DETAILED ACTION
Notice to Applicant
This action is in reply to the filed on 5/4/2026.
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claims 1-9 and 11-20 have been amended.
Claim 1-20 currently pending and have been examined.
Response to Amendments
Examiner maintains Examiner’s 35 USC 112(b) rejection. Applicant has not amended Applicant’s claims to correct mixed status type of Applicant’s claimed invention. As such, said rejection is herein maintained for reasons set forth below.
The Applicant’s amendments of the claims as currently submitted have been noted by the Examiner. Said amendments are not sufficient to overcome the rejection previously set forth under 35 USC 101. As such, said rejection is herein maintained for reasons set forth below.
With the amendment of claims 1-9 and 11-20, , applicant has successfully overcome the Examiner’s 35 USC 103 rejection and Examiner withdraws his 35 USC 103 rejection. Putha et al. and Vianu et al. do not teach “the first update resulting in first updated parameters of the trained machine-learning algorithm,” etc.
Information Disclosure Statement
The Information Disclosure Statement filed on 2/5/2026 has been considered. An initialed copy of the Form 1449 is enclosed herewith.
Subject Matter Free of Prior Art
Putha et al. (US 2020/0151871) and Vianu et al. (US 2020/0334809) teach AAA. Putha et al. and Vianu et al. do not teach “the first update resulting in first updated parameters of the trained machine-learning algorithm...,” etc. Therefore, the Applicant has successfully overcome the Examiner’s 35 USC 103 rejection and Examiner withdraws his 35 USC 103 rejection.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
112(b)
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.
Rejection
Claims 1-20 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b), as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
Mixed Statutory Class
Claims 1-11 and 13 are directed to a device and method for using said device. Claims 1-11 and 13 are of mixed statutory type. It has been held that a claim that recites both an apparatus and a method for using said apparatus (mixed statutory type) is indefinite under section 112, paragraph 2, as such a claim does not sufficiently and precisely describe the invention as to provide competitors with an accurate determination of the metes and bounds of protection involved (IPXL Holdings LLC v. Amazon.com Inc., 77 USPQd 1140 (CA FC 2005); Ex parte Lyell, 17 USPQ2d 1548). Claims 1-11 and 13 are thereby rejected and appropriate correction is required.
Claims 1-11, 16-20 and 14 are directed to an apparatus and method for using said apparatus. Claims 1-11, 16-20 and 14 are of mixed statutory type. It has been held that a claim that recites both an apparatus and a method for using said apparatus (mixed statutory type) is indefinite under section 112, paragraph 2, as such a claim does not sufficiently and precisely describe the invention as to provide competitors with an accurate determination of the metes and bounds of protection involved (IPXL Holdings LLC v. Amazon.com Inc., 77 USPQd 1140 (CA FC 2005); Ex parte Lyell, 17 USPQ2d 1548). Claims 1-11, 16-20 and 14 are thereby rejected and appropriate correction is required.
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.
Human Interactions Organized
Applicant discloses (Applicant’s Specification, [0007]) that there is a need for advanced techniques of assessing a performance of a trained ML algorithm. So a need exists to organize these human interactions by/through determining performance of trained ML algorithms using the steps of “parsing validated radiology reports, generating predictions, determining performances,” etc. Applicant’s method/computer readable medium/apparatus is therefore a certain method of organizing the human activities as described and disclosed by Applicant.
Rejection
Claim(s) 1-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Claim(s) 1, 12, 14 and 15 is/are directed to the abstract idea of “determining performance of trained ML algorithms,” etc. (Applicant’s Specification, Abstract, paragraph(s) [0009]), etc., as explained in detail below, and thus grouped as a certain method of organizing human interactions. The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the additional computer elements, which are recited at a high level of generality, provide conventional computer functions that do not add meaningful limits to practicing the abstract idea. Accordingly, claims 1-20 recite an abstract idea.
Step 2A Prong 1 – The Judicial Exception
The claim(s) recite(s) in part, method/computer readable medium/apparatus for performing the steps of “parsing validated radiology reports, generating predictions, determining performances,” etc., that is “determining performance of trained ML algorithms,” etc. which is a method of managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people (social activities, teaching, following rules, instructions) and thus grouped as a certain method of organizing human interactions. Accordingly, claims 1-20 recite an abstract idea.
Step 2A Prong 2 – Integration of the Judicial Exception into a Practical Application
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the generically recited additional computer elements (i.e. microcontrollers, graphics processor units, integrated circuits, memory devices, processors, computational devices, medical imaging equipment (Applicant’s Specification [0021], [0047]-[0049]), etc.) to perform steps of “parsing validated radiology reports, generating predictions, determining performances,” etc. do not add a meaningful limitation to the abstract idea because they amount to simply implementing the abstract idea on a computer and this is nothing more than an attempt to generally link the product of nature to a particular technological environment. Accordingly, this additional element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limit on practicing the abstract idea. Accordingly, the claims are directed to an abstract idea.
Insignificant extra-solution activity
Claim(s) 1-20 recites storing data steps, retrieving data steps, providing data steps, output steps (Bilski v. Kappos, 561 U.S. 593, 610-12 (2010), Bancorp Servs., L.L.C. v. Sun Life Assur. Co. of Can., 771 F.Supp.2d 1054, 1066 (E.D. Mo. 2011), aff’d, 687 F.3d at 1266), and/or transmitting data step (buySAFE, Inc. v. Google, Inc., 765 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2014), Apple, Inc. v. Ameranth, Inc., 842 F.3d 1299, 1241-42 (Fed. Cir. 2016)) that is/are insignificant extra-solution activity. Extra-solution activity limitations are insufficient to transform judicially excepted subject matter into a patent-eligible application (MPEP §2106.05(g)).
Step 2B – Search for an Inventive Concept/Significantly More
The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because as discussed above with respect to integration into a practical application, the additional elements (i.e. microcontrollers, graphics processor units, integrated circuits, memory devices, processors, computational devices, medical imaging equipment, etc.) are recited at a high level of generality, and the written description indicates that these elements are generic computer components. Using generic computer components to perform abstract ideas does not provide a necessary inventive concept (Alice, 573 U.S. at 223 (“mere recitation of a generic computer cannot transform a patent-ineligible abstract idea into a patent-eligible invention.”)). Accordingly, the claims are not patent eligible.
Individually and in Combination
The additional elements when considered both individually and as an ordered combination do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. The additional elements amount to no more than generic computer components that serve to merely link the abstract idea to a particular technological environment (i.e. microcontrollers, graphics processor units, integrated circuits, memory devices, processors, computational devices, medical imaging equipment, etc.). At paragraph(s) [0021], [0047]-[0049], Applicant’s specification describes generic computer hardware for implementing the above described functions including “microcontrollers, graphics processor units, integrated circuits, memory devices, processors, computational devices, medical imaging equipment,” etc. to perform the functions of “parsing validated radiology reports, generating predictions, determining performances,” etc. The recited “microcontrollers, graphics processor units, integrated circuits, memory devices, processors, computational devices, medical imaging equipment,” etc. does/do not add meaningful limitations to the idea of beyond generally linking the system to a particular technological environment, that is, implementation via computers. Thus, taken alone, the additional elements do not amount to significantly more than the above-identified judicial exception (the abstract idea). Looking at the limitations as an ordered combination adds nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually. There is no indication that the combination of elements improves the functioning of a computer, or improves any other technology, or improves a technical field, or provides a technical improvement to a technical problem. Their collective functions merely provide generic computer implementation. Therefore, claims 1-20 do not amount to significantly more than the underlying abstract idea of “an idea of itself” (Alice).
Dependent Claims
Dependent claim(s) 2-11, 13 and 16-20 include(s) all the limitations of the parent claims and are directed to the same abstract idea as discussed above and incorporated herein.
Although dependent claims 2-11, 13 and 16-20 add additional limitations, they only serve to further limit the abstract idea by reciting limitations on what the information is and how it is received and used. Dependent claims 2-11, 13 and 16-20 merely describe physical structures to implement the abstract idea. These information and physical characteristics do not change the fundamental analogy to the abstract idea grouping of certain method of organizing human interactions, and when viewed individually or as a whole, they do not add anything substantial beyond the abstract idea. Furthermore, the combination of elements does not indicate a significant improvement to the functioning of a computer or any other technology. Therefore, the claims when taken as a whole are ineligible for the same reasons as independent claim(s) 1, 12, 14 and 15.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed 5/4/2026 with respect to claims 1-20 have been fully considered and they are partially persuasive. Applicant’s arguments will be addressed herein below in the order in which they appear in the response filed 5/4/2026.
Applicant’s arguments filed on 5/4/2026 with respect to claims 1-20 have been fully considered but are moot in view of the new ground(s) of rejection.
Applicant argues that (A) Putha et al. and Vianu et al. do not render obvious the present invention because Putha et al. and Vianu et al. do not disclose “the first update resulting in first updated parameters of the trained machine-learning algorithm,” etc. in the previously presented and/or presently amended claims, (B) the Applicant’s claimed invention is directed to statutory matter.
103 Responses
In response to Applicant’s argument (A), Applicant’s arguments with regard to the application of Putha et al. and Vianu et al. to the amended have been found persuasive. Putha et al. and Vianu et al. do not teach “the first update resulting in first updated parameters of the trained machine-learning algorithm.” Applicant has successfully overcome the Examiner’s 35 USC 103 rejection and Examiner withdraws his 35 USC 103 rejection.
101 Responses
As per Applicant’s argument (B), Applicant’s remarks with regard to the statutory nature of Applicant’s claimed invention are addressed above in the Office Action.
2019 PEG Neither Limiting nor Exhaustive
Further, the enumerated examples in the 2019 PEG are neither limiting nor exhaustive. They are exemplary. Applicant’s argument is not persuasive.
Enfish
Further, the claims in Enfish, LLC v. Microsoft Corp. provide a technical solution to a problem rooted in computer technology (i.e. database software designed as a “self-referential” database). Simply adding a generic computing device that performs routine and conventional functions or presenting abstract claims that are directed to generalized steps to be performed on a computer using conventional computer activity (i.e. parsing validated radiology reports, generating predictions, determining performances, etc.) is not equivalent or similar to addressing a database challenge as is the case in Enfish, LLC v. Microsoft Corp. While the claims are directed to a process that is performed on a computer, they are not directed to a business challenge that is particular to databases. In fact, the claims are not directed to the use “self-referential” databases at all or functions that are particular to “self-referential” databases as is the case in the claims of Enfish, LLC v. Microsoft Corp. Therefore, because the claims fail to provide a technical solution to any database challenges, the ordered combination of limitations do not amount to significantly more than a method of managing interactions between people and thus grouped as a certain method of organizing human interactions. Accordingly, the claims recite an abstract idea. As explained above, this judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. Further, as explained above, the claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. Accordingly, the claims are not patent eligible. Applicant’s argument is not persuasive.
Training a Machine Learning Algorithm
Applicant has amended Applicant’s claimed invention to recite “training a machine learning algorithm that is trained to determine the performance of a trained machine-learning algorithm. As recited Applicant’s claims are merely instruction to apply an exception (See MPEP 2106.05(f)). Applicant’s Specification does not provide support more than mere instructions to apply an exception. Applicant’s amendments do not move Applicant’s claimed invention into eligible subject matter. Applicant’s argument is not persuasive.
Integration into a Practical Application
Integration into a practical application requires additional elements or a combination of additional elements in the claims to apply, rely on, or use the judicial exception in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on the judicial exception, such that it is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception (e.g. Enfish, McRO and Vanda) (2019 PEG).
Applicant’s “microcontrollers, graphics processor units, integrated circuits, memory devices, processors, computational devices, medical imaging equipment” is/are not an additional element(s) that reflects in the an improvement in the functioning of a computer, is/are not an additional element(s) that applies or uses the judicial exception to effect a particular treatment or prophylaxis, is/are not an additional element(s) that effects a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or things, and is/are not an additional element(s) that applies or uses the judicial exception beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment for the reasons explained in the 101 rejection above. Applicant’s “microcontrollers, graphics processor units, integrated circuits, memory devices, processors, computational devices, medical imaging equipment” is/are merely tools used by Applicant to implement data processing. Data processing is an abstract idea. Applicant’s argument is not persuasive.
Example 39
Appellant’s claims are not analogous to Example 39 as Appellant’s claims are not directed to a method for training a neural network for facial recognition. Appellant’s claims are directed to determining performance of trained ML algorithms without more. Appellant’s argument is not persuasive.
Conclusion
Applicant’s amendment necessitated the new ground(s) for rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set for 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 extension free 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 date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHARLES P. COLEMAN whose telephone number is (571) 270-7788. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday through Thursday 7:30a - 5:00p.
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, ROBERT W. MORGAN can be reached on (571) 272-6773. 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.
/C. P. C./
Examiner, Art Unit 3683
/ROBERT W MORGAN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3683
Prosecution Insights