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 .
DETAILED ACTION
This is Final Office Action in responses to Applicant’s Remarks filed 10/01/2025. It is noted the current Patent Application was filed 09/15/2022.
Claim(s) 1-25 are pending. Claim(s) 1-25 were original. Claim(s) 1, 7, 14 and 20 are independent.
In addition, in the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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.
Claim(s) 1-25 fail to recite statutory subject matter, as defined in 35 U.S.C. 101, because:
The claimed invention is/are directed to a judicial exception (i.e., abstract idea) without significantly more.
The independent claim(s) 1, 7, 14 and 20 recite a computing processes/system/apparatus/medium comprising: a data storage to store input data that includes a plurality of portions, wherein a subset of the plurality of portions collectively represents a first action; and
a controller implemented in one or more of configurable logic or fixed-functionality logic,
wherein the controller is to: identify, with a neural network, that a predetermined amount of the first action is completed at a first portion of the plurality of portions,
generate a first loss based on the predetermined amount of the first action being identified as being completed at the first portion, and update the neural network based on the first loss......
is/are device/method/medium that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind (i.e., Mathematical concepts – mathematical relationships, mathematical formulas or equations, mathematical calculations) …wherein the claim(s) recite only the idea of a solution or outcome (i.e., calculates the lower bound of the generated likelihood function to be approximated by Gaussian are in contact and calculates the lower bounds of the set covariances; which is a high level of Mathematical concepts – mathematical relationships, mathematical formulas or equations, mathematical calculation) moreover, the claim(s) fail to recite the details of how a solution to a problem is/are accomplished (MPEP § 2106.05 (f))… but for the recitation of generic computer component (i.e., device/medium) …(see also the specifications PGPUB 20230010230 A1- the Abstract. i.e., neural network, that a predetermined amount of a first action is completed at a first portion of a plurality of portions and Para(s) 2, 14, 17-19 for details of the broadest reasonable interpretation...Also, (the calculation which are resulted from equations 1 through 6 as describe in Para(s) 36-51).
Moreover, see the Examiner “Subject Matter Eligibility Test for products and Processes” for details:
Step 1: YES (Claim(s) is/are claim(s) 1, 7, 14 and 20 recite a computing proses/system/apparatus/medium comprising: a data storage to store input data that includes a plurality of portions, wherein a subset of the plurality of portions collectively represents a first action; and a controller implemented in one or more of configurable logic or fixed-functionality logic, wherein the controller is to: identify, with a neural network, that a predetermined amount of the first action is completed at a first portion of the plurality of portions, generate a first loss based on the predetermined amount of the first action being identified as being completed at the first portion, and update the neural network based on the first loss......Thus, Claim(s) is/are process, machine, manufacture or composition of the matter) as required for 101 statutory Step 1, Subject Matter Eligibility... (MPEP § 2106, subsection III, Step 1)
Step 2A : 2106.04 (II) (A) (Does the claim recites an Abstract idea. Law of nature or natural phenomenon? YES… , the claim(s) recite a computing proses/system/apparatus/medium comprising: a data storage to store input data that includes a plurality of portions, wherein a subset of the plurality of portions collectively represents a first action; and a controller implemented in one or more of configurable logic or fixed-functionality logic, wherein the controller is to: identify, with a neural network, that a predetermined amount of the first action is completed at a first portion of the plurality of portions, generate a first loss based on the predetermined amount of the first action being identified as being completed at the first portion, and update the neural network based on the first loss... is/are proses/system/apparatus/medium that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind (i.e., Mathematical concepts – mathematical relationships, mathematical formulas or equations, mathematical calculations) …wherein the claim(s) recite only the idea of a solution or outcome (i.e., calculates the fixed-functionality logic and generate a first loss based on the predetermined amount of the first action being identified as being completed at the first portion, and update the neural network based on the first loss...by applied the resulted from Middle Frame Prediction Loss (MFPL) function....) ; which is a high level of Mathematical concepts – mathematical relationships, mathematical formulas or equations, mathematical calculation) moreover, the claim(s) fail to recite the details of how a solution to a problem is/are accomplished (MPEP § 2106.05 (f))… but for the recitation of generic computer component (i.e., proses/system/apparatus/medium) …( see also the specifications PGPUB 20230010230 A1- the Abstract. i.e., neural network, that a predetermined amount of a first action is completed at a first portion of a plurality of portions and Para(s) 2, 14, 17-19 for details of the broadest reasonable interpretation...Also, (the calculation which are resulted from equations 1 through 6 as describe in Para(s) 36-51). Thus, the claim(s) recite Abstract Idea.
Prong One: ( whether a claim recites a judicial exception ?), the claim(s) recite a computing proses/system/apparatus/medium comprising: a data storage to store input data that includes a plurality of portions, wherein a subset of the plurality of portions collectively represents a first action; and a controller implemented in one or more of configurable logic or fixed-functionality logic, wherein the controller is to: identify, with a neural network, that a predetermined amount of the first action is completed at a first portion of the plurality of portions, generate a first loss based on the predetermined amount of the first action being identified as being completed at the first portion, and update the neural network based on the first loss…( see also the specifications PGPUB 20230010230 A1- the Abstract. i.e., neural network, that a predetermined amount of a first action is completed at a first portion of a plurality of portions and Para(s) 2, 14 ... i.e., segmentation across challenging, long duration data (e.g., videos and audio recordings)... wherein the Middle Frame Prediction Loss (MFPL) function component elicits an auxiliary label prediction (e.g., a label prediction that is implicitly correlated with the primary task of segmentation and classification) for action frame “completion points” (e.g., a midpoint, a portion at which a predetermined amount of the action is completed, etc.). Such action frame completion points may correspond to a middle frame index (e.g., 50% of action is completed) of a contiguous individual action sequence. For example, if an “action a” comprises a sequence of 100 consecutive frames, then the model may predict frame index 50 as the “middle frame.” The middle frame may however be different from half the total number of frames for an action. For example, in some cases parts of the task may be executed more slowly due to constraints (e.g., waiting for parts, resting between arduous portions of the action, power constraints in automated environments, pauses to avoid interference from other machinery, etc.), or be executed more quickly. Thus, the midpoint of an action (e.g., screwing in a screw) may not always be at exactly at the middle (e.g., fifth frame) of a segment (e.g., ten frames long). Moreover, in Para 17-19, i.e., neural network 108 may be expected to determine whether each frame of the input data 102 corresponds to a completion point where an amount of a respective action is completed. It will be understood that the input data 102 may include only a single action in some embodiment...wherein first portion 102a, the second feature set 106b may correspond to the second portion 102b, the N feature set 106n may correspond to the N portion 102n and so forth......Also, (the calculation which are resulted from equations 1 through 6 as describe in Para(s) 36-51. i.e., calculates the fixed-functionality logic and generate a first loss based on the predetermined amount of the first action being identified as being completed at the first portion, and update the neural network based on the first loss...by applied the resulted from Middle Frame Prediction Loss (MFPL) function....) ; which is a high level of Mathematical concepts – mathematical relationships, mathematical formulas or equations, mathematical calculation) moreover, the claim(s) fail to recite the details of how a solution to a problem is/are accomplished (MPEP § 2106.05 (f))…. Thus, it is Abstract idea (the claim do not recite a judicial exception as describe in Step 2A Prong One).
Moreover, it is noted MPEP 2106.04 (a) (2) : The enumerated groupings of abstract ideas are defined as:
1) Mathematical concepts – mathematical relationships, mathematical formulas or equations, mathematical calculations (see MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2), subsection I); ...and 3) Mental processes – concepts performed in the human mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion) (see MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2), subsection III). Thus, the claim(s) recite Abstract Idea.
Prong two: (Do the claim(s) recite “additional element(s) that integrate the “Judicial Exception” into “A Practical Application” ? The claim(s) recite the additional elements are: “computing proses/system/apparatus/medium”… configured to execute the instructions to: calculates the fixed-functionality logic and generate a first loss based on the predetermined amount of the first action being identified as being completed at the first portion, and update the neural network based on the first loss...by applied the resulted from Middle Frame Prediction Loss (MFPL) function.... These limitations only amount to insignificant extra-solution activity of data gathering (MPEP 2106.05(g)). The “APPLY IT” and serving of data are not apply it limitations, but rather data gathering. wherein the claim(s) invoke computers or other machinery merely as a tool to perform an existing process. Use of a computer or other machinery in its ordinary capacity for economic or other tasks (e.g., to receive, store, or transmit data) or simply adding a general purpose computer or computer components after the fact to an abstract idea (e.g., a fundamental economic practice or mathematical equation) does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more. See Affinity Labs v. DirecTV, 838 F.3d 1253, 1262, 120 USPQ2d 1201, 1207 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (cellular telephone); TLI Communications LLC v. AV Auto, LLC, 823 F.3d 607, 613, 118 USPQ2d 1744, 1748 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (computer server and telephone unit). Similarly, "claiming the improved speed or efficiency inherent with applying the abstract idea on a computer" does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide an inventive concept. Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Capital One Bank (USA), 792 F.3d 1363, 1367, 115 USPQ2d 1636, 1639 (Fed. Cir. 2015). In contrast, a claim that purports to improve computer capabilities or to improve an existing technology may integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more. McRO, Inc. v. Bandai Namco Games Am. Inc., 837 F.3d 1299, 1314-15, 120 USPQ2d 1091, 1101-02 (Fed. Cir. 2016); Enfish, LLC v. Microsoft Corp., 822 F.3d 1327, 1335-36, 118 USPQ2d 1684, 1688-89 (Fed. Cir. 2016). See MPEP §§ 2106.04(d)(1) and 2106.05(a) for a discussion of improvements to the functioning of a computer or to another technology or technical field (See 2106.05(f) “Mere Instructions To Apply An Exception [R-10.2019]” ).…( see also the specifications PGPUB 20230010230 A1- the Abstract. i.e., neural network, that a predetermined amount of a first action is completed at a first portion of a plurality of portions and Para(s) 2, 14, 17-19 for details of the broadest reasonable interpretation...Also, (the calculation which are resulted from equations 1 through 6 as describe in Para(s) 36-51). Thus, NO, the additional element does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. (MPEP 2106.04 (d) (2)).
Step 2B: MPEP 2106.05 (a) through (h) [Whether a Claim Amounts to Significantly More] ? [an "inventive concept" is furnished by an element or combination of elements that is recited in the claim in addition to (beyond) the judicial exception, and is sufficient to ensure that the claim as a whole amounts to significantly more than the judicial exception itself. Alice Corp., 573 U.S. at 27-18, 110 USPQ2d at 1981 (citing Mayo, 566 U.S. at 72-73, 101 USPQ2d at 1966). The Claim(s) include “computing proses/system/apparatus/medium”… configured to execute the instructions to: calculates the fixed-functionality logic and generate a first loss based on the predetermined amount of the first action being identified as being completed at the first portion, and update the neural network based on the first loss...by applied the resulted from Middle Frame Prediction Loss (MFPL) function...which is high level mathematical concept(s); wherein. (i.e., Applying the judicial exception with, or by use of, a particular machine)...i. Adding the words "apply it" (or an equivalent...[i.e., [by Middle Frame Prediction Loss (MFPL) function] ) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, e.g., a limitation indicating that a particular function such as Middle Frame Prediction Loss (MFPL) function is performed by a computing proses/system/apparatus/medium, as discussed in Alice Corp., 573 U.S. at 225-26, 110 USPQ2d at 1984 (see MPEP § 2106.05(f)).
Moreover, only amount to insignificant extra-solution activity of data gathering (MPEP 2106.05(g)) and/or concepts performed in the human mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion) (see MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2), subsection III. Thus, NO, the additional element does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. obtaining data to be processed (“apply it”) and ...to be executed;
As to the dependent claim(s) 2-6, 8-13, 14-19 and 21-25, do not include elements that amount to significantly more than the abstract idea and are also rejected under the same rational....(i.e., vector(s), convolution layers, loss based on the segments and the action labels, video data or audio data, temporal convolutional network, ground truth, comparing vector(s) ...etc.,) …( see also the specifications PGPUB 20230010230 A1- the Abstract. i.e., neural network, that a predetermined amount of a first action is completed at a first portion of a plurality of portions and Para(s) 2, 14 ... i.e., segmentation across challenging, long duration data (e.g., videos and audio recordings)... wherein the Middle Frame Prediction Loss (MFPL) function component elicits an auxiliary label prediction (e.g., a label prediction that is implicitly correlated with the primary task of segmentation and classification) for action frame “completion points” (e.g., a midpoint, a portion at which a predetermined amount of the action is completed, etc.). Such action frame completion points may correspond to a middle frame index (e.g., 50% of action is completed) of a contiguous individual action sequence. For example, if an “action a” comprises a sequence of 100 consecutive frames, then the model may predict frame index 50 as the “middle frame.” The middle frame may however be different from half the total number of frames for an action. For example, in some cases parts of the task may be executed more slowly due to constraints (e.g., waiting for parts, resting between arduous portions of the action, power constraints in automated environments, pauses to avoid interference from other machinery, etc.), or be executed more quickly. Thus, the midpoint of an action (e.g., screwing in a screw) may not always be at exactly at the middle (e.g., fifth frame) of a segment (e.g., ten frames long). Moreover, in Para 17-19, i.e., neural network 108 may be expected to determine whether each frame of the input data 102 corresponds to a completion point where an amount of a respective action is completed. It will be understood that the input data 102 may include only a single action in some embodiment...wherein first portion 102a, the second feature set 106b may correspond to the second portion 102b, the N feature set 106n may correspond to the N portion 102n and so forth......Also, (the calculation which are resulted from equations 1 through 6 as describe in Para(s) 36-51. i.e., calculates the fixed-functionality logic and generate a first loss based on the predetermined amount of the first action being identified as being completed at the first portion, and update the neural network based on the first loss...by applied the resulted from Middle Frame Prediction Loss (MFPL) function....)
Applying the judicial exception with, or by use of, a particular machine)... with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, e.g., a limitation indicating that a particular function such as creating and maintaining electronic records is performed by a computer, as discussed in Alice Corp., 573 U.S. at 225-26, 110 USPQ2d at 1984 (see MPEP § 2106.05(f)). Moreover, only amount to insignificant extra-solution activity of data gathering (MPEP 2106.05(g)) and/or concepts performed in the human mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion) (see MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2), subsection III.... Thus, NO, the additional element does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Accordingly, claims 1-25 fail to recite statutory subject matter, as defined in 35 U.S.C. 101.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim(s) 1-25 would be allowable if rewritten and/or amending to remedy the 101 rejection(s).
Response to Arguments/Remarks
Applicant's arguments filed 10/01/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Because:
Applicant argues, that claims 1-25 rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 101 as being direct to nonpatentable subject matter should be “traversed” because:
“...The present claims do improve computer functionality. For example, in claim 1, as noted in paragraph [0033], the acts to be performed by the controller “may result in a more stable measurement of the extent and time of action segments during inference” and may “capture[[s]] a signal (e.g., action midpoints) that is far less noisy than conventional attempts to explicitly infer action transition points without auxiliary training.” [See the remarks pages 9/10 second and third paragraph(s) and pages 8/10 the first and second paragraphs.
The examiner disagrees. As discussed in the rejection above, claims 1-25 are fails to recite statutory subject matter, as defined in 35 U.S.C. 101, because: The claimed invention is/are directed to a judicial exception (i.e., abstract idea) without significantly more. Moreover,
Step 1: YES (Claim(s) is/are process, machine, manufacture or composition of the matter). ... system (claim 1) apparatus (claim 7) computer readable storage medium (claim 14) and processes (claim 20) ... a data storage to “store input” data that includes a plurality of portions, wherein a subset of the plurality of portions “collectively” represents a first action; and a “controller” implemented in one or more of “configurable logic” or “fixed-functionality logic”, wherein the controller is to: “identify”, with a neural network, that a “predetermined” amount of the first action is completed at a first portion of the plurality of portions, “generate” a first loss based on the predetermined amount of the first action being “identified” as being completed at the first portion, and “update” the neural network based on the first loss .... and therefore, fall into one of the four categories of patent eligible subject matter (process, machine, manufacture or composition of the matter).
Step 2A : Prong One: ( whether a claim recites a judicial exception ?) the claim(s) recites processes/device/medium... for “identifying” , with a neural network, that a predetermined amount of a first action is completed at a first portion of a plurality of portions, wherein a subset of the plurality of portions collectively represents the first action; “generating” a first loss based on the predetermined amount of the first action being identified as being completed at the first portion; and “updating” the neural network based on the first loss (claim(s) 20, 1, 7 and 14) .... These limitation(s) recite mental processes and mathematical concepts (mathematical calculations).... [See the current specification in USPGPUB 20230010230 A1 Para(s) 35-37, 41-43, 45, 49 also see equation(s) (1) through (6) ...], moreover, the claim(s) recite only the idea of a solution or outcome i.e., “generate” a first loss based on the predetermined amount of the first action being “identified” as being completed at the first portion, and “update” the neural network based on the first loss... [“APPLY IT”] ).
Step 2A : Prong Two: (Do the claim(s) recite “additional element(s) that integrate the “Judicial Exception” into “A Practical Application” ? The claim(s) recite additional limitation(s) such as “computer system” , “apparatus” and/or “computer readable storage medium “...for “identifying” , with a neural network, that a predetermined amount of a first action is completed at a first portion of a plurality of portions, wherein a subset of the plurality of portions collectively represents the first action; “generating” a first loss based on the predetermined amount of the first action being identified as being completed at the first portion; and “updating” the neural network based on the first loss...
These limitation(s) only recite a generic computer component(s) that only amounts to mere instructions to implement the abstract idea on a computer, and therefore, do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. (MPEP 2106.04(d), 2106.05(f)).
Step 2B: (Whether a Claim Amounts to Significantly More) ? The claim(s) recite additional limitation(s) computer system” , “apparatus” and/or “computer readable storage medium “...for “identifying” , with a neural network, that a predetermined amount of a first action is completed at a first portion of a plurality of portions, wherein a subset of the plurality of portions collectively represents the first action; “generating” a first loss based on the predetermined amount of the first action being identified as being completed at the first portion; and “updating” the neural network based on the first loss...
These limitation(s) only recite a generic computer component(s) that only amounts to mere instructions to implement the abstract idea on a computer, and therefore, do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself (MPEP 2106.05, 2106.04(d) and 2106.05(f)).
As to the dependent claim(s) 2-6, 8-13, 15-19 and 21-25, further recite, addition limitation(s) such as, vector(s), subset, action , ground truth, output, convolutions on the output, convolution layers, identify segments, action labels, first/second losses, video data or audio data, temporal convolutional network, a midpoint of the action(s).... etc.,
These limitation(s) only amounts to mere instructions to implement the abstract idea ...and do not include elements that amount to significantly more than the abstract idea and are also rejected under the same rational.
Accordingly, claims 1-25 fail to recite statutory subject matter, as defined in 35 U.S.C. 101.
Accordingly, for at least all the above evidence claims 1-25 remain rejected.
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 QUOC A TRAN whose telephone number is (571)272-8664. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9am-5pm EST.
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, Cesar Paula can be reached at 571-272-4128. 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.
/QUOC A TRAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2145