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
2. This office action is in response to the original filing of 12/16/2022. Claim 1-20 are pending and have been considered below.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
3. 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.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to abstract ideas without significantly more.
Claim 1:
Step 1: The claim is directed to a method, falling under one of the four statutory categories of invention.
Step 2A Prong 1: The claim recites following abstract ideas:
The limitation “… generating vectors comprising a plurality of elements representative of a plurality of sentences…” “performing an augmentation operation on a first vector of the vectors and a second vector of the vectors..” “merging, in accordance with a weighting factor, the first vector with the second vector such that at least a first element of the first vector is combined with a second element of the second vector, wherein the first element is representative of a first sentence of the plurality of sentences and the second element represents a second sentence of the plurality of sentences” under broadest reasonable interpretation covers a mental process including an observation, evaluation, judgment or opinion that could be performed in the human mind or with the aid of pencil and paper. For example, transforming data covers someone mentally making a decision about the data.
The limitation “…generating, using the first layer, a third vector that is based on the first vector that is merged with the second vector…” under broadest reasonable interpretation covers a mental process including an observation, evaluation, judgment or opinion that could be performed in the human mind or with the aid of pencil and paper. For example, evaluating performance of a prediction model covers someone mentally making a judgment about the model.
Step 2A Prong 2: The following limitations recite additional elements:
“…“…inputting, the first vector that is merged with the second vector, into a first layer…” insignificant extra-solution activity.
amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component do not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. See MPEP 2106.05(f)
Even when viewed in combination, this additional element does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Accordingly, the claim does not recite any additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Step 2B: Furthermore, the additional elements do not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
As previously discussed, the additional elements “…inputting, the first vector that is merged with the second vector, into a first layer…”
amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component do not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. See MPEP 2106.05(f).
Accordingly, the claim does not recite any additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Therefore, claim 1 is not eligible.
Claim 11:
Step 1: The claim is directed to a system, falling under one of the four statutory categories of invention.
Step 2A Prong 1: The claim recites following abstract ideas:
The limitation “… generating vectors comprising a plurality of elements representative of a plurality of sentences…”; “performing an augmentation operation on a first vector of the vectors and a second vector of the vectors…” “merging, in accordance with a weighting factor, the first vector with the second vector such that at least a first element of the first vector is combined with a second element of the second vector, wherein the first element is representative of a first sentence of the plurality of sentences and the second element represents a second sentence of the plurality of sentences” under broadest reasonable interpretation covers a mental process including an observation, evaluation, judgment or opinion that could be performed in the human mind or with the aid of pencil and paper. For example, transforming data covers someone mentally making a decision about the data.
The limitation “…generating, using the first layer, a third vector that is based on the first vector that is merged with the second vector…” under broadest reasonable interpretation covers a mental process including an observation, evaluation, judgment or opinion that could be performed in the human mind or with the aid of pencil and paper. For example, evaluating performance of a prediction model covers someone mentally making a judgment about the model.
Step 2A Prong 2: The following limitations recite additional elements:
“at least one data processor; and at least one memory storing instructions, which when executed by the at least one data processor, cause operations…” merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea, MPEP 2106.05(f)). These computer components are recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as a generic processor performing a generic computer function of state transition probability calculation) such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component.
“inputting, the first vector that is merged with the second vector, into a first layer” insignificant extra-solution activity.
amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component do not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. See MPEP 2106.05(f)
Even when viewed in combination, this additional element does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Accordingly, the claim does not recite any additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Step 2B: Furthermore, the additional elements do not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
As previously discussed, the additional elements “at least one data processor; and at least one memory storing instructions, which when executed by the at least one data processor, cause operations…” merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea, MPEP 2106.05(f)). These computer components are recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as a generic processor performing a generic computer function of state transition probability calculation) such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component.
“…inputting, the first vector that is merged with the second vector, into a first layer…”
amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component do not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. See MPEP 2106.05(f).
Accordingly, the claim does not recite any additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Claim 20:
Step 1: The claim is directed to a computer readable media, falling under one of the four statutory categories of invention.
Step 2A Prong 1: The claim recites following abstract ideas:
The limitation “… generating vectors comprising a plurality of elements representative of a plurality of sentences…”; “performing an augmentation operation on a first vector of the vectors and a second vector of the vectors…” “merging, in accordance with a weighting factor, the first vector with the second vector such that at least a first element of the first vector is combined with a second element of the second vector, wherein the first element is representative of a first sentence of the plurality of sentences and the second element represents a second sentence of the plurality of sentences” under broadest reasonable interpretation covers a mental process including an observation, evaluation, judgment or opinion that could be performed in the human mind or with the aid of pencil and paper. For example, transforming data covers someone mentally making a decision about the data.
The limitation “…generating, using the first layer, a third vector that is based on the first vector that is merged with the second vector…” under broadest reasonable interpretation covers a mental process including an observation, evaluation, judgment or opinion that could be performed in the human mind or with the aid of pencil and paper. For example, evaluating performance of a prediction model covers someone mentally making a judgment about the model.
Step 2A Prong 2: The following limitations recite additional elements:
“At least one non-transitory computer readable media storing instructions that, when executed by at least one processor, cause the at least one processor to perform operations…” merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea, MPEP 2106.05(f)). These computer components are recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as a generic processor performing a generic computer function of state transition probability calculation) such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component.
“inputting, the first vector that is merged with the second vector, into a first layer” insignificant extra-solution activity.
amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component do not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. See MPEP 2106.05(f)
Even when viewed in combination, this additional element does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Accordingly, the claim does not recite any additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Step 2B: Furthermore, the additional elements do not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
As previously discussed, the additional elements “At least one non-transitory computer readable media storing instructions that, when executed by at least one processor, cause the at least one processor to perform operations…” merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea, MPEP 2106.05(f)). These computer components are recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as a generic processor performing a generic computer function of state transition probability calculation) such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component.
“…inputting, the first vector that is merged with the second vector, into a first layer…”
amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component do not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. See MPEP 2106.05(f).
Accordingly, the claim does not recite any additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Claim 2 recites “wherein the merging of the first vector with the second vector includes concatenating the first element representative of the first sentence with the second element” merely provides specifics of the merging vector recited in claim 1. Accordingly, the same analysis used in claim 1 applies for claim 2.
Claim 3 recites “wherein the first element comprises a first plurality of numbers representative of one or more letters of the first sentence and the second element comprises a second plurality of numbers representative of one or more letters of the second sentence” merely provides specifics of the merging vector recited in claim 2. Accordingly, the same analysis used in claim 1 applies for claim 3.
Claim 4 recites “wherein the third element includes a third plurality of numbers that comprises the first plurality of numbers and the second plurality of numbers” merely provides specifics of the merging vector recited in claim 3. Accordingly, the same analysis used in claim 1 applies for claim 4.
Claim 5 recites “further comprising determining the weighting factor randomly” mere mathematical calculations where uniform distribution may be used to randomly make determination. Therefore, claim 5 is not eligible.
Claim 6 recites “wherein the weighting factor has a value in a range between 0 and 1” mere mathematical calculations where uniform distribution may be used to randomly make determination.
Claim 7 recites similar steps as claim 1 above. Accordingly, the same analysis used in claim 1 applies for claim 7.
Claim 8 recites “wherein the weighting factor has a value in a range between 0 and 1” mere mathematical calculations where uniform distribution may be used to randomly make determination.
Claim 9 recites “wherein: the first characteristic corresponds to a color of the image and the second characteristic corresponds to an additional color in the additional image, and wherein the fourth element comprises numbers representing the color and the fifth element comprises additional numbers representing the additional color. The additional elements are recited so the claim does not provide a practical application and is not considered to be significant.
Claim 10 recites “wherein the sixth element includes the first characteristic and the second characteristic, the sixth element comprises the numbers representing the color and the additional numbers representing the additional color. The additional element is recited so the claim does not provide a practical application and is not considered to be significant.
Claims 12-15 and 17-19 recite the same abstract idea as of claims 2-4, 6 and 9-10, respectively. Therefore, they are rejected for the similar reasons as the above claims.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
4. 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 the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1-6, 11-15 and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Wang et al. (CN111709223 September 2020).
Claim 1. Wang discloses a computer-implemented method comprising:
generating vectors comprising a plurality of elements representative of a plurality of sentences, the plurality of sentences including text that is included as part of training data (abstract, [0010], [0016]);
performing an augmentation operation on a first vector of the vectors and a second vector of the vectors, the augmentation operation comprising:
merging, in accordance with a weighting factor (..similarity scores are normalized to generate vector weights for each initial sentence vector) ([0018]), the first vector with the second vector such that at least a first element of the first vector is combined with a second element of the second vector, wherein the first element is representative of a first sentence of the plurality of sentences and the second element represents a second sentence of the plurality of sentences ([0024], inputting, the first vector that is merged with the second vector, into a first layer (The vector weights of each initial sentence vector are generated based on the similarity scores. Then, based on each initial sentence vector and its corresponding vector weight, the initial sentence vectors are weighted and summed to generate the target sentence vector. The target sentence vector is used as the input to the classifier.) ([0048])..( the information from each of the 12 transformer encoder layers of the BERT model is weighted according to its importance and fused into the target sentence vector, which is then used as the input to the classifier) ([0053]); and
generating, using the first layer, a third vector that is based on the first vector that is merged with the second vector, the third vector including a third element that represents the first sentence and the second sentence (The training method for the preset sentence vectors involves inputting the 12 sentence vectors generated by the 12 transformer encoder layers of the BERT model into the sentence attention mechanism layer as the training set. The sentence attention mechanism layer is connected to the classifier, and the output sentence vectors it outputs based on the above 12 sentence vectors are used as the input of the classifier. By using the training set to train the sentence attention module and the classifier, a sentence attention module and classifier that can be used for text classification tasks are obtained) ([0049]).
Claim 2. Wang discloses the computer-implemented method of claim 1, wherein the merging of the first vector with the second vector includes concatenating the first element representative of the first sentence with the second element (sentence vectors) ([0048], abstract).
Claim 3. Wang discloses the computer-implemented method of claim 2, wherein the first element comprises a first plurality of numbers representative of one or more letters of the first sentence and the second element comprises a second plurality of numbers representative of one or more letters of the second sentence (sentence vectors) ([0048], abstract).
Claim 4. Wang discloses the computer-implemented method of claim 3, wherein the third element includes a third plurality of numbers that comprises the first plurality of numbers and the second plurality of numbers ( the information from each of the 12 transformer encoder layers of the BERT model is weighted according to its importance and fused into the target sentence vector, which is then used as the input to the classifier) ([0053]).
Claim 5. Wang discloses the computer-implemented method of claim 1, further comprising determining the weighting factor randomly ([0011]-[0012]).
Claim 6. Wang discloses the computer-implemented method of claim 5, wherein the weighting factor has a value in a range between 0 and 1 ([0094]).
Claims 11-15 and 20 represent the system and media of claims 1-6, respectively, and are rejected along the same rationale.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
7. 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.
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 art 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.
8. Claims 7-10 and 16-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wang et al. (CN111709223 September 2020) in view of Lundgaard et al. (US 2021/0141995).
Claim 7. Supra claim 1 but Wang fails to explicitly disclose a plurality of images.
However, Lundgaard discloses (Tests may be performed with textual embeddings, image embeddings, and/or combined textual and image embeddings) ([0034],[0036]-[0037], fig. 2, [0061]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Wang further in view of Lundgaard to incorporate the above cited features. One would have been motivated to do so in order to determine elements of data on which the model is not performing well.
Claim 8. Wang and Lundgaard disclose the method of claim 7, Lundgaard further discloses wherein the weighting factor has a value in a range between 0 and 1 ([0038]). One would have been motivated to do so in order to determine elements of data on which the model is not performing well.
Claim 9. Wang and Lundgaard disclose the method of claim 7, Lundgaard further discloses wherein: the first characteristic corresponds to a color of the image and the second characteristic corresponds to an additional color in the additional image, and wherein the fourth element comprises numbers representing the color and the fifth element comprises additional numbers representing the additional color ([0020]). One would have been motivated to do so in order to determine elements of data on which the model is not performing well.
Claim 10. Wang and Lundgaard disclose the method of claim 9, Lundgaard further discloses wherein the sixth element includes the first characteristic and the second characteristic, the sixth element comprises the numbers representing the color and the additional numbers representing the additional color ([0020], [0061]). One would have been motivated to do so in order to determine elements of data on which the model is not performing well.
Claims 16-19 represent the system of claims 7-10, respectively, and are rejected along the same rationale.
Conclusion
9. The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure (See PTO-892).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Phenuel S. Salomon whose telephone number is (571) 270-1699. The examiner can normally be reached on Mon-Fri 7:00 A.M. to 4:00 P.M. (Alternate Friday Off) EST.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Usmaan Saeed can be reached on (571) 272-4046. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-3800.
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.
/PHENUEL S SALOMON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2146