The present application, filed on or after 16 March 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
DETAILED ACTION
This office action is in response to Applicant’s submission filed on 23 October 2025. THIS ACTION IS FINAL.
Status of Claims
Claims 1-15 are pending.
Claim 1-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 for being directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more.
There is no art rejection for claims 1-15.
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.
Judicial Exception
Claims 1-15 of the claimed invention are directed to a judicial exception, an abstract idea, without significantly more.
Regarding claims 1-15
(Independent Claims)
With regards to claim 1 / 6 / 11, the claim recites a machine / process / article of manufacturing, which falls into one of the statutory categories.
2A – Prong 1: the claim, in part, recites “apply a respective tensor normal distribution to each of a plurality of convolutional kernels of the convolutional neural network, wherein the respective tensor normal distribution captures a correlation and a variance heteorgeneity of each of the plurality of the convolutional kernels; approximate the mean and covariance of each respective tensor normal distribution passing through the non-linear activation function of each non-linear perceptron; perform a max-pool operation on a plurality of outputs of the plurality of non-linear perceptrons to generate an output tensor; vectorize the output tensor to create an input vector for a fully-connected layer of the convolutional neural network; generate an output vector using the fully-connected layer; and compute a mean matrix and a covariance matrix for the output vector” (mental process and/or math concept), which under the broadest reasonable interpretation, cover a mental process including an observation, evaluation, judgment or opinion that could be performed in the human mind. For example, “apply … normal distribution …”, “approximate …”, “perform …”, “vectorize the output tensor …”, “generate an output vector …”, “compute a mean matrix” in the limitation citied above encompasses abstract model (neural network ) processing via applying certain mathematical processing/calculation which is based on observation, evaluation, judgement, and/or opinion, that could be performed by human using paper / pen / calculator (e.g., a human statistical prediction model analyzer could apply data to the model, analyze/adjust model parameters to make prediction & evaluate model performance). If a claim, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers a mental process, but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Process” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
2A – Prong 2: This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, claim 8 recites the additional elements: (a) generic computer elements (computer, processor, memory coupled to processor) (merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea, MPEP 2106.05(f)). These computer components are recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as a generic processor performing a generic computer function) which is mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea, as discussed in MPEP 2106.05(f). Accordingly, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to an abstract idea.
2B Analysis: The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above, the additional element of generic computer elements merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea (MPEP 2106.05(f)). Hence the additional elements do not add anything significant to the abstract idea. The claim is not patent eligible.
(Dependent claims)
Claims 2-5 / 7-10 / 12-15 are dependent on claim 1 / 6 / 11 and include all the limitations of claim 1 / 6 / 11. Therefore, claims 2-5 / 7-10 / 12-15 recite the same abstract ideas.
With regards to claim 2 / 7 / 12, the claim further includes limitation “… to at least: supply the output vector to a softmax function to make a prediction; and compute a confidence in the prediction based at least in part on the mean matrix and the covariance matrix of the output vector”, which is further steps for on model processing, which is directed to a mental process. There is no additional element adding anything significantly more to the abstract idea. The claim is not patent eligible.
With regards to claim 3 / 8 / 13, the claim further includes limitation “ … to approximate the mean and covariance of each respective tensor normal distribution passing through the non-linear activation function of each non-linear perceptron utilize a Taylor series first-order approximation”, which is further steps for on model processing, which is directed to a mental process. There is no additional element adding anything significantly more to the abstract idea. The claim is not patent eligible.
With regards to claim 4 / 9 / 14, the claim further includes limitation “… to approximate the mean and covariance of each respective tensor normal distribution passing through the non-linear activation function of each non-linear perceptron utilize a Monte Carlo expansion”, which is further steps for on model processing, which is directed to a mental process. There is no additional element adding anything significantly more to the abstract idea. The claim is not patent eligible.
With regards to claim 5 / 10 / 15 the claim further includes limitation “… to approximate the mean and covariance of each respective tensor normal distribution passing through the non-linear activation function of each non-linear perceptron utilize a wavelet”, which is further steps for on model processing, which is directed to a mental process. There is no additional element adding anything significantly more to the abstract idea. The claim is not patent eligible.
Response to Argument
Applicant’s arguments filed 23 October 2025 has been fully considered but they are not fully persuasive.
Regarding 101 rejections,
1)Applicant argued that (p.6-7) ….
PNG
media_image1.png
237
943
media_image1.png
Greyscale
…
Examiner replies: Improving abstract model processing which can be performed by human, is still an abstract idea. Computer is cited in the claim to implement the abstract idea, there is no additional element identified that shows integration into a practical application. The 101 rejection is maintained.
2) Applicant argued that (p.7-8) ….
PNG
media_image2.png
331
952
media_image2.png
Greyscale
…
PNG
media_image3.png
603
928
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Examiner replies: As stated earlier, the invention as claimed is directed to an abstract idea of abstract model processing. Improving an abstract idea is still an abstract idea. The data regarding radiologist analysis is not in the claim, hence is irrelevant. The 101 rejection is maintained.
3) Applicant argued that (p.8) ….
PNG
media_image4.png
178
950
media_image4.png
Greyscale
…
Examiner replies: As stated earlier, improving an abstract idea is still an abstract idea. Except citing generic computer elements to implement the abstract idea, the elements claimed include mathematical processing / calculation that can be performed by human mind with paper / pen / calculator. Gaussian or non-linear distribution can be calculated by human, as before modern digital computer was available, human has been using various mathematical techniques to calculate multi-dimensional non-linear functions / distributions. The 101 rejection is maintained.
4) To overcome the issues, suggest Applicant to include additional inventive concept elements into claims: (1) to show integration into a practical application; and/or (2) to show a specific physical implementation that is not WURC; (3) that is not practical for human mind to process and not WURC.
Conclusion
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 extension fee 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 TSU-CHANG LEE whose telephone number 571-272-3567.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Omar Fernandez Rivas, can be reached 571-272-2589.
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.
/TSU-CHANG LEE/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2128