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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 11-24-2025 has been entered.
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Response to Amendment
In the previous Office Action issued 9-25-2025 (hereinafter “the previous Office Action”), claims 1-20 were pending.
This action is in response to the amendment and remarks filed 11-24-2025. In the amendment, claims 1, 9, and 17 were amended, no claims were canceled, and no claims were added. Thus, claims 1-20 are pending.
The rejections of claims 1-3, 6-11, and 14-19 under 35 U.S.C. § 103, set forth in the previous Office Action, have been withdrawn in view of Applicant’s amendments and remarks.
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 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1: Claims 1-8 are directed to a method [process]. Claims 9-16 are directed to an electronic device [machine]. Claims 17-20 are directed to a computer program product [machine].
Regarding Claim 1:
Step 2A, Prong 1: The following limitations are directed to the abstract idea of a mental process [see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2) III. C.]. In particular, the claim recites mental processes that are concepts performed in the human mind or with pen and paper (including an observation, evaluation, judgement, or opinion).
determining…a first set of distilled samples from a first set of samples based on a characteristic distribution of the first set of samples, the number of samples in the first set of distilled samples being less than that of the first set of samples, and the first set of samples being associated with a first set of classifications
acquiring…a first set of characteristic representations associated with the first set of distilled samples, wherein the acquiring comprises processing the first set of distilled samples…to extract the characteristic representations from the first set of distilled samples
adjusting…the first set of characteristic representations so that a distance between characteristic representations associated with the same classification is less than a predetermined threshold, wherein adjusting the first set of characteristic representations comprises implementing a characteristic transformation, as a spatial transformation…that transforms characteristic vectors of respective ones of the first set of characteristic representations from a first characteristic space to a second characteristic space different than the first characteristic space, the transformation of the characteristic vectors from the first characteristic space to the second characteristic space utilizing a loss function configured to iteratively combine results of an application of a designated transformation function to distances between respective pairs of the characteristic vectors
the loss function determining for each of the pairs a difference between (i) a first function of a corresponding one of the distances and at least one adjustable hyperparameter and (ii) a second function of the corresponding one of the distances and the at least one adjustable hyperparameter, the second function being different than the first function
determining…based on the adjusted first set of characteristic representations, a first set of classification characteristics of the first set of samples associated with the first set of classifications, the classification characteristics being used to characterize a distribution of characteristic representations of samples having corresponding classifications in the first set of samples
As drafted, under their broadest reasonable interpretation (BRI), in view of the specification, the above limitations cover concepts performed in the human mind (observation, evaluation, judgement, or opinion). Given a sufficiently small set of data, nothing in the claim prohibits this process from being performed mentally or with pen and paper.
Step 2A, Prong 2: There are no additional elements in this claim that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
The following additional elements are adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea [see MPEP 2106.05(f)] and therefore fails to integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
…in a processor-based machine learning system…
…in the processor-based machine learning system…through a pre-trained model of the processor-based machine learning system
…in the processor-based machine learning system…performed utilizing iterative processing in at least one processor of the processor-based machine learning system…
…in the processor-based machine learning system…
training a classifier of the processor-based machine learning system based at least in part on the classification characteristics
Step 2B: There are no additional elements in this claim that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
The following additional elements are adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea [see MPEP 2106.05(f)] and therefore fails to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
…in a processor-based machine learning system…
…in the processor-based machine learning system…through a pre-trained model of the processor-based machine learning system
…in the processor-based machine learning system…performed utilizing iterative processing in at least one processor of the processor-based machine learning system…
…in the processor-based machine learning system…
training a classifier of the processor-based machine learning system based at least in part on the classification characteristics
Regarding Claim 2:
Step 2A, Prong 1: The claim recites the same abstract ideas as in claim 1.
The following limitations are/remain directed to the abstract idea of a mental process [see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2) III. C.]. In particular, the claim recites mental processes that are concepts performed in the human mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgement, or opinion).
wherein determining the first set of classification characteristics based on one set of distillations and based on classification characteristics of the first set of characteristic representations comprises:
acquiring one set of distillation classification characteristics of the adjusted first set of characteristic representations
determining the first set of classification characteristics based on one set of distillations and based on classification characteristics of the first set of characteristic representations
Step 2A, Prong 2: There are no additional elements in this claim that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Step 2B: There are no additional elements in this claim that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Regarding Claim 3:
Step 2A, Prong 1: The claim recites the same abstract ideas as in claim 1.
The following limitations are directed to the abstract idea of a mental process [see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2) III. C.]. In particular, the claim recites mental processes that are concepts performed in the human mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgement, or opinion).
acquiring a second set of samples, the second set of samples being associated with a second set of classifications
determining, at least based on the first set of classification characteristics, a second set of classification characteristics of a third set of samples associated with a third set of classifications, the third set of samples being a union of the first set of samples and the second set of samples, and the third set of classifications being a union of the first set of classifications and the second set of classifications
Step 2A, Prong 2: There are no additional elements in this claim that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Step 2B: There are no additional elements in this claim that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Regarding Claim 4:
Step 2A, Prong 1: The claim recites the same abstract ideas as in claim 3.
The following limitations are/remain directed to the abstract idea of a mental process [see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2) III. C.]. In particular, the claim recites mental processes that are concepts performed in the human mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgement, or opinion).
wherein determining the second set of classification characteristics at least based on the first set of classification characteristics comprises:
constructing one set of intermediate samples based on the first set of classification characteristics in response to determining that the first set of classifications is different from the second set of classifications
determining a second set of distilled samples from a union of the set of intermediate samples and the second set of samples
determining, based on characteristic representations associated with the second set of distilled samples, the second set of classification characteristics of the third set of samples associated with the third set of classifications
Step 2A, Prong 2: There are no additional elements in this claim that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Step 2B: There are no additional elements in this claim that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Regarding Claim 5:
Step 2A, Prong 1: The claim recites the same abstract ideas as in claim 3.
The following limitations are/remain directed to the abstract idea of a mental process [see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2) III. C.]. In particular, the claim recites mental processes that are concepts performed in the human mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgement, or opinion).
wherein determining the second set of classification characteristics at least based on the first set of classification characteristics comprises:
determining a second set of characteristic representations associated with the second set of samples in response to determining that the first set of classifications is the same as the second set of classifications
determining a third set of classification characteristics of the second set of samples associated with the first set of classifications using the first set of classification characteristics and based on a transformation between the adjusted first set of characteristic representations and the adjusted second set of characteristic representations
determining the second set of classification characteristics based on the first set of classification characteristics and the third set of classification characteristics
Step 2A, Prong 2: There are no additional elements in this claim that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Step 2B: There are no additional elements in this claim that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Regarding Claim 6:
Step 2A, Prong 1: The claim recites the same abstract ideas as in claim 1.
The following limitations are directed to the abstract idea of a mental process [see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2) III. C.]. In particular, the claim recites mental processes that are concepts performed in the human mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgement, or opinion).
acquiring target samples and determining characteristic representations associated with the target samples
determining target classifications associated with the target samples from the first set of classifications based on a comparison between the characteristic representations and the first set of classification characteristics
Step 2A, Prong 2: There are no additional elements in this claim that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Step 2B: There are no additional elements in this claim that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Regarding Claim 7:
Step 2A, Prong 1: The claim recites the same abstract ideas as in claim 1.
The following limitations remain directed to the abstract idea of a mental process [see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2) III. C.]. In particular, the claim recites mental processes that are concepts performed in the human mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgement, or opinion).
wherein the classification characteristics comprise a mean value and a covariance of the distribution of characteristic representations of samples having corresponding classifications in the first set of samples
Step 2A, Prong 2: There are no additional elements in this claim that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Step 2B: There are no additional elements in this claim that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Regarding Claim 8:
Step 2A, Prong 1: The claim recites the same abstract ideas as in claim 1.
The following limitations are/remain directed to the abstract idea of a mental process [see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2) III. C.]. In particular, the claim recites mental processes that are concepts performed in the human mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgement, or opinion).
wherein determining the first set of distilled samples from the first set of samples based on the characteristic distribution of the first set of samples comprises:
acquiring a second set of samples, the second set of samples being associated with a second set of classifications
performing an adjustment on the at least one set of characteristic representations such that the at least one set of characteristic representations is transformed into a characteristic representation space
determining the first set of distilled samples from the first set of samples based on a distribution of the adjusted at least one set of characteristic representations in the characteristic representation space
Step 2A, Prong 2: There are no additional elements in this claim that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Step 2B: There are no additional elements in this claim that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Regarding Claim 9:
Claim 9 corresponds to claim 1.
Step 2A, Prong 1: The claim recites the same abstract ideas as in claim 1.
Step 2A, Prong 2: There are no additional elements in this claim that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. The analysis of claim 9 at this step mirror that of claim 1, with the exception the following limitations.
The following additional elements are adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea [see MPEP 2106.05(f)] and therefore fails to integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
An electronic device, comprising: at least one processor, and memory coupled to the at least one processor, the memory having instructions stored therein that, when executed by the at least one processor, cause the electronic device to execute actions comprising:
Step 2B: There are no additional elements in this claim that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. The analysis of claim 9 at this step mirror that of claim 1, with the exception the following limitations.
The following additional elements are adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea [see MPEP 2106.05(f)] and therefore fails to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
An electronic device, comprising: at least one processor, and memory coupled to the at least one processor, the memory having instructions stored therein that, when executed by the at least one processor, cause the electronic device to execute actions comprising:
Regarding Claim 10:
Step 2A, Prong 1: The claim recites the same abstract ideas as in claim 9.
The following limitations are/remain directed to the abstract idea of a mental process [see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2) III. C.]. In particular, the claim recites mental processes that are concepts performed in the human mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgement, or opinion).
wherein determining the first set of classification characteristics of the first set of samples associated with the first set of classifications comprises:
acquiring classification characteristics of the adjusted first set of characteristic representations
determining the first set of classification characteristics using the unscented Kalman filtering algorithm and based on the classification characteristics of the first set of characteristic representations
Step 2A, Prong 2: There are no additional elements in this claim that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Step 2B: There are no additional elements in this claim that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Regarding Claims 11-16:
Claims 11-16 correspond to claims 3-8. In particular, 11:3, 12:4, 13:5, 14:6, 15:7, 16:8.
Step 2A, Prong 1: Claims 11-16 recites the same abstract ideas as in claims 3-8.
Step 2A, Prong 2: There are no additional elements in this claim that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. The analysis of claims 11-16 at this step mirror that of claims 3-8.
Step 2B: There are no additional elements in this claim that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. The analysis of claims 11-16 at this step mirror that of claims 3-8.
Regarding Claim 17:
Claim 17 corresponds to claim 1.
Step 2A, Prong 1: The claim recites the same abstract ideas as in claim 1.
Step 2A, Prong 2: There are no additional elements in this claim that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. The analysis of claim 17 at this step mirror that of claim 1, with the exception the following limitations.
The following additional elements are adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea [see MPEP 2106.05(f)] and therefore fails to integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
A computer program product comprising a non-transitory computer-readable medium having machine-executable instructions stored therein, wherein the machine-executable instructions, when executed by a machine, cause the machine to perform actions comprising:
Step 2B: There are no additional elements in this claim that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. The analysis of claim 17 at this step mirror that of claim 1, with the exception the following limitations.
The following additional elements are adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea [see MPEP 2106.05(f)] and therefore fails to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
A computer program product comprising a non-transitory computer-readable medium having machine-executable instructions stored therein, wherein the machine-executable instructions, when executed by a machine, cause the machine to perform actions comprising:
Regarding Claims 18-20:
Claims 18-20 correspond to claims 2-4. In particular, 18:2, 19:3, 20:4.
Step 2A, Prong 1: Claims 18-20 recites the same abstract ideas as in claims 2-4.
Step 2A, Prong 2: There are no additional elements in this claim that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. The analysis of claims 18-20 at this step mirror that of claims 2-4.
Step 2B: There are no additional elements in this claim that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. The analysis of claims 18-20 at this step mirror that of claims 2-4.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 11-24-2025 (“Remarks”) have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
35 U.S.C. § 101:
Remarks, pg. 12-13. Applicant argues claim 1 is directed to a specific means or method that improves relevant technology when read as a whole. Examiner respectfully disagrees. Whether the claim limitations are read individually or as a whole, they are directed to the judicial exceptions. Moreover, Applicant asserts and improvement to relevant technology, but does not sufficiently disclose the improvement [see MPEP 2106.05(a)].
Remarks, pg. 13. Applicant further argues integration into a practical application in view of Ex Parte Desjardins et al., No. 2024-000567 (PTAB Appeals Review Panel, September 26, 2025). Examiner disagrees with Applicant’s interpretation. Claim 1 is not similar to Desjardins because the claim is not directed towards the improvement of a machine learning model operation. For example, the only claim limitations in claim 1 that recites any machine learning classifier are: (1) “processing the first set of distilled samples through a pre-trained model…” and (2) “training a classifier…” limitation. Moreover, these limitation merely recite a high level application of (1) using a pre-trained model to process data and (2) applying classification characteristics to train the classifier; they do not recite any improvements to the machine learning model or the training process.
Remarks, pg. 13-14. Applicant argues claim 1 does not recite mathematical concepts and mental processes because the claim explicitly incorporates AI-related recitations that cannot practically be performed in the human mind. Examiner respectfully disagrees. As discussed above, claim 1 only recites 2 instances of incorporating AI-related recitations and both are recited at a high level of generality. For these reasons, claim 1’s limitations, under broadest reasonable interpretation, can be practically performed in the human mind or with aid of pen and paper.
Remarks, pg. 14-16. Applicant argues claim 1 recites additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception by providing improvements to the functioning of a computer. Examiner respectfully disagrees. Claim 1 does not amount to significantly more because the additional elements that are recited in claim 1 are all recited at a high level of generality and merely use the computer as a tool to perform the abstract ideas recited. As discussed above, AI-related recitations within the claim are nominally recited throughout the claim, and when they are recited, they are recited at a high level of generality. For at least these reasons, the claim does not amount to significantly more or integrate into a practical application that provides an improvement in computer technology.
Thus, claims 1-20 remain rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101.
35 U.S.C. § 103:
Remarks, pg. 16-18. Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1, 9, and 17 have been considered but are moot because the rejections have been withdrawn.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record, listed on form PTO-892, and not relied upon, is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to STEVEN PHUNG whose telephone number is (703) 756-1499. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday: 9:00AM-4:00PM ET.
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, KAMRAN AFSHAR can be reached at (571) 272-7796. 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.
/STEVEN PHUNG/Examiner, Art Unit 2125
/KAMRAN AFSHAR/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2125