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 .
Status of Claims
The present application is being examined under the claims filed 06/26/2026.
Claims 1 and 3-20 are pending.
Response to Amendment
This Office Action is in response to Applicant’s communication filed 06/26/2026 in response to office action mailed 04/23/2026. The Applicant’s remarks and any amendments to the claims or specification have been considered with the results that follow.
Response to Arguments
Regarding objections and informalities
In Remarks page 9, Argument 1
(Examiner summarizes Applicant’s arguments) Applicant argues that all claim objections have been overcome by amendments.
Examiner’s response to Argument 1
Each and every objection has been overcome by the amendments.
Regarding 35 U.S.C. 112 rejections
In Remarks page 9, Argument 2
(Examiner summarizes Applicant’s arguments) Applicant argues that the claims are not indefinite because the specification provides that the methods it discloses may be implemented using a processor. Applicant argues that the cited portion of the specification clearly links the claimed modules, features, and processes to a processor hardware.
Examiner’s response to Argument 2,
Examiner disagrees. Though the specification states that processors can broadly perform anything found in the specification, the processor structure is not clearly linked to the language invoking 112(f). MPEP 2181 III recites
“A rejection under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph is appropriate if the written description fails to link or associate the disclosed structure, material, or acts to the claimed function, or if there is no disclosure (or insufficient disclosure) of structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function”
and MPEP 2181 II B.
“However, if there is no corresponding structure disclosed in the specification (i.e., the limitation is only supported by software and does not correspond to an algorithm and the computer or microprocessor programmed with the algorithm), the limitation should be deemed indefinite as discussed above, and the claim should be rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph.”
In the instant application, the specification only describes the modules with respect to the software algorithms they perform but do not clearly link those modules to a computer or microprocessor. The specification broadly states that any of its content can be performed by a processor, but does not clearly state that any of the claimed modules would be performed by this structure.
Regarding 35 U.S.C. 103
In Remarks pages 11-12, Argument 3
(Examiner summarizes Applicant’s arguments) Applicant takes issue with Examiner’s use of Xu to teach the claim limitation “include both of the corresponding first and second augmented versions in both of the first and second input data such that the first and second untrained networks operate concurrently on the corresponding first and second augmented versions”. In particular, Applicant argues that Xu shows each network receiving different data, but not both augmented versions included in both the first and second input data.
Examiner’s response to Argument 3
The rejections under 35 U.S.C. 103 are withdrawn rendering Applicant’s arguments moot.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1 and 3-20 are deemed patentable over the prior art for purposes of 35 U.S.C. 102/103. However, outstanding rejections remain under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) for claims 1 and 3-18 that must be resolved prior to allowance.
This communication warrants no examiner's reason for allowance, as the record makes evident the reason for allowance, satisfying the record "as a whole" as required by rule 37 CFR 1.104 (e). Accordingly, the reason for allowance is in all probability evident from the record and no statement for examiner's reason for allowance is necessary (see MPEP 1302.14).
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 1 and 3-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
Regarding 35 U.S.C. 112(f) invocations
The following claim limitations invoke 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
“execute the first updating module to update parameters of the first neural network” as recited in claim 1
“execute the second updating module to update parameters of the second neural network” as recited in claim 1
“execute the augmentation module to retrieve a plurality of corresponding first and second unlabeled action sequences” as recited in claim 1
Further recitations of the term “augmentation module” in claims 2 and 14
“execute the first sub-module to generate a first augmented version based on a respective first unlabeled action sequence” as recited in claim 1
Further recitations of the term “first sub-module” in claims 3-4, 13, and 16
“and execute the second sub-module to generate a second augmented version based on a respective second unlabeled action sequence, wherein the second sub-module differs from the first sub-module” as recited in claim 1
Further recitations of the term “second sub-module” in claims 3-4, 6-8, and 10-12
“execute the third updating module to update parameters of the third network to minimize a difference between the third representation data and activity label data associated with the third input data” and “by the third updating module, train the third network” as recited in claim 15
“execute the further augmentation module to retrieve third action sequences of one or more objects performing one or more activities” and “wherein the further augmentation module is configured in correspondence” as recited in claim 16
“execute the fourth updating module to update parameters of the fourth network” as recited in claim 17
However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function. MPEP 2181 II. B. recites “However, if there is no corresponding structure disclosed in the specification (i.e., the limitation is only supported by software and does not correspond to an algorithm and the computer or microprocessor programmed with the algorithm), the limitation should be deemed indefinite as discussed above, and the claim should be rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph.” The portions of the specification identified above do not clearly link the claim language to a “computer or microprocessor programmed with the algorithm” for any of the modules recited in the claims.
Therefore, the claims are indefinite and are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph.
Applicant may:
(a) Amend the claim so that the claim limitation will no longer be interpreted as a limitation under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph;
(b) Amend the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites what structure, material, or acts perform the entire claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(c) Amend the written description of the specification such that it clearly links the structure, material, or acts disclosed therein to the function recited in the claim, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)).
If applicant is of the opinion that the written description of the specification already implicitly or inherently discloses the corresponding structure, material, or acts and clearly links them to the function so that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize what structure, material, or acts perform the claimed function, applicant should clarify the record by either:
(a) Amending the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function and clearly links or associates the structure, material, or acts to the claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(b) Stating on the record what the corresponding structure, material, or acts, which are implicitly or inherently set forth in the written description of the specification, perform the claimed function. For more information, see 37 CFR 1.75(d) and MPEP §§ 608.01(o) and 2181.
Regarding Dependent Claims
Claims
3-18 are dependent upon claim 1
6-13 are dependent upon claim 5
9 is dependent upon claim 8
16-18 are dependent upon claim 15
are therefore similarly rejected for including the deficiencies of claims 1, 5, 8, 15, and 20 respectively.
Conclusion
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.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Ezra J Baker whose telephone number is (703)756-1087. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 10:00 am - 8:00 pm 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, David Yi can be reached at (571) 270-7519. 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.
/E.J.B./Examiner, Art Unit 2126
/DAVID YI/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2126
Prosecution Insights