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 .
This office action is in response to the claimed amendment filed on February 13, 2026, in claims 1-3 are presented for further examination.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1-3 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection necessitated by amendment.
Remark
After further reviewed applicant arguments in light of the original specification, it is conceivable that the claimed amendment filed on February 13, 2026 has overcome the rejections under 35 USC 101 and 103. The amended claim 1 includes additional elements that are integrated into a practical application that render claims 1-3 eligible under 35 USC 101. The 35 USC 101 and 103 have been withdrawn.
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.
Claims 2-3 are 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. Claims 2-3 recite “in step (4)”. It is unclear as which step (4) the Applicant is referring. Claim 1 in which claims 2-3 are depending on does not recite “step(4)”. Applicant is suggested to amend the claims for such abovementioned deficiency.
Claims 2-3 are recites the limitation “in step (4)”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
US 20210374132 (involved in receiving an untrained model and an indication of a task for which the model is to be trained. The model is trained for a set of iterations. A difference between a current predicted output and a ground truth dataset is determined for an input data. A loss function is computed, where the function includes a task-specific loss based on the difference and the task. A retrospective loss is determined using a past predicted output generated from a past parameter state of the model. A set of parameters is refined using the function. The parameters are outputted as the trained model).
US 11,182,468 (involved in retrieving a set of images corresponding to a user, and categorizing the images into categories based on objects depicted in the images. The circuitry selects a category from the categories, and retrieves a generative model corresponding to the category. The model is trained using the images to generate synthetic images representing images that correspond to category`s images. An Input/Output (I/O) circuitry generates the images for display to the user, where user selection of one of the synthetic images causes an authentication of the user).
US 20210360010 (involved in presenting a set of modulators for training parameters. The modulators respond to selection commands through the privacy interface to trigger procedural calls that modify corresponding training parameters for respective training cycles in a training job. A trainer executes the training cycles based on the modified training parameters, and determines a performance accuracy of model instances for each of the executed training cycles. A differential privacy estimator estimates a privacy guarantee for each executed training cycle. A feedback provider visualizes the privacy guarantee, performance accuracy, and the modified parameters on the interface).
US 20210334664 (involved in extracting local features that identify different regions of the input image using a local feature network. A label is assigned to each of the different regions of the input image using the local features and the global features. The machine learning model is trained to classify an input image defined by a second domain that is different from the first domain. The local feature network is caused (506) to generate a feature representation that describes local features of the second domain input image. A loss function is computed by comparing the probability distribution to a ground truth classification for the second domain input image. A parameter of the machine learning model is refined using the loss function. The machine learning model is outputted (514) with its parameter as the trained machine learning model).
US 20200372384 (involved in preserving data relevant to diagnostic distinctions. The correlated features is prevented from overemphasized in the modality transfer process. The computational expense of making data pass through network components and incurs loss in quality is reduced.)
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of 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 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 JEAN M CORRIELUS whose telephone number is (571)272-4032. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 6:30a-10p(Midflex).
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, Ann J Lo can be reached at (571)272-9767. 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.
/JEAN M CORRIELUS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2159 April 17, 2026
Prosecution Insights