DETAILED ACTION
This Office Action is sent in response to Applicant’s Communication received 4/10/2024 for application number 18/699,891.
Claims 1-4 are pending.
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 1-4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. Independent claim 1 (representative of independent claims 3 and 4) recites:
A cost estimation device for an action model for estimating a cost related to an action for each of a plurality of sides indicating the action between a plurality of vertices indicating a state in the action model using a graph, the cost estimation device comprising a processor including a hardware, configured to acquire graph data including at least information indicating a structure of the graph and a reward set for the plurality of vertices of the graph; acquire action data including a plurality of action trajectories in the graph; express the cost using a parameter, and estimates the parameter using a gradient method related to a likelihood function on a basis of the graph data and the action data; and output the estimated parameter as an estimated value of the cost.
(2A, prong 1) The underlined portions of the claim recite an abstract idea, specifically mathematical equations and calculations. Applicant’s specification describes estimating the cost parameter using a gradient method related to a likelihood function on a basis of the graph and action data at paragraphs 52-60 (as published) as a series of mathematical calculations and formulas. Therefore, the broadest reasonable interpretation of this limitations is a series of mathematical calculations.
(2A, prong 2) This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. The claims recite the additional elements of (a) a processor and other generic computer hardware, (b) receiving graph data including reward data and action data, and (c) outputting the estimated cost. Element (a) is a mere instruction to apply the exception because it merely adds generic computer hardware after-the-fact to the abstract idea. Elements (b) and (c) are insignificant extra-solution activity because these elements act as necessary data gathering and outputting for the mathematical calculations. Even when all of the additional elements are considered in ordered combination with the recited abstract idea, the claim as a whole does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because the additional elements only add mere instructions to apply the exception and insignificant extra-solution activity to the abstract idea.
(2B) The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. Element (a) is a mere instruction to apply the exception as explained above. Elements (b) and (c) are well-understood, routine, and conventional activity, analogous to storing and retrieving information in memory, see MPEP 2106.05(d) citing Versata Dev. Group, Inc. v. SAP Am., Inc., 793 F.3d 1306, 1334, 115 USPQ2d 1681, 1701 (Fed. Cir. 2015). Even when all of the additional elements are considered in ordered combination with the recited abstract idea, the claim as a whole does not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself because the additional elements only add mere instructions to apply the exception and insignificant extra-solution activity that is well-understood, routine, and conventional to the abstract idea.
With respect to dependent claim 3, extending the model to be a probabilistic action model, and acquiring data for the probabilistic model. Applicant’s specification states that extending the model to be a probabilistic model comprises further mathematical calculations: see para. 0040-46 as published.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1-4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Riedmiller et al. (US 2021/0049467 A1).
In reference to claim 1, Riedmiller teaches a cost estimation device for an action model for estimating a cost related to an action for each of a plurality of sides indicating the action between a plurality of vertices indicating a state in the action model using a graph (system for processing graph where nodes are states and edges are actions, para. 0006-12), the cost estimation device comprising a processor including a hardware (para. 0110), configured to acquire graph data including at least information indicating a structure of the graph and a reward set for the plurality of vertices of the graph; acquire action data including a plurality of action trajectories in the graph (data is acquired including graph structure, para. 0054-79, rewards, and tasks that define trajectories through graph, para. 0097-98); express the cost using a parameter, and estimates the parameter using a gradient method related to a likelihood function on a basis of the graph data and the action data; and output the estimated parameter as an estimated value of the cost (trajectory cost is determined using gradient descent on cost function using graph and task data, para. 0097-0101).
In reference to claim 2, Riedmiller teaches a cost estimation device for an action model according to claim 1, wherein: the processor further is configured to extend the action model into a probabilistic action model including the action model as a subset, and when the processor acquires the graph data and the action data, the processor acquires the graph data and the action data corresponding to the probabilistic action model (model can be for prediction, para 0017, and be trained in advance, para. 0102-03).
In reference to claim 3, this claim is directed to a method associated with the apparatus claimed in claim 1 and is therefore rejected under a similar rationale.
In reference to claim 4, this claim is directed to a non-transitory computer-readable medium associated with the apparatus claimed in claim 1 and is therefore rejected under a similar rationale.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. NPL [U] which is not prior art, but is a relevant publication by a co-inventor; NPL [V] which uses graphs and reward learning for human-like planning; NPL [W], which is directed to analyzing human time-inconsistent planning through graphs and cost calculations; and the patent publications which generally related to analyzing costs in graphs.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Andrew T. Chiusano whose telephone number is (571)272-5231. The examiner can normally be reached M-F, 10am-6pm.
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, Tamara Kyle can be reached at 571-272-4241. 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.
/ANDREW T CHIUSANO/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2144
Prosecution Insights