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 .
1. In response to the Office Action dated on 08/18/2025, applicant(s) amend the application as follow:
Claims amended: 1 and 18
Claims canceled: 2 and 19
Claims newly added: none
Claims pending: 1, 3-18 and 20
Response to Arguments
2. Applicant's arguments filed have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
On pages 7-8, applicants has explained the additional elements provide multiple improvements to the technical field of (loT) and detections device. First, existing…” There is technical improvement to the technical field; however, the claims as amended using detecting model to and the combination of devices to solve the ML task but the claim language direct to high level abstract generalization even with the claimed claim language.
Applicant argues “independent claims 1 and 18 have been amended to include the subject matter of dependent claims 2 and 19. These dependent claims further clarify that the capability parameter comprises one or more of a memory capacity parameter, a processing capacity parameter ,a software capability parameter…”
Examiner respectfully disagrees with the above argument. Kim disclosed a problem solving capability which also include other as applicant’s claim capability parameter The comprises one or more of a memory capacity parameter, a processing capability parameter… The capability parameter including amended language is vague and generalization which any ordinary skill in the art would understand the problem-solving capability as disclosed in Kim also includes these capability parameters.
Applicant also argues “accordingly, Tian also fails to disclose the capability parameter comprises one or more of: a memory capability parameter, a processing capability parameter, a software capability parameter and a battery capability parameter>” Examiner respectfully disagrees with the above argument. Tian discloses a device capabilities including hardware capability of the printer which met the processing capability parameters.
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
therefore, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1, 3-18 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1 (See MPEP 2106)
Claims 1, 3-18 and 20 are directed to a system and method which belongs to a statutory class.
Step 2A, Prong One:
Claims 1 and 18 recite "determine, based on the plurality of capability parameters, a
first cluster of one or more electronic devices; determine, based on the capability parameter of
each of the one or more electronic devices of the first cluster, a first configuration parameter for
obtaining a first detection model to be applied by one or more electronic devices of the first
cluster; determine, based on a proximity parameter, a second cluster of electronic devices;
determine, based on the detection data, a performance parameter of the first detection model
when running on an electronic device of the second cluster: determine, based on the
performance parameter, a second configuration parameter for the first detection model to
provide an updated first detection model" which are process that, under its broadest reasonable
interpretation, covers performance of the limitation by Mental Process, but for the recitation of
generic computer components. Nothing in the claim element precludes the steps from
practically being performed in the human mind. If a claim limitation, under its broadest
reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation by mental process, but for the
recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the "Mental Processes" grouping
of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
This judicial exception, i.e., the mental process, is not integrated into a practical
application. In particular, the claims only recite additional elements - "obtain first data comprising
a plurality of electronic device identifiers, wherein the capability parameter comprises one or more of a memory capability parameter, a processing capability parameter, a software capability parameter, and a battery capability parameter and a plurality of capability parameters comprising for each electronic device a capability parameter indicative of a capability of a corresponding electronic device of the plurality of electronic devices, transmit the first detection model to the one or more electronic devices of the first cluster, obtain, from the second cluster, detection data obtained by one or more electronic devices of the second cluster by applying the first detection model, transmitting the updated first detection model to one or more electronic
devices of the second cluster" These elements are recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as a
generic processor performing a generic computer function amounts no more than mere
instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. The processing
environments perform a generic function of computing/processing queries. Accordingly, this
additional element does 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.
Step 2A, Prong Two:
Claim 1, the limitation "an electronic device comprising: memory circuitry, processor
circuitry, and interface circuitry" are generic computer component to perform on the device. The
user is performing the mental steps of selecting inputted information for processing, by using the
computer as a generic tool. See MPEP 2106. 04. (a)(2).III.C. 2106.05(a),2106.05(c)-(d) II.
The limitation is thus insignificant extra-solution activity. Limitations that the courts have
found not to be enough to qualify as "significantly more" when recited in a claim with a judicial
exception include: i. Adding the words "apply it" (or an equivalent) 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., 134 S. Ct. at 2360, 110 USPQ2d at 1984 (see
MPEP § 2106.05(f)). 2106.05(g)-Insignificant Extra-Solution Activity.
Step 2B:
The steps of "obtain first data comprising a plurality of electronic device identifiers and a
plurality of capability parameters comprising for each electronic device a capability parameter
indicative of a capability of a corresponding electronic device of the plurality of electronic
devices, transmit the first detection model to the one or more electronic devices of the first
cluster, obtain, from the second cluster, detection data obtained by one or more electronic
devices of the second cluster by applying the first detection model, transmitting the updated first
detection model to one or more electronic devices of the second cluster" and remaining steps as
a whole does not amount to significantly more.
As to claims 3 and 20, the limitation "wherein the determination of the first configuration
parameter of the first detection model comprises to determine one or more of: a model size, a
model architecture, and a complexity level of the first detection model" is only further defined
what first configuration parameter of the first detection model is and insignificantly to amount to
significantly more.
As to Claim 4, the limitation "wherein the proximity parameter comprises one or more of:
a positioning parameter, a contextual location parameter, an audial context parameter, a
contextual parameter, a radio context parameter, and a connectivity parameter" is only further
defined what proximity parameter is and insignificantly to amount significantly more.
As to claim 5, the limitation "wherein the first detection model is configured to detect one
or more: keyword, an item, an object , and a face" is further defined and do not include
additional element to amount to significantly more.
As to claim 6, the limitation "wherein the detection data comprises one or more of:
keyword detection data, item detection data, object detection data, and face detection data" is
only further defined what is a detection data and insignificantly to amount significantly more.
As to claim 7, the limitation "wherein the performance parameter is indicative of a
performance of the first detection model when performing a detection.
As to claim 8, the limitation "determine whether the performance parameter
satisfies a second criterion, wherein the electronic device is configured to, when the
performance parameter satisfies the second criterion; determine the second
configuration parameter comprising an overlap parameter, a wherein the overlap
parameter, wherein the overlap parameter is configured to prevent overlap of detection
element between the one or more electronic devices of the second cluster and/or to
prioritize a firs detection type" which are process that, under its broadest reasonable
interpretation, covers performance of the limitation by Mental Process, but for the recitation of
generic computer components. Nothing in the claim element precludes the steps from
practically being performed in the human mind. If a claim limitation, under its broadest
reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation by mental process, but for the
recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the "Mental Processes" grouping
of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
As to claim 9, the limitation "determine the second configuration parameter
comprising the overlap parameter, wherein the overlap parameter is configured to allow
overlap detection between the one or more electronic devices of the second cluster
and/or to prioritize a second detection type" which is process that, under its broadest
reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation by Mental Process, but for the
recitation of generic computer components. Nothing in the claim element precludes the steps
from practically being performed in the human mind. If a claim limitation, under its broadest
reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation by mental process, but for the
recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the "Mental Processes" grouping
of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
As to claim 10, the limitation "obtaining training data for the first detection model, based
on the first criterion" is additional element which is insignificant to amount significantly more.
As to claim 11, the limitation "determining one or more detection elements having an
estimate performance in the first detection model that satisfies the first criterion" which is
process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation
by Mental Process, but for the recitation of generic computer components. Nothing in the claim
element precludes the steps from practically being performed in the human mind. If a claim
limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation by
mental process, but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the
"Mental Processes" grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
The limitation "updating the first detection model based on the updated training
data to provide the updated first detection model" is an additional element which
As to claim 12, the limitation "transmit the training data to the one or more
electronic devices of the first cluster" is an additional element which is insignificant to
amount significantly more.
As to claim 13, the limitations "obtaining updated training data based on the
second configuration parameter; an updating the first detection model based on the
updated training data to provide the updated first detection model" are additional
element which are insignificant to amount significantly more.
As to claim 14, the limitation "determine whether a change in the first data
occurred; and in accordance with the determination of change, determine one or more
first cluster of electronic devices and/or one or more second cluster of electronic
devices" which are processes that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers
performance of the limitation by Mental Process, but for the recitation of generic computer
components. Nothing in the claim element precludes the steps from practically being performed
in the human mind. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers
performance of the limitation by mental process, but for the recitation of generic computer
components, then it falls within the "Mental Processes" grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly,
the claim recites an abstract idea.
As to claim 15, the limitation "wherein the first criterion is based on first threshold
and/or one or more detection elements" is only further defined what first criterion is
working and insignificant to amount significantly more.
As to claim 16, the limitation "wherein the second criterion is based on a second
threshold" is only further defined what second criterion and insignificant to amount
significantly more.
As to claim 17, the limitation "wherein the electronic device is server device" is
further defined what the electronic device is and insignificantly to amount significantly
more.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) 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.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness
rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed
invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the
claimed invention and the prior are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have
been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having
ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be
negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under
35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or
nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims
the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as
of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary.
Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective
filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later
invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any
potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
4. Claim(s) 1, 3-7, 10-18 and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over
Kim et al. (Pub. No. US 2020/0019842 A1) in view of Tian et al. (Pub. No. US 2007/0208837
A1).
As to claim 1, Kim discloses an electronic device comprising:
memory circuitry (a memory 170) (paragraph 0111);
processor circuitry (processor 180) (paragraph 0111); and
interface circuitry (interface 0160) (paragraph 0111)
wherein the electronic device is configured to:
obtain first data (input data) (paragraph 0013) comprising a plurality of electronic device
identifiers and a plurality of capability parameters (various parameters, one of the various
parameter is capability parameter) (paragraph 0100) comprising for each electronic device a
capability parameter indicative of a capability of a corresponding electronic device of the
plurality of electronic devices (first cluster of devices) (paragraph 0013);
determine, based on the plurality of capability parameters (various parameters, one of
the various parameter is capability parameter) (paragraph 0100), a first cluster of one or more
electronic devices (a cluster which the data belongs) (paragraph 0012);
determine, based on the capability parameter (various parameters, one of the various
parameter is capability parameter) (paragraph 0100) of each of the one or more electronic
devices of the first cluster (a cluster which the data belongs) (paragraph 0012), a first
configuration parameter (examiner interprets, various parameters, one of the various parameter
is capability parameter) (paragraph 0100) for obtaining a first detection model to be applied by
one or more electronic devices of the first cluster (a cluster which the data belongs) (paragraph
0012);
transmit the first detection model to the one or more electronic devices of the first cluster
(transmit a plurality of sample features associated with the determined cluster to the server...)
(paragraph 0032);
determine, based on a proximity parameter (various parameters, one of the various
parameter is capability parameter) (paragraph 0100), a second cluster of electronic devices
(plurality of cluster, one of the plurality of cluster is the second cluster) (paragraph 0012);
obtain, from the second cluster, detection data obtained by one or more electronic
devices of the second cluster by applying the first detection model (... the at least one processor
may be configured to transmit at least one feature of the second input data and the label for the
second input data to the server, and the at least one...) (paragraph 0034);
determine, based on the detection data, a performance parameter of the first detection
model when running on an electronic device of the second cluster (the second learning device
300b may be configured as a server having a relatively high performance) (paragraph 0190)
determine, based on the performance parameter, a second configuration parameter for
the first detection model to provide an updated first detection model (the direction in which the
model parameters are to be adjusted may be referred to as a step direction, and a size by which
the model parameters are to be adjusted...) (paragraph 0105); and
transmit the updated first detection model to one or more electronic devices of the
second cluster (when the model is updated through training store the updated model...)
(paragraph 0182), wherein the capability parameter comprises one or more of a memory capability parameter, a processing capability parameter, a hardware capability parameter, a software capability parameter, and a battery capability parameter (problem solving capability) (paragraph 0067)
Kim discloses parameters (various parameters) (paragraph 0100); however, Tian
discloses capability parameter, proximity parameter and performance parameter (this may
include performance attribute, such as speed capabilities, such as black and white or color
printing, as well as finishing. location attributes...) (paragraph 0048). This suggests the
capability parameter, proximity parameter and performance parameter. Therefore, it would
have been obvious to one ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant
application to modify teaching of Kim to include capability parameter, proximity parameter and
performance parameter as disclosed by Tian in order to use the parameters in learning process.
Claim 2 cancelled.
As to claim 3, Kim discloses the electronic device according claim 1, wherein the
determination of the first configuration parameter of the first detection model comprises to
determine one or more of: a model size, a model architecture, and a complexity level of the first
detection model (... sized by which the model parameters...) (paragraph 0105).
As to claim 4, Kim discloses the electronic device according to claim 1 excepting
wherein the proximity parameter comprises one or more of: a positioning parameter, a
contextual location parameter, an audial context parameter, a video context parameter, a radio
context parameter, and a connectivity parameter. However, Tian discloses wherein the
proximity parameter comprises one or more of: a positioning parameter, a contextual location
parameter, an audial context parameter, a video context parameter, a radio context parameter,
and a connectivity parameter (this may include performance attribute, such as speed
capabilities, such as black and white or color printing, as well as finishing. location
attributes...) (paragraph 0048). This suggests the capability parameter, proximity parameter
and performance parameter. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one ordinary skill in the
art before the effective filing date of the instant application to modify teaching of Yoshioka to
include location attribute as positioning parameter as disclosed by Tian in order to use the
parameters in learning process.
As to claim 5, Kim discloses the electronic device according to claim 1, wherein the first
detection model is configured to detect one or more of: a keyword, an item, an object (object)
(paragraph 0173), and a face.
As to claims 6, Kim discloses the electronic device according claim 1, wherein the
detection data comprises one or more of: keyword detection data, item detection data, object
detection data, and face detection data (pattern detection) (paragraph 0065).
As to claim 7, Kim discloses the electronic device according to claim 1, wherein the
performance parameter is indicative of a performance of the first detection model when
performing a detection.
As to claim 10, Kim discloses the electronic device according to claim 1, wherein the
electronic device is configured to:
obtain training data for the first detection model, based on a first criterion (the learning
processor 130 trains a mode consisting of an artificial neural network by using training data...)
(paragraph 0127).
As to claim 11, Kim discloses the electronic device according to claim 10, wherein the
obtaining of the training data comprises:
determining one or more detection elements having an estimated performance in the
first detection model that satisfies the first criterion (enhancing their own performance based on
experience model) (paragraph 0004); and
updating based on the one or more detection elements, the first detection model
(updates the model parameters...) (paragraph 0106).
As to claim 12, Kim discloses the electronic device according to claim 10, wherein the
electronic device is configured to transmit the training data to the one or more electronic devices
of the first cluster (the at least one feature of the input data and the label for the input data,
which are transmitted to the server, may be used as training data for training a second artificial
neural network...) (Paragraph 0247).
As to claim 13, Kim discloses the electronic device according to claim 10, wherein the
electronic device is configured to: obtain updated training data based on the second
configuration parameter (the at least one feature of the input data and the label for the input
data, which are transmitted to the server, may be used as training data for training a second
artificial neural network...) (Paragraph 0247); and update the first detection model based on the
updated training data to provide the updated first detection model (updates the model
parameters...) (paragraph 0106).
As to claim 14, Kim discloses the electronic device according to claim 1, wherein the
electronic device is configured to: determine whether a change in the first data occurred; and in
accordance with the determination of a change, determine one or more first clusters of
electronic devices and/or one or more second cluster of electronic devices (the first learning
device may be configured to determine, from among a plurality of clusters, a cluster to which
input data belongs...) (paragraph 0012).
As to claim 15, Kim discloses the electronic device according to claim 10, wherein the
first criterion is based on a first threshold (condition) (paragraph 0096) and/or one or more
detection elements.
As to claim 16, Kim discloses the electronic device according to claim 1, wherein the
second criterion is based on a second threshold (threshold) (paragraph 0021).
As to claim 17, Kim discloses the electronic device according to claim 1, wherein the
electronic device is a server device (server) (paragraph 0031).
Claim 18 is rejected under the same reason as to claim 1, Kim discloses the method
(method) (paragraph 0009).
Claim 19 is cancelled.
Claim 20 is rejected under the same reason as to claim 3.
5. Claim(s) 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim et al.
(Pub. No. US 2020/0019842 A1) in view of Tian et al. (Pub. No. US 2007/0208837 A1) and
further in view of Vandwalle et al. (Pub. No. US 2015/0006633 A1).
As to claim 8, Kim discloses the electronic device according to claim 1, wherein the
determination of the second configuration parameter comprises to: determine whether the
performance parameter satisfies a second criterion; wherein the electronic device is configured
to, when the performance parameter satisfies the second criterion excepting for determine the
second configuration parameter comprising an overlap parameter, wherein the overlap
parameter is configured to prevent overlap of detection elements between the one or more
electronic devices of the second cluster and/or to prioritize a first detection type. However,
Vandwalle discloses determine the second configuration parameter comprising an overlap
parameter, wherein the overlap parameter is configured to prevent overlap of detection
elements between the one or more electronic devices of the second cluster and/or to prioritize a
first detection type (peer devices acting as anchor master are configured to change one or more
parameters of their cluster's discovery window schedule to eliminate the overlap and prevent
collision (paragraph 0149). This suggests the concept of determine the second configuration
parameter comprising an overlap parameter, wherein the overlap parameter is configured to
prevent overlap of detection elements between the one or more electronic devices of the
second cluster and/or to prioritize a first detection type. Therefore, it would have been obvious
to one ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to modify
teaching of Kim to include determine the second configuration parameter comprising an overlap
parameter, wherein the overlap parameter is configured to prevent overlap of detection
elements between the one or more electronic devices of the second cluster and/or to prioritize a
first detection type as disclosed Vandwalle in order to prevent double detection.
6. Claim(s) 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim et al.
(Pub. No. US 2020/0019842 A1) in view of Tian et al. (Pub. No. US 2007/0208837 A1) and
further in view of Vandwalle et al. (Pub. No. US 2015/0006633 A1) and further in view of King
(Pub. No. US 2012/0323506 A1).
As to claim 9, Kim discloses the electronic device according to claim 8, wherein the
electronic device is configured to, when the performance parameter does not satisfy the second
criterion excepting for determine the second configuration parameter comprising the overlap
parameter, wherein the overlap parameter is configured to allow overlap of detection between
the one or more electronic devices of the second cluster and/or to prioritize a second detection
type. However, King discloses determine the second configuration parameter comprising the
overlap parameter, wherein the overlap parameter is configured to allow overlap of detection
between the one or more electronic devices of the second cluster and/or to prioritize a second
detection type (performing the overlap detection, with two ways, one of which is to perform the
overlap detection through a pre-determined configuration file containing overlap parameters) (paragraph 0051). This suggests determine the second configuration parameter comprising the
overlap parameter, wherein the overlap parameter is configured to allow overlap of detection
between the one or more electronic devices of the second cluster and/or to prioritize a second
detection type. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one ordinary skill in the art before the
effective filing date of the instant application to modify teaching of Kim to include determine the
second configuration parameter comprising the overlap parameter, wherein the overlap
parameter is configured to allow overlap of detection between the one or more electronic
devices of the second cluster and/or to prioritize a second detection type as disclosed by King in
order to detect the overlap the devices.
Conclusion
7. 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 BAOQUOC N TO whose telephone number is (571)272-4041. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 9AM - 6PM.
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, Boris Gorney can be reached at 571-270-5626. 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.
BAOQUOC N. TO
Examiner
Art Unit 2154
/BAOQUOC N TO/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2154