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 .
Applicant has amended claim 20, canceled claims 1-19 and added new claims 48-61, several claims of the new added claims are from canceled claims 1-19. The Examiner is not going to re-evaluate again lack of unity between the new claims 20, 48-61 and the canceled claims 1-19.
In response to Applicants amendment the restriction requirement “lack of unity”, as set forth in the Office action mailed on 06/04/2025, is hereby withdrawn.
Once a restriction requirement is withdrawn, the provisions of 35 U.S.C. 121 are no longer applicable. See In re Ziegler, 443 F.2d 1211, 1215, 170 USPQ 129, 131-32 (CCPA 1971). See also MPEP § 804.01.
Applicant should show support in the original disclosure for the new or amended claims. See, e.g., Hyatt v. Dudas, 492 F.3d 1365, 1370, n.4, 83 USPQ2d 1373, 1376, n.4 (Fed. Cir. 2007) and MPEP § 2163.04. The support for the limitations is not apparent, and applicant has not pointed out where the limitation is supported; see also MPEP §§ 714.02 and 2163.06.
Drawings
Color photographs and color drawings are not accepted in utility applications unless a petition filed under 37 CFR 1.84(a)(2) is granted. Any such petition must be accompanied by the appropriate fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(h), one set of color drawings or color photographs, as appropriate, if submitted via the USPTO patent electronic filing system or three sets of color drawings or color photographs, as appropriate, if not submitted via the via USPTO patent electronic filing system, and, unless already present, an amendment to include the following language as the first paragraph of the brief description of the drawings section of the specification:
The patent or application file contains at least one drawing executed in color. Copies of this patent or patent application publication with color drawing(s) will be provided by the Office upon request and payment of the necessary fee.
Color photographs will be accepted if the conditions for accepting color drawings and black and white photographs have been satisfied. See 37 CFR 1.84(b)(2).
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 20, 48, 52-61 are 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 claim 20 steps of:
“an image feature extraction module operable to extract values of one or more image feature candidates from image data of training data;
a data preparation and feature engineering module operable to obtain values of one or more of a plurality of feature candidates based, at least in part, on the values of the image feature candidates; and
a model creation and evaluation module operable to generate and evaluate one or more machine learning models trained to determine a value of a data analytics target based on the values of the plurality of feature candidates”
lack a corresponding disclosure sufficient for definiteness under 35 USC 112b, as well as evidence of a disclosed “species” of the claimed genus sufficient for support under 35 USC 112a.
The specification refers to “image feature extraction module 122” (e.g., paragraphs [0122]- [0123] of PG Publication US 20230067026 A1) as performing the first step, but lacks any description of “extract values of one or more image feature candidates”, paragraph [0122] recites “In some embodiments, the image feature extraction module 122 performs image pre-processing and feature extraction on the image data 102, and provides the extracted features to the data preparation and feature engineering module 124 as image feature candidates 123”. The specification refers to “The data preparation and feature engineering module 124” (e.g., paragraphs [0124]-[0126]) as performing the second step, but lacks any description of “obtain values of one or more of a plurality of feature candidates based, at least in part, on the values of the image feature candidates”, paragraph [0124] recites “The data preparation and feature engineering module 124 may perform data preparation and feature engineering operations with respect to the image feature candidates 123 and the non-image data 104. The data preparation operations may include, for example, characterizing the input data. Characterizing the input data may include detecting missing observations, detecting missing variable values, and/or identifying outlying variable values. In some embodiments, characterizing the input data includes detecting duplicate portions of input data (e.g., observations, images, etc.)”. The specification refers to “The model creation and evaluation module 126” (e.g., paragraphs [0128]-[0130]) as performing the third step, but lacks any description of “determine a value of a data analytics target based on the values of the plurality of feature candidates”, paragraph [0128] recites “The model creation and evaluation module 126 may create one or more models and evaluate the models to determine how well they solve the computer vision problem or data analytics problem at hand. In some embodiments, the model creation and evaluation module 126 performs model-fitting steps to fit models to the training data (e.g., to the features 125 derived from the training data). The model-fitting steps may include, without limitation, algorithm selection, parameter estimation, hyper-parameter tuning, scoring, diagnostics, etc.”. Therefore, claim 20 is indefinite under 35 USC 112b, as well as lacks sufficiency of a supporting disclosure under 35 USC 112a, written description.
As to claims 48,52-61 refer to claim 20 rejection.
The claim 48 step of:
“wherein the data preparation and feature engineering module is further operable to obtain values of one or more of the plurality of feature candidates based, at least in part, on non-image data of the training data”
lacks a corresponding disclosure sufficient for definiteness under 35 USC 112b, as well as evidence of a disclosed “species” of the claimed genus sufficient for support under 35 USC 112a.
The specification refers to “The data preparation and feature engineering module 124” (e.g., paragraphs [0124]-[0126] of PG Publication US 20230067026 A1) as performing the second step, but lacks any description of “obtain values of one or more of the plurality of feature candidates based, at least in part, on non-image data of the training data”, paragraph [0124] recites “The data preparation and feature engineering module 124 may perform data preparation and feature engineering operations with respect to the image feature candidates 123 and the non-image data 104. The data preparation operations may include, for example, characterizing the input data. Characterizing the input data may include detecting missing observations, detecting missing variable values, and/or identifying outlying variable values. In some embodiments, characterizing the input data includes detecting duplicate portions of input data (e.g., observations, images, etc.)”. Therefore, claim 48 is indefinite under 35 USC 112b, as well as lacks sufficiency of a supporting disclosure under 35 USC 112a, written description.
The claim 52 steps recited on lines 1-5
lack a corresponding disclosure sufficient for definiteness under 35 USC 112b, as well as evidence of a disclosed “species” of the claimed genus sufficient for support under 35 USC 112a.
Claim 20 is a model development system shown in Fig. 1 to train machine learning models using training data and generate trained machine learning models 130 (e.g., computer vision models, data analytics models, etc.) that solve a problem in a domain of computer vision or data analytics (see paragraph [0120] of the publication), however, steps recited on lines 1-5 of claim 52 are directed to a model deployment system 1100 shown in Fig. 11 that receives inference data (scoring data) and processes the inference data using one or more models (e.g., image processing models, machine learning models, etc.) to solve a problem in a domain of computer vision or data analytics. The inference data may include image data 1102 (e.g., one or more images) (par. [0229]). The model development system shown in Fig. 1 does not include the same structure modules as the model deployment system 1100 shown in Fig. 11, perform the same function or use the same data. Applicant is combining systems that are shown as separate systems in the specification. The specification does not disclose a combined system of Figs 1 and 11.
Therefore, claim 52 is indefinite under 35 USC 112b, as well as lacks sufficiency of a supporting disclosure under 35 USC 112a, written description.
As to claims 53-59, and 61 refer to claim 52 rejection.
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 20, 48-61 are 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.
Claim 20 recites, “image feature candidates” on lines 2-3 and recites “feature candidates” on line 5, it is not clear whether “ image feature candidates” on lines 2-3 and “feature candidates” on line 5 are the same or different. If the same the second one should refer to the first one and if different, it should be labeled so. The metes, bounds and scope of the claim is not defined and the claim is indefinite.
As to claims 48-61 refer to claim 20 rejection.
As to claim 50, “one or more image feature candidates” has no antecedent basis in the claim because claim 20 extracts values of one or more image feature candidates.
As to claim 51 refer to claim 50 rejection.
Claim 20, recites a functional outcome that only identify a result but not actively performing the function (no acts of analysis), “to obtain values of one or more of a plurality of feature candidates based, at least in part, on the values of the image feature candidates” lines 4-6, but does not define any particular analysis steps of how “values of one or more of a plurality of feature candidates” is obtained based on “the values of the image feature candidates” and recites “to generate and evaluate one or more machine learning models trained to determine a value of a data analytics target based on the values of the plurality of feature candidates” lines 7-9, but does not define any particular analysis steps of how the “one or more machine learning models” are generated, evaluated and trained to determine a value of a data analytics target based on the values of the plurality of feature candidates. Thus, the scope of the claim encompasses every analysis step known now and would be known in the future for implementing the functions of “obtain values of one or more of a plurality of feature candidates”, and “generate and evaluate one or more machine learning models trained to determine a value of a data analytics target”. Therefore, the metes, bounds and scope of protection are not defined and the claim is indefinite. Although a claim should be interpreted in light of the specification disclosure, it is generally considered improper to read limitations contained in the specification into the claims. See In re Prater, 415 F.2d 1393, 162 USPQ 541 (CCPA 1969) and In re Winkhaus, 527 F.2d 637, 188 USPQ 129 (CCPA 1975), which discuss the premise that one cannot rely on the specification to impart limitations to the claim that are not recited in the claim and therefore, the claim is indefinite (MPEP 2173.05 (g)).
As to claims 48-61 refer to claim 20 rejection.
Claim 49 recites a functional outcome that only identify a result but not actively performing the function (no acts of analysis), “perform exploratory data analysis of the image data of the training data” line 2, but does not define any particular analysis steps of how “exploratory data analysis of the image data of the training data” is performed. Thus, the scope of the claim encompasses every analysis step known now and would be known in the future for implementing the functions of “perform exploratory data analysis of the image data of the training data”. Therefore, the metes, bounds and scope of protection are not defined and the claim is indefinite. Although a claim should be interpreted in light of the specification disclosure, it is generally considered improper to read limitations contained in the specification into the claims. See In re Prater, 415 F.2d 1393, 162 USPQ 541 (CCPA 1969) and In re Winkhaus, 527 F.2d 637, 188 USPQ 129 (CCPA 1975), which discuss the premise that one cannot rely on the specification to impart limitations to the claim that are not recited in the claim and therefore, the claim is indefinite (MPEP 2173.05 (g)).
As to claims 50 refer to claim 49 rejection.
Claim 50 recites a functional outcome that only identify a result but not actively performing the function (no acts of analysis), “determining feature importance of the one or more image feature candidates.” line 2, but does not define any particular analysis steps of how “feature importance of the one or more image feature candidates” is determined. Thus, the scope of the claim encompasses every analysis step known now and would be known in the future for implementing the functions of “determining feature importance of the one or more image feature candidates”. Therefore, the metes, bounds and scope of protection are not defined and the claim is indefinite. Although a claim should be interpreted in light of the specification disclosure, it is generally considered improper to read limitations contained in the specification into the claims. See In re Prater, 415 F.2d 1393, 162 USPQ 541 (CCPA 1969) and In re Winkhaus, 527 F.2d 637, 188 USPQ 129 (CCPA 1975), which discuss the premise that one cannot rely on the specification to impart limitations to the claim that are not recited in the claim and therefore, the claim is indefinite (MPEP 2173.05 (g)).
The Examiner is unable to determine the scope of the claimed subject matter and will evaluate the patentability of the claims after amending the claims to overcome the above rejections when the subject matter claimed is clear, based on the prior art relevant to the amended claimed subject matter.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SAMIR ANWAR AHMED whose telephone number is (571)272-7413. The examiner can normally be reached flex.
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, Edward Urban can be reached at (571)272-7899. 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.
/SAMIR A AHMED/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2665