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 .
DETAILED ACTION
This action is responsive to the Application filed on 1/4/2023. Claims 1-20 are pending in the case. Claims 1, 11, and 20 are independent claims.
Claim Objections
Claim 20 is objected to because of the following informalities: “performing one or more operations based on the first plurality of similarities and the second plurality of similarities to generate a first trained machine learning model corresponding to the first machine learning model and a second trained machine learning model corresponding to the second machine learning model. and a first format and (ii) a first plurality of embeddings for a first plurality of shapes associated with a second format… ” has a period in the middle of the claim. Further, claim 2 recites “(ii)” and there is no “(i)” before the claim which is not very clear why there is a “ii” without “i”.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 20 recited “and a first format and (ii) a first plurality of embeddings for a first plurality of shapes associated with a second format” despite that this limitation has already been presented “executing a first machine learning model to generate a first plurality of embeddings from a first plurality of shapes associated with a first format; executing a second machine learning model to generate a second plurality of embeddings from a second plurality of shapes associated with a second format”. It is unclear which one of “second plurality of shapes associated with a second format” or “first plurality of shapes associated with a second format” is the shapes that is associated with this “second format”. To expedite prosecution, the Examiner will interpret that “second plurality of shapes associated with a second format” to keep it consistent with claims 1 and 11.
Claim Rejections - 35 U.S.C. § 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 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
When considering subject matter eligibility under 35 U.S.C. 101, it must be determined whether the claim is directed to one of the four statutory categories of invention, i.e., process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter (Step 1). If the claim does fall within one of the statutory categories, the second step in the analysis is to determine whether the claim is directed to a judicial exception (Step 2A). The Step 2A analysis is broken into two prongs. In the first prong (Step 2A, Prong 1), it is determined whether or not the claims recite a judicial exception (e.g., mathematical concepts, mental processes, certain methods of organizing human activity). If it is determined in Step 2A, Prong 1 that the claims recite a judicial exception, the analysis proceeds to the second prong (Step 2A, Prong 2), where it is determined whether or not the claims integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. If itis determined at step 2A, Prong 2 that the claims do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application, the analysis proceeds to determining whether the claim is a patent-eligible application of the exception (Step 2B). If an abstract idea is present in the claim, any element or combination of elements in the claim must be sufficient to ensure that the claim integrates the judicial exception into a practical application, or else amounts to significantly more than the abstract idea itself. Applicant is advised to consult the 2019 PEG for more details of the analysis.
Step 1 Analysis: Is the claim to a process, machine, manufacture or composition of matter? See MPEP § 2106.03.
Claims 1-5 are drawn to an apparatus, claim 6 is drawn to a method and claims 7-11 are drawn to recording medium storing a computer program, therefore each of these claim groups falls under one of four categories of statutory subject matter (machine/products/apparatus, process/method, manufactures and compositions of mater; Step 1). Nonetheless, the claims are directed to a judicially recognized exception of an abstract idea without significant more (Step 2A, see below). Independent claims 1 and 11 are non-verbatim but similar in claim construction, hence share the same rationale that the claimed inventions are directed to non-statutory subject matter as follows:
As to claim 1:
Claim 1 recites “A computer-implemented method for training a set of machine learning models to generate embeddings for different shapes, the method comprising: executing a first machine learning model to generate a first plurality of embeddings from a first plurality of shapes associated with a first format; executing a second machine learning model to generate a second plurality of embeddings from a second plurality of shapes associated with a second format; computing a first plurality of similarities between positive pairs of embeddings selected from the first plurality of embeddings and the second plurality of embeddings, wherein each of the positive pairs of embeddings comprises two different embeddings for a corresponding shape; computing a second plurality of similarities between negative pairs of embeddings selected from the first plurality of embeddings and the second plurality of embeddings, wherein each of the negative pairs of embeddings comprises a first embedding for a first shape and a second embedding for a second shape; and performing one or more operations based on the first plurality of similarities and the second plurality of similarities to generate a first trained machine learning model corresponding to the first machine learning model and a second trained machine learning model corresponding to the second machine learning model.”
Step 2A Prong One Analysis: Does the claim recite an abstract idea, law of nature, or natural phenomenon? See MPEP § 2106.04(II)(A)(1).
Yes, the limitation “computing a first plurality of similarities between positive pairs of embeddings selected from the first plurality of embeddings and the second plurality of embeddings, wherein each of the positive pairs of embeddings comprises two different embeddings for a corresponding shape” is the abstract idea of a mental process that can practically be performed in the human mind, with or without the use of a physical aid such as pen and paper (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion). See MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)(III).
Yes, the limitation “computing a second plurality of similarities between negative pairs of embeddings selected from the first plurality of embeddings and the second plurality of embeddings, wherein each of the negative pairs of embeddings comprises a first embedding for a first shape and a second embedding for a second shape” is the abstract idea of a mental process that can practically be performed in the human mind, with or without the use of a physical aid such as pen and paper (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion). See MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)(III).
Step 2A Prong Two Analysis: Does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application? See MPEP § 2106.04(d).
No, this limitation “machine learning models”, “first machine learning model”, “second machine learning model”, “a first trained machine learning model” and “a second trained machine learning model” are additional elements that amounts to adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception and reciting only the idea of a solution or outcome, i.e., the claim fails to recite details of how a solution to a problem is accomplished because it is unclear how the “machine learning models”, “first machine learning model”, “second machine learning model”, “a first trained machine learning model” and “a second trained machine learning model” are used nor the specification makes it clear how these actions are performed. Thus, these additional elements are recited in a manner that represent no more than mere instructions to apply the judicial exceptions on a computer. See MPEP § 2106.05(f) and § 2106.04(d).
No, this limitation “computer-implemented” is an additional element that amounts to adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or merely uses a computer in its ordinary capacity as a tool to perform an existing process, and as such is deemed insufficient to transform the judicial exception to a patentable invention. See MPEP §§ 2106.04(d), 2106.05(f)(2).
No, This limitation “generate a first plurality of embeddings from a first plurality of shapes associated with a first format” is merely a post-solution step and as such is an additional element that amounts to adding insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception. See MPEP §§ 2106.04(d), 2106.05(g).
No, This limitation “generate a second plurality of embeddings from a second plurality of shapes associated with a second format” is merely a post-solution step and as such is an additional element that amounts to adding insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception. See MPEP §§ 2106.04(d), 2106.05(g).
No, This limitation “generate a first trained machine learning model corresponding to the first machine learning model and a second trained machine learning model corresponding to the second machine learning model” is merely a post-solution step and as such is an additional element that amounts to adding insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception. See MPEP §§ 2106.04(d), 2106.05(g).
This limitation “generate a first trained machine learning model corresponding to the first machine learning model and a second trained machine learning model corresponding to the second machine learning model” is an additional element that generally links the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use, and as such is deemed insufficient to transform the judicial exception to a patentable invention. See MPEP §§ 2106.04(d), 2106.05(h).
Accordingly, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea when considered as an ordered combination and as a whole.
Step 2B Analysis: Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception? See MPEP § 2106.05.
First, the additional elements directed to generally linking the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use are deemed insufficient to transform the judicial exception to a patentable invention because the claimed limitations generally link the judicial exception to the technology environment, see MPEP 2106.05(h). However, they are included below for the sake of completeness.
Second, the additional elements mere application of the abstract idea or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer are deemed insufficient to transform the judicial exception to a patentable invention because the limitations generally apply the use of a generic computer and/or process with the judicial exception. See MPEP 2106.05(f). However, they are included below for the sake of completeness.
No, this limitation “machine learning models”, “first machine learning model”, “second machine learning model”, “a first trained machine learning model” and “a second trained machine learning model” are additional elements that amounts to adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception and reciting only the idea of a solution or outcome, i.e., the claim fails to recite details of how a solution to a problem is accomplished because it is unclear how the “machine learning models”, “first machine learning model”, “second machine learning model”, “a first trained machine learning model” and “a second trained machine learning model” are used nor the specification makes it clear how these actions are performed. Thus, these additional elements are recited in a manner that represent no more than mere instructions to apply the judicial exceptions on a computer. See MPEP § 2106.05(f) and § 2106.04(d).
No, this limitation “computer-implemented” is an additional element that amounts to adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or merely uses a computer in its ordinary capacity as a tool to perform an existing process, and as such is deemed insufficient to transform the judicial exception to a patentable invention. See MPEP §§ 2106.04(d), 2106.05(f)(2).
No, This limitation “generate a first plurality of embeddings from a first plurality of shapes associated with a first format” is merely a post-solution step and as such is an additional element that amounts to adding insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception. See MPEP §§ 2106.04(d), 2106.05(g).
No, This limitation “generate a second plurality of embeddings from a second plurality of shapes associated with a second format” is merely a post-solution step and as such is an additional element that amounts to adding insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception. See MPEP §§ 2106.04(d), 2106.05(g).
No, This limitation “generate a first trained machine learning model corresponding to the first machine learning model and a second trained machine learning model corresponding to the second machine learning model” is merely a post-solution step and as such is an additional element that amounts to adding insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception. See MPEP §§ 2106.04(d), 2106.05(g).
This limitation “generate a first trained machine learning model corresponding to the first machine learning model and a second trained machine learning model corresponding to the second machine learning model” is an additional element that generally links the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use, and as such is deemed insufficient to transform the judicial exception to a patentable invention. See MPEP §§ 2106.04(d), 2106.05(h).
Thus, considering the additional elements individually and in combination and the claims as a whole, the additional elements do not provide significantly more than the abstract idea. The claims are not eligible subject matter.
Therefore, in examining elements as recited by the limitations individually and as an ordered combination, as a whole the independent claim limitations do not recite what have the courts have identified as “significantly more”.
As to claim 20:
Claim 20 recites “A system, comprising: one or more memories that store instructions, and one or more processors that are coupled to the one or more memories and, when executing the instructions, are configured to perform the steps of: executing a first machine learning model to generate a first plurality of embeddings from a first plurality of shapes associated with a first format; executing a second machine learning model to generate a second plurality of embeddings from a second plurality of shapes associated with a second format; computing a first plurality of similarities between positive pairs of embeddings selected from the first plurality of embeddings and the second plurality of embeddings, wherein each of the positive pairs of embeddings comprises two different embeddings for a corresponding shape; computing a second plurality of similarities between negative pairs of embeddings selected from the first plurality of embeddings and the second plurality of embeddings, wherein each of the negative pairs of embeddings comprises a first embedding for a first shape and a second embedding for a second shape; and performing one or more operations based on the first plurality of similarities and the second plurality of similarities to generate a first trained machine learning model corresponding to the first machine learning model and a second trained machine learning model corresponding to the second machine learning model. and a first format and (ii) a first plurality of embeddings for a first plurality of shapes associated with a second format, wherein the first embedding and the first plurality of embeddings are generated by one or more trained machine learning models based on the first query shape and the first plurality of shapes; matching, based on the first embedding and the first plurality of embeddings, the first query shape to one or more shapes included in the first plurality of shapes; and outputting the one or more shapes in a first response associated with the first query shape.”
Step 2A Prong One Analysis: Does the claim recite an abstract idea, law of nature, or natural phenomenon? See MPEP § 2106.04(II)(A)(1).
Yes, the limitation “computing a first plurality of similarities between positive pairs of embeddings selected from the first plurality of embeddings and the second plurality of embeddings, wherein each of the positive pairs of embeddings comprises two different embeddings for a corresponding shape” is the abstract idea of a mental process that can practically be performed in the human mind, with or without the use of a physical aid such as pen and paper (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion). See MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)(III).
Yes, the limitation “computing a second plurality of similarities between negative pairs of embeddings selected from the first plurality of embeddings and the second plurality of embeddings, wherein each of the negative pairs of embeddings comprises a first embedding for a first shape and a second embedding for a second shape” is the abstract idea of a mental process that can practically be performed in the human mind, with or without the use of a physical aid such as pen and paper (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion). See MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)(III).
Yes, the limitation “matching, based on the first embedding and the first plurality of embeddings, the first query shape to one or more shapes included in the first plurality of shapes” is the abstract idea of a mental process that can practically be performed in the human mind, with or without the use of a physical aid such as pen and paper (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion). See MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)(III).
Step 2A Prong Two Analysis: Does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application? See MPEP § 2106.04(d).
No, this limitation “machine learning models”, “first machine learning model”, “second machine learning model”, “a first trained machine learning model” and “a second trained machine learning model” are additional elements that amounts to adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception and reciting only the idea of a solution or outcome, i.e., the claim fails to recite details of how a solution to a problem is accomplished because it is unclear how the “machine learning models”, “first machine learning model”, “second machine learning model”, “a first trained machine learning model” and “a second trained machine learning model” are used nor the specification makes it clear how these actions are performed. Thus, these additional elements are recited in a manner that represent no more than mere instructions to apply the judicial exceptions on a computer. See MPEP § 2106.05(f) and § 2106.04(d).
No, this limitation “computer-implemented” is an additional element that amounts to adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or merely uses a computer in its ordinary capacity as a tool to perform an existing process, and as such is deemed insufficient to transform the judicial exception to a patentable invention. See MPEP §§ 2106.04(d), 2106.05(f)(2).
No, This limitation “generate a first plurality of embeddings from a first plurality of shapes associated with a first format” is merely a post-solution step and as such is an additional element that amounts to adding insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception. See MPEP §§ 2106.04(d), 2106.05(g).
No, This limitation “generate a second plurality of embeddings from a second plurality of shapes associated with a second format” is merely a post-solution step and as such is an additional element that amounts to adding insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception. See MPEP §§ 2106.04(d), 2106.05(g).
No, This limitation “generate a first trained machine learning model corresponding to the first machine learning model and a second trained machine learning model corresponding to the second machine learning model” is merely a post-solution step and as such is an additional element that amounts to adding insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception. See MPEP §§ 2106.04(d), 2106.05(g).
This limitation “generate a first trained machine learning model corresponding to the first machine learning model and a second trained machine learning model corresponding to the second machine learning model” is an additional element that generally links the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use, and as such is deemed insufficient to transform the judicial exception to a patentable invention. See MPEP §§ 2106.04(d), 2106.05(h).
No, this limitation “outputting the one or more shapes in a first response associated with the first query shape” amounts to mere data gathering. It is necessary to acquire the data in order to use the recited judicial exception to perform “outputting”. Therefore, the additional limitation is insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception, and as such is deemed insufficient to transform the judicial exception to a patentable invention. See MPEP §§ 2106.04(d), 2106.05(g).
Accordingly, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea when considered as an ordered combination and as a whole.
Step 2B Analysis: Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception? See MPEP § 2106.05.
First, the additional elements directed to generally linking the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use are deemed insufficient to transform the judicial exception to a patentable invention because the claimed limitations generally link the judicial exception to the technology environment, see MPEP 2106.05(h). However, they are included below for the sake of completeness.
Second, the additional elements mere application of the abstract idea or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer are deemed insufficient to transform the judicial exception to a patentable invention because the limitations generally apply the use of a generic computer and/or process with the judicial exception. See MPEP 2106.05(f). However, they are included below for the sake of completeness.
No, this limitation “machine learning models”, “first machine learning model”, “second machine learning model”, “a first trained machine learning model” and “a second trained machine learning model” are additional elements that amounts to adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception and reciting only the idea of a solution or outcome, i.e., the claim fails to recite details of how a solution to a problem is accomplished because it is unclear how the “machine learning models”, “first machine learning model”, “second machine learning model”, “a first trained machine learning model” and “a second trained machine learning model” are used nor the specification makes it clear how these actions are performed. Thus, these additional elements are recited in a manner that represent no more than mere instructions to apply the judicial exceptions on a computer. See MPEP § 2106.05(f) and § 2106.04(d).
No, this limitation “system”, “memories”, and processors” are additional elements that amounts to adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or merely uses a computer in its ordinary capacity as a tool to perform an existing process, and as such is deemed insufficient to transform the judicial exception to a patentable invention. See MPEP §§ 2106.04(d), 2106.05(f)(2).
No, This limitation “generate a first plurality of embeddings from a first plurality of shapes associated with a first format” is merely a post-solution step and as such is an additional element that amounts to adding insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception. See MPEP §§ 2106.04(d), 2106.05(g).
No, This limitation “generate a second plurality of embeddings from a second plurality of shapes associated with a second format” is merely a post-solution step and as such is an additional element that amounts to adding insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception. See MPEP §§ 2106.04(d), 2106.05(g).
No, This limitation “generate a first trained machine learning model corresponding to the first machine learning model and a second trained machine learning model corresponding to the second machine learning model” is merely a post-solution step and as such is an additional element that amounts to adding insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception. See MPEP §§ 2106.04(d), 2106.05(g).
This limitation “generate a first trained machine learning model corresponding to the first machine learning model and a second trained machine learning model corresponding to the second machine learning model” is an additional element that generally links the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use, and as such is deemed insufficient to transform the judicial exception to a patentable invention. See MPEP §§ 2106.04(d), 2106.05(h).
No, this limitation “outputting the one or more shapes in a first response associated with the first query shape” amounts to mere data gathering. It is necessary to acquire the data in order to use the recited judicial exception to perform “outputting”. Therefore, the additional limitation is insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception, and as such is deemed insufficient to transform the judicial exception to a patentable invention. See MPEP §§ 2106.04(d), 2106.05(g). Furthermore the additional element is directed to receiving or transmitting data over a network / performing repetitive calculations / electronic recordkeeping / storing and retrieving information in memory / electronically scanning or extracting data from a physical document, which the courts have recognized as well‐understood, routine, and conventional when they are claimed in a generic manner. See MPEP § 2106.05(d)(II).
Thus, considering the additional elements individually and in combination and the claims as a whole, the additional elements do not provide significantly more than the abstract idea. The claims are not eligible subject matter.
Therefore, in examining elements as recited by the limitations individually and as an ordered combination, as a whole the independent claim limitations do not recite what have the courts have identified as “significantly more”.
Furthermore, regarding dependent claims 2-10 which are dependent on claim 1, claims 12-19 which are dependent on claim 11, the claims are directed to a judicial exception without significantly more as highlighted below in the claim limitations by evaluating the claim limitations under Step 2A and 2B:
Dependent claim 2
Incorporates the rejection of independent claim 1.
Step 2A Prong 1: does the claim recite an abstract idea, law of nature, or natural phenomenon? See MPEP § 2106.04(II)(A)(1). Incorporates the mental process rejection of independent claim 1.
Step 2A prong 2: the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application? See MPEP § 2106.04(d) No, this limitation “a third machine learning model” is an additional element that amounts to adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception and reciting only the idea of a solution or outcome, i.e., the claim fails to recite details of how a solution to a problem is accomplished because it is unclear how the “a third machine learning model” is used nor the specification makes it clear how these actions are performed. Thus, these additional elements are recited in a manner that represent no more than mere instructions to apply the judicial exceptions on a computer. See MPEP § 2106.05(f) and § 2106.04(d).
Step 2B: the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception? See MPEP § 2106.05. and Is the additional element recognized as well-understood, routine, and conventional? No, this limitation “a third machine learning model” is an additional element that amounts to adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception and reciting only the idea of a solution or outcome, i.e., the claim fails to recite details of how a solution to a problem is accomplished because it is unclear how the “a third machine learning model” is used nor the specification makes it clear how these actions are performed. Thus, these additional elements are recited in a manner that represent no more than mere instructions to apply the judicial exceptions on a computer. See MPEP § 2106.05(f) and § 2106.04(d).
Dependent claim 3
Incorporates the rejection of independent claim 1.
Step 2A Prong 1: does the claim recite an abstract idea, law of nature, or natural phenomenon? See MPEP § 2106.04(II)(A)(1). Incorporates the mental process rejection of independent claim 1.
Step 2A prong 2: the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application? See MPEP § 2106.04(d). No.
Step 2B: the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception? See MPEP § 2106.05. and Is the additional element recognized as well-understood, routine, and conventional? No.
Dependent claim 4
Incorporates the rejection of independent claim 1.
Step 2A Prong 1: does the claim recite an abstract idea, law of nature, or natural phenomenon? See MPEP § 2106.04(II)(A)(1). Incorporates the mental process rejection of independent claim 1.
Step 2A prong 2: the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application? See MPEP § 2106.04(d) No. This limitation “applying one or more augmentations to data associated with the first plurality of shapes to generate a third plurality of shapes associated with the first format” is an additional element that generally links the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use, and as such is deemed insufficient to transform the judicial exception to a patentable invention. See MPEP §§ 2106.04(d), 2106.05(h).
Step 2B: the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception? See MPEP § 2106.05. and Is the additional element recognized as well-understood, routine, and conventional? No. This limitation “applying one or more augmentations to data associated with the first plurality of shapes to generate a third plurality of shapes associated with the first format” is an additional element that generally links the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use, and as such is deemed insufficient to transform the judicial exception to a patentable invention. See MPEP §§ 2106.04(d), 2106.05(h).
Dependent claim 5
Incorporates the rejection of independent claim 1.
Step 2A Prong 1: does the claim recite an abstract idea, law of nature, or natural phenomenon? See MPEP § 2106.04(II)(A)(1). Incorporates the mental process rejection of independent claim 1. Further, Yes, the limitation “computing a first similarity between a third embedding for a first variant of a third shape and a fourth embedding for a second variant of the third shape, wherein the first variant of the third shape and the second variant of the third shape are included in the first plurality of shapes” is the abstract idea of a mathematical relationship, as directed to “a mathematical relationship is a relationship between variables or numbers. A mathematical relationship may be expressed in words or using mathematical symbols”. See MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)(I)(A).
Step 2A prong 2: the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application? See MPEP § 2106.04(d). No.
Step 2B: the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception? See MPEP § 2106.05. and Is the additional element recognized as well-understood, routine, and conventional? No.
Dependent claim 6
Incorporates the rejection of independent claim 1.
Step 2A Prong 1: does the claim recite an abstract idea, law of nature, or natural phenomenon? See MPEP § 2106.04(II)(A)(1). Incorporates the mental process rejection of independent claim 1. Further, Yes, the limitation “computing a first similarity between a third embedding for a third shape and a fourth embedding for a first variant of a fourth shape, wherein the third shape and the first variant of the fourth shape are included in the first plurality of shapes; computing a second similarity between the third embedding and a fifth embedding for a second variant of the fourth shape, wherein the second variant of the fourth shape is included in the first plurality of embeddings or the second plurality of embeddings” is the abstract idea of a mathematical relationship, as directed to “a mathematical relationship is a relationship between variables or numbers. A mathematical relationship may be expressed in words or using mathematical symbols”. See MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)(I)(A).
Step 2A prong 2: the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application? See MPEP § 2106.04(d) No.
Step 2B: the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception? See MPEP § 2106.05. and Is the additional element recognized as well-understood, routine, and conventional? No.
Dependent claim 7
Incorporates the rejection of independent claim 1.
Step 2A Prong 1: does the claim recite an abstract idea, law of nature, or natural phenomenon? See MPEP § 2106.04(II)(A)(1). Incorporates the mental process rejection of independent claim 1.
Step 2A prong 2: the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application? See MPEP § 2106.04(d). No.
Step 2B: the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception? See MPEP § 2106.05. and Is the additional element recognized as well-understood, routine, and conventional? No.
Dependent claim 8
Incorporates the rejection of independent claim 1.
Step 2A Prong 1: does the claim recite an abstract idea, law of nature, or natural phenomenon? See MPEP § 2106.04(II)(A)(1). Incorporates the mental process rejection of independent claim 1. Further, Yes, the limitation “updating parameters of the first machine learning model and the second machine learning model based on a loss that increases the first plurality of similarities” is the abstract idea of a mathematical relationship, as directed to “a mathematical relationship is a relationship between variables or numbers. A mathematical relationship may be expressed in words or using mathematical symbols”. See MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)(I)(A).
Step 2A prong 2: the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application? See MPEP § 2106.04(d) No.
Step 2B: the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception? See MPEP § 2106.05. and Is the additional element recognized as well-understood, routine, and conventional? No.
Dependent claim 9
Incorporates the rejection of independent claim 1.
Step 2A Prong 1: does the claim recite an abstract idea, law of nature, or natural phenomenon? See MPEP § 2106.04(II)(A)(1). Incorporates the mental process rejection of independent claim 1. Further, Yes, the limitation “updating parameters of the first machine learning model and the second machine learning model based on a loss that decreases the second plurality of similarities” is the abstract idea of a mathematical relationship, as directed to “a mathematical relationship is a relationship between variables or numbers. A mathematical relationship may be expressed in words or using mathematical symbols”. See MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)(I)(A).
Step 2A prong 2: the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application? See MPEP § 2106.04(d) No.
Step 2B: the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception? See MPEP § 2106.05. and Is the additional element recognized as well-understood, routine, and conventional? No.
Dependent claim 10
Incorporates the rejection of independent claim 1.
Step 2A Prong 1: does the claim recite an abstract idea, law of nature, or natural phenomenon? See MPEP § 2106.04(II)(A)(1). Incorporates the mental process rejection of independent claim 1. Further, Yes, the limitation “the first plurality of similarities and the second plurality of similarities are computed using at least one of a cosine similarity, a Euclidean distance, a dot product, or a nonlinear projection” is the abstract idea of a mathematical relationship, as directed to “a mathematical relationship is a relationship between variables or numbers. A mathematical relationship may be expressed in words or using mathematical symbols”. See MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)(I)(A).
Step 2A prong 2: the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application? See MPEP § 2106.04(d) No.
Step 2B: the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception? See MPEP § 2106.05. and Is the additional element recognized as well-understood, routine, and conventional? No.
Dependent claim 12
Incorporates the rejection of independent claim 11.
Step 2A Prong 1: does the claim recite an abstract idea, law of nature, or natural phenomenon? See MPEP § 2106.04(II)(A)(1). Incorporates the mental process rejection of independent claim 11.
Step 2A prong 2: the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application? See MPEP § 2106.04(d) No.
Step 2B: the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception? See MPEP § 2106.05. and Is the additional element recognized as well-understood, routine, and conventional? No.
Dependent claim 13
Incorporates the rejection of independent claim 11.
Step 2A Prong 1: does the claim recite an abstract idea, law of nature, or natural phenomenon? See MPEP § 2106.04(II)(A)(1). Incorporates the mental process rejection of independent claim 11.
Step 2A prong 2: the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application? See MPEP § 2106.04(d) No.
Step 2B: the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception? See MPEP § 2106.05. and Is the additional element recognized as well-understood, routine, and conventional? No.
Dependent claim 14
Incorporates the rejection of independent claim 11.
Step 2A Prong 1: does the claim recite an abstract idea, law of nature, or natural phenomenon? See MPEP § 2106.04(II)(A)(1). Incorporates the mental process rejection of independent claim 11.
Step 2A prong 2: the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application? See MPEP § 2106.04(d) No.
Step 2B: the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception? See MPEP § 2106.05. and Is the additional element recognized as well-understood, routine, and conventional? No.
Dependent claim 15
Incorporates the rejection of independent claim 11.
Step 2A Prong 1: does the claim recite an abstract idea, law of nature, or natural phenomenon? See MPEP § 2106.04(II)(A)(1). Incorporates the mental process rejection of independent claim 11.
Step 2A prong 2: the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application? See MPEP § 2106.04(d) No, the limitation “applying one or more augmentations to data associated with the first plurality of shapes to generate a third plurality of shapes associated with the first format” is an additional element that generally links the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use. See MPEP §§ 2106.04(d), 2106.05(h).
Step 2B: the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception? See MPEP § 2106.05. and Is the additional element recognized as well-understood, routine, and conventional? No, the limitation “applying one or more augmentations to data associated with the first plurality of shapes to generate a third plurality of shapes associated with the first format” is an additional element that generally links the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use. See MPEP §§ 2106.04(d), 2106.05(h).
Dependent claim 16
Incorporates the rejection of independent claim 11.
Step 2A Prong 1: does the claim recite an abstract idea, law of nature, or natural phenomenon? See MPEP § 2106.04(II)(A)(1). Incorporates the mental process rejection of independent claim 11.
Step 2A prong 2: the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application? See MPEP § 2106.04(d) No.
Step 2B: the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception? See MPEP § 2106.05. and Is the additional element recognized as well-understood, routine, and conventional? No.
Dependent claim 17
Incorporates the rejection of independent claim 11.
Step 2A Prong 1: does the claim recite an abstract idea, law of nature, or natural phenomenon? See MPEP § 2106.04(II)(A)(1). Incorporates the mental process rejection of independent claim 11. Further, Yes, the limitation “updating parameters of the first machine learning model and the second machine learning model based on a loss that increases the first plurality of similarities and decreases the second plurality of similarities” is the abstract idea of a mathematical relationship, as directed to “a mathematical relationship is a relationship between variables or numbers. A mathematical relationship may be expressed in words or using mathematical symbols”. See MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)(I)(A).
Step 2A prong 2: the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application? See MPEP § 2106.04(d) No.
Step 2B: the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception? See MPEP § 2106.05. and Is the additional element recognized as well-understood, routine, and conventional? No.
Dependent claim 18
Incorporates the rejection of independent claim 11.
Step 2A Prong 1: does the claim recite an abstract idea, law of nature, or natural phenomenon? See MPEP § 2106.04(II)(A)(1). Incorporates the mental process rejection of independent claim 11. Further, Yes, the limitation “the loss comprises a supervised contrastive loss” is the abstract idea of a mathematical relationship, as directed to “a mathematical relationship is a relationship between variables or numbers. A mathematical relationship may be expressed in words or using mathematical symbols”. See MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)(I)(A).
Step 2A prong 2: the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application? See MPEP § 2106.04(d) No.
Step 2B: the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception? See MPEP § 2106.05. and Is the additional element recognized as well-understood, routine, and conventional? No.
Dependent claim 19
Incorporates the rejection of independent claim 11.
Step 2A Prong 1: does the claim recite an abstract idea, law of nature, or natural phenomenon? See MPEP § 2106.04(II)(A)(1). Incorporates the mental process rejection of independent claim 11.
Step 2A prong 2: the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application? See MPEP § 2106.04(d) No.
Step 2B: the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception? See MPEP § 2106.05. and Is the additional element recognized as well-understood, routine, and conventional? No.
The dependent claims as analyzed above, do not recite limitations that integrated the judicial exception into a practical application. In addition, the claim limitations do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception (Step 2B). Therefore, the claims do not recite any limitations, when considered individually or as a whole, that recite what the courts have identified as “significantly more”, see MPEP 2106.05; and therefore, as a whole the claims are not patent eligible.
As shown above, the dependent claims do not provide any additional elements that when considered individually or as an ordered combination, amount to significantly more than the abstract idea identified. Therefore, as a whole the dependent claims do not recite what the courts have identified as “significantly more” than the recited judicial exception.
Therefore, claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception and does not recite, when claim elements are examined individually and as a whole, elements that the courts have identified as “significantly more” than the recited judicial exception.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-20 are allowed. 101 Abstract idea rejection still remains.
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to Applicant's disclosure:
“Joint Embeddings of Shapes and Images via CNN Image Purification”, Li et al: about everyday objects in our environment. However, it is difficult to semantically link together these two media forms, even when they feature identical or very similar objects. We propose a joint embedding space populated by both 3D shapes and 2D images of objects, where the distances between embedded entities reflect similarity between the underlying objects. This joint embedding space facilitates comparison between entities of either form, and allows for cross-modality retrieval. We construct the embedding space using 3D shape similarity measure, as 3D shapes are more pure and complete than their appearance in images, leading to more robust distance metrics. We then employ a Convolutional Neural Network (CNN) to “purify” images by muting distracting factors. The CNN is trained to map an image to a point in the embedding space, so that it is close to a point attributed to a 3D model of a similar object to the one depicted in the image. This purifying capability of the CNN is accomplished with the help of a large amount of training data consisting of images synthesized from 3D shapes. Our joint embedding allows cross-view image retrieval, image-based shape retrieval, as well as shape-based image retrieval. We evaluate our method on these retrieval tasks and show that it consistently outperforms state-of-the-art methods, and demonstrate the usability of a joint embedding in a number of additional applications. However, Li, either alone or in combination with other prior arts, does not specifically disclose the claimed invention as a whole.
“3D Object Recognition Using Shape Similarity-Based Aspect Graph”, Cyr et al: an aspect-graph approach to 30 object recognition where the definition of an aspect is motivated by its role in the subsequent recognition step. Specifically, we measure the similarity between two views by a 20 shape metric of similarity measuring the distance between the projected, segmented shapes of the 30 object. This endows the viewing sphere with a metric which is used to group similar views into aspects, and to represent each aspect by a prototype. The same shape similarity metric is then used to rate the similarity between unknown views of unknown objects and stored prototypes to identify the object and its pose. The performance of this approach on a database of 18 objects each viewed in five degree increments along the ground viewing plane is demonstrated. However, Cyr, either alone or in combination with other prior arts, does not specifically disclose the claimed invention as a whole.
“Shape2Vec: semantic-based descriptors for 3D shapes, sketches and images”, Tasse et al, Convolutional neural networks have been successfully used to compute shape descriptors, or jointly embed shapes and sketches in a common vector space. We propose a novel approach that leverages both labeled 3D shapes and semantic information contained in the labels, to generate semantically-meaningful shape descriptors. A neural network is trained to generate shape descriptors that lie close to a vector representation of the shape class, given a vector space of words. This method is easily extendable to range scans, hand-drawn sketches and images. This makes cross-modal retrieval possible, without a need to design different methods depending on the query type. We show that sketch-based shape retrieval using semantic-based descriptors outperforms the state-of-the-art by large relevance to the query, than current deep shape descriptors. However, Tasse, either alone or in combination with other prior arts, does not specifically disclose the claimed invention as a whole.
Applicant is required under 37 C.F.R. § 1.111(c) to consider these references fully when responding to this action.
It is noted that any citation to specific pages, columns, lines, or figures in the prior art references and any interpretation of the references should not be considered to be limiting in any way. A reference is relevant for all it contains and may be relied upon for all that it would have reasonably suggested to one having ordinary skill in the art. In re Heck, 699 F.2d 1331, 1332-33, 216 U.S.P.Q. 1038, 1039 (Fed. Cir. 1983) (quoting In re Lemelson, 397 F.2d 1006, 1009, 158 U.S.P.Q. 275, 277 (C.C.P.A. 1968)).
In the interests of compact prosecution, Applicant is invited to contact the examiner via electronic media pursuant to USPTO policy outlined MPEP § 502.03. All electronic communication must be authorized in writing. Applicant may wish to file an Internet Communications Authorization Form PTO/SB/439. Applicant may wish to request an interview using the Interview Practice website: http://;www.uspto.gov/patent/laws-and-regulations/interview-practice.
Applicant is reminded Internet e-mail may not be used for communication for matters under 35 U.S.C. § 132 or which otherwise require a signature. A reply to an Office action may NOT be communicated by Applicant to the USPTO via Internet e- mail. If such a reply is submitted by Applicant via Internet e-mail, a paper copy will be placed in the appropriate patent application file with an indication that the reply is NOT ENTERED. See MPEP § 502.03(II).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to HAIMEI JIANG whose telephone number is (571)270-1590. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9-5pm.
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, Mariela D Reyes can be reached at 571-270-1006. 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.
/HAIMEI JIANG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2142