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 .
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Status of Claims
Claims 1-20 were originally filed on 11/22/2024 and claimed priority on KR10-2024-0098845, which was filed on 07/25/2024.
Information Disclosure Statement
The Information Disclosure Statements filed on 11/22/2024 and 07/23/2025 have been considered. An initialed copy of each Form 1449 is enclosed herewith.
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 1-5, 7, 9-14, 16, and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Claim 1 Analysis- Under Step 1, Claim 1 is a system claim.
Under Step 2A, Prong 1, the following limitations are an abstract idea of a mental process. The claim recites “obtain a standard behavior tree satisfying a target format, from an inputted behavior tree, based on…interpretation of the inputted behavior tree, store a robot scenario paired with the standard behavior tree… and verify validation of the standard behavior tree, based on nodes included in the standard behavior tree and an edge between the nodes included in the standard behavior tree.”. These are all steps that can be performed in the human mind. For example, a person can mentally obtain a standard behavior tree satisfying a target formant by using an inputted behavior tree. The person can then mentally store a robot scenario paired with the standard behavior tree, such as a task, in their mind. The person can also mentally verify validation of the standard behavior tree based on the nodes and the edges of the standard behavior tree. Therefore, the claim is directed to an abstract idea of a mental process.
Under Step 2A, Prong 2, the additional elements are the processor, the storage medium storing computer-readable instructions that are executed by the processor, and a behavior tree abstraction model. This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the processor, storage medium, and behavior tree abstraction model are all used as tools to perform the abstract idea (See at least MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III)(C)(3)).
Under Step 2B, the additional elements are the processor, the storage medium storing computer-readable instructions that are executed by the processor, and a behavior tree abstraction model. The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the processor, storage medium, and behavior tree abstraction model are all used as tools to perform the abstract idea (See at least MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III)(C)(3)).
Claim 2 Analysis- Under Step 1, Claim 2 is a system claim.
Under Step 2A, Prong 1, the following limitations are an abstract idea of a mental process. The claim recites “obtain a first parameter about a type of each of the nodes included in the inputted behavior tree and a second parameter included in the first parameter and about an attribute of each of the nodes included in the inputted behavior tree,…and apply the first parameter and the second parameter to the inputted behavior tree to obtain the standard behavior tree.”. These are all steps that can be performed in the human mind. For example, a person can mentally obtain a first parameter about the type of each of the nodes in the inputted behavior tree and a second parameter about the attribute of each of the nodes. The person can then mentally apply the first and second parameter to obtain the standard behavior tree. Therefore, the claim is directed to an abstract idea of a mental process.
Under Step 2A, Prong 2, the additional elements are the behavior tree abstraction model. This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the behavior tree abstraction model is used as a tool to perform the abstract idea (See at least MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III)(C)(3)).
Under Step 2B, the additional elements are the behavior tree abstraction model. The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the behavior tree abstraction model is used as a tool to perform the abstract idea (See at least MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III)(C)(3)).
Claim 3 Analysis- Under Step 1, Claim 3 is a system claim.
Under Step 2A, Prong 1, the following limitations are an abstract idea of a mental process. The claim recites “identify a root node included in the inputted behavior tree, based on the obtaining of the first parameter and the second parameter; recursively search for the inputted behavior tree based on the root node to identify child nodes included in the inputted behavior tree; apply the first parameter to at least one target node among the child nodes included in the inputted behavior tree to obtain the type of the target node; and apply the second parameter to the target node to obtain the attribute of the target node.”. These are all steps that can be performed in the human mind. For example, a person can mentally identify a root node in the inputted behavior tree. The person can mentally search for the inputted behavior tree based on the root node to identify child nodes. The person can mentally apply the first parameter to a target node among the child nodes to obtain the type of the target node. The person can mentally apply the second parameter to the target node to obtain the attribute of the target node. Therefore, the claim is directed to an abstract idea of a mental process.
Under Step 2A, Prong 2, there are no additional elements. This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because there are no additional elements.
Under Step 2B, there are no additional elements. The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because there are no additional elements.
Claim 4 Analysis- Under Step 1, Claim 4 is a system claim.
Under Step 2A, Prong 1, the following limitations are an abstract idea of a mental process. The claim recites “combine the type of the target node and the attribute of the target node to generate a standard node, depending on the target format; and connect the standard node with the root node to obtain the standard behavior tree.”. These are all steps that can be performed in the human mind. For example, a person can mentally combine the type and attribute of the target node to generate a standard node. The person can mentally connect the standard node with the root node to obtain the standard behavior tree. Therefore, the claim is directed to an abstract idea of a mental process.
Under Step 2A, Prong 2, there are no additional elements. This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because there are no additional elements.
Under Step 2B, there are no additional elements. The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because there are no additional elements.
Claim 5 Analysis- Under Step 1, Claim 5 is a system claim.
Under Step 2A, Prong 1, the following limitations are an abstract idea of a mental process. The claim recites “identify an exception processing transformation model, based on not obtaining the type of the target node or not obtaining the attribute of the target node; and obtain the type of the target node or the attribute of the target node.”. These are all steps that can be performed in the human mind. For example, a person can mentally identify an exception processing transformation model when the type or attribute of the target node is not obtained. The person can then mentally obtain the type or attribute of the target node. Therefore, the claim is directed to an abstract idea of a mental process.
Under Step 2A, Prong 2, the additional elements are the exception processing transformation model. This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the exception processing transformation model is used as a tool to perform the abstract idea (See at least MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III)(C)(3)).
Under Step 2B, the additional elements are the exception processing transformation model. The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the exception processing transformation model is used as a tool to perform the abstract idea (See at least MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III)(C)(3)).
Claim 7 Analysis- Under Step 1, Claim 7 is a system claim.
Under Step 2A, Prong 1, the following limitations are an abstract idea of a mental process. The claim recites “obtain an outputted behavior tree from the standard behavior tree,…wherein the outputted behavior tree has a different format than the standard behavior tree.”. These are all steps that can be performed in the human mind. For example, a person can mentally obtain an outputted behavior tree from the standard behavior tree, which is in a different format. Therefore, the claim is directed to an abstract idea of a mental process.
Under Step 2A, Prong 2, the additional elements are the behavior tree abstraction model. This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the behavior tree abstraction model is used as a tool to perform the abstract idea (See at least MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III)(C)(3)).
Under Step 2B, the additional elements are the behavior tree abstraction model. The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the behavior tree abstraction model is used as a tool to perform the abstract idea (See at least MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III)(C)(3)).
Claim 9 Analysis- Under Step 1, Claim 9 is a system claim.
Under Step 2A, Prong 1, the following limitations are an abstract idea of a mental process. The claim recites “identify a first node being a root node among the nodes included in the standard behavior tree; identify second nodes being child nodes among at least one node connected with the first node; verify validation of the first node, based on a type of the first node and a number of the second nodes; and recursively search for the standard behavior tree based on the first node to verify validation of each of the nodes included in the standard behavior tree.”. These are all steps that can be performed in the human mind. For example, a person can mentally identify a first node being a root node and second nodes being child nodes connected to the first node. The person can mentally verify validation of the first node based on the type of the first node and a number of second nodes. The person can search for the standard behavior tree based on the first node to verify the validation of nodes. Therefore, the claim is directed to an abstract idea of a mental process.
Under Step 2A, Prong 2, there are no additional elements. This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because there are no additional elements.
Under Step 2B, there are no additional elements. The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because there are no additional elements.
Claim 10 Analysis- Under Step 1, Claim 10 is a method claim.
Under Step 2A, Prong 1, the following limitations are an abstract idea of a mental process. The claim recites “perform interpretation of an inputted behavior tree; obtaining a standard behavior tree satisfying a target format, from the inputted behavior tree, based on…interpretation of the inputted behavior tree, storing a robot scenario paired with the standard behavior tree… and verifying validation of the standard behavior tree, based on nodes included in the standard behavior tree and an edge between the nodes included in the standard behavior tree.”. These are all steps that can be performed in the human mind. For example, a person can mentally interpret an inputted behavior tree. The person can mentally obtain a standard behavior tree satisfying a target formant by using the inputted behavior tree. The person can then mentally store a robot scenario paired with the standard behavior tree, such as a task, in their mind. The person can also mentally verify validation of the standard behavior tree based on the nodes and the edges of the standard behavior tree. Therefore, the claim is directed to an abstract idea of a mental process.
Under Step 2A, Prong 2, the additional element is a behavior tree abstraction model. This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the behavior tree abstraction model is used as a tool to perform the abstract idea (See at least MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III)(C)(3)).
Under Step 2B, the additional element is a behavior tree abstraction model. The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the behavior tree abstraction model is used as a tool to perform the abstract idea (See at least MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III)(C)(3)).
Claim 11 Analysis- Under Step 1, Claim 11 is a method claim.
Under Step 2A, Prong 1, the following limitations are an abstract idea of a mental process. The claim recites “obtaining a first parameter about a type of each of the nodes included in the inputted behavior tree and a second parameter included in the first parameter and about an attribute of each of the nodes included in the inputted behavior tree,…and applying the first parameter and the second parameter to the inputted behavior tree to obtain the standard behavior tree.”. These are all steps that can be performed in the human mind. For example, a person can mentally obtain a first parameter about the type of each of the nodes in the inputted behavior tree and a second parameter about the attribute of each of the nodes. The person can then mentally apply the first and second parameter to obtain the standard behavior tree. Therefore, the claim is directed to an abstract idea of a mental process.
Under Step 2A, Prong 2, the additional elements are the behavior tree abstraction model. This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the behavior tree abstraction model is used as a tool to perform the abstract idea (See at least MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III)(C)(3)).
Under Step 2B, the additional elements are the behavior tree abstraction model. The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the behavior tree abstraction model is used as a tool to perform the abstract idea (See at least MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III)(C)(3)).
Claim 12 Analysis- Under Step 1, Claim 12 is a method claim.
Under Step 2A, Prong 1, the following limitations are an abstract idea of a mental process. The claim recites “identifying a root node included in the inputted behavior tree, based on the obtaining of the first parameter and the second parameter; recursively searching for the inputted behavior tree based on the root node to identify child nodes included in the inputted behavior tree; applying the first parameter to at least one target node among the child nodes included in the inputted behavior tree to obtain the type of the target node; and applying the second parameter to the target node to obtain the attribute of the target node.”. These are all steps that can be performed in the human mind. For example, a person can mentally identify a root node in the inputted behavior tree. The person can mentally search for the inputted behavior tree based on the root node to identify child nodes. The person can mentally apply the first parameter to a target node among the child nodes to obtain the type of the target node. The person can mentally apply the second parameter to the target node to obtain the attribute of the target node. Therefore, the claim is directed to an abstract idea of a mental process.
Under Step 2A, Prong 2, there are no additional elements. This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because there are no additional elements.
Under Step 2B, there are no additional elements. The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because there are no additional elements.
Claim 13 Analysis- Under Step 1, Claim 13 is a method claim.
Under Step 2A, Prong 1, the following limitations are an abstract idea of a mental process. The claim recites “combining the type of the target node and the attribute of the target node to generate a standard node, depending on the target format; and connecting the standard node with the root node to obtain the standard behavior tree.”. These are all steps that can be performed in the human mind. For example, a person can mentally combine the type and attribute of the target node to generate a standard node. The person can mentally connect the standard node with the root node to obtain the standard behavior tree. Therefore, the claim is directed to an abstract idea of a mental process.
Under Step 2A, Prong 2, there are no additional elements. This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because there are no additional elements.
Under Step 2B, there are no additional elements. The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because there are no additional elements.
Claim 14 Analysis- Under Step 1, Claim 14 is a method claim.
Under Step 2A, Prong 1, the following limitations are an abstract idea of a mental process. The claim recites “identifying an exception processing transformation model, based on not obtaining the type of the target node or not obtaining the attribute of the target node; and obtaining the type of the target node or the attribute of the target node.”. These are all steps that can be performed in the human mind. For example, a person can mentally identify an exception processing transformation model when the type or attribute of the target node is not obtained. The person can then mentally obtain the type or attribute of the target node. Therefore, the claim is directed to an abstract idea of a mental process.
Under Step 2A, Prong 2, the additional elements are the exception processing transformation model. This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the exception processing transformation model is used as a tool to perform the abstract idea (See at least MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III)(C)(3)).
Under Step 2B, the additional elements are the exception processing transformation model. The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the exception processing transformation model is used as a tool to perform the abstract idea (See at least MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III)(C)(3)).
Claim 16 Analysis- Under Step 1, Claim 16 is a method claim.
Under Step 2A, Prong 1, the following limitations are an abstract idea of a mental process. The claim recites “obtaining an outputted behavior tree from the standard behavior tree,…wherein the outputted behavior tree has a different format than the standard behavior tree.”. These are all steps that can be performed in the human mind. For example, a person can mentally obtain an outputted behavior tree from the standard behavior tree, which is in a different format. Therefore, the claim is directed to an abstract idea of a mental process.
Under Step 2A, Prong 2, the additional elements are the behavior tree abstraction model. This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the behavior tree abstraction model is used as a tool to perform the abstract idea (See at least MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III)(C)(3)).
Under Step 2B, the additional elements are the behavior tree abstraction model. The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the behavior tree abstraction model is used as a tool to perform the abstract idea (See at least MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III)(C)(3)).
Claim 18 Analysis- Under Step 1, Claim 18 is a method claim.
Under Step 2A, Prong 1, the following limitations are an abstract idea of a mental process. The claim recites “identifying a first node being a root node among the nodes included in the standard behavior tree; identifying second nodes being child nodes among at least one node connected with the first node; verifying validation of the first node, based on a type of the first node and a number of the second nodes; and recursively searching for the standard behavior tree based on the first node to verify validation of each of the nodes included in the standard behavior tree.”. These are all steps that can be performed in the human mind. For example, a person can mentally identify a first node being a root node and second nodes being child nodes connected to the first node. The person can mentally verify validation of the first node based on the type of the first node and a number of second nodes. The person can search for the standard behavior tree based on the first node to verify the validation of nodes. Therefore, the claim is directed to an abstract idea of a mental process.
Under Step 2A, Prong 2, there are no additional elements. This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because there are no additional elements.
Under Step 2B, there are no additional elements. The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because there are no additional elements.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 6, 8, 15, and 17 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Claims 19-20 are allowed.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Kelch et al (US 20240217097 A1) teaches transforming a behavior tree into hardware-specific output code
Przytula (US 7272587 B1) teaches transforming a decision tree into a standard format
Ngan (EP4647920A1) teaches testing and verifying a behavior tree in JSON format
Castro “Introduction to behavior trees” teaches generating a behavior tree in XML format
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ESVINDER SINGH whose telephone number is (571)272-7875. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday: 9 am-5 pm 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, Abby Lin can be reached at 571-270-3976. 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.
/ESVINDER SINGH/Examiner, Art Unit 3657