Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
1. The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
DETAILED ACTION
2. This Office Action is sent in response to Applicant’s Communication received on 08/10/2026 for application number 18/711,192.
Response to Amendments
3. The Amendment filed 08/10/2026 has been entered. Claims 1, 3, 12, 13, 18, 19 and 21 have been amended. Claims 1-5, 7-19, and 21 remain pending in the application.
4. Applicant’s amendments to claims 1, 3, 13, and 19 have been fully considered and are persuasive. The objections to these claims are respectfully withdrawn.
5. Applicant’s amendment to claim 18 has been fully considered and is persuasive. The amendment provided to overcome the §101 rejection set forth in the previous office action is sufficient. Accordingly, the 35 U.S.C § 101 rejection of claims 18 and 19 is respectfully withdrawn.
Response to Arguments
Applicant argues that the amended independent claims to clarify the correspondence between agents and components, and to clarify which selected fictitious actions are used to update the state-action selectors of the agents. In view of these amendments, Applicant believes that the rejection under § 112(b) is now moot. Examiner respectfully disagrees and notes that Applicant’s argument that the 112(b) rejection is moot is not persuasive. Although Applicant amended claim 1 to clarify the relationship between the fictitious actions and the respective state-action selectors, the amended language introduces a further ambiguity. Claim 1 recites that each agent uses its respective state-action selector “to select a fictitious action other agents in the swarm would perform,” and subsequently uses “the selected fictitious action the other agents in the swarm would perform” to update the respective state-action selector. Because “other agents” is plural while “a fictitious action” is singular, it is unclear whether the respective agent selects one common fictitious action for all other agents or instead selects a respective fictitious action for each of the other agents. Accordingly, the scope of the fictitious actions used in updating the respective state-action selector is unclear. Thus, the 112(b) rejection is maintained.
Further, claim 18 retains the previously rejected language “using the selected fictitious actions to update values in the state-action selector of the agent included in the swarm of agents” and was not amended in the manner of claim 1. Thus, as to claim 18, it remains unclear which agent’s selected fictitious actions are used to update which agent’s state-action selector. Accordingly, the 112(b) rejection is also maintained.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-5, 7-19, and 21 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 pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
Claims 1 and 12 recite that each agent uses its respective state-action selector “to select a fictitious action other agents in the swarm would perform,” and subsequently uses “the selected fictitious action the other agents in the swarm would perform” to update the respective state-action selector. Because “other agents” is plural while “a fictitious action” is singular, it is unclear whether the respective agent selects one common fictitious action for all other agents or instead selects a respective fictitious action for each of the other agents. Accordingly, the scope of the fictitious actions used in updating the respective state-action selector is unclear.
Claim 18 recites “using the selected fictitious actions to update values in the state-action selector of the agent included in the swarm of agents.” It is unclear whether each agent uses only the fictitious actions selected by that agent to update that agent’s respective selector, whether all fictitious actions selected by all agents are used to update every selector, or whether fictitious actions selected by one agent can update the selector of another agent. Consequently, the relationship among the agents selected fictitious actions, and respective state-action selectors is uncertain.
Claims 2-5, 7-11, 13-17, 19, and 21 are dependent upon claims 1, 12, 18, incorporate the deficiencies of claims 1, 12, 18 and do not cure those deficiencies, they are likewise rejected.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-5, 7-19, and 21 are allowed and if the 35 USC §112(b) is successfully addressed.
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 extension fee 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 date of this final action.
It is noted that any citation to specific pages, columns, lines, or figures in the prior art references and any interpretation of the references should not be considered to be limiting in any way. A reference is relevant for all it contains and may be relied upon for all that it would have reasonably suggested to one having ordinary skill in the art. In re Heck, 699 F.2d 1331, 1332-33, 216 U.S.P.Q. 1038, 1039 (Fed. Cir. 1983) (quoting In re Lemelson, 397 F.2d 1006, 1009, 158 U.S.P.Q. 275, 277 (C.C.P.A. 1968)).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to TAN TRAN whose telephone number is (303)297-4266. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday - Thursday - 8:00 am - 5:00 pm MT.
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, Matt Ell can be reached on 571-270-3264. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/TAN H TRAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2141
