DETAILED ACTION
This action is in response to the claims filed 12/18/2025 for Application number 17/569,183. Claims 1, 8 and 15 have been amended, thus claims 1-20 are currently pending.
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 12/18/2025 has been entered.
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.
Regarding claim 1,
Step 1 Analysis: Claim 1 is directed to a process, which falls within one of the four statutory categories.
Step 2A Prong 1 Analysis: Claim 1 recites, in part, The limitations of:
mapping output values in an n-th run of a training phase for the artificial intelligence model having n number of runs can be considered to be an evaluation in the human mind
identifying outputs near edges of the data plot can be considered to be an evaluation in the human mind
These limitations as drafted, are processes that, under broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind or with the aid of pen and paper which falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas.
Additionally, the claim recites:
obtaining a fractal function base set of patterns from the edges of the data plot in the dense areas of the output; This limitation is a mathematical calculation.
applying the fractal function base set of patterns from the dense areas of the output to the sparse data portion of the data plot; This limitation is a mathematical calculation
This limitation is a mathematical calculation.
These limitations as drafted, are processes that, under broadest reasonable interpretation, covers mathematical calculations which falls within the “Mathematical Concepts” grouping of abstract ideas.
Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
Step 2A Prong 2 Analysis: This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim recites the additional elements - “training the artificial intelligence model using the fractal function base set of patterns that retains training data volume while increasing classification accuracy of the artificial intelligence model and reduces false classification of data”. This limitation is a mere instruction to apply a judicial exception because it only generally applies the abstract idea using a generic computer component and because it only offers a high-level recitation of an idea or solution (retaining training data volume while increasing classification accuracy/reduces false classification of data) with no details of how to arrive at that idea or solution. Please see MPEP 2106.05(f). Accordingly, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
Step 2B Analysis: The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements of utilizing a classifier of an artificial intelligence model to perform the steps of the claimed process amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. The claim is not patent eligible.
Regarding claim 2, the rejection of claim 1 is further incorporated, and further, the claim recites: wherein the identifying of the outputs near the edges of the data plot comprises extracting the curve patterns as linear functions in the dense areas of the output. This claim recites additional mental steps in addition to the judicial exceptions identified in the rejection of claim 1, thus recites a judicial exception.
The claim does not include any additional elements that amount to an integration of the judicial exceptions into a practical application, nor to significantly more than the judicial exceptions. The claim is not patent eligible.
Regarding claim 3, the rejection of claim 2 is further incorporated, and further, the claim recites: wherein the obtaining of the fractal function base set of patterns from the edges of the data plot includes analysis of the curve of patterns from the linear functions provided by the dense areas of the output. This claim recites additional mathematical steps in addition to the judicial exceptions identified in the rejection of claim 1, thus recites a judicial exception.
The claim does not include any additional elements that amount to an integration of the judicial exceptions into a practical application, nor to significantly more than the judicial exceptions. The claim is not patent eligible.
Regarding claim 4, the rejection of claim 1 is further incorporated, and further, the claim recites: scaling the fractal function base set of patterns to fit the data plot. This claim recites additional mathematical steps in addition to the judicial exceptions identified in the rejection of claim 1, thus recites a judicial exception.
The claim does not include any additional elements that amount to an integration of the judicial exceptions into a practical application, nor to significantly more than the judicial exceptions. The claim is not patent eligible.
Regarding claim 5, the rejection of claim 1 is further incorporated, and further, the claim recites: [wherein the artificial intelligence model is employed in machine learning] to identify objects from digital images. This claim recites additional mental steps in addition to the judicial exceptions identified in the rejection of claim 1, thus recites a judicial exception.
The claim does not include any additional elements that amount to an integration of the judicial exceptions into a practical application, nor to significantly more than the judicial exceptions. The claim is not patent eligible.
Regarding claim 6, the rejection of claim 1 is further incorporated, and further, the claim recites: wherein a dense data portion of the data plot has a first spatial distance between data points in a first cluster of data points that is smaller than a second special distance between data points in the second cluster of data points. This claim recites additional mathematical steps in addition to the judicial exceptions identified in the rejection of claim 1, thus recites a judicial exception.
The claim does not include any additional elements that amount to an integration of the judicial exceptions into a practical application, nor to significantly more than the judicial exceptions. The claim is not patent eligible.
Regarding claim 7, the rejection of claim 1 is further incorporated, and further, the claim recites: [wherein the training of the artificial intelligence model is trained] following detection of a false positive or false negative. This claim recites additional mental steps in addition to the judicial exceptions identified in the rejection of claim 1, thus recites a judicial exception.
The claim does not include any additional elements that amount to an integration of the judicial exceptions into a practical application, nor to significantly more than the judicial exceptions. The claim is not patent eligible.
Claim 8 recites features similar to claim 1 and is rejected for at least the same reasons therein. Claim 8 additionally requires a hardware processor; and a memory that stores a computer program product, the computer program product when executed by the hardware processor, causes the hardware processor to: (These are additional elements which amount to mere instructions to apply the judicial exception using a generic computer component. Please see MPEP 2106.05(f))
Regarding Claims 9-14, it recites features similar to claims 2-7 and are rejected for at least the same reasons therein.
Claim 15 recites features similar to claims 1 and 8 and is rejected for at least the same reasons therein. Claim 8 additionally requires A computer program product for training the classifier of an artificial intelligence comprising a computer readable storage medium having computer readable program code embodied therewith, the program instructions executable by a processor to cause the processor to: (These are additional elements which amount to mere instructions to apply the judicial exception using a generic computer component. Please see MPEP 2106.05(f))
Regarding Claims 16-20, it recites features similar to claims 2-5 and 7 and are rejected for at least the same reasons therein.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 12/18/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Regarding the 35 U.S.C. 101 Rejection:
Applicant appears to assert the present embodiments are not directed to a mental process because they contain claim features that cannot be practically be performed in the human mind. Examiner respectfully disagrees. The specific feature that applicant argues that cannot be a mental process (i.e. training an artificial intelligence model) was not considered to be a mental process in the 101 analysis. The feature was explicitly analyzed as an additional element under Step 2A Prong 2 of the 101 eligibility analysis. As noted in the rejection, the training of the artificial intelligence model is recited at a high-level with little details of the actual training process such that it amounts to mere instructions to apply the judicial exception using a generic computer component.
Applicant further asserts that the claims are not directed to mathematical concepts, specifically, the claims apply mathematical concepts. Examiner respectfully disagrees. The claims have an explicit recitation of mathematical concepts without any further details of how these concepts are integrated into a practical application. Merely claiming that the training applies mathematical concepts would mean that the training itself is a mathematical concept and would recite an abstract idea. Therefore, applicant’s arguments are not persuasive.
Applicant further asserts that the newly amended features reflect an improvement in the training and functioning of artificial intelligence models. Examiner respectfully disagrees. As noted above in the 101 rejection, the limitation of “training the artificial intelligence model using the fractal function base set of patterns that retains training data volume while increasing classification accuracy of the artificial intelligence model and reduces false classification of data” recites only an idea of a solution or outcome. As noted in MPEP §2106.05(f), “The recitation of claim limitations that attempt to cover any solution to an identified problem with no restriction on how the result is accomplished and no description of the mechanism for accomplishing the result, does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more because this type of recitation is equivalent to the words "apply it". The claims as currently recited fail to recite any details of the actual training process of the artificial intelligence model that would reflect any improvement in the training or functioning of the model. Applicant further points to several paragraphs from the specification, however these details are not currently recited in the claim. Although the claims are read in light of the specification, the claims only offer a broad and generic recitation of training an artificial intelligence model and there no further details in the claims that would restrict the BRI of the claims to the cited paragraphs. Therefore, applicant’s arguments are not persuasive.
Applicant further notes that a recent decision by the Appeal Review Panel of the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) supports patent-eligibility of the claims. The claims of the instant application are not similar to the claims recited in Desjardins. The claims of Desjardins explicitly disclose a specific training step that reflect an improvement in the training of the AI model while the claims of the instant application merely recite only an idea of a solution or outcome as a result of training the model without any details of how the result is accomplished and no description of the mechanism for accomplishing the result. See MPEP §2106.05(f). The claims only merely recite "training the AI model" without any details of the actual training process other than using the data plot (which is part of the abstract idea noted in the 101 rejection). Therefore, examiner asserts the claims remain ineligible.
Regarding the allowability of the claims:
As noted in the last office action, the claims have been searched however no prior art rendering the claims anticipated or obvious has been uncovered. Therefore, the claims would be allowable if all outstanding rejections were withdrawn.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MICHAEL H HOANG whose telephone number is (571)272-8491. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 8:30AM-4:30PM.
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, Kakali Chaki can be reached at (571) 272-3719. 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.
/MICHAEL H HOANG/Examiner, Art Unit 2122