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 Objections
Claims 10 and 19 are objected to because of the following informalities: the claims appear to contain a typo and recite “a controller configured generate a control signal” it is believed Applicant intended to recite “a controller configured to generate a control signal”
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: “an analytics engine configured to” and “a controllable subsystem controller configured to” in claims 10 and 12 respectively.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
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 an abstract idea without significantly more. Claims 1-20 is/are directed to the abstract idea of a mathematical concept and a mental process. The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the additional computer elements, which are recited at a high level of generality, provide conventional computer functions that do not add meaningful limits to practicing the abstract idea.
The claim(s) recite(s) obtaining a query, obtaining querying context, identifying the query type, generating a prompt, providing the prompt to an analytics engine, determining features, providing a user output for controlling a user system. The rejected dependent claims only supply additional steps (mathematical calculations, and mental processes) that a processor must perform. All of these concepts relate to the abstract idea of certain methods of mathematical concepts and mental processes. The concept described in claims 1-20 is/are not meaningfully different than those methods of mathematical concepts and mental processes found by the courts to be abstract ideas. As such, the description in claims 1-20 is an abstract idea.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the additional elements when considered both individually and as an ordered combination do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. The claim(s) recite(s) the additional limitations of "computing system” “analytics engine” “controller”. The hardware is recited at a high level of generality and are recited as performing generic computer functions routinely used in computer applications. Generic computer components recited as performing generic computer functions that are well-understood, routine and conventional activities amount to no more than implementing the abstract idea with a computerized system. The use of generic computer components that perform the generic functions of [e.g. "transmitting information", "generating information"] common to electronics and computer systems does not impose any meaningful limit on the computer implementation of the abstract idea. Thus, taken alone, the additional elements do not amount to significantly more than the above-identified judicial exception (the abstract idea).
The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because looking at the limitations as an ordered combination adds nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually. There is no indication that the combination of elements improves the functioning of a computer or improves another technology or technical field. Their collective functions merely provide conventional computer implementation (i.e. mere instructions to implement the abstract idea on a generic computing system).
Claims 1-20 are therefore not drawn to eligible subject matter as they are directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
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.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Bey, et al. ("A multimodal AI approach for intuitively instructable autonomous systems: A case study of an autonomous off-highway vehicle.")
Regarding claims 1, 10 and 19, Bey discloses a computer implemented method of controlling a user associated system, the computer implemented method comprising: AND an off-road operations computing system comprising: AND an off-road operations computing system comprising: one or more processors; memory; computer executable instructions stored in the memory, the computer executable instructions, when executed by the one or more processors, (abstract)
obtaining a query from a querying source; obtaining querying source context data; processing the query to identify an interrogative type corresponding to the query based on language in the query; (III. Spoken Language Understanding)
generating, based on the identified interrogative type, a prompt, the prompt identifying a task for an analytics engine; providing the prompt to the analytics engine; executing, with one or more models, analytics on one or more items of the querying source context data, based on the prompt; (V. Reinforcement Learning Based Navigation & Association with Speech-Vision Data)
determining one or more features of an output to be generated based on the identified interrogative type, the output responsive to the agricultural user query;
generating the output based on the executed analytics and the determined one or more features; and controlling the user associated system based on the output. (VI. AGV Multimodal AI Demonstration)
Regarding claims 2, 11, and 20, Bey further discloses wherein controlling the user associated system based on the output comprises controlling a user interface mechanism of the user associated system to display a user interface based on the output, the user interface comprising one or more display elements corresponding to the one or more determined features and displaying information based on the executed analytics. (C. SLU model validation; VI. AGV Mulimodal AI Demonstration)
Regarding claims 3, and 12, Bey further discloses wherein controlling the user associated system based on the output comprises controlling a controllable subsystem of a work machine, as the user associated system, based on the output. (V. 2) RL validation)
Regarding claims 4, and 13, Bey further discloses wherein processing the query to identify the interrogative type corresponding to the query based on language in the query comprises processing the query to identify, as the interrogative type, one of a descriptive interrogative type, a correlation interrogative type, a causation interrogative type, an intervention interrogative type, or a counterfactual interrogative type, based on language in the query. (III. B. SLU Model Architecture & Training)
Regarding claims 5, and 14, Bey further discloses processing the query to identify one or more variables corresponding to the query based on language in the query; and identifying the task for the analytics engine based on the identified interrogative type and the identified one or more variables. (III. B. SLU Model Architecture & Training)
Regarding claim 6, Bey further discloses wherein executing, with one or more models, analytics on one or more items of the querying source context data, based on the prompt comprises generating one or more models using the one or more items of the querying source context data based on the prompt. (III. Spoken Language Understanding)
Regarding claim 7, Bey further discloses wherein executing, with one or more models, analytics on one or more items of the querying source context data, based on the prompt comprises executing one or more preprocessed models using the one or more items of the querying source context data based on the prompt. (III. Spoken Language Understanding)
Regarding claim 8, Bey further discloses obtaining other source context data, wherein executing, with one or more models, analytics on one or more items of the querying source context data, based on the prompt comprises executing, with one or more models, analytics on one or more items of the querying source context data and one or more items of the other source context data, based on the prompt. (III. Spoken Language Understanding)
Regarding claims 9, and 18, Bey further discloses identifying a timing indicator based on the querying source context data; and determining as one of the one or more features, a recommended machine setting feature or a recommended prescription feature, based on the timing indicator. (II. Case Study A. Autonomous Vehicle Architecture; III. Spoken Language Understanding; Examiner notes that Bey at least recognizes that the example task “pick up the reb pallet and put it on the truck” timing is to be done right now and not sometime in the future, and further understanding of time is inherent to the spoken language understanding of Bey)
Regarding claim 15, Bey further discloses wherein the querying source context data includes current querying source worksite data and historical querying source worksite data. (III. A. Speech data generation; historical data is inherent to the training dataset)
Regarding claim 16, Bey further discloses wherein the query execution computing system is further configured to obtain other source context data and wherein the analytics engine is configured to execute with the one or more models, analytics on one or more items of the querying source context data and on one or more items of the other source context data, based on the prompt. (III. Spoken Language Understanding)
Regarding claim 17, Bey further discloses wherein the other source context data includes worksite data corresponding to one or more other sources. (IV. Visual Perception and Association with Speech)
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ALAN D HUTCHINSON whose telephone number is (571)272-8413. The examiner can normally be reached 7-5 Mon-Thur.
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, Navid Mehdizadeh can be reached at (571) 272-7691. 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.
/ALAN D HUTCHINSON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3669