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 .
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 1-2 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter. The claim(s) does/do not fall within at least one of the four categories of patent eligible subject matter because: the claims lack the necessary physical articles or objects to constitute a machine or a manufacture within the meaning of 35 USC 101. They are clearly not a series of steps or acts to be a process nor are they a combination of chemical compounds to be a composition of matter. As such, they fail to fall within a statutory category. They are, at best, functional descriptive material per se.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
Claims 1-2 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Samplawski (US 11,288,542 B1), hereinafter “Samplawski”.
As per claim 1, Samplawski teaches a signal identifier comprising an inference model to:
“generate a latent variable in which a distribution for each class in a latent space is defined according to the class of classification” at Col. 3 line 1 to Col. 5 line 55 and Fig. 1;
(Samplawski teaches the image encoder 170 generating a plurality of latent factors based on the image pixels and estimating distribution of the latent factors in a latent space according to a class of classification, e.g., “California Gull”)
“and a second latent variable in which a distribution for each large classification in the latent space is defined according to the large classification of a broader concept of the class” at Col. 3 line 1 to Col. 5 line 55 and Fig. 1;
(Samplawski also teaches the attributes encoder 180 generating latent factors based on attributes of the image and estimating distribution of the latent factors in the latent space according to a larger classification of a supper class of the class, e.g., “Gull” or “Shore Birds”)
“the inference model is learned using teacher data to perform prediction on signal data of an unlearned class in accordance with a concept developed by human beings” at Col. 1 lines 25-60, Col. 7 lines 50-65 and Figs. 1-3;
(Samplawski teaches machine learning model is trained using training dataset to predict class of an image received for classification, according the concept/category developed by human beings (e.g., “Shore birds”, “Gull”, “California Gull”))
“wherein the learned inference model is used to perform signal information including signal identification of a radio wave signal acquired by a radar and identification of an image acquired by a camera” Col. 1 lines 25-60, Col. 7 lines 50-65 and Figs. 1-3.
(Samplawski teaches the model is used to perform classification based on signal received from a digital image)
As per claim 2, Samplawski teaches the signal identifier of claim 1, wherein “the inference model is learned using both the signal data and the teacher data, the teacher data including information of the class to which the signal data belongs and information of the broader concept of the class” at Col. 1 lines 25-60, Col. 3 lines 10-30.
(Samplawski teaches the machine learning model are trained using input images and labeled training data)
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 3/20/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. The examiner respectfully traverses Applicant’s arguments.
Regarding claims 1-2, Applicant argued that Samplawski is silent as to “the inference model is learned using teacher data to perform prediction on signal data on an unlearned class in accordance with a concept developed by human beings”. On the contrary, Samplawski teaches at Col. 1 lines 25-60, Col. 7 lines 50-65 and Figs. 1-3 the machine learning model is trained using training dataset to predict class of an image received for classification, according the concept/category developed by human beings (e.g., “Shore birds”, “Gull”, “California Gull”))
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KHANH B PHAM whose telephone number is (571)272-4116. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 8am to 4pm.
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, Sanjiv Shah can be reached at (571)272-4098. 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.
/KHANH B PHAM/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2166
April 6, 2026
Prosecution Insights