DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
1. The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Response to Amendment
2. Applicant’s amendment filed 9/04/2025 to the specification includes abstract and drawings, and claims are accepted and entered. In this amendment, claims 1-2, 5, 7, 9- 11, 13, and 15 have been amended. In response, the 112 rejections have been withdrawn. But the 101 rejection is maintained.
Response to Argument
3. Applicant’s arguments filed 9/04/2025 regarding the 101 have been fully considered. However, Applicant’s arguments regarding the 101 rejection are not persuasive for the reason below:
Applicant’s arguments that the pending claims cannot practically be performed in the mind. The claims are therefore not directed to the judicial exception of an abstract idea. The claims are therefore directed to a "practical application" under Step 2A - Prong Two. Applicants note that the claimed invention improves the functioning of a computer. Indeed, the specification at page 13, lines 24-28 states: The advantage of the invention is that with a sufficiently complete first training operation, the second training operation may be carried out considering an amount of data significantly smaller than the amount of data used to carry out the first training operation. By significantly smaller amount of data, what is meant is at least 10 times or even 100 times less data.
In response, the Examiner respectfully disagrees. Claim 1 recites a method for characterizing a part being liable to comprise a defect. The claim falls into the groupings of mathematical concepts and mental processes as addressed in the previous Office action in Step 2A-prong One. The claim does not recite any specific additional elements to significantly more than the abstract idea in Step 2A-prong Two because the claim using machine learning, convolutional neural network “CNN” to manipulate the generic data collected from generic sensor to create a first database with a first NN undergone a first training operation using the first database and create a second database with a second CNN undergone a second training operation. However, there is no specific limitation to describe the CNN undergone second training operation having an amount of data that is significantly smaller than the first training operation’s data, i.e., for pre-training, a CNN is a first trained on a massive, diverse dataset (i.e., “with a sufficiently complete first training operation”). This pre-trained network is then used for the new, smaller dataset (i.e., “the second training operation with an amount of data significantly smaller than the amount of data used to carry out the first training operation”). Using machine learning and training models without specified particular limitation is well-known in the art. The claim does not show how the CNN models integrate and apply that abstract idea into a specific, tangible problem to achieve a real-world outcome or to be considered “improving the functioning of a computer”. The claim does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Thus, claim 1 is not eligible.
Specification Objections
4. The drawing filed on 9/04/2025 is objected to because:
Figure 4C does not show the label/descriptions of horizonal and vertical axes, i.e., it does not show the horizontal axis and vertical axis representing for?
Appropriate correction is required.
Note: Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as "amended." If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either "Replacement Sheet" or "New Sheet" pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
5. 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.
6. Claims 1-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (abstract idea) without significantly more.
Under Step 1 of the 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance, the claims are directed to a process (claim 1, a method which is a statutory category.
However, evaluating claim 1 under Step 2A, Prong One, the claim is directed to the judicial exception of an abstract idea using the groupings of a mathematical relationships/calculations including “forming at least one measurement matrix; using the matrix as input datum of a convolutional neural network”, and “extract features from each input datum”; and the group of mental process including “classify the features extracted, detecting presence of a defect in the part, constructing a first database, and constructing a second database.”
Next, Step 2A, Prong Two evaluates whether additional elements of the claim “integrate the abstract idea into a practical application” in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on the judicial exception, such that the claim is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception. The claim does not recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. The additional limitation of measurement using sensor, is data gathering using conventional sensor to collect generic data, and outputting an output layer is well-known, routine, which is a form of insignificant extra-solution activity; and convolutional neural network or neural network is a generic machine learning algorithms it does not amount significant more than the abstract idea. These additional limitations do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. Therefore, the claim is directed to an abstract idea.
At Step 2B, consideration is given to additional elements that may make the abstract idea significantly more. Under Step 2B, there are no additional elements that make the claims significantly more than the abstract idea.
The additional limitation as recited above in step 2A prong Two, is considered insignificant extra-solution activity that is not sufficient to integrate the claim into a particular practical application.
The limitations have been considered individually and as a whole and do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself.
Dependent claims 2-15 do not add anything which would render the claimed invention a patent eligible application of the abstract idea. The claim merely extends (or narrow) the abstract idea which do not amount for "significant more" because it merely adds details to the algorithm which forms the abstract idea as discussed above.
Novel and Non-Obvious Subject Matter
7. Claims 1-15 are considered novel and non-obvious subject matter with respect to the prior art but as currently presently are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 as set forth in this Office action.
Please refer to the previous Office action for examiner's statement of reasons for considering novel and non-obvious subject matter.
Conclusion
8. Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, 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.
9. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the
examiner should be directed to LYNDA DINH whose telephone number is (571) 270-
7150. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F 10 AM-6 PM ET.
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, Arleen M Vazquez can be reached on 571-272-2619. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
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 https://ppairmy.uspto.gov/pair/PrivatePair. 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.
/LYNDA DINH/Examiner, Art Unit 2857
/LINA CORDERO/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2857
Prosecution Insights