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 24 September 2025. THIS ACTION IS NON-FINAL.
Status of Claims
Claims 1-6 are pending.
Claim 6 is withdrawn.
Claim 1-5 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 1-5.
Election by Original Presentation
Newly submitted independent claims 6 directed to an invention that is independent or distinct from the invention originally claimed for the following reasons:
the invention originally claimed (claims 1-5) is directed to a system or method of a mixed environment including base stations, relays and mobile stations. The originally presented invention is newly amended to further include a device that monitors an area using seeking beam transmissions for detecting people or obstacles in the area. (ABbr)
The newly submitted claim 6 is directed to a device monitoring an area using seeking beams for detecting people or obstacles in the area, with more details that are not recited in the original invention. For example, limitations “partly on direct line of sight access” in claim 181, “partly on indirect bank shot access” in claim 182, and “partly on sender device accessibility monitored by at least one sender device” in claim 183, are more specific than the original inventions. (Bsp)
The relationship between the originally presented invention claims 1-5 (Group I) and the newly submitted independent claim 6 (Group II) is a combination sub-combination relationship. Inventions in this relationship are distinct if it can be shown that (1) the combination as claimed does not require the particulars of the subcombination as claimed for patentability, and (2) that the subcombination has utility by itself or in other combinations (MPEP § 806.05(c)). In the instant case, the subcombination as claimed in I, II, each has separate utility by itself, therefore they groups I, II are distinct inventions.
Since applicant has received an action on the merits for the originally presented invention, this invention has been constructively elected by original presentation for prosecution on the merits. Accordingly, claims 181-183 are withdrawn from consideration as being directed to a non-elected invention. See 37 CFR 1.142(b) and MPEP § 821.03.
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 1-5 of the claimed invention are directed to a judicial exception, an abstract idea, without significantly more.
Regarding claims 1-5
(Independent Claims)
With regards to claim 1, the claim recites a process, which falls into one of the statutory categories.
2A – Prong 1: the claim, in part, recites “the inter-class sampling is performed through reverse self-paced learning with diversity, specifically the reverse self-paced learning with diversity algorithm is shown below: input: target data set D output: model parameter w,
PNG
media_image1.png
472
922
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
337
933
media_image2.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image3.png
418
862
media_image3.png
Greyscale
” (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, “performed”, “assigning”, “selecting”, “compiling in the limitation citied above could be performed by a human mind with possible aid of pencil / paper / calculator, but for the recitation of a generic computer component (e.g., a human statistical analyst could prepare data samples for statistical prediction models based on certain procedure). 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 (processor, memory coupled to processor) (merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea, MPEP 2106.05(f)); (c) “training a deep neural network model by using the lightweight training data set, thereby reducing computational resource consumption and training time required for training the deep neural network model…” (mere instructions to apply an exception (MPEP 2106.05(f))). For (a), 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). For (b), it appeared that this limitation is using computer to implement a classification model. These limitations are recited at a high-level of generality such that it amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component, 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 is mere instructions to apply an exception (MPEP 2106.05(f)). The additional element of “training a deep neural network model by using the lightweight training data set, thereby reducing computational resource consumption and training time required for training the deep neural network model …” amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer system which does not provide an inventive concept (See 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 are dependent on claim 1and include all the limitations of claim 1. Therefore, claims 2-5 recite the same abstract ideas.
With regards to claim 2, the claim further includes limitation …
PNG
media_image4.png
203
858
media_image4.png
Greyscale
which is further steps for on data sample processing, which is directed to a mental process and/or math concept. There is no additional element adding anything significantly more to the abstract idea. The claim is not patent eligible.
With regards to claim 3, the claim further includes limitation …
PNG
media_image5.png
157
918
media_image5.png
Greyscale
which is further steps for on data sample processing, which is directed to a mental process and/or math concept. There is no additional element adding anything significantly more to the abstract idea. The claim is not patent eligible.
With regards to claim 4, the claim further includes limitation …
PNG
media_image6.png
286
886
media_image6.png
Greyscale
which is further steps for on data sample processing, which is directed to a mental process and/or math concept. There is no additional element adding anything significantly more to the abstract idea. The claim is not patent eligible.
With regards to claim 5, the claim further includes limitation
PNG
media_image7.png
728
898
media_image7.png
Greyscale
which is further steps for on data sample processing, which is directed to a mental process and/or math concept. 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 24 September 2025 has been fully considered but they are not fully persuasive.
Regarding 101 rejections,
1)Applicant argued that (p.6-7) ….
PNG
media_image8.png
228
991
media_image8.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image9.png
392
987
media_image9.png
Greyscale
Examiner replies: the additional element of training in the amended claim is mere application of judiciary exception (MPEP 2106.05(f)) as analyzed in the 101 rejection section.
2) Applicant argued that (p.7-8) ….
PNG
media_image10.png
225
986
media_image10.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image11.png
408
1001
media_image11.png
Greyscale
Examiner replies: as stated in the 101 rejection section, the process of simplifying training data is something that human mind can perform, hence is an abstract idea. It is natural result to reduce computer resource when data is simplified. Here computer is used to implement the abstract idea and there is no improvement of computer itself. 101 rejection is maintained.
3) 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
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, 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