DETAILED ACTION
This Office action is in reply to correspondence filed 17 July 2026 in regard to application no. 18/554,336. Claim 2, 8 and 20-22 have been cancelled. Claims 1, 3-7 and 9-19 are pending and are considered below.
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 .
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, 3-7 and 9-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claims lie within statutory categories of invention, as each is directed to a device (machine) or method (process). Claim 1 will serve as exemplary. The claim(s) recite(s) setting a numeric value in no particular manner, calculating weights by normalizing a quantity in no particular manner but just based on the available data, and setting other numeric values in no particular manner but just based on the available data and/or with a particular intent. First, calculating weights is a mathematical operation, so the claims recite mathematics. Second, these are steps that could, in the absence of computers, be performed entirely in the human mind. A person can choose numbers by any means whatever and can assign weights however she chooses, and normalizing is a simple arithmetic function; none of this presents any practical difficulty, and none requires any technology at all. So the claims also recite human mental work, and thus fall within two of the identified categories of abstract ideas.
Changing a quantity is simply that, changing a variable from one number to another, and to refer to it as “controlling learning”, without more, is considered mere labeling and given no patentable weight.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because aside from the bare inclusion of a generic computer, discussed below, nothing is done beyond what was set forth above, which does not go beyond using a generic computer as a tool to implement the abstract idea. See MPEP § 2106.05(f).
As the claims only calculate data pertaining to numeric values, they do not improve the "functioning of a computer" or of "any other technology or technical field". See MPEP § 2106.05(a). They do not apply the abstract idea "with, or by use of a particular machine", MPEP § 2106.05(b), as the below-cited Guidance is clear that a generic computer is not the particular machine envisioned.
They do not effect a "transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing", MPEP § 2106.05(c). First, such data, being intangible, are not a particular article at all. Second, the claimed manipulation is neither transformative nor reductive; as the courts have pointed out, in the end, data are still data.
They do not apply the abstract idea "in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking [it] to a particular technological environment", MPEP § 2106.05(e), as the lack of technical and algorithmic detail in the claims is so as not to go beyond such a general linkage.
The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the additional claim limitations, considered individually and as an ordered combination, are insufficient to elevate an otherwise-ineligible claim.
The claim includes a processor and memory storing instructions. These elements are recited at a high degree of generality and the specification does not meaningfully limit them, such that a generic computer will suffice. It only performs generic computer functions of nondescriptly manipulating information. Generic computers performing generic computer functions, without an inventive concept, do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea.
The type of information being manipulated does not impose meaningful limitations or render the idea less abstract. The claim elements when considered as an ordered combination - a generic computer performing a possibly-chronological sequence of abstract steps - do nothing more than when they are analyzed individually. The other independent claims are simply different embodiments but are likewise directed to a generic computer performing, essentially, the same process.
The dependent claims likewise do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea: claims 9 and 15 consist entirely of statements of intended use, which is of no patentable significance and in any case which does nothing to reduce the level of abstraction or integrate it into a practical application. Claims 3, 7, 11, 16 and 18 simply recite further, abstract manipulation of data. Claims 4, 5, 10, 12, 14 and 17 simply recite additional use of mathematics, and claim 6 is simply further descriptive of the type of information being manipulated.
The claims are not patent eligible. For further guidance please see MPEP § 2106.03 – 2106.07(c) (formerly referred to as the “2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance”, 84 Fed. Reg. 50, 55 (7 January 2019, revised October 2019)).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 17 July 2026 in regard to rejections made under 35 U.S.C. § 101 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. The rejection made of certain claims under § 112(b) has been overcome by the applicant’s amendment, and that is withdrawn. The rejections made under § 103 are withdrawn, and this is explained below.
The applicant’s first argument is unpersuasive because claim 1 does not include any training of anything. Rather, all that is done in the relevant step is that a value of something is changed; that this could be later used to train something is outside the scope of what is actually trained. The fact that it is “tied to” a simulator is not helpful here, because no simulation is actually performed in the claims; rather, output is received and input is provided.
The applicant states in conclusory fashion that the abstract idea is tied “into a practical application in simulation technology”, but nowhere explains how this is supposed to improve a computer, invoke a particular machine, transform matter, or provide more than a general link between the technology and the abstraction.
In regard to the “significantly more” inquiry, the abstract steps cannot provide the “significantly more”; this must come from the additional, that is, non-abstract claim elements. The Examiner finds no additional elements beyond a generic computer, which is not sufficient. The claims are not patent eligible and the rejection is maintained.
Conclusion
As no rejection is made herein under 35 U.S.C. § 102 or 103, a brief review of the state of the art at the relevant time is in order. In the previous Office action, claims were rejected based on the teaching of Chittilappilly et al. and, in some cases, Yim, Azarian Yazdi et al., or Anderson. As the claims have been amended, further search and consideration were conducted.
Albertson et al. (U.S. Publication No. 2020/0042434) disclose a system for analyzing parameters for a training reduction. [title] Some, but not all, parameters may be modified based on events that were “triggered during [a] simulation” of a test case. [0044] But neither Albertson nor the prior art previously made of record, alone or if combine, teach or suggest every limitation of the claims of the present invention, in particular the detailed calculation as presently claimed, combined with the other presently-claimed limitations.
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 SCOTT C ANDERSON whose telephone number is (571)270-7442. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9:00 to 5:30.
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, Bennett Sigmond can be reached at (303) 297-4411. 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.
/SCOTT C ANDERSON/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3694
Prosecution Insights