DETAILED ACTION
1. The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
This action is responsive to the application filed 07/19/2023.
Claims 1-20 are presenting for examination. Claims 1, 13, and 19 are independent Claims.
Drawings
2. The drawings filed 07/19/2023 are accepted for examination purposes.
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 19 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter.
Claim 19 recites “one or more computer readable media.” The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim drawn to a computer readable storage medium typically covers forms of non-transitory tangible media and transitory propagating signals per se in view of the ordinary and customary meaning of computer readable storage medium. See Ex parte Mehwerter, App. No. 2012-007692 (PTAB 2013)(precedential).
The Specification fails to provide a definition of “one or more computer readable media” that excludes transitory propagating signals. Thus, the recited “one or more computer readable media” is interpreted to include non-statutory subject matter (e.g., signals, carrier waves, etc.).
Claim 20, which depends on claim 19, fails to further define the “one or more computer readable media” to exclude transitory propagating signals. Thus, claim 20 also fails to recite statutory subject matter.
The examiner suggests amending the above claims to explicitly exclude signals (e.g., by adding the phrase “non-transitory”) to obviate the rejection.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 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 may not be obtained though the invention is not identically disclosed or described as set forth in section 102 of this title, if the differences between the subject matter sought to be patented and the prior art are such that the subject matter as a whole would have been obvious at the time the invention was made to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which said subject matter pertains. Patentability shall not be negatived by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 1-3, 5-15, and 17-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dembla et al. (US 20170249375) in view of Chan et al. (US 20210406266).
It is noted that any citations to specific, pages, columns, paragraphs, lines, or figures in the prior art references and any interpretation of the reference 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. See MPEP 2123.
As to Claim 1:
Dembla teaches a system ([0021] and [0036]), comprising: a data processing system comprising one or more processors, coupled with memory, to:
identify a table, the table comprising a plurality of bins for ranges of values of a feature and a plurality of coefficients that indicate a level of a target for the plurality of bins ([0020-0022] and [0024]);
receive, via a graphical user interface from a client device, a request to modify bins of the table ([0010-0011] and [0029]);
establish, responsive to the request, a spline to fit the table based at least in part on a cost function weighted based on a number of entries of the feature for the ranges of values of the feature ([0023] and [0028-0029]);
generate, via the spline established based at least in part on the cost function, a second table comprising a plurality of second bins and a plurality of second coefficients ([0008] and [0023-0024]); and
generate data to cause the graphical user interface to include a graphic representation of the second table ([0023-0024]).
Dembla, however, does not explicitly teach, Chan teaches the table is generated by a model trained with machine learning ([0044-0045] and [0048]).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Dembla with Chan because it would have provided the enhanced capability for detecting one or more tables and performing information extraction and analysis on any given table.
As to Claim 2:
Dembla teaches generate a first bin for a first range of values of the feature of the plurality of second bins in a first resolution proportional to a first slope of the spline over the first range of values of the feature ([0044-0045] and [0060-0062]); and generate a second bin for a second range of values of the feature of the plurality of second bins in a second resolution proportional to a second slope of the spline over the second range of values of the feature ([0044-0045] and [0060-0062]).
As to Claim 3:
Dembla teaches fit the spline to the table based on the cost function, the cost function comprising: a summation of distances between the plurality of second bins and lines of a plurality of functions of the spline ([0023] and [0028]).
As to Claim 5:
Dembla teaches the spline comprising at least one first function of a first function type and at least one second function of a second function type ([0011], [0024], and [0028]).
As to Claim 6:
Dembla teaches the first function type is linear and the second function type is constant ([0023-0024]).
As to Claim 7:
Dembla teaches receive, via the graphical user interface from the client device, a plurality of parameters defining the spline; and generate the spline based on the plurality of parameters ([0028-0029]).
As to Claim 9:
Dembla teaches generate data to cause the graphical user interface to include an element to select between an automatic generation of the second table and a manual generation of the second table ([0020-0022] and [0026]).
As to Claim 10:
Dembla teaches fit the spline to the table based on the cost function weighted based on the number of entries of the feature for the ranges of values of the feature responsive to a selection of the automatic generation by the client device via the graphical user interface ([0022-0023]).
As to Claim 11:
Dembla teaches generate the spline based on a plurality of user defined parameters responsive to a selection of the manual generation of the second table ([0026]).
As to Claim 12:
Dembla teaches receive the plurality of user defined parameters in a first format; compare the first format to a second format; and generate data causing the graphical user interface to display an alert responsive to a determination of a difference between the first format and the second format ([0023-0024]).
As to Claims 13-15, 17, and 18:
Refer to the discussion of Claims 1-3, 9, and 10 above, respectively, for rejection. Claims 13-15, 17, and 18 are the same as Claims 1-3, 9, and 10, except Claims 13-15, 17, and 18 are method Claims and Claims 1-3, 9, and 10 are system Claims.
As to Claims 19 and 20:
Refer to the discussion of Claims 1 and 2 above, respectively, for rejection. Claims 19 and 20 are the same as Claims 1 and 2, except Claims 19 and 20 are computer readable media Claims and Claims 1 and 2 are system Claims.
Allowable Subject Matter
5. Claims 4 and 16 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims, subject to the results of a final search by the Examiner.
Conclusion
6. The prior art made of record, listed on PTO 892 provided to Applicant is considered to have relevancy to the claimed invention. Applicant should review each identified reference carefully before responding to this office action to properly advance the case in light of the prior art.
Contact information
7. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the
examiner should be directed to MAIKHANH NGUYEN whose telephone number is (571) 272-4093. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday (8:00 am – 5:30 pm). If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, TAMARA KYLE can be reached at (571)272-4241.
The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from Patent Center and the Private Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from Patent Center or Private PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Patent Center or Private PAIR to authorized users only. Should you have questions about access to Patent Center or the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free).
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) Form at https://www.uspto.gov/patents/uspto-automated- interview-request-air-form.
/MAIKHANH NGUYEN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2144