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 .
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969). A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is autoprocessed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal disclaimer.
Claims 1-7 and 11-17 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-6 of U.S. Patent No. 12,157,226. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s).
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
Specifically wherein;
Regarding claim 1, Applicant provides similar limitations as in claim 1 of the U.S. Patent, where both of the respective claims include (similar limitations provided in bold):
A computing system comprising:
one or more memories;
one or more processing units coupled to the one or more memories; and
one or more computer-readable storage media storing instructions that, when executed, cause the computing system to perform operations comprising: obtaining a first set of parameters of a first trained robot-control model of a first robot trained to perform a first task;
prior to training a second robot to perform a second task, initializing an intermediate robot-control model of the second robot based on the first set of parameters;
configuring an untrained robot-control model of the second robot having a second set of parameters to receive, as input, outputs of the intermediate robot-control model that has been initialized based on the first set of parameters;
training the second robot to perform the second task, wherein the training comprises: causing the second robot to perform the second task using the intermediate robot-control model and the untrained robot-control model; and
adjusting the second set of parameters of the untrained robot-control model based on performance of the second robot in performing the second task; and
storing a second trained robot-control model of the second robot including the intermediate robot-control model with the first set of parameters and a trained version of the untrained robot-control model with the adjusted second set of parameters in memory.
Although conflicting claims are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because removing inherent and/or unnecessary limitation(s)/step(s) or adding an element and its function would be within the level of one of ordinary skill in the art. It is well settled that the adding or deleting of an element and its function(s) in the claim of the present application are an obvious expedient if the remaining elements perform the same function as before. In re Karlson, 136 USPQ 184 (CCPA 1963). Also note Ex parte Rainu, 168 USPQ 375 (Bd. App. 1969). Omission of a referenced element or step whose function is not needed would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art. Examiner further notes wherein although the claims are not identical (slightly broader), they are commensurate in scope to the claim limitations provided in the Reference Application, and likewise would anticipate the currently provided claim limitations.
Regarding claims 2-7, Applicant provides similar limitations as provided in at least claims 1-6 of the issued U.S. Patent. Although conflicting claims are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because removing inherent and/or unnecessary limitation(s)/step(s) or adding an element and its function would be within the level of one of ordinary skill in the art. It is well settled that adding or deleting of an element and its function(s) as in the claims of the present application are an obvious expedient if the remaining elements perform the same function as before. In re Karlson, 136 USPQ 184 (CCPA 1963). Also note Ex Parte Rainu, 168 USPQ 375 (Bd. App. 1969). Omission of a referenced element or step whose function is not needed would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art. Examiner further notes wherein although the claims are not identical (slightly broader), they are commensurate in scope to the claim limitations provided in the issued U.S. Patent, and likewise would anticipate the currently provided claim limitations.
Regarding claim 11, Applicant provides similar limitations as in claim 3 of the U.S. Patent, where both of the respective claims include (similar limitations provided in bold)
A computing system comprising:
one or more memories;
one or more processing units coupled to the one or more memories; and
one or more computer-readable storage media storing instructions that, when executed, cause the computing system to perform operations comprising:
obtaining a first set of parameters of a first trained robot-control model of a first robot trained to perform a first task;
accessing an intermediate robot-control model and an untrained robot control model of a second robot, wherein the second robot differs from the first robot in at least one of hardware, assembly, or material;
prior to training the second robot to perform a second task, initializing an intermediate robot-control model of the second robot based on the first set of parameters;
configuring an untrained robot-control model of the second robot to receive, as input, outputs of the intermediate robot-control model that has been initialized based on the first set of parameters, the untrained robot-control model having a second set of parameters;
training the second robot to perform the second task, wherein the training comprises:
causing the second robot to perform the second task using the intermediate robot-control model and the untrained robot-control model, wherein the second task is the same as the first task; and
adjusting the second set of parameters of the untrained robot-control model based on performance of the second robot in performing the second task; and
storing a second trained robot-control model including the intermediate robot-control model with the first set of parameters and a trained version of the untrained robot-control model with the adjusted second set of parameters in memory.
Although conflicting claims are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because removing inherent and/or unnecessary limitation(s)/step(s) or adding an element and its function would be within the level of one of ordinary skill in the art. It is well settled that the adding or deleting of an element and its function(s) in the claim of the present application are an obvious expedient if the remaining elements perform the same function as before. In re Karlson, 136 USPQ 184 (CCPA 1963). Also note Ex parte Rainu, 168 USPQ 375 (Bd. App. 1969). Omission of a referenced element or step whose function is not needed would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art. Examiner further notes wherein although the claims are not identical (slightly broader), they are commensurate in scope to the claim limitations provided in the Reference Application, and likewise would anticipate the currently provided claim limitations.
Regarding claim 12, Applicant provides similar limitations as in claim 3 of the U.S. Patent, where both of the respective claims include (similar limitations provided in bold):
A method implemented by a computing system, the method comprising: obtaining a first set of parameters of a first trained robot-control model of a first robot trained to perform a first task;
accessing an intermediate robot-control model and an untrained robot control model of a second robot, wherein the second robot differs from the first robot in at least one of hardware, assembly, or material;
prior to training the second robot to perform a second task, initializing the intermediate robot-control model of the second robot based on the first set of parameters;
configuring the untrained robot-control model of the second robot to receive, as input, outputs of the initialized intermediate robot-control model;
training the second robot to perform the second task, the training comprising:
causing the second robot to perform the second task using the intermediate robot-control model and the untrained robot-control model; and
adjusting a second set of parameters of the untrained robot-control model based on performance of the second robot in performing the second task; and
storing a second trained robot-control model including the intermediate robot-control model initialized with the first set of parameters and a trained version of the untrained robot-control model with the adjusted second set of parameters in memory.
Although conflicting claims are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because removing inherent and/or unnecessary limitation(s)/step(s) or adding an element and its function would be within the level of one of ordinary skill in the art. It is well settled that the adding or deleting of an element and its function(s) in the claim of the present application are an obvious expedient if the remaining elements perform the same function as before. In re Karlson, 136 USPQ 184 (CCPA 1963). Also note Ex parte Rainu, 168 USPQ 375 (Bd. App. 1969). Omission of a referenced element or step whose function is not needed would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art. Examiner further notes wherein although the claims are not identical (slightly broader), they are commensurate in scope to the claim limitations provided in the Reference Application, and likewise would anticipate the currently provided claim limitations.
Regarding claims 13-17, Applicant provides similar limitations as provided in at least claims 1-6 of the issued U.S. Patent. Although conflicting claims are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because removing inherent and/or unnecessary limitation(s)/step(s) or adding an element and its function would be within the level of one of ordinary skill in the art. It is well settled that adding or deleting of an element and its function(s) as in the claims of the present application are an obvious expedient if the remaining elements perform the same function as before. In re Karlson, 136 USPQ 184 (CCPA 1963). Also note Ex Parte Rainu, 168 USPQ 375 (Bd. App. 1969). Omission of a referenced element or step whose function is not needed would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art. Examiner further notes wherein although the claims are not identical (slightly broader), they are commensurate in scope to the claim limitations provided in the issued U.S. Patent, and likewise would anticipate the currently provided claim limitations.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-7 and 11-17 would be allowable if rewritten or amended to overcome the rejection(s) under Double Patenting set forth in this Office action and/or a terminal disclaimer is filed to the applications/patents cited in the Double Patenting rejection. Claims 8-10 and 18-20 are objected to as depending from rejected claims, but would be allowable if rewritten into independent form.
The following is an examiner’s reasons for allowance: The instant invention is directed towards a computing system training an artificial intelligence model to control a dynamical system. The instant invention differs from the prior art in that the computing system includes “prior to training a second robot to perform a second task, initializing an intermediate robot-control model of the second robot based on the first set of parameters; configuring an untrained robot-control model of the second robot having a second set of parameters to receive, as input, outputs of the intermediate robot-control model that has been initialized based on the first set of parameters; training the second robot to perform the second task, wherein the training comprises: causing the second robot to perform the second task using the intermediate robot-control model and the untrained robot-control model; and adjusting the second set of parameters of the untrained robot-control model based on performance of the second robot in performing the second task”. The prior art Pascanu (US 2019/0232489 A1) discloses a neural network system implemented by one or more computers in which the neural network system includes a sequence of deep neural networks (DNNs), in which the sequence of DNNs includes a simulation-trained DNN that has been trained on interactions of a simulated version of the robotic agent with a simulated version of the real-world environment to perform a simulated version of the robotic task and a first robot-trained DNN that is configured to receive the observation and to process the observation to generate the policy output. Prior art El-Yaniv (US 2018/0157973 A1) discloses a method for training a computerized mechanical device by calculating using the data a neural network dataset and used for performing the task; gathering in a plurality of reward iterations a plurality of scores given by an instructor to a plurality of states, each comprising at least one sensor value, while a robotic actuator performs the task according to the neural network. El-Yaniv further discloses accessing a neural network data set generated by: receiving data documenting a plurality of actions of an actuator performing a target task in a plurality of initial iterations; calculating using the data a neural network dataset having a plurality of neural network parameters and used for performing the target task. Prior art Kalouche (US 10,919,152 B1) discloses an imitation learning engine that implements an algorithm to learn how a robot can perform different tasks based on the examples from human operators by inputs into its model the data consisting of thousands of examples of robots executing a pose or performing a task. Kalouche further discloses data sharing for parallelized learning such that a first robot in a first environment performs a task, and, once the task is learned by the imitation learning engine, a second robot in a second environment may also learn the motions to perform the same task (as well as a third robot in a third environment, a fourth robot in a fourth environment, and so on, until an Nth robot in an Nth environment). However, the prior art fails to disclose and fully teach “prior to training a second robot to perform a second task, initializing an intermediate robot-control model of the second robot based on the first set of parameters; configuring an untrained robot-control model of the second robot having a second set of parameters to receive, as input, outputs of the intermediate robot-control model that has been initialized based on the first set of parameters; training the second robot to perform the second task, wherein the training comprises: causing the second robot to perform the second task using the intermediate robot-control model and the untrained robot-control model; and adjusting the second set of parameters of the untrained robot-control model based on performance of the second robot in performing the second task”. The references fail to disclose and teach all of the features AND a suitable motivation to combine and add these missing features. Therefore, when combined together and with the other limitations, provide a more efficient and novel computing system training an artificial intelligence model to control a dynamical system.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MOHAMMED YOUSEF ABUELHAWA whose telephone number is (571)272-3219. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8:30-5:00 with flex.
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, Wade Miles can be reached at 571-270-7777. 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.
/MOHAMMED YOUSEF ABUELHAWA/Examiner, Art Unit 3656
/WADE MILES/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3656