DETAILED ACTION
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 .
Status of Claims
Claims 1-11 have been examined.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more.
In the instant case, claims 1-8 are directed to a computer implementing method and claim 9 directed to a computer program product comprising a computer readable hardware device. Therefore, these claims fall within the four statutory categories of invention.
The claims recite verifying an output against an expected value and adjusting output which is an abstract idea. Specifically, the claims recite “providing the at least one model output…; verifying the at least one model output….; determining at least one correction parameter…; adjusting at least one model output…; and providing the at least one adjusted output…” which is grouped within the “mental process and mathematical concept” grouping of abstract ideas in prong one of step 2A of the Alice/Mayo test (See MPEP 2106) because the claims involve a series of steps for comparing an output to an expected value and making a pass/fail determination which is evaluation or judgement which is mental process and applying a correction parameter to a value is a mathematical calculation, which is a process that deals with mental process and mathematical calculations. Accordingly, the claims recite an abstract idea (See MPEP 2106).
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because, when analyzed under prong two of step 2A of the Alice/Mayo test (See MPEP 2106), the additional elements of the claims such as a first trained machine learning model, second trained machine learning model and controller, merely use a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea. Specifically, the first trained machine learning model, the second trained machine learning model and controller from claims perform the steps or functions of comparing an output to an expected value, making a pass/fail determination and applying a correction parameter to a value. The use of a processor/computer as a tool to implement the abstract idea does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it requires no more than a computer performing functions that correspond to acts required to carry out the abstract idea. The additional elements do not involve improvements to the functioning of a computer, or to any other technology or technical field (MPEP 2106.05(a)), the claims do not apply or use the abstract idea to effect a particular treatment or prophylaxis for a disease or medical condition (Vanda Memo), the claims do not apply the abstract idea with, or by use of, a particular machine (MPEP 2106.05(b)), the claims do not effect a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing (MPEP 2106.05(c)), and the claims do not apply or use the abstract idea in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment, such that the claim as a whole is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception (MPEP 2106.05(e) and Vanda Memo). Therefore, the claims do not, for example, purport to improve the functioning of a computer. Nor do they effect an improvement in any other technology or technical field. Accordingly, the additional elements do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea, and the claims are directed to an abstract idea.
The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because, when analyzed under step 2B of the Alice/Mayo test (See MPEP 2106), the additional elements of a first trained machine learning model, second trained machine learning model and controller to perform the steps amounts to no more than using a computer or processor to automate and/or implement the abstract idea of verifying an output against an expected value and adjusting output. As discussed above, taking the claim elements separately, the a first trained machine learning model, second trained machine learning model and controller perform the steps or functions of comparing an output to an expected value, making a pass/fail determination and applying a correction parameter to a value. These functions correspond to the actions required to perform the abstract idea. Viewed as a whole, the combination of elements recited in the claims merely recite the concept of verifying an output against an expected value and adjusting output. Therefore, the use of these additional elements does no more than employ the computer as a tool to automate and/or implement the abstract idea. The use of a computer or processor to merely automate and/or implement the abstract idea cannot provide significantly more than the abstract idea itself (MPEP 2106.05(I)(A)(f) & (h)). Therefore, the claim is not patent eligible.
Dependent claims further describe the abstract idea of performing a financial trade transaction. Specifically, claims 2-3 describing controlling technical unit which is part of the abstract idea. Claim 4 reciting verification of model out which is also part of the abstract idea. Claims 5-8 further describing output of the model which is part of the abstract idea of verifying an output against an expected value and adjusting output. The dependent claims do not include additional elements that integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or that provide significantly more than the abstract idea. Therefore, the dependent claims are also not patent eligible.
Claims 10-11 are directed to Software per se. Claims recite "a technical system comprising a correction module” and “a correction module”. Software is defined as "IEEE Definition". According to MPEP 2106 II IV, however, there are four categories of invention: process, machine, article of manufacture or composition of matter. Therefore, as "software" is neither a category of invention nor a subset of one of the categories it does not represent patent eligible subject matter (In re. Nuijten, 84 USPQ2d 1495).
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.
Claim 2 is 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.
The term “high-performance” in claim 2 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “high-performance” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention.
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.
Claim 9 is 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. The claim(s) 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 applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Claim 9 recites “a computer program product, comprising a computer readable hardware storage device having computer readable program code” this limitation was not described in the specification.
The specification discloses: A further aspect of the invention is a computer program product directly loadable into an internal memory of a computer, comprising software code portions for performing the aforementioned method steps when said computer program product is running on a computer. (Page 10 lines 7-11) but does not disclose any computer program product comprising a computer readable hardware storage device.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 1-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over King (US 20200189573).
With respect to claims 1 and 9-11 King discloses:
providing the at least one model output of the first trained machine learning model; wherein; the first trained machine learning model is configured for determining the at least one model output comprising at least one control parameter or at least one motion parameter for controlling a technical unit or a component of the technical unit (See paragraph 0026);
verifying the at least one model output using at least one acceptance test resulting in at least one test verdict regarding a fail or a pass of the at least one model output; wherein; the at least one test verdict comprises at least one indication about whether the at least one model output has passed or failed the at least one acceptance test (See paragraphs 0030 and Fig 5);
determining at least one correction parameter using a second trained machine learning model based on the at least one test verdict and the at least one model output, if the first trained machine learning model fails the at least one acceptance test (See paragraph 0123 and Fig 5 step 520);
adjusting the at least one model output of the first trained machine learning model by applying the at least one correction parameter on the at least one model output (see paragraphs 0123 and Fig 5 i.e. modifies the selected trajectory); and
providing the at least one adjusted output as at least one corrected model output (See paragraph 0126)
With respect to “wherein; the at least one test verdict comprises at least one indication about whether the at least one model output has passed or failed the at least one acceptance test and at least one indication about a deviation of the at least one model output from at least one expected output” this is nonfunctional descriptive material because this limitation is not functionally involved in the steps recited. The providing, verifying, determining, adjusting and providing steps would be performed the same regardless of the descriptive material since none of the steps explicitly interact therein. Limitations that are not functionally interrelated with the useful acts, structure, or properties of the claimed invention carry little or no patentable weight. Thus, this descriptive material will not distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art in terms of patentability, see In re Ngai, 70 USPQ2d 1862 (CAFC 2004); In re Gulack, 703 F.2d 1381, 1385, 217 USPQ 401, 404 (Fed. Cir. 1983); In re Lowry, 32 F.3d 1579, 32 USPQ2d 1031 (Fed. Cir. 1994). Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of applicant’s invention to use any type of data in test verdict because type of content does not functionally relate to steps in the method claim and does not patentable distinguish the claimed invention.
With respect to claim 2, King discloses all the limitations as described above. King further discloses: executing the at least one corrected model output by a controller for controlling the technical unit or the component of the technical unit; wherein the controller is a high-performance controller; and transmitting the at least one corrected model output to a controller to execute the at least one corrected model output for controlling the technical unit or the component of the technical unit; wherein the controller is a high-performance controller (See paragraph 0022).
With respect to claim 3, King discloses all the limitations as described above. King further discloses: wherein the at least one control parameter or the at least one motion parameter is a parameter selected from the group consisting of: control law, a control action, and a control plan (See paragraph 0123 and Fig 5).
With respect to claim 4, King discloses all the limitations as described above. King further discloses: wherein the verification is performed before the at least one model output is released or forwarded for execution (see paragraph 0123 and Fig 5).
With respect to claim 5, King discloses all the limitations as described above. King further discloses: wherein the at least one model output is represented by at least one parameter of a collision avoiding path, any other path or trajectory in context of the technical unit or the component of the technical unit (See paragraph 0113).
With respect to claim 6, King discloses all the limitations as described above. King further discloses: wherein the at least one correction parameter is added to at least one parameter of the at least one collision avoiding path, of the at least one other path or of the at least one trajectory during adjustment (See paragraph 0123).
With respect to claim 7, King discloses all the limitations as described above. King further discloses: performing the method steps b to e. based on the at least one corrected model output as the model output recurrently (See paragraphs 0121-0122).
With respect to claim 8, King discloses all the limitations as described above. King further discloses: wherein the second machine learning model is a feedforward or a recurrent neural network, or a long-short term memory network (See paragraphs 0028, 0037 and 0042).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ZESHAN QAYYUM whose telephone number is (571)270-3323. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9:00AM-6:00PM EST.
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, John W Hayes can be reached at (571) 272-6708. 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.
/ZESHAN QAYYUM/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3697
Prosecution Insights