DETAILED ACTION
This Action is responsive to Claims filed 02/13/2026.
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 02/13/2026 has been entered.
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 the Claims
Claims 1-3, 5-13, and 15 have been amended. Claims 4 and 14 have been canceled. Claim 16 is new. Claims 1-3, 5-13, and 15-16 are currently pending.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see Pages 14-20, filed 02/13/2026, regarding the 35 U.S.C. 101 Rejection of claims 1-15 have been fully considered and are persuasive. The 101 Rejection of Claims 1-15 has been withdrawn.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the prior art Rejection(s) of claim(s) 1-15 have been fully considered and are persuasive. The 35 U.S.C. 103 Rejection(s) of Claims 1-15 have been withdrawn. See the relevant prior art below.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1-3, 5-13, and 15-16 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
The Specification makes no reference to “generat[ing]” a second learning database by “combining” first learning data samples and third data samples (third data samples are never recited) of labeled and unlabeled data (unlabeled data is never recited).
There is no reference to “train[ing]” or “retraining” either a first or second plurality of classifiers in the Specification.
There is no specific structure or implementation recited for selecting and “updat[ing]” a specific “subset” of classifiers or intentionally “excluding” other classifiers from being updated.
The dependent claims do not rectify the deficiencies within the Specification and are therefore similarly rejected.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Lewis et al. US 9111218 B1: Pertinent to the disclosure of multiple ensembles of trained classifiers, a second group on augmented data.
Williams et al. US 9324022 B2: Pertinent to the comparison of a classifier’s result to another.
The prior art indicates state of the art methods at the time of the Applicant’s filing either implement systems similar to “on the condition…” and “update…” limitations, in that the accuracy of classifiers is checked, and subsequently updated; or the “subset of classifiers…” and “exclude…” limitations, in that a portion of the classifiers will be retrained; but not necessarily both.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to GRIFFIN T BEAN whose telephone number is (703)756-1473. The examiner can normally be reached M - F 7:30 - 4:30.
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, Li Zhen can be reached at (571) 272-3768. 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.
GRIFFIN TANNER BEAN/Examiner, Art Unit 2121
/Li B. Zhen/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2121
Prosecution Insights