DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after 4-6-2026, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 04/06/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Regarding 101 arguments on page 8-11 “As discussed in the March 31 interview, Applicant initially notes the recent guidance related to subject matter eligibility under 35 U.S.C. §101. See USPTO Memorandum ("memo") dated December 5, 2025, providing advance notice of MPEP changes in light of Ex Parte Desjardins, Appeal No. 2024-000567 (PTAB September 26,” 2025, Appeals Review Panel Decision) (precedential)… The revisions to MPEP §2106.04(d)(III) continue by explaining that based on the determination of such disclosed improvements, the ARP in Desjardins found "the claims as a whole integrated what would otherwise be a judicial exception instead into a practical application at Step 2A Prong Two, and therefore the claims were deemed to be outside any specific, enumerated judicial exception." Id… Without acquiescing to the Examiner's characterization of the claims as directed to a judicial exception, even assuming arguendo that the claims recite abstract ideas at Step 2A (which Applicant does not concede), the claims include additional elements that amount to significantly more than any alleged judicial exception under Step 2B.
The claims recite specific technical limitations that, when considered as an ordered combination, provide an inventive concept. Specifically, the claims recite: …
This ordered combination reflects a specific technological solution to the technical problems of mode collapse and irregular data distribution in tabular data synthesis using Generative Adversarial Networks. See specification at page 2, lines 14-15 ("tabular data often has an irregular distribution and multimodality, and existing techniques may not work effectively") and page 14, lines 20-21 ("GANs generating tabular data frequently suffer from mode collapse and irregular data distribution, thus making it difficult to achieve the desired results"). The combination is not routine or conventional but instead represents an improvement to machine learning technology itself.” The applicant argues that the proposed limitations provide and inventive concept and is not routine or conventional by providing a solution for mode collapse. However the claim limitations fail to provide any detail regarding the mode collapse and how the generator and discriminator play a min and max game using the tabular data and the mode collapse is prevented. The applicant cites to the specification for how the mode collapse issue occurs as explain in page 14, line 20-21. Yet key details on how the mode collapse is prevented are missing from the claim limitations. The applicant further argues in page 12 “Furthermore, as discussed above, as noted in the December 5, 2025 USPTO memo on Ex Parte Desjardins, Examiners should not dismiss additional elements as mere "generic computer components" without considering whether such elements confer a technological improvement. Here, the combination of trajectory-based classification using trainable intermediate time points and homeomorphic mapping for generation provides specific technological improvements to how the GAN model itself operates.
The claimed combination achieves specific technical benefits analogous to those recognized in Desjardins: Reduced Storage: The specification explicitly discloses that the adjoint sensitivity method used to train the time points ti provides 0(1) space complexity, whereas conventional backpropagation methods have …
Improved System Performance: The specification discloses that the trajectory based classification "brings non-trivial freedom to the discriminator, making it be able to provide better feedback to the generator…"
Overcoming Technical Problems in Machine Learning: Similar to how Desjardins addressed the technical problem of "catastrophic forgetting" in continual learning systems, ...
Preservation of Performance Attributes: The specification discloses that the homeomorphic mapping preserves the topology of the initial input space while transforming it to a latent space suitable for generation.” applicant argues an reduce storage however the claims are not directed towards a system for improving memory and does not claim any memory. Further the applicant point to the specification to provide how the specification shows an improvement to the art. Yet key details like mode-specific normalization are not part of the claimed invention further the specification recites that mode may alleviate the problem “page 14, lines 21-22 ("By specifying modes before training, the mode-specific normalization may alleviate the problems).” Further applicant argues that using homeomorphic mapping preserves the topology but the claims only state the use of homeomorphic and homeomorphic is abstract idea. Applicant argues further in page 15 “Thus, even assuming arguendo the claims recite an abstract idea under Step 2A Prong One, the claims integrate the alleged judicial exception into a practical application under Step 2A Prong Two by reciting specific technical improvements to machine learning technology that achieve reduced storage requirements, improved system performance, and solutions to technical problems in the field-the same types of benefits credited by the ARP in Desjardins.
Furthermore, as discussed in the March 31 interview, without acquiescing to the Examiner's grounds of rejection, Applicant hereby amends the claims in order to more clearly recite statutory subject matter to incorporate elements from page 19, lines 4-21 to further define how the process for training at ti is performed as suggested by the Examiner on page 8 of the Office Action.” However the claims fail to claim specific details to show technical improvement stated by the applicant. Also the examiner suggested to applicant that providing limitations on how the OCTGAN operates could help in overcoming 101 rejection. Lastly applicant argues in page 16 -17 “Finally, the claim recites the specific update mechanism: ti is trained by swapping a hidden vector of one trajectory at ti with a hidden vector of another trajectory at tm – a concrete, unconventional technique specific to the NODE-based discriminator. See specification at page 20, lines 14-20. … See specification at page 10, lines 4-9. This is directly analogous to the reduced storage credited as a technological improvement in Ex Parte Desjardins. Accordingly, Applicant respectfully requests reconsideration and withdrawal of the rejection of claims 1-4, 9, 10, and 14 under 35 U.S.C. § 101.” Applicant mentions only a NODE discriminator in claim 9. However claim 1 does not have a NODE-based discriminator, yet even with the node base discriminator the applicant provides abstract ideas as explained in the updated 35 U.S.C 101 rejection. Applicant remarks have been fully considered but are not persuasive and moot based on the amendments.
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.
Claim 1-4, 9-10 and 14 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.
Regarding claim 1 and analogous 9, the claims recites a mathematical formula that has several variables and functions used to described the loss function however the claim does not define the terms clearly and the function used as part of the mathematical loss function
PNG
media_image1.png
32
192
media_image1.png
Greyscale
.
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 1-4, 9, 10, and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to abstract idea without significantly more. The claim(s) recite(s) significantly more. The subject matter eligibility test for products and process is describe below for claim 1 in view of dependent claims.
Regarding claim 1:
Step 1: Is the claim to a process machine manufacture or composition of matter?
Claim 1 recites an apparatus, which is a system that falls under the statutory categories.
Step 2A Prong 1: Does the claim recite an abstract idea, law of nature, or natural phenomenon?
Yes – The claim recites the following:
“generate, by a Neural Ordinary Differential Equation (NODE)-based generator, a fake sample by obtaining a condition vector from a condition distribution based on the preprocessed tabular data and a noisy vector from a Gaussian distribution based on the preprocessed tabular data,” - The limitation recites a mathematical process of getting a noisy vector from a Gaussian distribution (see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2).
“and performing homeomorphic mapping on the merged vector of the condition vector and the noisy vector to generate the fake sample within a range that matches a distribution of a real sample;” The limitation recites a mathematical process of homeomorphic mapping (see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2) and a mental process of generating fake samples (see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)III).
“perform feature extraction of the received sample and generate a plurality of continuous trajectories h(t), t1, 2, ... , tm through Ordinary Differential Equations (ODE) on the feature-extracted sample,
h
t
1
,
h
t
2
,
…
,
h
t
m
sharing a same parameter θf constituting a single system of Ordinary Differential Equations separated for a purpose of discretization,”
The claim limitation is directed towards mathematical process of ODE to generate trajectories (see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)).
Step 2 Prong 2: Does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a particular application? No –
The claim includes the additional elements are :
“A Neural ODE-based Conditional Tabular Generative Adversarial Network (OCT-GAN) apparatus, comprising: circuitry configured to:”
The additional element falls under apply it as it uses machine learning architecture (see MPEP 2106.05(f)).
“ti being trained for i=1, 2, ..., m for all i using a gradient definition derived from an adjoint sensitivity method in which an adjoint state ar(t) is first defined as dL/dh(t), and the gradient of loss L for tm is then defined as
PNG
media_image1.png
32
192
media_image1.png
Greyscale
,m being a number of intermediate time points used to discretize the trajectory of h(t), ti being a time point at which two trajectories at ti are dissimilar to each other and two trajectories from t0 to tm are similar to each other, and ti being trained by swapping a hidden vector of one of the two trajectories at ti with a hidden vector of another of the two trajectories at tm;”
The additional elements fall under “apply it” as using a generic computer to train. See Mere Instructions to Apply an Exemption (see MPEP 2106.05(f)).
“receive a sample composed of the real sample or the fake sample of the preprocessed tabular data;”
The additional elements fall under Insignificant Extra- Solution Activity as mere data gathering by receiving a sample. See MPEP 2106.5(g).
“preprocess tabular data composed of a discrete column and a continuous column;”
The additional elements fall under “apply it” as using a generic computer to preprocess tabular data. See Mere Instructions to Apply an Exemption (see MPEP 2106.05(f)).
“and generate a merged trajectory hx by merging the plurality of continuous trajectories, and classify the sample as real or fake through the merged trajectory.”
The additional elements fall under “apply it” as using a generic computer to generate a merge trajectory. See Mere Instructions to Apply an Exemption (see MPEP 2106.05(f)).
Step 2B: Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception?
No - The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to a significantly more than the judicial exemption. As an order whole, the claim is directed to a mathematical process of adversarial learning. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements fall under data gathering and apply it and do not limit the claim. The method does not improve on the function of a computer, transforms an article into another article, nor is it applied by a particular machine, making the claim not patent eligible.
Regarding claim 2:
Step 2A Prong 2, Step 2B: The additional element(s):
“wherein the circuitry is further configured to transform discrete values in the discrete column into a one-hot vector and preprocess continuous values in the continuous column with mode-specific normalization.” The additional element falls under “apply it” by transforming discrete values into one-hot vector and processing continuous column with mode-specific normalization (see MPEP 2106.05(f)). The judicial exemptions do not integrate into a practical application nor provide an improvement. The process does not provide an inventive concept nor provides a practical application.
Regarding claim 3:
Step 2A Prong 1: Does the claim recite an abstract idea, law of nature, or natural phenomenon?
Yes – The claim recites the following:
“wherein the circuitry is further configured to generate a normalized value and a mode value by applying a Gaussian mixture to each of the continuous values and normalizing the same with a corresponding standard deviation.” The claim limitation recites a mathematical concept of Gaussian mixture and normalizing with standard deviation (see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)).
Step 2A Prong 2, Step 2B:
No additional elements are mentioned in the claim. These judicial exemptions do not integrate into a practical application nor provide an improvement. The process does not provide an inventive concept nor provides a practical application.
Regarding claim 4:
Step 2A Prong 2, Step 2B: The claim includes the additional element(s):
“wherein the circuitry is further configured to transform raw data in the preprocessed tabular data into mode- based information by merging the one-hot vector, the normalized value, and the mode value.” The additional element falls under “apply it” as the tabular data preprocessing unit is used to transform the data (see MPEP 2106.05(f)).
No additional elements are mentioned in the claim. These judicial exemptions do not integrate into a practical application nor provide an improvement. The process does not provide an inventive concept nor provides a practical application.
Regarding claim 14:
Step 2A Prong 2, Step 2B: The claim includes the additional element(s):
“The apparatus of claim 1,
θ
f
m) for classification.” The additional elements fall under “apply it” as using a generic computer to use the entire trajectory for classification. See Mere Instructions to Apply an Exemption (see MPEP 2106.05(f)).
No additional elements are mentioned in the claim. These judicial exemptions do not integrate into a practical application nor provide an improvement. The process does not provide an inventive concept nor provides a practical application.
Claims 9 and 10 recites a method and are analogues to the system claims 1-4 and 14. Therefore, the rejections of claims 1-4 and 14 above apply equally to claims 9 and 10.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1 and analogous 9 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 101, 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims. The reason for the allowable subject matter are the same as previously explain in the office action dated 01/05/2026.
Claims 2-4, 9-10, and 14 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims and rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 101, 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ALFREDO CAMPOS whose telephone number is (571)272-4504. The examiner can normally be reached 7:00 - 4:00 pm M - F.
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, Michael J. Huntley can be reached at (303) 297-4307. 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.
/ALFREDO CAMPOS/Examiner, Art Unit 2129
/MICHAEL J HUNTLEY/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2129
Prosecution Insights