in a meaningful way (MPEP 2106.05(e)). Not applying the exception in a meaningful way does not provide an inventive concept, and, therefore, the claim is not patent eligible.
Regarding claim 14, the claim is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1 Analysis: Claim 14 is directed to a computer-readable medium, which is directed to an article of manufacture, one of the statutory categories.
Step 2A Prong One Analysis: The claim recites a(n) computer-readable medium … for a task-agnostic policy filter control system.
The limitation of in which the program code to infer the iDBF value comprises program code to measure, using a control barrier function (CBF), a safety score of the new latent state to yield an optimization-based safe controller, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers a mathematical concept. The limitation encompasses calculating a score.
If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of mathematical concepts, then it falls within the "Mathematical Concepts" grouping. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
Step 2A Prong Two Analysis: With respect to the abstract idea, the judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application.
The claim recites additional element(s) – control barrier function (CBF). The additional element(s) is/are recited at a high-level of generality such that it amounts to no more than indicating a field of use or technological environment in which to apply the judicial exception (MPEP 2106.05(h)).
Accordingly, the additional element(s) do(es) not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because the additional element(s) do(es) not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea, and, therefore, the claim is directed to an abstract idea.
Step 2B Analysis: 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 the integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional element(s) of:
control barrier function (CBF) amount(s) to no more than indicating a field of use or technological environment in which to apply the judicial exception (MPEP 2106.05(h))
The additional element(s) do(es) not provide an inventive concept, and, therefore, the claim is not patent eligible.
Regarding claim 15, the claim is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1 Analysis: Claim 15 is directed to a computer-readable medium, which is directed to an article of manufacture, one of the statutory categories.
Step 2A Prong One Analysis: The claim recites a(n) computer-readable medium … for a task-agnostic policy filter control system.
The limitation of ... filter unsafe inputs ... to direct the task-agnostic policy filter control system, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers a mental process. The limitation is directed to observation, evaluation, judgment and opinion and is a process capable of being performed by a human mentally or using pen and paper.
If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind, then it falls within the "Mental Processes" grouping. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
Step 2A Prong Two Analysis: With respect to the abstract idea, the judicial exception is not integrated
into a practical application. The claim does not recite any additional elements which integrate the
abstract idea into a practical application and, therefore, does not impose any meaningful limits on
practicing the abstract idea. Therefore, the claim is directed to an abstract idea.
Step 2B Analysis: 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 the integration of the
abstract idea into a practical application, the claim does not recite any additional elements which
provide an inventive concept, and, therefore, the claim is not patent eligible.
Regarding claim 16, the claim is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1 Analysis: Claim 16 is directed to a computer-readable medium, which is directed to an article of manufacture, one of the statutory categories.
Step 2A Prong One Analysis: The claim recites a(n) computer-readable medium … for a task-agnostic policy filter control system. The Step 2A Prong One Analysis for claim 9 is applicable here since claim 16 carries out the computer-readable medium of claim 9 but for the recitation of additional element(s) of ... leverage offline safe demonstrations from raw sensor observations; and ... feed a real-time output of a reference policy into the iDBF model to prevent the task-agnostic policy filter control system from entering unsafe situations at runtime.
Step 2A Prong Two Analysis: With respect to the abstract idea, the judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application.
The claim recites ... feed a real-time output of a reference policy into the iDBF model to prevent the task-agnostic policy filter control system from entering unsafe situations at runtime which is simply applying a model recited at a high level of generality and amounts to the recitation of the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) or amounts to no more than mere instructions to implement an abstract idea or other exception on a computer (MPEP 2106.05(f)).
The claim recites ... leverage offline safe demonstrations from raw sensor observations, which is simply receiving data recited at a high level of generality. This is nothing more than insignificant extra-solution activity (MPEP 2106.05(g)).
Accordingly, the additional element(s) do(es) not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because the additional element(s) do(es) not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea, and, therefore, the claim is directed to an abstract idea.
Step 2B Analysis: 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 the integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional element(s) of:
applying a model amount(s) to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception (MPEP 2106.05(f))
receiving data amount(s) to no more than insignificant extra-solution activity (MPEP 2106.05(g)), wherein the insignificant extra-solution activity is the well-understood routine and conventional activit(y/ies) of receiving or transmitting data over a network and/or storing and retrieving information in memory (MPEP 2016.05(d))
The additional element(s) do(es) not provide an inventive concept, and, therefore, the claim is not patent eligible.
Regarding claim 17, the claim is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1 Analysis: Claim 17 is directed to a system [for compact prosecution purposes under 35 U.S.C. 101, the system is interpreted to have structure], which is directed to a machine, one of the statutory categories.
Step 2A Prong One Analysis: The claim recites a(n) task-agnostic policy filter control system.
The limitation of ... encode a current observation, a previous latent state, and a previous action to output a new latent state, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers a mathematical concept. The limitation encompasses encoding values.
The limitation of ... compute learned latent state-space dynamic models for the new latent state, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers a mathematical concept. The limitation encompasses computing values.
The limitation of ... infer an iDBF value in response to the new latent state, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers a mathematical concept. The limitation encompasses inferring values.
The limitation of ... compute a current action based on the learned latent state-space dynamic models, the iDBF value and a reference control input for a current timestep, in which the current action keeps the task-agnostic policy filter control system in-distribution with respect to an offline-collected dataset of safe demonstrations, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers a mathematical concept. The limitation encompasses computing values.
If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of mathematical concepts, then it falls within the "Mathematical Concepts" grouping. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
Step 2A Prong Two Analysis: With respect to the abstract idea, the judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application.
The claim recites ... control an autonomous agent to perform an agent control action based on the current action according to the program code to compute which is simply controlling an agent recited at a high level of generality and amounts to the recitation of the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) or amounts to no more than mere instructions to implement an abstract idea or other exception on a computer (MPEP 2106.05(f)).
The claim recites additional element(s) – task-agnostic policy filter control system, recursive encoder module, neural ordinary differential equations (ODE) module, in-distribution barrier function (iDBF) model, learned latent state-space dynamic models, agent action selection module. The additional element(s) is/are recited at a high-level of generality such that it amounts to no more than indicating a field of use or technological environment in which to apply the judicial exception (MPEP 2106.05(h)).
Accordingly, the additional element(s) do(es) not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because the additional element(s) do(es) not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea, and, therefore, the claim is directed to an abstract idea.
Step 2B Analysis: 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 the integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional element(s) of:
controlling an agent amount(s) to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception (MPEP 2106.05(f))
task-agnostic policy filter control system, recursive encoder module, neural ordinary differential equations (ODE) module, in-distribution barrier function (iDBF) model, learned latent state-space dynamic models, agent action selection module amount(s) to no more than indicating a field of use or technological environment in which to apply the judicial exception (MPEP 2106.05(h))
The additional element(s) do(es) not provide an inventive concept, and, therefore, the claim is not patent eligible.
Regarding claim 18, the claim is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1 Analysis: Claim 18 is directed to a system [for compact prosecution purposes under 35 U.S.C. 101, the system is interpreted to have structure], which is directed to a machine, one of the statutory categories.
Step 2A Prong One Analysis: The claim recites a(n) task-agnostic policy filter control system. The Step 2A Prong One Analysis for claim 17 is applicable here since claim 18 carries out the system of claim 17 but for the recitation of additional element(s) of in which a neural ordinary differential equation (ODE) module is further to utilize a neural ODE that describes learned dynamics in the new latent state based on training the learned latent state-space dynamic models using noise-contrastive learning.
Step 2A Prong Two Analysis: With respect to the abstract idea, the judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim recites additional information regarding the model and the element(s) do(es) not apply the exception in a meaningful way (MPEP 2106.05(e)). Accordingly, the additional element(s) do(es) not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because the additional element(s) do(es) not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea, and, therefore, the claim is directed to an abstract idea.
Step 2B Analysis: 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 the integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional element(s) of additional information regarding the model do(es) not apply the exception in a meaningful way (MPEP 2106.05(e)). Not applying the exception in a meaningful way does not provide an inventive concept, and, therefore, the claim is not patent eligible.
Regarding claim 19, the claim is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1 Analysis: Claim 19 is directed to a system [for compact prosecution purposes under 35 U.S.C. 101, the system is interpreted to have structure], which is directed to a machine, one of the statutory categories.
Step 2A Prong One Analysis: The claim recites a(n) task-agnostic policy filter control system.
The limitation of ... measure, using a control barrier function (CBF), a safety score of the new latent state to yield an optimization-based safe controller, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers a mathematical concept. The limitation encompasses calculating a score.
If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of mathematical concepts, then it falls within the "Mathematical Concepts" grouping. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
Step 2A Prong Two Analysis: With respect to the abstract idea, the judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application.
The claim recites additional element(s) – control barrier function (CBF). The additional element(s) is/are recited at a high-level of generality such that it amounts to no more than indicating a field of use or technological environment in which to apply the judicial exception (MPEP 2106.05(h)).
Accordingly, the additional element(s) do(es) not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because the additional element(s) do(es) not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea, and, therefore, the claim is directed to an abstract idea.
Step 2B Analysis: 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 the integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional element(s) of:
control barrier function (CBF) amount(s) to no more than indicating a field of use or technological environment in which to apply the judicial exception (MPEP 2106.05(h))
The additional element(s) do(es) not provide an inventive concept, and, therefore, the claim is not patent eligible.
Regarding claim 20, the claim is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1 Analysis: Claim 20 is directed to a system [for compact prosecution purposes under 35 U.S.C. 101, the system is interpreted to have structure], which is directed to a machine, one of the statutory categories.
Step 2A Prong One Analysis: The claim recites a(n) task-agnostic policy filter control system. The Step 2A Prong One Analysis for claim 17 is applicable here since claim 20 carries out the system of claim 17 but for the recitation of additional element(s) of ... leverage offline safe demonstrations from raw sensor observations, and to feed a real-time output of a reference policy into the iDBF model to prevent the task-agnostic policy filter control system from entering unsafe situations at runtime.
Step 2A Prong Two Analysis: With respect to the abstract idea, the judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application.
The claim recites ... feed a real-time output of a reference policy into the iDBF model to prevent the task-agnostic policy filter control system from entering unsafe situations at runtime which is simply applying a model recited at a high level of generality and amounts to the recitation of the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) or amounts to no more than mere instructions to implement an abstract idea or other exception on a computer (MPEP 2106.05(f)).
The claim recites ... leverage offline safe demonstrations from raw sensor observations, which is simply receiving data recited at a high level of generality. This is nothing more than insignificant extra-solution activity (MPEP 2106.05(g)).
Accordingly, the additional element(s) do(es) not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because the additional element(s) do(es) not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea, and, therefore, the claim is directed to an abstract idea.
Step 2B Analysis: 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 the integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional element(s) of:
applying a model amount(s) to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception (MPEP 2106.05(f))
receiving data amount(s) to no more than insignificant extra-solution activity (MPEP 2106.05(g)), wherein the insignificant extra-solution activity is the well-understood routine and conventional activit(y/ies) of receiving or transmitting data over a network and/or storing and retrieving information in memory (MPEP 2016.05(d))
The additional element(s) do(es) not provide an inventive concept, and, therefore, the claim is not patent eligible.
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 communication from the examiner should be directed to MARSHALL WERNER whose telephone number is (469) 295-9143. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday – Thursday 7:30 AM – 4:30 PM ET.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Kamran Afshar, can be reached at (571) 272-7796. The fax 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.
/MARSHALL L WERNER/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2125
Prosecution Insights