DETAILED ACTION
This action is in response to the Applicant Response filed 19 January 2026 for application 17/956,531 filed 29 September 2022.
Claim(s) 1-7, 10-16, 19-20 is/are currently amended.
Claim(s) 21-24 is/are new.
Claim(s) 8-9, 17-18 is/are cancelled.
Claim(s) 1-7, 10-16, 19-24 is/are pending.
Claim(s) 21, 23 is/are rejected.
Claim(s) 1-7, 10-16, 19-20, 22, 24 are allowed.
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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 19 January 2026 has been entered.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments regarding the objections to the claims have been fully considered and, in light of the amendments to the claims, are persuasive. However, in light of the amendments to the claims, new claim objections have arisen, as noted below.
Applicant's arguments regarding the 35 U.S.C. 101 rejection(s) of claim(s) 1-7, 10-16, 19-20 have been fully considered and, in light of the amendments to the claims, are persuasive. The 35 U.S.C. 101 rejection(s) of claim(s) 1-7, 10-16, 19-20 has/have been withdrawn.
Applicant's arguments regarding the 35 U.S.C. 103 rejection(s) of claim(s) 1-3, 7, 10-12, 16, 20 have been fully considered and, in light of the amendments to the claims, are persuasive. The 35 U.S.C. 103 rejection(s) of claim(s) 1-3, 7, 10-12, 16, 20 has/have been withdrawn.
Claim Objections
Claim(s) 15, 19-20 is/are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 15, lines 3-4, having an effected below should read “having calculated effects below”
Claim 19, line 2, with the effects should read “with the calculated effects”
Claim 20, lines 16-17, to predict the aggregated error signal should read “to predict the aggregated error prediction signal”
Appropriate correction is required.
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 21, 23 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.
Claim 21 recites wherein the identifying the sub-optimal pocket comprises partitioning the feature space into a plurality of bounded regions based on feature comparison conditions defined by paths of the ensemble decision tree model, and identifying a bounded region in which aggregated residuals exceed a threshold. However, the specification does not provide support for partitioning a feature space into regions or identifying a region based on exceeded thresholds. Th only mention of regions in the specification discloses determining rules based on a suboptimal region and providing improved rules (Specification, [0048]). Correction or clarification is required.
Claim 23 recites wherein the adjusting the predicted output comprises adjusting the predicted output using a post model execution layer that operates separately from the machine learning model. However, the specification does not provide support for a post model execution layer. The specification discloses a model enhancement engine which include various modules in the prediction adjustment process (Specification, [0032]-[0035], [0071]-[0072]; Figures 1-2), but does not provide support for, much less mention, a post model execution layer. Correction or clarification is required.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim(s) 1-7, 10-16, 19-20, 22, 24 are allowed.
The following is an examiner’s statement of reasons for allowance: in view of claim(s) 1, 10, 20 and further search, claim(s) 1, 10, 20 is/are considered allowable since when reading the claim(s) in light of the specification, as per MPEP 2111.01, none of the references of record either alone or in combination fairly disclose or suggest the combination of limitations specified in the independent claim(s).
Regarding the limitation(s) of claim(s) 1, 10, 20 which do(es) not appear to be taught by the prior art: Lindauer et al. teaches using random forest to optimize prediction models. Holmes teaches generating rules from decision trees and adjusting prediction values associated with the rules. Idesawa et al. teaches using decision trees to update parameters of a network based on the input data.
However, the claim(s) in the application is/are deemed to be directed to a nonobvious improvement over the prior art of record. As noted above, the independent claim(s) comprise(s) identifying suboptimal pockets of data where the difference between outputs indicates elevated errors, training an ensemble decision tree model to predict the errors, using the ensemble decision tree model to generate rules to identify inputs creating the suboptimal pockets and adjusting the predicted output for the inputs.
Therefore, the cited/applied prior art fails to teach or suggest each and every feature of each of the combination of features recited in independent claim(s) 1, 10, 20.
When taken into context, the claim(s) as a whole were not uncovered in the prior art; i.e., all dependent claims which depend from claim(s) 1, 10, 20 (except those explicitly rejected above) are allowed as they depend upon an allowable independent claim.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communication from the examiner should be directed to MARSHALL WERNER whose telephone number is (469) 295-9143. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday – Thursday 7:30 AM – 4:30 PM ET.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Kamran Afshar, can be reached at (571) 272-7796. The fax 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.
/MARSHALL L WERNER/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2125
Prosecution Insights