DETAILED ACTION
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 .
Response to Amendment
According to paper filed January 15th 2026, claims 1-19 are pending for examination with an effective filing date of December 22nd 2022.
By way of the present Amendment, claims 1 and 9-10 are amended. No claim is canceled or added. Claim rejections under 35 USC 103 are withdrawn.
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.
Claims 1-19 are rejected under 35 USC §101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1:
Claims 1-8 and 18-19 are directed to a method. Claim 9 is directed to a computer readable medium, and claims 10-17 are directed to a system. Therefore, each of these claims is directed to one of the four statutory categories of patent eligible subject matter.
Step 2A Prong 1:
Claims 1, 9, and 10 recite:
“applying a second machine learning model to the obtained subset of media content"; this
limitation amounts to evaluation that can be carried out by a human in the mind or with pen
and paper, and is thus a mental process.
Claim 18 recites:
“applying a first machine learning model to media content"; this limitation amounts to evaluation that can be carried out by a human in the mind or with pen and paper, and is thus a mental process.
Claims 2 and 11 recite:
“training the student model using the teacher model”; this limitation amounts to evaluation that can be carried out by a human in the mind or with pen and paper, and is thus a mental process.
Claims 3 and 12 recite:
“applying the student model to first media content in order to output a plurality of student predictions”; this limitation amounts to evaluation that can be carried out by a human in the mind or with pen and paper, and is thus a mental process.
“applying the teacher model to the selected subset of the first media content in order to output a plurality of teacher predictions”; this limitation amounts to evaluation that can be carried out by a human in the mind or with pen and paper, and is thus a mental process.
Claims 4 and 13 recite:
“generating a plurality of teacher prediction labels based on the plurality of teacher predictions”; this limitation amounts to evaluation that can be carried out by a human in the mind or with pen and paper, and is thus a mental process.
Step 2A Prong 2:
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the additional elements are as follows:
Claims 1 and 9-10 recite:
“obtaining a subset of media content selected based on outputs of a first machine learning model”; this limitation amounts to data gathering and insignificant extra solution activity, as per MPEP 2106.05(g).
Claims 1, 9-10, and 18 recite:
- “training a student model using the teacher model”; this limitation amounts to nothing
more than an instruction to apply the abstract idea using a generic computer, as per MPEP
2106.05(f).
Claim 9 recites:
- “a non-transitory computer-readable medium having stored thereon instructions for causing a processing circuitry to execute a process”; this limitation amounts to mere generic computer components, as per MPEP 2106.05(f).
Claims 5 and 14 recite:
“enriching the subset of media content based on the plurality of second predictions to create a set of enriched media content”; this limitation amounts to data gathering and insignificant extra solution activity, as per MPEP 2106.05(g).
Claims 6 and 15 recite:
“sending the set of enriched media content to be used for populating a dashboard”; this limitation amounts to operate insignificant extra solution activity, as per MPEP 2106.05(g), to generic computer, as per MPEP 2106.05(f).
Claim 19 recites:
“cropping from among the plurality of images based on the plurality of predictions output by the first machine learning model in order to create a plurality of cropped images, wherein the selected subset of the media content includes the plurality of cropped images"; this limitation fails to integrate the judicial exception into a practical application, as per MPEP 2106.05(g).
Step 2B:
The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the additional elements are as follows:
Claim 10 recites:
“a processing circuitry; and a memory”; this limitation amounts to nothing more than an instruction to apply the abstract idea using a generic computer, as per MPEP 2106.05(f).
Claim 18 recites:
“selecting a subset of the media content based on the plurality of predictions output by the first machine learning model” ; this limitation amounts to well-understood, routine, and conventional activity, as per MPEP 2106.05(d).
Dependent Claims
Claims 7 and 16 recite:
“wherein the first machine learning model is applied by an edge device deployed locally with respect to a source of the media content, wherein the second machine learning model is deployed remotely from the edge device”; this limitation amounts to well-understood, routine, and conventional activity, as per MPEP 2106.05(d).
Claims 8 and 17 recite:
“wherein each of the first machine learning model and the second machine learning model is a classifier, wherein the first machine learning model is configured to output a plurality of first classes, wherein the second machine learning model is configured to output a plurality of second classes, wherein the plurality of first classes is a subset of the plurality of second classes”; this amounts to well-understood, routine, and conventional activity, as per MPEP
2106.05(d).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1-19 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Claim rejections under 35 USC 101 are amended in the present Office action, and claim rejections under 35 USC 103 are withdrawn.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to RUAY HO whose telephone number is (571)272-6088. The examiner can normally be reached Monday to Friday 9am - 5pm.
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, David Yi can be reached at 571-270-7519. 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.
/Ruay Ho/Primary Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2142