DETAILED ACTION
This office action is in response to the application filed on 08/14/2026. Claim(s) 1-17 and 19 is/are pending and are examined. Claim 18 is cancelled.
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 Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed on 08/14/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive for the following reasons:
Applicant’s Argument:
The Examiner rejects "in response to the corresponding query sample" as indefinite on the ground that "in response to should be followed by a condition, action, or trigger which the limitation does not."¹ Applicant respectfully disagrees.
The full phrase in the claims reads: "analyzing an output generated by the neural network in response to the corresponding query sample to make a binary determination." The prepositional phrase "in response to the corresponding query sample" modifies the immediately preceding noun phrase "an output generated by the neural network." The trigger identified by "in response to" is therefore expressly recited, as the corresponding query sample is what the neural network generates its output in response to. The Examiner's rejection reads the phrase in isolation, ignoring the antecedent noun phrase to which it is grammatically joined.
A person of ordinary skill reading the claims in view of the specification would understand with reasonable certainty that the output being analyzed is the output the neural network produces when the query sample is input to it. Because there is no ambiguity, the rejection under § 112(b) should be withdrawn. (Applicant’s response filed on 08/14/2026, page 2).
Examiner’s Response:
The Examiner respectfully disagrees. There are potential multiple interpretations of the limitation. The issue is not with how the noun phrase is modifying the prepositional phrase, but with how the prepositional phrase can be interpreted. One of the interpretations being the query sample having been the input to the machine learning model and the output of that sample is what is being analyzed. Another interpretation being that the query sample is being analyzed compared to any output of the machine learning mode. As such, the Examiner is unable to ascertain the scope of the claim, and a rejection under 112(b) is proper. Examiner suggests adding a condition, action, or trigger after, in response to, to clarify the limitation.
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 1-17 and 19 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. The claims recite “in response to the corresponding query sample” which is unclear. In response to should be followed by a condition, action, or trigger which the limitation does not. Thus, Examiner is unable to ascertain the scope of the claim, and a rejection under 112(b) is proper. Examiner suggests adding a condition, action, or trigger after, in response to, to clarify the limitation.
The dependent claims included in the statement of rejection but not specifically addressed in the body of the rejection have inherited the deficiencies of their parent claim and have not resolved the deficiencies. Therefore, they are rejected based on the same rationale as applied to their parent claims above.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
US 2020/0104754 A1 - METHOD FOR MANAGING A MACHINE LEARNING MODEL
US 2021/0034721 A1 - MACHINE LEARNING MODEL AND METHOD FOR DETERMINING IF THE MACHINE LEARNING MODEL HAS BEEN COPIED
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JACOB BENEDICT KNACKSTEDT whose telephone number is (703)756-5608. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8:00 am - 5:00 pm.
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, Linglan Edwards can be reached on (571) 270-5440. 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.
/J.B.K./Examiner, Art Unit 2408
/LINGLAN EDWARDS/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2408
