DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claims 1-20 have been presented for examination based on the application filed on 7/18/2022.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101.
Claims 1-20 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.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph.
This action is made Non-Final.
Examiner Note
A prior art rejection is not presented because the claims are directed to algorithm without application to any technical and or technological field. This is evident from the citation of IDS (3/29/2023) reference 4 (in automotive field), reference 2 (in body area networks), reference 6 (in field of medicine). It is unclear how the model needs to be mapped in current set of claims which are directed purely to an algorithm to maximize the scores computed from data.
---- This page is left blank after this line ----
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 mental process without any additional elements that provide a practical application or amount to significantly more than the abstract idea.
Claims 1 & 17:
Step 1: the claims 1 & 17 are drawn to a system and a method respectively, falling under one of the four statutory categories of invention.
Step 2A, Prong 1: This part of the eligibility analysis evaluates whether the claim recites a judicial exception. As explained in MPEP 2106.04, subsection II, a claim “recites” a judicial exception when the judicial exception is “set forth” or “described” in the claim. The limitations are bolded for abstract idea/judicial expception identification.
Claim 1
Mapping Under Step 2A Prong 1
1. A system, comprising: a processor in communication with a memory,
the memory including instructions, which, when executed, cause the processor to:
(1) receive, at the processor, an nth subset of operating data descriptive of a cyber-physical system, the nth subset of operating data being a subset of a total set of operating data descriptive of the cyber- physical system, the nth subset of operating data being associated with a first utility score; (2) reconstruct, at the processor, an nth reconstructed model of the cyber-physical system using the nth subset of operating data;
See Step 2A Prong 2 and Step 2B.
See Step 2A Prong 2 and Step 2B.
See Step 2A Prong 2 and Step 2B.
Abstract Idea/Mathematical Concept/Mental Process: The reconstructed model is mathematical calculations (as in MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(I)(C)) as evident from specification [0028]1 and [0037]2 where the model is reconstructed using observable variables as disclosed in specification [0050]-[0051]. If the reconstruction is considered to involve evaluation, then this could be mental step performed with pencil and paper. E.g. evaluating equations in [0037] with data from [0050]-[0051]. (as per MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III)).
Use of processor is nominal where the computer is used as a tool to perform mental process. See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III)(C)(1)-(3).
(3) evaluate, at the processor, a safety factor of the nth reconstructed model of the cyber-physical system;
(4) evaluate, at the processor, a second utility score associated with an accuracy factor of the nth reconstructed model and the safety factor of the nth reconstructed model; and
(5) identify, at the processor, an optimal subset of operating data of the total set of operating data descriptive of the cyber-physical system
that results in collective optimization of the first utility score and the second utility score.
Abstract Idea/Mathematical Concept/Mental Process: The evaluation step recites mental process where the evaluation to compute the safety factor can be performed based on the observed data (nth reconstructed model of the cyber-physical system) with pencil and paper (as in MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III)(A)). This may also be considered a mathematical calculation. (as in MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III)(A)).
Abstract Idea/Mathematical Concept/Mental Process: The evaluation step recites mental process where the evaluation to compute the second utility score can be performed based on the observed data (an accuracy factor of the nth reconstructed model and the safety factor of the nth reconstructed model) with pencil and paper (as in MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III)(A)). This may also be considered a mathematical calculation. (as in MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III)(A)).
Abstract Idea/Mathematical Concept/Mental Process: The identifying …an optimal subset of operating data step recites mental process of identifying based on observed data (total set of operating data) (as in MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III)(A)). This may also be considered a mathematical calculation. (as in MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III)(A)).
See Step 2A Prong 2 and Step 2B.
Under its broadest reasonable interpretation, these covers a mental process including an observation, evaluation, judgment or opinion that could be performed in the human mind or with the aid of pencil and paper. That is, nothing in the claim element precludes the step from practically being performed in the mind or with the aid of pencil and paper but for the recitation of generic computer components (e.g. the claimed processor). Also the mathematical concepts disclosed may also be performed in the mind or with the aid of pencil and paper or computer as a tool.
Step 2A, Prong 2: This part of the eligibility analysis evaluates whether the claim as a whole integrates the recited judicial exception into a practical application of the exception. This evaluation is performed by (1) identifying whether there are any additional elements recited in the claim beyond the judicial exception, and (2) evaluating those additional elements individually and in combination to determine whether the claim as a whole integrates the exception into a practical application. See MPEP 2106.04(d). As per (1) the additional elements are identified as bolded parts of the limitations in column 1 of the table below, and as per (2) the evaluation is shown in the mapping section of the table.
In accordance with this step, the judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application.
Claim 1
Mapping Under Step 2A Prong 2
1. A system, comprising: a processor in communication with a memory,
the memory including instructions, which, when executed, cause the processor to:
(1) receive, at the processor, an nth subset of operating data descriptive of a cyber-physical system, the nth subset of operating data being a subset of a total set of operating data descriptive of the cyber- physical system, the nth subset of operating data being associated with a first utility score;
(2) reconstruct, at the processor, an nth reconstructed model of the cyber-physical system using the nth subset of operating data;
Under MPEP 2105.05(f) & (g) use of generic computer components (processor & memory) to perform data gathering and execution of generic model is does not integrate the claimed additional elements into practical application.
Under MPEP 2106.05(g) determining whether a claim integrates the judicial exception into a practical application in Step 2A Prong Two or recites significantly more in Step 2B is whether the additional elements add more than insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception. In this case the this is mere data gathering using conventional computer components.
Use of generic processor may be rejected under MPEP 2106.05(g). See Step 2A Prong 1 above.
(3) evaluate, at the processor, a safety factor of the nth reconstructed model of the cyber-physical system;
(4) evaluate, at the processor, a second utility score associated with an accuracy factor of the nth reconstructed model and the safety factor of the nth reconstructed model; and
(5) identify, at the processor, an optimal subset of operating data of the total set of operating data descriptive of the cyber-physical system
that results in collective optimization of the first utility score and the second utility score.
Use of generic processor may be rejected under MPEP 2106.05(g). See Step 2A Prong 1 above.
Use of generic processor may be rejected under MPEP 2106.05(g). See Step 2A Prong 1 above.
Use of generic processor may be rejected under MPEP 2106.05(g). See Step 2A Prong 1 above.
Under MPEP 2106.05(f)(1) the claim recites only the idea of a solution or outcome i.e., the claim fails to recite details of how a solution to a problem is accomplished. 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". In this case the optimization of first and second utility score is the solution that is sought, however there is no mechanism claimed that leads to claimed optimization.
In particular, the claim(s) recites the additional elements of a processor for the system claim, at a high-level of generality (i.e. a generic processor performing generic functions of computing and executing information such that it amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component). 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. See MPEP 2106.05(f).
Additionally the claim as whole, even after accounting for additional elements as mapped in step 2A prong 2, do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not recite improvement in functioning of a computer or any specific technology (as per MPEP 2106.05(a)). Further mere recitation that the data is related to a cyber-physical system is field of use (MPEP 2106.05(h)). The computing of first and second utility scores based on the collected subset or total operating data is akin to computation of alarm limit as in In re Flook.
Step 2B: This part of the eligibility analysis evaluates whether the claim as a whole amounts to significantly more than the recited exception i.e., whether any additional element, or combination of additional elements, adds an inventive concept to the claim. See MPEP 2106.05.
As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional element of using a computer/processor to perform the claimed steps amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer/processing component. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept (see MPEP 2106.05(f)). Also step (1) is extra-solution activity (MPEP 2106.05(g)) related to data gathering. Further the additional elements do not add significantly more because they do not recite improvement in functioning of a computer or any specific technology (as per MPEP 2106.05(a)). Further mere recitation that the data is related to a cyber-physical system is field of use (MPEP 2106.05(h)). Hence, considering the same grounds as integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements do not contribute significantly more for the same reasons. The claim 1 therefore is considered to be patent ineligible.
Claim 17 recites the method akin to system recited in claim 1. Claim 17 is rejected in similar manner.
Claims 2-7 recite various aspects related to determining which subset (nth or n+1th) is optimal subset based on the collective optimization of first and second index scores, which are related to accuracy, safety, risk scores (and further enumerated risk scores). These limitations merely add to algorithm to compute the various scores and are rejected as mental step under step 2A prong 1 (MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III)). Further evaluation under step2A prong 2 computation of these scores, associated to generically defined cyber physical system, is at best field of use under MPEP 2106.05(h). The claims do not disclose any additional limitations that integrate the judicial exception into practical application (Step 2A Prong 2) or contribute significantly more (Step 2B).
Claim 8-9 recites apply, at the processor, a safety analysis methodology to the nth reconstructed model resulting in a safety factor of the nth reconstructed model & wherein the safety analysis methodology includes a reach set analysis of the nth reconstructed model. This is considered as abstract idea under step 2A prong1 (mathematical concept/mental step), as this generically identifies the algorithm as methodology to perform the steps. Under step 2A Prong 2, and step 2B, the reach set analysis is not applied to any specific technology/technical field such that it leads to improvement in the technical field (see MPEP 2106.05(a)) and generic citation of cyber physical system in view of parent claim is field of use at best (See MPEP 2106.05(h)). Therefore the claims do not disclose any additional limitations that integrate the judicial exception into practical application (Step 2A Prong 2) or contribute significantly more (Step 2B). Claim 19 is rejected with similar rationale as claim 8.
Claim 10 is directed to displaying the safety factor and accuracy factor in most generic manner and is rejected as extra (post) – solution activity under MPEP 2106.05(g). The claim does not disclose any additional limitations that integrate the judicial exception into practical application (Step 2A Prong 2) or contribute significantly more (Step 2B).
Claim 11-12 are directed to safe/unsafe declaration based on value of safety threshold and is considered as abstract idea (mathematical concept to compare/mental step to evaluate (safe/unsafe) based on observation (safety factor against threshold)) under MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(I)(C) and MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III). The claims do not disclose any additional limitations that integrate the judicial exception into practical application (Step 2A Prong 2) or contribute significantly more (Step 2B). Claim 13 related to accuracy, is rejected in a similar manner as claim 11-12, as it performs similar evaluation for the accuracy factor.
Claim 14 generically recites mining method to extract modes and transitions of the nth set of data. This is at best considered as mental step of extracting data to get modes and transitions based on the observed nth set of data. Further, under step 2A Prong 2, and step 2B, the mining analysis is not applied to any specific technology/technical field such that it leads to improvement in the technical field (see MPEP 2106.05(a)) and generic citation of cyber physical system in view of parent claim is field of use at best (See MPEP 2106.05(h)). The claim does not disclose any additional limitations that integrate the judicial exception into practical application (Step 2A Prong 2) or contribute significantly more (Step 2B). Claim 20 is rejected with similar rationale as claim 14.
Claim 15 recites identify, at the processor, one or more types of suggested operating data that can improve reconstruction of the nth reconstructed model;. This is considered a mental step (e.g. user suggests based on expert knowledge something that can improve reconstruction), under step 2A prong 1 & MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III). Claim 5 further recites display, at a display device in communication with the processor, information related to the one or more types of suggested operating data. Displaying information related to the one or more types of suggested operating data in most generic manner (with use of generic display and processor) is rejected as extra (post) – solution activity under MPEP 2106.05(g)/(f). The claim does not disclose any additional limitations that integrate the judicial exception into practical application (Step 2A Prong 2) or contribute significantly more (Step 2B).
Claim 16 performs the same analysis for nth subset and n+1th subset of data as in claim 1 and remains an abstract idea that is not applied to any practical application or adds significantly more to a technical field of use, as mapped in claim 1. The rejection here would be incorporated in similar manner as for claim 1 for n+1th data subset.
Claim 18 is rejected in similar manner as claim 6 as abstract idea to compute the risk score. The claim 18 may also be considered as an idea of solution (MPEP 2105.05(f)(1)) as claim does not disclose how the risk score is minimized. The claim does not disclose any additional limitations that integrate the judicial exception into practical application (Step 2A Prong 2) or contribute significantly more (Step 2B).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(a) Written Description Requirement
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.
Claims 1-20 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 pre-AIA the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
MPEP 2161.01 states:
For instance, generic claim language in the original disclosure does not satisfy the written description requirement if it fails to support the scope of the genus claimed. Ariad, 598 F.3d at 1349-50, 94 USPQ2d at 1171 ("[A]n adequate written description of a claimed genus requires more than a generic statement of an invention’s boundaries.") (citing Eli Lilly, 119 F.3d at 1568, 43 USPQ2d at 1405-06); Enzo Biochem, Inc. v. Gen-Probe, Inc., 323 F.3d 956, 968, 63 USPQ2d 1609, 1616 (Fed. Cir. 2002) (holding that generic claim language appearing in ipsis verbis in the original specification did not satisfy the written description requirement because it failed to support the scope of the genus claimed); Fiers v. Revel, 984 F.2d 1164, 1170, 25 USPQ2d 1601, 1606 (Fed. Cir. 1993) (rejecting the argument that "only similar language in the specification or original claims is necessary to satisfy the written description requirement").
Claim 1 recites:
1. A system, comprising: a processor in communication with a memory, the memory including instructions, which, when executed, cause the processor to:
(1) receive, at the processor, an nth subset of operating data descriptive of a cyber-physical system, the nth subset of operating data being a subset of a total set of operating data descriptive of the cyber- physical system, the nth subset of operating data being associated with a first utility score;
(2) reconstruct, at the processor, an nth reconstructed model of the cyber-physical system using the nth subset of operating data;
(3) evaluate, at the processor, a safety factor of the nth reconstructed model of the cyber-physical system;
(4) evaluate, at the processor, a second utility score associated with an accuracy factor of the nth reconstructed model and the safety factor of the nth reconstructed model; and
(5) identify, at the processor, an optimal subset of operating data of the total set of operating data descriptive of the cyber-physical system that results in collective optimization of the first utility score and the second utility score.
First, The specification lacks written description how the model is reconstructed. Taking the lane change embodiment as disclosed in specification [0037]. The model here is fashioned using set of equations recited in (1). However the specification [0037] [0049]-[0069] discussing automated lane change embodiment for the constructed model does not show how any of the core variables are reconstructed. Specifically Here the reconstructed values of velocity (v), position (s), steering (w) and acceleration (a) from the initial model ([0037]) are not shown as reconstructed.
Secondly, even if the variables a-g in [0064] Eqn(6) & (7) are considered as reconstructed values that are applied in Eqn(1), the specification lacks disclose how these are computed based on the nth subset of data. The basis or steps or algorithm that leads to computation of a-g is missing in the disclosure.
An Enablement rejection is not made as it cannot be ascertained what is not enabled. Specifically the algorithm that computes the reconstructed model of the cyber physical system (CPS), and more specifically algorithm that computes values of a-f in Eq. 6 and Eq.7 cannot be ascertained form the disclosure. Values at this point is related to trial and error or expert knowledge. See specification [0064]:
PNG
media_image1.png
194
652
media_image1.png
Greyscale
In reference to model disclosed in specification [0037]:
PNG
media_image2.png
572
644
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Thirdly, although the specification is replete with use of terms risk factor3, safety factor4, accuracy factor5, (A) none of the models are used to show how these factors are computed, (B) let alone how they are optimimzed (as in claim 1 step (5)) to come to identification of optimal subset of data. The risk factor related to monetary cost score, time cost score, human risk score, confidentiality risk score are only mentioned in claim 7. Specification fails to disclose how any of these factors or scores are computed, let alone based on the reconstructed model for any one of the embodiments. E.g. lane change embodiment does not mention any of these scores and how they are computed.
Claim 16 is rejected likewise.
Claim 14 recites
14. The system of claim 1, wherein the memory further includes instructions, which, when executed, cause the processor to: apply, at the processor, a cyber-physical system mining method to the nth subset of operating data resulting in the nth reconstructed model having an nth set of operating parameters including an nth set of response functions indicative of an nth set of modes and an nth set of mode transition conditions that dictate transitions between each mode of the nth set of modes.
The specification does not disclose use of the cyber physical mining method6 but fails to disclose what is this method. Generically illuding to Hymn7 lacks proper disclosure for any specific embodiment. Claim 20 reciting similar limitation is rejected with similar rationale.
Dependent claims 2-15 and 17-20 dependent on claim 1 and 16 respectively do not cure the deficiencies of claim 1 and 16 and therefore are rejected for inheriting those deficiencies.
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 1-20 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 1 recites:
1. A system, comprising: a processor in communication with a memory, the memory including instructions, which, when executed, cause the processor to:
(1) receive, at the processor, an nthsubset ofoperating data descriptive of a cyber-physical system, the nth subset of operating data being a subset of a total set of operating data descriptive of the cyber- physical system, the nthsubset ofoperating data being associated with a first utility score;
(2) reconstruct, at the processor, an nth reconstructed model of the cyber-physical system using the nth subset of operating data; [A]
(3) evaluate, at the processor, a safety factor of the nth reconstructed model of the cyber-physical system;
(4) evaluate, at the processor, a second utility score associated with an accuracy factor of the nth reconstructed model and the safety factor of the nth reconstructed model; and
(5) identify, at the processor, an optimal subset of operating data [B] of the total set of operating data descriptive of the cyber-physical system that results in collective optimization of the first utility score and the second utility score.
As per [A] reconstructing the nth reconstructed model would mean there is a model already existing. First, the claim does not disclose any model related to nth subset of operating data on basis of which the reconstructed model is made. Therefore it is unclear from where the model is reconstructed or what the model relates to (application?). Second, it is unclear what is the reconstructed model and how it is reconstructed. E.g. specification [0037] [0049]-[0069] discuss automated lane change embodiment. Here the reconstructed values of velocity (v), position (s), steering (w) and acceleration (a) from the initial model ([0037]) are not shown as reconstructed.
As per [B], First, the claim appears to be missing connection between the steps (3)-(4) which compute the safety and accuracy factors for nth subset and step (5) which does not involve any computation related to steps (3)-(4). Specifically step (5) appears to refer to total set of operating data to optimize the first utility score and the second utility score with no reference to nth subset. Secondly, the limitation of identifying … an optimal subset of operating data … that results in collective optimization of the first utility score and the second utility score is circular reference that does not determine how the optimization is achieved and how the optimal subset is chosen. Claim 16 is rejected likewise.
Claim 2 recites nth subset results in collective optimization of the first and second utility score. It is unclear how or what leads to determination that nth subset results in collective optimization. The claim lacks any metes and bounds and appears to adhoc determination that nth subset results in collective optimization. This claim, like claim 1, also does not disclose how collective optimization is performed for first and second utility score. Claim 4 performs the same limitation for n+1th subset and is rejected with similar rationale.
Claim 7 recites various risk scores, however it is unclear how these risk scores are calculated. The Specification lacks disclosure of any of these risk scores being disclosed and therefore computations and scope of these risk scores is indefinite.
Claim 8 recites the limitation "a safety factor" in relation to nth reconstructed model. Claim 8 depends on claim 1 which also “a safety factor” in relation to nth reconstructed model. The re-instatiation of “a safety factor” in claim 8 makes it unclear if this is same or different than claim 1.
Claim 11 recites “wherein the safety information includes an "unsafe" declaration of the nth reconstructed model indicating that the nth reconstructed model results in the safety factor meeting or exceeding a safety threshold value”. This appears counterintuitive to BRI. It appears applicant intended to state that this is “safe” not “unsafe”. The lack of clarity makes the claim indefinite.
Claim 15 recites “identify, at the processor, one or more types of suggested operating data8 that can improve reconstruction of the nth reconstructed model; and display, at a display device in communication with the processor, information related to the one or more types of suggested operating data”. It is unclear who or what suggests the operating data. Is this expert knowledge or the output of the mining operation (parent claim 14). How is the suggested operating data identified? Specification as noted in footnote is silent on this and therefore the claim in view disclosure is indefinite.
Dependent claims 2-15 and 17-20 dependent on claim 1 and 16 respectively do not cure the deficiencies of claim 1 and 16 and therefore are rejected for inheriting those deficiencies.
Relevant Prior Art of Record
NPL by Chuchu Fan et al (“DryVR: Data-driven verification and compositional reasoning for automotive systems”, dated 22 Feb 2017) disclose a system which performs verifying hybrid control systems that are described by a combination of a black-box simulator for trajectories and a white-box transition graph specifying mode switches (Abstract). The reconstructed model as claimed would relate to the learning discrepancy (Pg.11 §3.1.3) associated with total set of operating data (mapped as 10-20 traces), where each trace has 10-10000 time points.
PNG
media_image3.png
428
922
media_image3.png
Greyscale
The safety factor is computed with Safety Verification algorithm (Pg.2 §3.3) via GraphReach (Claim 9 mapped in §3.2). The accuracy score would be equivalent to correctness (Pg.12)
PNG
media_image4.png
182
944
media_image4.png
Greyscale
The Fan prior art also uses the lane change operation (Fan: Pg.2) and generates the graph with transitions (as in claim 14 mapped to Fan Fig.1)
PNG
media_image5.png
302
882
media_image5.png
Greyscale
The detailed mapping of the claim 1 and 16 is not made as prior art rejected because details of the model reconstruction (issues with 35 USC 112 1st and 2nd) cannot be clearly resolved.
US PGPUB No. 20250013921 by Moradi; Farnaz et al. teaches source machine learning (ML) model selection for the transfer learning. A method may include receiving a source ML model request from a target domain, determining candidate source ML models, calculating a model quality score for each of the candidate source ML models, using the calculated model quality scores to select candidate source ML models, sending the selected candidate source ML models to the target domain, receiving fine-tuned ML model weights for fine-tuned ML models, and calculating a model quality score for each of the fine-tuned ML models.
PNG
media_image6.png
1174
942
media_image6.png
Greyscale
US 11991050 B2 by Hicks; Andrew C. M. et al. teaches Model 402 (e.g., a first model) and model 404 (e.g., a second model) can be deployed in a traffic camera in the first US state to detect license plates of the first US state. For example, model 402 and model 404 can ingest new data 103 wherein new data 103 can comprise license plates of the first US state, the second US state and other US states. Model 402 can generate output 503 wherein output 503 can be analyzed by verification component 108 to verify that model 402 can exhibit about a 97% accuracy (i.e., first accuracy 506) in detecting license plates of the first US state in real-time. Similarly, model 404 can generate output 505 wherein output 505 can be analyzed by verification component 108 to verify that model 404 can exhibit about an 85% accuracy (i.e., second accuracy 508) in detecting license plates of the first US state in real-time. Computation component 110 (FIG. 1) can generate a second ratio (e.g., second ratio 117) wherein the second ratio can be a ratio of first accuracy 506 and second accuracy 508 (about 1.141), to enable detection of data drift in an edge device (e.g., edge device 120 of FIG. 1) deployed without network connectivity.
PNG
media_image7.png
792
726
media_image7.png
Greyscale
---- This page is left blank after this line ----
Conclusion
All claims are rejected.
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Examiner’s Note: Examiner has cited particular columns and line numbers in the references applied to the claims above for the convenience of the applicant. Although the specified citations are representative of the teachings of the art and are applied to specific limitations within the individual claim, other passages and figures may apply as well. It is respectfully requested from the applicant in preparing responses, to fully consider the references in their entirety as potentially teaching all or part of the claimed invention, as well as the context of the passage as taught by the prior art or disclosed by the Examiner.
In the case of amending the claimed invention, Applicant is respectfully requested to indicate the portion(s) of the specification which dictate(s) the structure relied on for proper interpretation and also to verify and ascertain the metes and bounds of the claimed invention.
---- This page is left blank after this line ----
Communication
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to AKASH SAXENA whose telephone number is (571)272-8351. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri, 7AM-3:30PM.
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, RYAN PITARO can be reached on (571) 272-4071. 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.
AKASH SAXENA
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2188
/AKASH SAXENA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2188 Saturday, November 29, 2025
1 Specification [0028] "... The reconstructed model 240 can include sets of response functions, sets of modes and sets of mode transition conditions descriptive of the CPS...."
2 Specification [0035] showing sample model for the lane change system.
3 Risk factor in specification ¶[0090] and claims
4 Safety factor in specification ¶[0028], [0040], [0070], [0092]-[0094] and claims
5 Accuracy factor in specification ¶[0028]-[0033], [0040], [0054], [0065] and [0094] and in claims
6 Cyberphysical mining method in specification ¶[0028] [0030] [0049] [0091]
7 Hymn (see IDS filed 3/29/23 reference 7) is not directed to lane change application as in the current disclosure.
8 “suggested operating data” in specification ¶[0049][0090]