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 .
This communication is responsive to the Application No. 19/177,2335 and the preliminary amendments filled on 04/24/2026.
Claims 2-21 are presented for examination.
Claim Objections
Claim 2 is objected to because of the following informalities:
Regarding claim 2, the phrase “circuitry” on line 2 should apparently be “a circuitry”. Appropriate correction is required.
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 2-21 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 2 and 18 cite the phrase “more closely”, which is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term is not defined by the claim, the specification doesn’t provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of the ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention.
Claim 2 cites the phrase “further trained based” on line 7. However, there is no system train cited in the previous line. Therefore, a citation of further trained makes the claim ambiguous.
Claims 2, 4-5, 9, 12, 16, 18 and 21 cite the phrase “at least in part”. Where the phrase “in part” is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term is not defined by the claim, the specification doesn’t provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of the ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention.
Claim 11 cites the phrase “closer”. It is not clear how close it is. The specification fails to further define the limit.
Claims 3-8, 10-15 and 17-21 are also rejected by the virtue of their dependency on rejected base claim(s).
Examiner's Note
Examiner has cited particular paragraphs/ columns and line numbers or figures in the references as applied to the claims below for the convenience of the applicant. Although the specified citations are representative of the teachings in the art and are applied to the specific limitations within the individual claim, other passages and figures may apply as well. It is respectfully requested from the applicant, in preparing the responses, to fully consider the references in entirety as potentially teaching
all or part of the claimed invention, as well as the context of the passage as taught by the prior art or disclosed by the examiner. Applicant is reminded that the Examiner is entitled to give the broadest reasonable interpretation to the language of the claims. Furthermore, the Examiner is not limited to Applicants' definition which is not specifically set forth in the claims.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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 2-5, 8, 9-12, 15-19 and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Fukano et al. (JP2008065588A, attached English translated NPL document is used for claim mapping) (hereinafter (Fukano).
Claim 2. Fukano teaches one or more processors (See Para. [0007], “parameter adjustment device comprising control unit such as the CPU”, and/or see Para. [0022], “arithmetic control unit”), comprising:
circuitry (See Para. [0022], “storage unit and/or arithmetic control unit”) to:
adjust one or more distributions of one or more simulation parameters based, at least in part, on output generated by a control system of an autonomous device from performing one or more autonomous actions based on one or more simulations corresponding to the one or more simulation parameters (See Para. [0022], “an arithmetic control unit that searches for a first mathematical parameter so that the mathematical model matches the measured values, performs a simulation using the plant model, and searches for a second mathematical parameter so that the mathematical model matches the simulation values”); and
cause the control system to be further trained based, at least in part, on simulation results generated based, at least in part, on the one or more adjusted distributions of the one or more simulation parameters (See Para. [0022]-[0024], [0038], discloses “repeatedly performing the simulation [constitutes further trained as claimed] to match the measured values and the simulation values, the user performing the adjustment can easily determine which physical parameter does not match the actual plant in the simulation, thereby enabling efficient parameter adjustment”).
Claim 2. One or more processors, comprising: circuitry to:
adjust one or more distributions of one or more simulation parameters based, at least in part, on output generated by a control system of an autonomous device from performing one or more autonomous actions based on one or more simulations corresponding to the one or more simulation parameters; and
cause the control system to be further trained based, at least in part, on simulation results generated based, at least in part, on the one or more adjusted distributions of the one or more simulation parameters.
Claim 3. Fukano teaches one or more processors of claim 2, wherein the circuitry is further to iteratively repeat the adjustment of the one or more distributions and the causing of the control system to be further trained (See Para. [0014]-[0015], [0022], “repeatedly performing the simulation to match the measured values and the simulation values”, and/or see Para. [0050], “by repeating the operations from "S102" to "S106" in Figure 3, the mathematical parameters for the measured values and the mathematical parameters for the simulated values become closer, making it possible to narrow down the optimal physical parameters and make the measured values and simulated values match”).
Claim 4. Fukano teaches the one or more processors of claim 2, wherein the circuitry is further to indicate that the simulation results, generated based, at least in part, on the one or more adjusted distributions, more closely resemble a result of the performance of the one or more autonomous actions (See Para. [0050], “the mathematical parameters for the measured values and the mathematical parameters for the simulated values become closer, making it possible to narrow down the optimal physical parameters and make the measured values and simulated values match.”).
Claim 5. Fukano teaches the one or more processors of claim 2, wherein the circuitry is to adjust the one or more distributions further based, at least in part, on one or more failed attempts of the autonomous device to perform the one or more autonomous actions (See Para. [0014], “when the simulated value of the plant model does not fall within the tolerance range [constituted failed attempt], in Figure 10, at "S004", the calculation control unit 1 of the parameter adjustment device 50 changes the parameter”, and/or Para. [0068], “when the simulated values do not fall within an acceptable range [constituted a failed attempt] compared to the measured values, mathematical parameters are searched again to match the simulated values in the mathematical model”).
Claim 8. The one or more processors of claim 2, wherein the circuitry is to cause the control system to be further trained at least by maximizing a similarity between the simulation results and a result of the performance of the one or more autonomous actions (See Para. [0050], “make the measured values and simulated values match”).
Claims 9-12 are system claim corresponding to the processors claims 2-5 and having substantially the same technical features as claims 2-5, differing only in the category of invention. Therefore, the claims 9-12 are rejected for the same rationales.
Claim 15 is system claim corresponding to the processors claim 8 and having substantially the same technical features as claim 8, differing only in the category of invention. Therefore, the claim 15 is rejected for the same rationales
Claims 16-19 are method claims corresponding to the processors claims 2-5 and having substantially the same technical features as claims 2-5, differing only in the category of invention. Therefore, the claims 16-19 are rejected for the same rationales.
Claim 21 is method claim corresponding to the processors claim 8 and having substantially the same technical features as claim 8, differing only in the category of invention. Therefore, the claim 21 is rejected for the same rationales
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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 of this title, 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.
The factual inquiries set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 6 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fukano et al. (JP2008065588A, attached English translated NPL document is used for claim mapping) (hereinafter (Fukano) in view of Ding et al. (US 2017/0320210) (hereinafter Ding).
Claim 6. Fukano teaches the one or more processors of claim 2, but fails to teach wherein the autonomous device is to perform the one or more autonomous actions under control from the control system.
However, Ding teaches, wherein the autonomous device is to perform the one or more autonomous actions (See Para. [0006]-[0007], “autonomously perform the at least one task”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the application, to have modified the teaching of Fukano with the autonomously performed the task as taught by Din in order to improve under the measure at performing one of a task autonomously.
Claim 13 is a system claim corresponding to the processors 6 and having substantially the same technical features as claim 6, differing only in the category of invention. Therefore, the claim 13 is rejected for the same rationales
Claims 7, 14 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fukano et al. (JP2008065588A) (hereinafter (Fukano) in view of Bai (US 11,461,589 B1).
Claim 7. Fukano teaches the one or more processors of claim 2, but fails to teach wherein the control system comprises one or more machine learning models.
However, Bai teaches, wherein the control system comprises one or more machine learning models (See Col. 2, lines 40-47, discloses training one or more machine learning models leads to improved performance of task(s) (e.g., a higher success rate for the task(s)) by a real robot that utilizes the machine learning model(s) in performance of real robots that utilize machine learning model(s)).
Claim 14 is a system claim corresponding to the processors claim 7 and having substantially the same technical features as claim 7, differing only in the category of invention. Therefore, the claim 14 is rejected for the same rationales
Claim 20 is a method claim corresponding to the processors claims 3 and 7 and having substantially the same technical features as claims 3 and 7, differing only in the category of invention. Therefore, the claim 20 is rejected for the same rationales.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to B M M HANNAN whose telephone number is (571)270-0237. The examiner can normally be reached MONDAY-FRIDAY at 8:30AM-5:30PM.
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, Adam Mott can be reached at 5712705376. 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.
/B M M HANNAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3657
Prosecution Insights