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 1-20 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. The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Step 1: The independent Claims are directed to statutory categories:
Claim 1 is a system claim and directed to the machine or manufacture category of patentable subject matter.
Claim 19 is a method claim and directed to the process category of patentable subject matter.
Claim 20 is a computer-readable-storage medium claim and is directed to the machine or manufacture category of patentable subject matter.
Claim 1
A system, comprising: a sensor; an actuator; a processor coupled to the sensor and the actuator and configured to: access a model comprising a plurality of objects and expected behaviors of the plurality of objects; receive observed behaviors of one or more objects in the model, the observed behaviors being obtained by the sensor configured to collect the observed behaviors; determine one or more relationships between at least two of the objects in the model, including to use a matching mechanism based at least on one or more observed behaviors and one or more expected behaviors; output the one or more relationships to the actuator configured to take suitable application action; and a memory coupled to the processor and configured to provide the processor with instructions.
Step 2A Prong One: Does the claim recite a judicial exception (i.e. an abstract idea enumerated in the 2019 PEG, a law of nature, or a natural phenomenon)? - Yes
As for claim 1, the claimed:
access a model comprising a plurality of objects and expected behaviors of the plurality of objects; receive observed behaviors of one or more objects in the model, the observed behaviors being obtained by the sensor configured to collect the observed behaviors; determine one or more relationships between at least two of the objects in the model, including to use a matching mechanism based at least on one or more observed behaviors and one or more expected behaviors; output the one or more relationships to the actuator configured to take suitable application action are considered as mental processes.
For example, a human can review a model comprising objects and the expected behaviors of the objects, and determine the relationship between the objects to match expected and observed behaviors. Note that even mental processes which may need the physical aids such a computer does not prevent the function from being a mental process (see MPEP §2106.04(a)(2)(III)(C)). As result, the limitations are considered as mental process.
Step 2A, prong Two: Does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the exception into a practical application – NO
The additional elements are:
Sensor, actuator, processor and memory
The Sensor, actuator, processor and memory are generic computer components, specified at a high level of generality and/or are generic tools used to implement the abstract idea and do not integrate the abstract idea into the practical application (see MPEP §2106.05(f)).
Step 2B - Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to an inventive concept (aka “significantly more”) than the recited judicial exception. -- NO
The additional elements when reconsidered individually and as an ordered combination do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea because the sensor, actuator, processor and memory are generic computer components, specified at a high level of generality and/or are generic tools used to implement the abstract idea that are well understood, routine and conventional (WURC). For example, the courts have recognized that storing and retrieving information, Versata Dev. Group, Inc. v. SAP Am., Inc., 793 F.3d 1306, 1334, 115 USPQ2d 1681, 1701 (Fed. Cir. 2015); OIP Techs., 788 F.3d at 1363, 115 USPQ2d at 1092-93; and electronically scanning or extracting data from a physical document, Content Extraction and Transmission, LLC v. Wells Fargo Bank, 776 F.3d 1343, 1348, 113 USPQ2d 1354, 1358 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (optical character recognition).
As for claims 2-18, the claimed steps are mental processes as prescribed in MPEP §2106.04(a)(2)(III)(C).
Claims 19-20 are corresponding method and product claim that is rejected under the same reasoning as claim 1. See MPEP 2106.05(f).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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) 1-3, 7, 11-15, and 18-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Wouhaybi (2021/0107151).
As for claims 1 19, and 20, Wouhaybi discloses a system, comprising:
a sensor ([0032]);
an actuator ([0032]);
a processor coupled to the sensor and the actuator and configured to:
access a model (autonomous machine) comprising a plurality of objects and expected behaviors of the plurality of objects (Autonomous machine comprises sensors, effectors, kinetic chains, propulsion devices, and communication devices; [0053], [0054], [0056], [0059]);
receive observed behaviors of one or more objects in the model (Observed behaviors of autonomous machines are monitored; [0090], [0095], [0100]),
the observed behaviors being obtained by the sensor configured to collect the observed behaviors ([0032], [0037], [0047], [0054], [0057]);
determine one or more relationships between at least two of the objects in the model, including to use a matching mechanism based at least on one or more observed behaviors and one or more expected behaviors (Compare completed actions with expected actions: [0088]; Compare observed behavior with expected behavior: [0090], [0119];);
output the one or more relationships to the actuator configured to take suitable application action ([0031], [0054], [0079]); and
a memory coupled to the processor and configured to provide the processor with instructions ([0069], [0158]).
As for claim 2, Wouhaybi discloses wherein the sensor is physical ([0032], [0054], [0057], [0058]).
As for claim 3, Wouhaybi discloses wherein an expected behavior indicates a relationship between at least two of the plurality of objects ([0088], [0090]).
As for claim 7, Wouhaybi discloses wherein the matching is performed using two-phase acceptance ([0054]).
As for claim 11, Wouhaybi discloses wherein the matching is performed multiple times with potentially changing behavior of objects ([0054], [0058], [0059]).
As for claim 12, Wouhaybi discloses wherein the matching is approximate ([0090], [0132], [0148]).
As for claim 13, Wouhaybi discloses wherein expected behavior is determined at least in part using cause-effect rules ([0088], [0090], [0119]).
As for claim 14, Wouhaybi fails to disclose wherein expected behavior is determined at least in part using the inverse ruleset from cause-effect rules.
The Examiner takes Official Notice that it is well-known wherein expected behavior is determined at least in part using the inverse ruleset from cause-effect rules.
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Wohaybi to disclose the abovementioned limitation, as taught by Examiner’s statement of Official Notice, for the advantage of determining what to expect.
As for claim 15, Wouhaybi fails to disclose wherein the processor is further configured to use pre-matching to reduce the number of comparisons to observed behaviors.
The Examiner takes Official Notice that it is well-known wherein the processor is further configured to use pre-matching to reduce the number of comparisons to observed behaviors.
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Wohaybi to disclose the abovementioned limitation, as taught by Examiner’s statement of Official Notice, for the advantage of conserving resources.
As for claim 18, Wouhaybi discloses wherein the actuator is physical ([0031], [0079]).
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.
Claim(s) 4-6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wohyabi as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Boss (2020/0404727).
As for claims 4-6, Wohyabi fails to disclose wherein the matching is performed using deferred acceptance, modified version of the Gale-Shapley algorithm and deferred rejection.
In an analogous art, Boss discloses wherein the matching is performed using deferred acceptance, modified version of the Gale-Shapley algorithm and deferred rejection ([0038]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Wohyabi’s invention to include the abovementioned limitation, as taught by Boss, for the advantage of optimizing matching results.
Claim(s) 8-10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wohyabi as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Chintalapati (2020/0104775).
As for claim 8, Wohyabi fails to disclose wherein the matching comprises a ranking determined in part by a distance computed between an observed object behavior and an expected behavior.
In an analogous art, Chintalapati discloses wherein the matching comprises a ranking determined in part by a distance computed between an observed object behavior and an expected behavior ([0141]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Wohyabi’s invention to include the abovementioned limitation, as taught by Chintalapati, for the advantage of identifying highly relevant content for a user.
As for claim 9, Wohyabi fails to disclose wherein the distance is computed in part based on the correlation between metrics in the observed and expected behavior.
In an analogous art, Chintalapati discloses wherein the distance is computed in part based on the correlation between metrics in the observed and expected behavior ([0141]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Wohyabi’s invention to include the abovementioned limitation, as taught by Chintalapati, for the advantage of identifying highly relevant content for a user.
As for claim 10, Wohyabi fails to disclose wherein the distance is computed in part using a ruleset-based computation.
In an analogous art, Chintalapati discloses wherein the distance is computed in part using a ruleset-based computation ([0141]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Wohyabi’s invention to include the abovementioned limitation, as taught by Chintalapati, for the advantage of identifying highly relevant content for a user.
Claim(s) 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wohyabi as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Zavesky (2023/008388).
As for claim 16, Wohyabi fails to disclose wherein the processor is further configured to use pre-classification by type of objects to reduce the number of comparisons to observed behaviors.
In an analogous art, Zavesky discloses the processor is further configured to use pre-classification by type of objects to reduce the number of comparisons to observed behaviors ([0018], [0052], [0138]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Wohyabi’s invention to include the abovementioned limitation, as taught by Zavesky, for the advantage of conserving resources.
Claim(s) 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wohyabi as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Muraharirao (12743685).
As for claim 17, Wohyabi fails to disclose wherein the processor is further configured to perform rematching at least in part by replaying behaviors from the past in the proper time sequence.
In an analogous art, Muraharirao discloses the processor is further configured to perform rematching at least in part by replaying behaviors from the past in the proper time sequence (col. 12, lines 26-59).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Wohyabi’s invention to include the abovementioned limitation, as taught by Muraharirao, for the advantage of offsetting the additional time and resource required for additional searching.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SUMAIYA A CHOWDHURY whose telephone number is (571)272-8567. The examiner can normally be reached 9:00-3:00 PM.
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, NATHAN FLYNN can be reached at (571)272-1915. 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.
SUMAIYA A. CHOWDHURY
Examiner
Art Unit 2421
/SUMAIYA A CHOWDHURY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2421
