DETAILED ACTION
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.
Claim 1 - 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to judicial exception of abstract ideas towards pure mental process and mathematical calculation without significantly more:
Independent claim 1 recites:
“ A computer-implemented method for training a machine learning model to control a robot, the method comprising:
performing, based on a first set of robot data…training operations to generate…first trained machine learning models for performing…robotic tasks, expert demonstration data, and…trained evaluation models;
performing, based on the expert demonstration data, a set of sensor data, and first feedback generated by…trained evaluation models…
training operations to generate a second trained machine learning model to control a robot for a plurality of robotic tasks.” as under abstract idea without significantly more for pure mental process.
Under Step 1 (MPEP 2106.03), applicant’s claim directs to a process method under four categories of the statutory subject matter.
Further, Under Step 2A, Prong One (MPEP 2106.04), applicant’s claim directs to an abstract idea for an ineligible concept as the claim recites one of the enumerated groupings of abstract ideas, (namely mathematical concepts, certain methods of organizing human activity, or mental processes) will be considered to recite an abstract idea.
In this instant case, applicant recited claim limitation directs to an operation method for training machine learning model operable by human operation activities exerted upon the generic computer device where the recited robotic tasks are deemed to be extra solution activities as intended use for the machine learning model training operation.
For instance, the recited claim limitation, “performing….training operations…performing training operations to generate a second trained machine learning model” could be operated under human operator under generic computer or commercial software.
It is also further noted applicant recited claim limitation regarding “computer- implemented method” is deemed to be generic processor without providing special computer apparatus structure exerting this particular method/independent claim 1.
Under Step 2A, Prong Two, applicant recited claim limitation also does not recited additional elements that integrates the judicial exception for the recited claim limitation.
In this instant case, applicant recited claim limitation regarding, “to control a robot for a pluarlity of robot tasks” is deemed to be insignificant extra solution activities where this control and this robotic tasks is deemed to be intended use of the generated machine learning model discussed above and also deemed not exerted upon the machine learning model generation.
Under Step 2B (MPEP 2106.05), it is also noted that applicant recited claim limitation does not resulting any special computer/additional element as insignificant extra solution activities in conjunction with the abstract idea discussed above and thus also does not result significantly more than judicial exception and to impose additional meaningful limitation where the claim as whole mainly falls under the method of organizing human activities, namely robotic worker schedule task assignment upon generic computer device exerted by human operator, implementing abstract idea for work flow/task schedule assignment upon human operator.
Independent claim 11 recites:
“ One or more non-transitory computer-readable media including instructions that, when executed by…processors…
performing, based on a first set of robot data…training operations to generate…first trained machine learning models for performing…robotic tasks, expert demonstration data, and…trained evaluation models…
performing, based on the expert demonstration data, a set of sensor data, and first feedback generated by…trained evaluation models…
training operations to generate a second trained machine learning model to control a robot for a plurality of robotic tasks.”
as under abstract idea without significantly more for method of organizing human activities.
Under Step 1 (MPEP 2106.03), applicant’s claim directs to a machine under four categories of the statutory subject matter.
Further, Under Step 2A, Prong One (MPEP 2106.04), applicant’s claim directs to an abstract idea for an ineligible concept as the claim recites one of the enumerated groupings of abstract ideas, (namely mathematical concepts, certain methods of organizing human activity, or mental processes) will be considered to recite an abstract idea.
In this instant case, applicant recited claim limitation directs to a non-transitory computer readable media and processors as an apparatus
for training machine learning model operable by human operation activities exerted upon the generic computer device where the recited robotic tasks are deemed to be extra solution activities as intended use for the machine learning model training operation.
For instance, the recited claim limitation, “performing….training operations…performing training operations to generate a second trained machine learning model” could be operated under human operator under generic computer or commercial software.
It is also further noted applicant recited claim limitation regarding “non-transitory computer readable media including instructions…executed by…processors” is deemed to be generic processor without providing special computer apparatus structure exerting this particular apparatus/independent claim 11.
Under Step 2A, Prong Two, applicant recited claim limitation also does not recited additional elements that integrates the judicial exception for the recited claim limitation.
In this instant case, applicant recited claim limitation regarding, “to control a robot for a pluarlity of robot tasks” is deemed to be insignificant extra solution activities where this control and this robotic tasks is deemed to be intended use of the generated machine learning model discussed above and also deemed not exerted upon the machine learning model generation.
Under Step 2B (MPEP 2106.05), it is also noted that applicant recited claim limitation does not resulting any special computer/additional element as insignificant extra solution activities in conjunction with the abstract idea discussed above and thus also does not result significantly more than judicial exception and to impose additional meaningful limitation where the claim as whole mainly falls under the method of organizing human activities, namely robotic worker schedule task assignment upon generic computer device exerted by human operator, implementing abstract idea for work flow/task schedule assignment upon human operator.
Independent claim 20 recites:
“A system comprising: a memory storing instructions; …a processor that…is configured to perform the steps of:
perform, based on a first set of robot data…training operations to generate…first trained machine learning models for performing…robotic tasks, expert demonstration data…trained evaluation models;
perform, based on the expert demonstration data, a set of sensor data, and first feedback generated by…trained evaluation models…training operations to generate a second trained machine learning model to control a robot for a plurality of robotic tasks.”
as under abstract idea without significantly more for method of organizing human activities.
Under Step 1 (MPEP 2106.03), applicant’s claim directs to a machine apparatus under four categories of the statutory subject matter.
Further, Under Step 2A, Prong One (MPEP 2106.04), applicant’s claim directs to an abstract idea for an ineligible concept as the claim recites one of the enumerated groupings of abstract ideas, (namely mathematical concepts, certain methods of organizing human activity, or mental processes) will be considered to recite an abstract idea.
In this instant case, applicant recited claim limitation directs to a generic apparatus to be exerted by human operator as performing machine learning model training under human operator operation as “perform….training operations to generate…machine learning models….perform….operations to generate…machine learning model ” that is be to exerted by human operator operation without further provide special computer apparatus structure for this recited independent claim 11 apparatus yet merely provide a generic system including memory/processor exerted upon this training operation as generic computer.
For instance, the recited claim limitation, “performing….training operations…performing training operations to generate a second trained machine learning model” could be operated under human operator under generic computer or commercial software.
It is also further noted applicant recited claim limitation regarding “a memory…a processor” is deemed to be generic processor without providing special computer apparatus structure exerting this human operator operation/independent claim 20.
Under Step 2A, Prong Two, applicant recited claim limitation also does not recited additional elements that integrates the judicial exception for the recited claim limitation.
Regarding claims 2 - 10 and 12 - 19, the recited claim limitation further directs limitations under the scope of ineligibility with claim focus under the organizing human operation under abstract idea as mental process and thus also does not produce significantly more out of the scope of the ineligible subject matter.
In particular, applicant recited training operation method still contained within the scope of claim for ineligible subject matter while this recited machine learning model training operation to be trained under OpenClaw agent operator or human operator.
Step 2A Prong 1: all of the limitations in claims 2 – 10 and 12 - 19 are defined to be human operation exerted upon generic computer/commercial software because this human operator operation process performing this machine learning model training operation without significantly more and thus also fall under the category of ineligible subject matter.
Step 2A Prong 2/Step 2B: There are no additional elements.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Ian JEN whose telephone number is (571)270-3274. The examiner can normally be reached 11AM - 7PM.
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 5712703976. 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.
/Ian Jen/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3657
Prosecution Insights