DETAILED ACTION
This action is in response to the claims filed 07/11/2024 for Application number 18/770,217. Claims 1-56 are currently 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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 07/11/2024, 12/13/2024, and 03/19/2026 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
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 1-56 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.
The term “optimal” in claims 1, 15, 29, and 43 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “optimal” 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 specification fails to explicitly define what would be considered to be “optimal actions”. Since optimal is a subjective definition which differs from person to person, the metes and bounds of the claims is not made clear and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be able to properly avoid infringing upon a claim when no definition of “optimal” has been made.
Regarding claims 4, 18, 32 and 46, they recite a value function without defining what all of the variables recited in the claims are. Therefore, the claims are rejected 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.
Claims 2-14, 16-28, 30-42 and 44-56 are rejected as being dependent on a rejected base claim without curing any of the deficiencies.
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 1-56 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Regarding claim 1,
Step 1 Analysis: Claim 1 is directed to a process, which falls within one of the four statutory categories.
Step 2A Prong 1 Analysis: Claim 1 recites, in part, The limitations of:
identifying, [by a computational unit], an objective; generating a directed acyclic graph that identifies a causal relationship… can be considered to be an evaluation in the human mind
determining, through a coupled induction loop and based on the one or more initial probability distributions, one or more optimal actions to achieve the objective with the optimized chosen statistic can be considered to be an evaluation in the human mind
These limitations as drafted, are processes that, under broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind or with the aid of pen and paper which falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
The limitations of:
generating one or more initial probability distributions corresponding to an initial uncertainty of a real or simulated world state can be considered to be a mathematical calculation
generating a selection policy, wherein the selection policy comprises one or more parameters for determining optimal actions to achieve the objective with an optimized chosen statistic of a distribution of future cost can be considered to be a mathematical calculation
wherein the coupled induction loop comprises:
performing a backward induction on the optimized chosen statistic; can be considered to be a mathematical calculation
performing a forward induction on an uncertainty about an unknown state of the world; can be considered to be a mathematical calculation
updating, based on the backward induction and the forward induction, the selection policy; can be considered to be a mathematical calculation
These limitations as drafted, are processes that, under broadest reasonable interpretation, covers mathematical calculations which falls within the “Mathematical Concepts” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
Step 2A Prong 2 Analysis: This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim recites the additional element - “a computational unit”. Thus, this element in the claim is recited at a high level of generality such that it amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Please see MPEP 2106.05(f). Accordingly, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
The claim further recites: repeating the backward induction, the updating, and the forward induction until convergence is identified. This limitation is an insignificant extra-solution activity.
outputting an indication of the one or more optimal actions. This limitation amounts to mere data outputting thus is an insignificant extra-solution activity.
Accordingly, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim as a whole is directed to an abstract idea.
Step 2B Analysis: The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements of utilizing a computational unit to perform the steps of the claimed process amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. Furthermore, the limitation of repeating the backward induction, the updating, and the forward induction until convergence is identified is well-understood, routine, and conventional, as evidenced by MPEP §2106.05(d)(II)(II), “performing repetitive calculations”.
The limitation of: outputting an indication of the one or more optimal actions
is well-understood, routine, and conventional, as evidenced by MPEP §2106.05(d)(II)(I), “receiving or transmitting data over a network”.
These limitations therefore remain insignificant extra-solution activity even upon reconsideration, and does not amount to significantly more. Even when considered in combination, these additional elements amount to mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components and insignificant extra-solution activity, which cannot provide an inventive concept. The claim is not patent eligible.
Regarding claim 2, the rejection of claim 1 is further incorporated, and further, the claim recites: determining a first number t, which represents a future time; determining a first vector x, which represents an unknown state of a real or simulated world at time t; determining a second vector y, which represents an observable state at time t; determining a first function M(x), which is a measurement function corresponding to the second vector y; and determining a cost function corresponding to the observable state, wherein identifying the objective comprises defining the objective based on the first number t, the first vector x, the second vector y, the first function M(x), and the cost function. This claim recites additional mental steps in addition to the judicial exception identified in the rejection of claim 1, thus recites a judicial exception.
The claim does not include any additional elements that amount to an integration of the judicial exceptions into a practical application, nor to significantly more than the judicial exceptions. The claim is not patent eligible.
Regarding claim 3, the rejection of claim 1 is further incorporated, and further, the claim recites: determining a sequence of vectors i, wherein the series of vectors i represents one or more historical observable states; determining, based on the first vector x and the series of vectors i, lifted dynamics of the selection policy; determining, based on the lifted dynamics of the selection policy, an uninformed probability distribution p(t), wherein the uninformed probability distribution p(t) corresponds to the one or more initial probability distributions; and deriving, based on the uninformed probability distribution, the forward induction. This claim recites additional mental steps in addition to the judicial exception identified in the rejection of claim 1, thus recites a judicial exception.
The claim does not include any additional elements that amount to an integration of the judicial exceptions into a practical application, nor to significantly more than the judicial exceptions. The claim is not patent eligible.
Regarding claim 4, the rejection of claim 1 is further incorporated, and further, the claim recites:
PNG
media_image1.png
300
664
media_image1.png
Greyscale
This claim recites additional mathematical steps in addition to the judicial exception identified in the rejection of claim 1, thus recites a judicial exception.
The claim does not include any additional elements that amount to an integration of the judicial exceptions into a practical application, nor to significantly more than the judicial exceptions. The claim is not patent eligible.
Regarding claim 5, the rejection of claim 1 is further incorporated, and further, the claim recites: wherein updating the selection policy comprises optimizing, based on the uninformed probability distribution p(t) and the value function v(t)(x,i), the selection policy. This claim recites additional mathematical steps in addition to the judicial exception identified in the rejection of claim 1, thus recites a judicial exception.
The claim does not include any additional elements that amount to an integration of the judicial exceptions into a practical application, nor to significantly more than the judicial exceptions. The claim is not patent eligible.
Regarding claim 6, the rejection of claim 1 is further incorporated, and further, the claim recites: wherein the optimized chosen statistic comprises: a percentile distribution of expected future costs for achieving the objective, a maximum total future cost, an expectation of the total future cost, or an average of a subset of expected future costs for achieving the objective. This claim recites additional mathematical steps in addition to the judicial exception identified in the rejection of claim 1, thus recites a judicial exception.
The claim does not include any additional elements that amount to an integration of the judicial exceptions into a practical application, nor to significantly more than the judicial exceptions. The claim is not patent eligible.
Regarding claim 7, the rejection of claim 1 is further incorporated, and further, the claim recites:
receiving, by a sensor, a current observation corresponding to the real or simulated world state; This limitation amounts to mere data gathering thus is an insignificant extra-solution activity
The claim further recites:
updating, based on the current observation, historical observable state information;
determining, based on the historical observable state information, a relevance score for the current observation, wherein the relevance score comprises statistics of a current cost and a statistic of a distribution of future cost of performing one or more actions;
This claim recites additional mental steps in addition to the judicial exception identified in the rejection of claim 1, thus recites a judicial exception.
The claim additionally recites:
generating, based on the relevance score, one or more mathematical representations of emotions; and compressing, based on the one or more mathematical representations of emotions, the historical observable state information, wherein performing the forward induction comprises determining, based on the compressed historical observable state information, informed state distributions for the real or simulated world state.
This claim recites additional mathematical steps in addition to the judicial exception identified in the rejection of claim 1, thus recites a judicial exception.
The claim does not include any additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. This limitation is just a nominal or tangential addition to the claim, and is also well-understood, routine and conventional as evidenced by MPEP §2106.05(d)(II)(I), “receiving or transmitting data over a network”. This limitation therefore remains insignificant extra-solution activity even upon reconsideration, and does not amount to significantly more. Even when considered in combination, this additional element represents an insignificant extra-solution activity which cannot provide an inventive concept. The claim is not patent eligible.
Regarding claim 8, the rejection of claim 1 is further incorporated, and further, the claim recites: determining, based on the one or more parameters, one or more optimal dimensions for computing the one or more optimal actions;. This claim recites additional mental steps in addition to the judicial exception identified in the rejection of claim 1, thus recites a judicial exception.
The claim further recites: generating, based on the one or more optimal dimensions, one or more updated probability distributions corresponding to a state of the world; and updating, during the coupled induction loop and based on the one or more updated probability distributions, the forward induction and the backward induction. This claim recites additional mathematical steps in addition to the judicial exception identified in the rejection of claim 1, thus recites a judicial exception.
The claim does not include any additional elements that amount to an integration of the judicial exceptions into a practical application, nor to significantly more than the judicial exceptions. The claim is not patent eligible.
Regarding claim 9, the rejection of claim 1 is further incorporated, and further, the claim recites:
determining an initial particle distribution, wherein the initial particle distribution corresponds to:
information of an unknown state of a real or simulated world at a time t; information of an uninformed probability distribution p(t), information of one or more historical observable states, an indication of the selection policy, and a value function corresponding to the objective;
performing a multi-scaling method, wherein the multi-scaling method comprises: scaling up interaction distances and speeds of motion in world mechanics corresponding to the one or more initial probability distributions; identifying a subset of particles of the initial particle distribution; interpolating the subset of particles; and updating, based on completion of the multi-scaling method, the coupled induction loop. This claim recites additional mathematical steps in addition to the judicial exception identified in the rejection of claim 1, thus recites a judicial exception.
The claim further recites: repeating the scaling, identifying subsets of particles, and interpolating until an optimal number of scales is achieved. This is an insignificant extra-solution activity.
The claim does not include any additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. This limitation is just a nominal or tangential addition to the claim, and is also well-understood, routine and conventional as evidenced by MPEP §2106.05(d)(II)(II), “performing repetitive calculations”. This limitation therefore remains insignificant extra-solution activity even upon reconsideration, and does not amount to significantly more. Even when considered in combination, this additional element represents an insignificant extra-solution activity which cannot provide an inventive concept. The claim is not patent eligible.
Regarding claim 10, the rejection of claim 1 is further incorporated, and further, the claim recites: generating, based on optimal actions for achieving historical objectives, a historical record of sub-problems for historical objectives; determining an intermediate goal for the objective; comparing, based on the historical record of sub-problems, the intermediate goal to one or more historical sub-problems; determining, based on the comparing, a set of historical sub-problems corresponding to the intermediate goal; and updating, based on the set of historical sub-problems, the selection policy. This claim recites additional mental steps in addition to the judicial exception identified in the rejection of claim 1, thus recites a judicial exception.
The claim does not include any additional elements that amount to an integration of the judicial exceptions into a practical application, nor to significantly more than the judicial exceptions. The claim is not patent eligible.
Regarding claim 11, the rejection of claim 1 is further incorporated, and further, the claim recites: bootstrapping the forward induction and the backward induction with an initial oracle-based forward induction, wherein the initial oracle-based forward induction chooses actions based on unobserved information about the real or simulated world state. This claim recites additional mathematical steps in addition to the judicial exception identified in the rejection of claim 1, thus recites a judicial exception.
The claim does not include any additional elements that amount to an integration of the judicial exceptions into a practical application, nor to significantly more than the judicial exceptions. The claim is not patent eligible.
Regarding claim 12, the rejection of claim 1 is further incorporated, and further, the claim recites: further comprising effecting, via an actuator, the one or more optimal actions. This limitation amounts to mere instructions to apply the judicial exception using a generic computer component. Please see MPEP 2106.05(f).
The claim does not include any additional elements that amount to an integration of the judicial exceptions into a practical application, nor to significantly more than the judicial exceptions. The claim is not patent eligible.
Regarding claim 13, the rejection of claim 1 is further incorporated, and further, the claim recites: wherein the computational unit supports calculation of multi-valued functions. This limitation amounts to mere instructions to apply the judicial exception using a generic computer component. Please see MPEP 2106.05(f).
The claim does not include any additional elements that amount to an integration of the judicial exceptions into a practical application, nor to significantly more than the judicial exceptions. The claim is not patent eligible.
Regarding claim 14, the rejection of claim 1 is further incorporated, and further, the claim recites: restricting numerical calculations performed by the computational unit to a local data manifold within a full-dimensional space of states. This limitation amounts to mere instructions to apply the judicial exception using a generic computer component. Please see MPEP 2106.05(f).
The claim does not include any additional elements that amount to an integration of the judicial exceptions into a practical application, nor to significantly more than the judicial exceptions. The claim is not patent eligible.
Claim 15 recites features substantially similar to claim 1 and is rejected for at least the same reasons therein. Claim 15 additionally requires analysis for receiving, by a sensor, observational information; This limitation amounts to mere data gathering and is an insignificant extra-solution and further is considered to be well-understood, routine, and conventional, as evidenced by MPEP §2106.05(d)(II)(I), “receiving or transmitting data over a network”.
maintaining, [by a computational unit], an objective; This limitation can be considered to be an evaluation in the human mind
maintaining, [by the computational unit], a current uncertainty about an unknown state, wherein the current uncertainty is updated using the observational information; This limitation can be considered to be an evaluation in the human mind
Regarding Claims 16-28, they recite features similar to claims 2-14 and are rejected for at least the same reasons therein.
Regarding claim 29,
Step 1 Analysis: Claim 29 is directed to a process, which falls within one of the four statutory categories.
Step 2A Prong 1 Analysis: Claim 29 recites, in part, The limitations of:
maintaining, [by a computational unit], the objective can be considered to be an evaluation in the human mind
representing the objective using an incremental cost of a plurality of potential actions, wherein the plurality of potential actions comprises one or more actions associated with an optimal contingent strategy for achieving the objective as an optimal value of an optimized chosen statistic of a distribution of future cost that, when performed, produce observational information; can be considered to be an evaluation in the human mind
determining, by the computational unit and using the model, one or more optimal future actions to achieve the objective can be considered to be an evaluation in the human mind
These limitations as drafted, are processes that, under broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind or with the aid of pen and paper which falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
Step 2A Prong 2 Analysis: This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim recites the additional element - “a computational unit” and “a model”. Thus, these elements in the claim are recited at a high level of generality such that they amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Please see MPEP 2106.05(f). Accordingly, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
The claim further recites: acquiring, via one or more sensors, based on performing, during execution of the optimal contingent strategy, the one or more actions and based on prior observational information acquired by the one or more sensors, the observational information; This amounts to mere data gathering thus is an insignificant extra-solution activity.
providing, to a model that is selecting the optimal contingent strategy, the observational information, wherein providing the observational information configures the model to determine one or more optimal future actions for achieving the objective; This limitation amounts to an insignificant extra-solution activity.
wherein the determining the one or more optimal future actions comprises repeating a backward induction and a forward induction until convergence is identified. This limitation amounts to an insignificant extra-solution activity.
Accordingly, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim as a whole is directed to an abstract idea.
Step 2B Analysis: The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements of utilizing a computational unit and model to perform the steps of the claimed process amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. Furthermore, the limitation of wherein the determining the one or more optimal future actions comprises repeating a backward induction and a forward induction until convergence is identified. is well-understood, routine, and conventional, as evidenced by MPEP §2106.05(d)(II)(II), “performing repetitive calculations”.
The limitations of: acquiring, via one or more sensors, based on performing, during execution of the optimal contingent strategy, the one or more actions and based on prior observational information acquired by the one or more sensors, the observational information;
providing, to a model that is selecting the optimal contingent strategy, the observational information, wherein providing the observational information configures the model to determine one or more optimal future actions for achieving the objective;
are well-understood, routine, and conventional, as evidenced by MPEP §2106.05(d)(II)(I), “receiving or transmitting data over a network”.
These limitations therefore remain insignificant extra-solution activity even upon reconsideration, and does not amount to significantly more. Even when considered in combination, these additional elements amount to mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components and insignificant extra-solution activity, which cannot provide an inventive concept. The claim is not patent eligible.
Regarding Claims 30-42, they recite features similar to claims 2-14 and are rejected for at least the same reasons therein.
Claim 43 recites features similar to claims 1, 15 and 29 and is rejected for at least the same reasons therein. Claim 43 additionally requires analysis for selecting a subset of the observational data to include in a memory unit based on one or more statistics of a distribution of total current and future cost at the time that the data is acquired however this limitation amounts to additional mental steps in addition to the judicial exception identified in similarly recited claims 1, 15 and 29.
Regarding Claims 44-56, they recite features similar to claims 2-14 and are rejected for at least the same reasons therein.
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.
Claims 1-3, 6, 12-17, 20, 26-31, 34, 40-45, 48, and 54-56 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Burchard ("US 20130151460 A1", hereinafter "Burchard").
Regarding claim 1, Burchard teaches A method comprising:
identifying, by a computational unit, an objective; (¶0023, The objective is to choose u to minimize the future cost…)
generating one or more initial probability distributions corresponding to an initial uncertainty of a real or simulated world state (“The described method may include receiving sensory information about a world along with high-level goals. The method may then determine probabilities of unknown states of the world and the cost of certain actions in order to achieve a goal for as little cost as possible.” [¶0008]) ;
generating a selection policy, wherein the selection policy comprises one or more parameters for determining optimal actions to achieve the objective with an optimized chosen statistic (¶0092-¶0094) of a distribution of future cost (“This strategy may develop in the form of recommended actions u at future times depending on the projected history of observations i. For example, the device could tell the user ahead of time that if the first store is unexpectedly closed, the next step in the plan is to go to a different specified store.” [¶0189-¶0192; strategy corresponds to a selection policy]);
determining, through a coupled induction loop and based on the one or more initial probability distributions (“For efficiency, we will assume that the dynamics A have some kind of locality, to prevent the forward and backward induction steps from becoming quadratic in the number of particles” [¶0124]), one or more optimal actions to achieve the objective with the optimized chosen statistic (¶0139, determine optimal actions 305 to achieve goal 307), wherein the coupled induction loop comprises:
performing a backward induction on the optimized chosen statistic; (“The computational unit may then perform backwards and forwards sweeps of the particles in order to determine in what way the variables change over time in order to achieve the optimal action or set of action” [¶0008])
performing a forward induction on an uncertainty about an unknown state of the world; (“The method may then determine probabilities of unknown states of the world and the cost of certain actions in order to achieve a goal for as little cost as possible…The computational unit may then perform backwards and forwards sweeps of the particles in order to determine in what way the variables change over time in order to achieve the optimal action or set of action” [¶0008])
updating, based on the backward induction and the forward induction, the selection policy; and repeating the backward induction, the updating, and the forward induction until convergence is identified (“Also, for convergence, it may be necessary for the computational unit to repeat the aggregation and control steps a number of times until the new value of u is no longer changing.” [¶0162]); and
outputting an indication of the one or more optimal actions. (“The computational unit then may hold constant those variables that propagate backward with time and determine an optimal action based on the way that the forward propagating variables change as time moves forward. The process continues until the optimal action determined by the backward sweep converges with the optimal action determined by the forward sweep.” [¶0186])
Regarding claim 2, Burchard teaches The method of claim 1, further comprising: determining a first number t, which represents a future time; determining a first vector x, which represents an unknown state of a real or simulated world at time t; determining a second vector y, which represents an observable state at time t; determining a first function M(x), which is a measurement function corresponding to the second vector y; and determining a cost function corresponding to the observable state, wherein identifying the objective comprises defining the objective based on the first number t, the first vector x, the second vector y, the first function M(x), and the cost function. (See claims 2 and 10)
Regarding claim 3, Burchard teaches The method of claim 2, further comprising: determining a sequence of vectors i, wherein the series of vectors i represents one or more historical observable states; determining, based on the first vector x and the series of vectors i, lifted dynamics of the selection policy; determining, based on the lifted dynamics of the selection policy, an uninformed probability distribution p(t), wherein the uninformed probability distribution p(t) corresponds to the one or more initial probability distributions; and deriving, based on the uninformed probability distribution, the forward induction. (See claims 2 and 3)
Regarding claim 6, Burchard teaches The method of claim 1, wherein the optimized chosen statistic comprises: a percentile distribution of expected future costs for achieving the objective, a maximum total future cost, an expectation of the total future cost, or an average of a subset of expected future costs for achieving the objective. (“The goal of the particle method is to determine actions that achieve the specified goal while minimizing the total expected future cost.” [¶0140; note the claim recites “or” thus under BRI, the examiner is only required to map to one of the corresponding elements.)
Regarding claim 12, Burchard teaches The method of claim 1, further comprising effecting, via an actuator, the one or more optimal actions. (“The determined optimal actions and/or emotions are outputted to an actuator in step 415.” [¶0153])
Regarding claim 13, Burchard teaches The method of claim 1, wherein the computational unit supports calculation of multi-valued functions. (“Computational unit 103 may have significant ability to run multiple instances of the described method in parallel. Computational unit 103 may also have significant bandwidth for communication of data between multiple instances of described method.” [¶0130; See further, ¶0185 “multiplicity of particles”)
Regarding claim 14, Burchard teaches The method of claim 1, further comprising restricting numerical calculations performed by the computational unit to a local data manifold within a full-dimensional space of states. (“Thus locally, the informed distribution is just the restriction of the uninformed distribution to the current observation y(t).” [¶0072-¶0074])
Claim 15 recites features similar to claim 1 and is rejected for at least the same reasons therein. Claim 15 additionally requires receiving, by a sensor, observational information; (Burchard, ¶0008)
maintaining, by a computational unit, an objective; (See claim 1)
maintaining, by the computational unit, a current uncertainty about an unknown state, wherein the current uncertainty is updated using the observational information; (See claim 1)
Regarding claims 16-17, 20, and 26-28, they are substantially similar to claims 2-3, 6, and 12-14 respectively, and are rejected in the same manner, the same art, and reasoning applying.
Claim 29 recites features similar to claim 1 and is rejected for at least the same reasons therein. Claim 29 additionally requires representing the objective using an incremental cost of a plurality of potential actions, wherein the plurality of potential actions comprises one or more actions associated with an optimal contingent strategy for achieving the objective as an optimal value of an optimized chosen statistic of a distribution of future cost that, when performed, produce observational information; (“Further, the observational data may include the measurement process that yields observational data as a function of time and world state, represented as a function, m. High-level goals may be encoded as a function c, representing the incremental cost as a function of time, observational data, and actions;” [¶0140])
providing, to a model that is selecting the optimal contingent strategy, the observational information, wherein providing the observational information configures the model to determine one or more optimal future actions for achieving the objective; (“So far we have assumed that the state dynamics, while possibly time dependent, are explicitly known. The simplest way this can fail is if there are unknown parameters in our model of the world. But such parameters can simply be included in the state variables and given zero dynamics. Given a prior p(0), Bayes' Rule will then update our knowledge of them. To obtain the prior p(0), particle learning methods have been developed that make the most efficient use of Bayes' Rule for parameter estimation using a particle approximation.” [¶0085])
Regarding claims 30-31, 34 and 40-42, they are substantially similar to claims 2-3, 6, and 12-14 respectively, and are rejected in the same manner, the same art, and reasoning applying.
Claim 43 recites features similar to claim 1 and is rejected for at least the same reasons therein. Claim 43 additionally requires selecting a subset of the observational data to include in a memory unit based on one or more statistics of a distribution of total current and future cost at the time that the data is acquired; (“Memory 121 may also store data used in performance of one or more aspects described herein, including a first database 129 and a second database 131. In some embodiments, the first database may include the second database (e.g., as a separate table, report, etc.).” [¶0133])
Regarding claims 44-45, 48, and 54-56, they are substantially similar to claims 2-3, 6, and 12-14 respectively, and are rejected in the same manner, the same art, and reasoning applying.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 4, 5, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 18, 19, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 32, 33, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 46, 47, 49, 50, 51, 52, 53 are objected to as being allowable over prior art if all outstanding rejections were withdrawn. None of the prior art, either alone or in combination, fairly discloses limitations of claims 4, 18, 32 and 46 in particular:
PNG
media_image2.png
304
648
media_image2.png
Greyscale
No prior art was uncovered which fairly discloses the particular value function, specifically, inputting the value function into a global backward induction yielding … and deriving the backward induction
Regarding claims 7, 21, 35 and 49
receiving, by a sensor, a current observation corresponding to the real or simulated world state; updating, based on the current observation, historical observable state information; determining, based on the historical observable state information, a relevance score for the current observation, wherein the relevance score comprises statistics of a current cost and a statistic of a distribution of future cost of performing one or more actions; generating, based on the relevance score, one or more mathematical representations of emotions; and compressing, based on the one or more mathematical representations of emotions, the historical observable state information, wherein performing the forward induction comprises determining, based on the compressed historical observable state information, informed state distributions for the real or simulated world state.
No prior art was uncovered which fairly discloses all of the limitations of claims 7, 21, 35 and 49
Regarding claims 8, 22, 36, and 50:
determining, based on the one or more parameters, one or more optimal dimensions for computing the one or more optimal actions;
generating, based on the one or more optimal dimensions, one or more updated probability distributions corresponding to a state of the world; and
updating, during the coupled induction loop and based on the one or more updated probability distributions, the forward induction and the backward induction.
No prior art was uncovered which fairly discloses all of the limitations of 8, 22, 36, and 50
Regarding claims 9, 23, 47, and 51:
determining an initial particle distribution, wherein the initial particle distribution corresponds to: information of an unknown state of a real or simulated world at a time t; information of an uninformed probability distribution p(t), information of one or more historical observable states, an indication of the selection policy, and a value function corresponding to the objective; performing a multi-scaling method, wherein the multi-scaling method comprises: scaling up interaction distances and speeds of motion in world mechanics corresponding to the one or more initial probability distributions; identifying a subset of particles of the initial particle distribution; interpolating the subset of particles; and repeating the scaling, identifying subsets of particles, and interpolating until an optimal number of scales is achieved; and updating, based on completion of the multi-scaling method, the coupled induction loop.
No prior art was uncovered which fairly discloses all of the limitations of 9, 23, 37, and 51
Regarding claims 10, 24, 38, and 52:
generating, based on optimal actions for achieving historical objectives, a historical record of sub-problems for historical objectives; determining an intermediate goal for the objective; comparing, based on the historical record of sub-problems, the intermediate goal to one or more historical sub-problems; determining, based on the comparing, a set of historical sub-problems corresponding to the intermediate goal; and updating, based on the set of historical sub-problems, the selection policy.
No prior art was uncovered which fairly discloses all of the limitations of 10, 24, 38, and 52
Regarding claims 11, 25, 39, and 53:
bootstrapping the forward induction and the backward induction with an initial oracle-based forward induction, wherein the initial oracle-based forward induction chooses actions based on unobserved information about the real or simulated world state.
No prior art was uncovered which fairly discloses all of the limitations of 11, 25, 39, and 53
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MICHAEL H HOANG whose telephone number is (571)272-8491. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 8:30AM-4:30PM.
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, Kakali Chaki can be reached at (571) 272-3719. 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.
/MICHAEL H HOANG/PRIMARY EXAMINER, Art Unit 2122
Prosecution Insights