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 .
DETAILED ACTION
2. This office action is in response to the original filing of 09/04/2025. Claims 1-3 are pending and have been considered below.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
3. 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 1-3 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Claim 1 (Statutory Category – Process)
Step 2A – Prong 1: Judicial Exception Recited?
PNG
media_image1.png
674
554
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
790
554
media_image2.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image3.png
778
546
media_image3.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image4.png
764
556
media_image4.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image5.png
504
542
media_image5.png
Greyscale
2106.04(a)(2)(I)(B) “Mathematical Formulas or Equations A claim that recites a numerical formula or equation will be considered as falling within the "mathematical concepts" grouping. In addition, there are instances where a formula or equation is written in text format that should also be considered as falling within this grouping. For example, the phrase "determining a ratio of A to B" is merely using a textual replacement for the particular equation (ratio = A/B). Additionally, the phrase "calculating the force of the object by multiplying its mass by its acceleration" is using a textual replacement for the particular equation (F= ma).”
The claim recites the steps of “visual and audio features using mathematical formula, performing self-supervised curriculum, optimizing and performing downstream using mathematical formula.” Therefore, the claim recites a mathematical operation for extracting a signal from one domain to another using a specific transform function. The recited formula is clearly a mathematical formula or equation, and the determination is a mathematical calculation. Thus, the claim recites a mathematical formula or equation as well as a mathematical calculation, both of which fall within the mathematical concepts grouping of abstract ideas. As explained in the MPEP, when a claim recites multiple abstract ideas that fall in the same or different groupings, examiners should consider the limitations together as a single abstract idea, rather than as a plurality of separate abstract ideas to be analyzed individually. See MPEP 2106.04, subsection II.B. As the steps (a), (b) and (c) fall within the same grouping of abstract ideas (i.e., mathematical concepts), these limitations are considered together as a single abstract idea for further analysis.
Therefore, the claim recites mathematical concepts.
Step 2A – Prong 2: Integrated into a Practical Solution?
MPEP 2106.05(g) Insignificant Extra-Solution Activity has found mere data gathering and post solution activity to be insignificant extra-solution activity.
The following step is merely gathering the data on elements to be used in the calculation:
Performing downstream task of action and audio recognition…;
MPEP 2106.05(f) Mere Instructions To Apply An Exception has found simply adding a general purpose computer or computer components after the fact to an abstract idea (e.g., a fundamental economic practice or mathematical equation) does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more.
The additional elements have been considered both individually and as an ordered combination in to determine whether they integrate the exception into a practical application.
Therefore, no meaningful limits are imposed on practicing the abstract idea.
The claim is directed to the abstract idea.
Step 2B: Claim provides an Inventive Concept?
No, as discussed with respect to Step 2A, the additional limitation is mere data gathering/post solution activity (Insignificant Extra-Solution Activity) and therefore the claim does not provide an inventive concept in Step 2B.
Further, in regards to step 2B and as cited above in step 2A, MPEP 2106.05(g) “Obtaining information about transactions using the Internet to verify credit card transactions, CyberSource v. Retail Decisions, Inc., 654 F.3d 1366, 1375, 99 USPQ2d 1690, 1694 (Fed. Cir.2011)’ is merely data gathering.
The additional elements have been considered both individually and as an ordered combination in the significantly more consideration.
The claim is ineligible.
Claim 2 is dependent on claim 1 and includes all the limitations of claim 1. Therefore, claim 2 recites the same abstract idea of claim 2. The claim recites the additional limitation of “wherein request parameters in 2) are set as follows: τ=0.07, K=N−1, s=4, T=16”, and amounts to no more than mere instructions to implement the abstract idea on a computer. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer does not amount to significantly more.
Claim 3 is dependent on claim 2 and includes all the limitations of claim 1. Therefore, claim 3 recites the same abstract idea of claim 1. The claim recites the additional limitation of “wherein the image pre-processing functions Spa(⋅) comprise image cropping, horizontal flipping, and gray transformation.”, and amounts to no more than mere instructions to implement the abstract idea on a computer. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer does not amount to significantly more.
Response to Arguments
4. Applicant’s arguments and amendments filed on 09/04/2025 have been fully considered but are not persuasive.
Applicant contends that, even if the claims are viewed as reciting an abstract idea, the claimed method provides significantly more than the judicial exception. Specifically, Applicant argues (1) that the combination of steps a–c, which involve mathematical concepts, was not known in the art prior to the present invention, (2) that the claimed method achieves improved accuracy in audio-visual recognition by jointly leveraging visual feature representations, audio feature representations, and concurrency information, and (3) that the claimed method eliminates the need for human annotation during contrastive learning and training, thereby improving recognition efficiency.
In response, the Examiner respectfully disagrees and submits that:
First, the fact that the particular mathematical combination of steps a–c may not have been previously disclosed does not establish subject matter eligibility under 35 U.S.C. §101. As the Supreme Court has made clear, “[t]he §101 patent-eligibility inquiry and, say, the §102 novelty inquiry might sometimes overlap,” but novelty alone does not confer eligibility. Mayo Collaborative Servs. v. Prometheus Labs., Inc., 566 U.S. 66, 90 (2012); see also MPEP §2106.05(d). Thus, the argument that steps a–c were “not known in the art” is not persuasive to demonstrate an inventive concept.
Second, while Applicant asserts that the claimed method improves accuracy in audio-visual recognition, the claims recite only abstract mathematical operations performed on conventional types of data (visual features, audio features, and concurrency information). Courts have consistently held that improvements in the accuracy of a mathematical model or data analysis process, without reciting a specific non-conventional implementation in computer technology, do not amount to an inventive concept. See SAP America, Inc. v. InvestPic, LLC, 898 F.3d 1161, 1163–64 (Fed. Cir. 2018) (alleged improvement in statistical analysis accuracy insufficient for eligibility).
Third, Applicant argues that the claimed method eliminates the need for human annotation, thereby improving recognition efficiency. However, eliminating or reducing human involvement in data processing is itself a common and expected advantage of automating abstract ideas using a computer. See OIP Techs., Inc. v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (use of a computer to automate processes previously done by humans is not inventive). The claims do not recite any particular non-conventional computer architecture, programming technique, or data structure that transforms this advantage into a technological improvement. Rather, the claims broadly recite the abstract concept of automated feature learning and contrastive training, which is routine and conventional in the field.
Accordingly, when viewed individually and in combination, the additional elements do not provide significantly more than the judicial exception itself. They merely amount to applying mathematical operations to conventional data inputs in a computing environment, which is insufficient to supply an inventive concept under Step 2B. See Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank Int’l, 573 U.S. 208 (2014); MPEP §2106.05(f).
For these reasons, Applicant’s Step 2B arguments are not persuasive, and the rejection under 35 U.S.C. §101 is maintained.
Conclusion
5. 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 nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) 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.
6. The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure (See PTO-892).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Phenuel S. Salomon whose telephone number is (571) 270-1699. The examiner can normally be reached on Mon-Fri 7:00 A.M. to 4:00 P.M. (Alternate Friday Off) EST.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Andrew J. Jung can be reached on (571) 270-3779. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-3800.
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.uspto.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.
/PHENUEL S SALOMON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2146