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 .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claims 1, 10, and 19 recite the limitation "the trained artificial intelligence agent” and there is not antecedent basis for this limitation given that nothing is claimed prior concerning “artificial intelligence”.
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 1-19 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.
Claims 1-19 are directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claims recite a mental process that can be performed by a human being and/or the rules of a game and/or training employing generical machine learning models in a particular technological environment.
In regard to Claims 1, 10, and 15, the following limitations can be performed as a mental process by a human being in terms of claiming collecting data, analyzing that data, and providing outputs based on that analysis which has been held by the CAFC to be an abstract idea in decisions such as, e.g., Electric Power Group, University of Florida Research Foundation, and Yousician v Ubisoft (non-precedential); and/or claim the rules of a game which has been identified by the CAFC as being an abstract ides in decisions such as, e.g., Savvy Dog Systems v. Pennsylvania Coin (non-precedential; 2023-1073; 3/21/24), in terms of the Applicant claiming:
[a] method for modifying behavior of a trained [algorithm], comprising:
executing a trained policy of the trained [algorithm] during deployment;
feeding modified feature data to the trained [algorithm] during deployment, wherein the modified feature data is changed from corresponding actual feature data regarding one or more features of the [algorithm] before being supplied as input to the trained policy; and
causing the [algorithm] to alter its behavior based on the modified feature data,
wherein the behavior of the [algorithm] is modified without retraining the [algorithm];
the trained policy is executed during deployment without retraining the trained [algorithm].
In regard to Claims 1, 10, and 15, they claim training/employing generic machine learning models in a particular technological environment, which was held by the CAFC in, e.g., Recentive Analytics to be an abstract idea.
In regard to the dependent claims, they also claim an abstract idea to the extent that they merely claim further limitations that likewise could be performed as a mental process by a human being and/or the rules of a game.
Furthermore, this judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because to the extent that additional elements are claimed either alone or in combination such as, e.g., a non-transitory computer readable medium tangibly embodying a computer readable program code having computer readable instructions that, when executed, causes a computer device to perform Applicant’s abstract idea, training/employing machine learning models, these are merely claimed to add insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception (e.g., data gathering), to embody the abstract idea on a general purpose computer, and/or do no more than generally link the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use. In this regard, see MPEP 2106.04(d)(I) in regard to “courts have also identified limitations that did not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application…”
Furthermore, the claims do not include additional elements that taken individually, and also taken as an ordered combination, are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because to the extent that, e.g., a non-transitory computer readable medium tangibly embodying a computer readable program code having computer readable instructions that, when executed, causes a computer device to perform Applicant’s abstract idea, training/employing machine learning models, these are well-understood, routine, and conventional elements and are claimed for the well-understood, routine, and conventional functions of collecting and processing data and/or providing an analysis/outputs based on that processing. To the extent that an apparatus is claimed as an additional element said apparatus fails to qualify as a “particular machine” to the extent that it is claimed generally, merely implements the steps of Applicant’s claimed method, and is claimed merely for purposes of extra-solution activity or field of use. See MPEP 2106.05(b). As evidence that these additional elements are well-understood, routine, and conventional, Applicant’s specification discloses the support for these elements in a manner that indicates that the additional elements are sufficiently well-known that the specification does not need to describe the particulars of such additional elements to satisfy 35 U.S.C. § 112(a). See, e.g., p30-39 in Applicant’s PGPUB; see, e.g., p3 regarding training/employing machine learning models.
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.
Claims 1-8, 10-13, and 15-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wurman, et al, “Outracing champion Gran Turismo drivers with deep reinforcement learning,” Nature | Vol 602 | 10 February 2022 (“Wurman”), in view of PGPUB US 20200269143 A1 by Benedetto et al (“Benedetto”).
In regard to Claims 1-2 and 5, Wurman teaches a computer-implemented method for modifying behavior of a trained agent, comprising:
executing a trained policy of the trained agent during deployment;
(see, e.g., “Training algorithm”);
feeding […] feature data to the trained agent during deployment […]; and
causing the agent to alter its behavior based on the […] feature data, wherein:
the behavior of the agent is modified without retraining the agent, and
the trained policy is executed during deployment without retraining the trained artificial intelligence agent
(see, e.g., “Fairness versus humans” regarding the various data that was fed to GT Sophy during deployment and used thereby to determine the agent’s actions, and without retraining the agent);
Furthermore, while Wurman teaches there being a concern for fairness in terms of how GT Sophy performs as opposed to human players it may not also teach the remaining claimed limitations, however, in an analogous reference, Benedetto teaches employing random/modified metadata including game state information to influence game play in order to make it more realistic and/or engaging to the user (see, e.g., p40, 43, and 45)
Furthermore, the combination of the cited prior art would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing because the cited prior art includes each element claimed, although not necessarily in a single prior art reference, with the only difference between the claimed invention and the cited prior art being the lack of actual combination of the elements in a single prior art reference; one of ordinary skill in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods, and that in combination, each element merely performs the same function as it does separately; and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable.
Specifically, it would have been obvious to have added the teaching of Benedetto to the method otherwise taught by Wurman, and to have randomly changed some of the input data that GT Sophy used during gameplay to determine its behavior, in order to increase the excitement for the human players of the game by making the actions of GT Sophy more realistic and/or engaging.
In regard to Claims 3-4, Wurman teaches these limitations. See, e.g., “Fairness versus humans”.
In regard to Claims 6-7, Wurman teaches these limitations. See, e.g., “Rewards” in the “Methods” section.
In regard to Claim 8, Wurman teaches these limitations. See, e.g., p226, “We then configured scenarios that presented the agent with noisy variations of those critical situations.”
In regard to Claims 10-13, see rejections of Claims 1, 5-6, and 8 made supra under 35 USC 103.
In regard to Claims 15-18, see rejections of Claims 1, 5-6, and 8 made supra under 35 USC 103.
Claims 9, 14, and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wurman, in view of Benedetto, further in view of PGPUB US 20220373980 A1 by Anthony et al (“Anthony”).
In regard to Claims 9, 14, and 19 while Benedetto teaches employing noisy data it may not necessarily teach the claimed limitations, however, Anthony teaches the remaining claimed limitations (see, e.g., p128);
Furthermore, the combination of the cited prior art would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing because the cited prior art includes each element claimed, although not necessarily in a single prior art reference, with the only difference between the claimed invention and the cited prior art being the lack of actual combination of the elements in a single prior art reference; one of ordinary skill in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods, and that in combination, each element merely performs the same function as it does separately; and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable.
Specifically, it would have been obvious to have added the teaching of Anthony to the method taught by the otherwise cited prior art, and to have employed time-correlated Ornstein-Uhlenbeck noise as the noisy data, in order to increase the realism of the actions of GT Sophy.
Response to Arguments
Applicant argues on page 9 of its Remarks in regard to the rejections made under 35 USC 101 that its claimed subject matter is analogous to that of Ex parte Hultberg. Aside from one concerning the instant application, decisions of the PTAB are not binding legal authority. What is more, Hultberg has not been identified as being either precedential or informative in regard to the PTAB itself. Also, Applicant’s claimed invention does not concern a method of communicating regarding a financial transaction but, instead, concerns employing false information as part of determining the actions of a non-player game player during a game.
Applicant further argues in this regard on page 10 of its Remarks:
PNG
media_image1.png
230
638
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Applicant’s argument is not persuasive. To the extent that Applicant’s claimed invention may require employing a “trained artificial intelligence agent” such use of a generic machine learning model in a particular technological environment has been held by the CAFC to be an abstract idea in, e.g., Recentive Analytics. What is more, to the extent that Applicant’s embodies its abstract idea by employing a “trained artificial intelligence agent”, there is so little disclosure in Applicant’s specification in regard to how to make and/or use this agent that it must have been well-understood, routine, and conventional at the time of filing and, thereby, does not add “significantly more” to Applicant’s abstract idea.
Applicant further argues in this regard on page 11 of its Remarks:
PNG
media_image2.png
310
656
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Applicant’s argument is not persuasive. Applicant argues that it has claimed a “practical application” and thereby claimed patent eligible subject matter under the Mayo test. Applicant’s argument is not persuasive. The Mayo test is a legal test and “practical application” is not part of the Mayo test but is, instead, a burden placed on examiners by the Office when they are making a 101 rejection employing the Mayo test. In regard to “practical application”, the MPEP provides examples of Supreme Court and CAFC decisions where a claimed invention has been held to be directed to patent eligible subject matter. See MPEP 2106.05(d)(I). Simply invoking “practical application” but without citing specific legal authority in support of Applicant’s argument, such as from these examples, that it has claimed patent eligible subject matter under the two-part Mayo test, therefore, does not provide a proper basis or rationale as to why the 101 rejection being made is allegedly deficient. What is more, employing false/noisy data to determine the actions of a non-player game player during a game does not improve computer functionality in any regard in terms of, e.g., Applicant’s claimed processor and memory are not able to generally run faster, use less power, and/or be manufactured more cheaply as a result of embodying Applicant’s claimed invention. What is more, the Applicant’s claimed invention does not improve the training/operation of the claimed “artificial intelligence agent” in any regard as, for example, Applicant specifically claims that the behavior of the agent is “modified without retraining the agent” (Claim 1). Applicant’s similar arguments regarding the “significantly more” analysis are likewise unpersuasive and for the same reasons.
Applicant’s arguments regarding the art rejections are addressed by updated statements of those rejections made supra, which were necessitated by Applicant’s amendments.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any extension fee pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the Examiner should be directed to Mike Grant whose telephone number is 571-270-1545. The Examiner can normally be reached on Monday through Friday between 8:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m., except on the first Friday of each bi-week.
If attempts to reach the Examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the Examiner's Supervisory Primary Examiner, Peter Vasat can be reached at 571-270-7625. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/MICHAEL C GRANT/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3715
Prosecution Insights