DETAILED ACTION
This Action is responsive to Claims filed 06/12/2026.
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 .
Status of the Claims
Claims 1, 4, 12-14, and 16-17 have been amended. Claims 2-3, 7, and 15 have been cancelled. Claims 1, 4-6, 8-14, and 16-17 are currently pending.
Response to Amendment
The amendments have overcome the Objections to informalities.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments, see Pages 8-9, filed 06/12/2026, with regards to the 35 U.S.C. 101 Rejection of Claims 1-4 and 16-17 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
The Applicant draws a comparison between the instant independent claims and Example 47, Claim 3. The Examiner respectfully disagrees with the Applicant. Example 47, Claim 3 contains multiple limitations which are not practically performed within the human mind or with the aid of pen and paper (Steps e and f, specifically). These additional elements are tied specifically to the improvement recited in the Example’s Specification. On the other hand, the improvement recited by the Applicant to the machine learnings model is intrinsically tied to the data manipulation steps taken prior to training the machine learning model. The filed amendments indicate the aforementioned data manipulation steps are repeated until, presumably, a threshold of some kind is met, itself interpretable as a mental process step. See the updated 35 U.S.C. 101 Rejection below.
Applicant’s arguments, see Pages 9-10, filed 06/12/2026, with respect to the 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) Rejection of Claims 1, 3, 7, 12-14, and 16-17 have been fully considered and are persuasive by the inclusion of allowable subject matter previously presented in allowable Claim 2. The 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) Rejection of Claims 1, 3, 7, 12-14, and 16-17 has been withdrawn.
Applicant’s arguments, see Pages 9-10, filed 06/12/2026, with respect to the 35 U.S.C. 103 Rejection of Claims 4-6 and 10-11 have been fully considered and are persuasive by the inclusion of allowable subject matter previously presented in allowable Claim 2 within the independent claims. The 35 U.S.C. 103 Rejection of Claims 4-6 and 10-11 has been withdrawn.
Claim Objections
Claims 1, 12-14, and 16-17 objected to because of the following informalities:
“…until a functional quality success rate for classification and/or segmentation.” renders the sentence incomplete.
Appropriate correction is required.
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 1, 4-6, 8-14, and 16-17 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 1, 12-14, and 16-17 recite “…until a functional quality success rate for classification and/or segmentation.” It is unclear based on the Claims what the stop condition for the recited iterative steps is, in addition to the sentence being incomplete (see Objection above). The Specification does not offer detail regarding this deficiency. The dependent claims do not remediate this deficiency, and are therefore similarly rejected.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claims 1, 4-6, 8-14, and 16-17 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more; and because the claims as a whole, considering all claim elements both individually and in combination, do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea, see Alice Corporation Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank International, et al, 573 U.S. (2014). In determining whether the claims are subject matter eligible, the Examiner applies the 2019 USPTO Patent Eligibility Guidelines. (2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. 50, Jan. 7, 2019.)
Step 1 (all claims):
Claims 1, 4-6, 8-11 and 13 recite a method, which falls under the statutory category of a process. Claims 12 and 16 recite a method, which falls under the statutory category of a process. Claim 14 recites a non-transitory computer readable medium, which falls under the statutory category of a manufacture. Claim 17 recites a non-transitory computer readable medium, which falls under the statutory category of a manufacture.
Claim 1:
Step 2A – Prong 1:
Claim 1 recites an abstract idea, law of nature, or natural phenomenon. The limitations “generating a balanced dataset…”, “representing the data records…”, “k-means clustering…”, “selecting…”, “aggregating…”, “providing…”, “wherein the number k of clusters is defined as…”, and “wherein the k-means clustering, data record selection and aggregation are performed repeatedly to generate a plurality of training datasets…until a functional quality success rate for classification and/or segmentation.” under the broadest reasonable interpretation, cover a mental process including an observation, evaluation, judgment or opinion that could be performed in the human mind or with the aid of pencil and paper. These limitations therefore fall within the mental process group.
Generating a generic dataset is practically performed within the human mind or with the aid of pen and paper. Generically representing data records using generic content-based representation(s) is practically performed within the human mind or with the aid of pen and paper. Generically performing k-means clustering of the data records is practically performed within the human mind or with the aid of pen and paper. Selecting a data record closest to the centroid of a cluster is practically performed within the human mind or with the aid of pen and paper. Aggregating the generic data records is practically performed within the human mind or with the aid of pen and paper. Generically providing aggregated data is practically performed within the human mind or with the aid of pen and paper. Generically repeating the aforementioned steps until (presumably) a stop condition is met amounts to data manipulation until a data observation is made.
Step 2A – Prong 2:
The additional elements of claim 1 do not integrate the abstract idea into a judicial exception. The claim recites the additional elements “A method” and “dataset” which are recognized as generic computer components recited at a high level of generality (the Specification does not indicate these elements are different from a typical processing unit). Although it has and executes instructions to perform the abstract idea itself, this also does not serve to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application as it merely amounts to instructions to "apply it." (See MPEP 2106.04(d)(2) indicating mere instructions to apply an abstract idea does not amount to integrating the abstract idea into a practical application).
The additional elements recited in the limitations “…a balanced training dataset for a Machine Learning (ML) model…” are recognized as non-generic computer components, however, they are found to generally link the abstract idea to a particular technological field (See MPEP 2106.05(h)).
The limitations “training…” and “…used to train the model…” is found to mere instructions to apply the abstract idea mental process steps present in the aforementioned data manipulation and/or observation (See MPEP 2106.05(f).
The limitations “receiving…” and “loading…” are found to be pre- or post-extra-solution activity or data gathering steps (See MPEP 2106.05(g)).
Step 2B:
The only limitation on the performance of the described method is a limitation reciting “A method” and “dataset” These elements are insufficient to transform a judicial exception to a patentable invention because the recited elements are considered insignificant extra-solution activity (generic computer system, processing resources, links the judicial exception to a particular, respective, technological environment). The claim thus recites computing components only at a high-level of generality such that it amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components; mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept (see MPEP 2106.05(f)).
The additional elements recited in the limitations “…a balanced training dataset for a Machine Learning (ML) model…” are recognized as non-generic computer components, however, they are found to generally link the abstract idea to a particular technological field (See MPEP 2106.05(h)).
The limitations “training…” and “…used to train the model…” is found to mere instructions to apply the abstract idea mental process steps present in the aforementioned data manipulation and/or observation (See MPEP 2106.05(f).
The limitations “receiving…” and “loading…” are found to well-understood, routine, or conventional activity (See MPEP 2106.05(d)(II)(i)(first list)).
Taken alone or in ordered combination, these additional elements do not amount to significantly more than the above-identified abstract idea. There is no indication that the combination of elements improves the functioning of a computer or improves any other technology. Their collective functions merely provide conventional computer implementation.
Claim 12:
Step 2A – Prong 1:
Claim 12 recites an abstract idea, law of nature, or natural phenomenon. The limitations “selecting representative data records…”, “representing the data records…”, “k-means clustering…”, “selecting…”, “providing…”, “using…”, and “wherein the k-means clustering, data record selection and aggregation are performed repeatedly to generate a plurality of training datasets…until a functional quality success rate for classification and/or segmentation.” under the broadest reasonable interpretation, cover a mental process including an observation, evaluation, judgment or opinion that could be performed in the human mind or with the aid of pencil and paper. These limitations therefore fall within the mental process group.
Selecting generic representatives of data is practically performed within the human mind or with the aid of pen and paper. Generically representing data records using generic content-based representation(s) is practically performed within the human mind or with the aid of pen and paper. Generically performing k-means clustering of the data records is practically performed within the human mind or with the aid of pen and paper. Selecting a data record closest to the centroid of a cluster is practically performed within the human mind or with the aid of pen and paper. Generically providing selected data is practically performed within the human mind or with the aid of pen and paper. Generically repeating the aforementioned steps until (presumably) a stop condition is met amounts to data manipulation until a data observation is made.
Step 2A – Prong 2:
The additional elements of claim 1 do not integrate the abstract idea into a judicial exception. The claim recites the additional elements “A method” and “dataset” which are recognized as generic computer components recited at a high level of generality (the Specification does not indicate these elements are different from a typical processing unit). Although it has and executes instructions to perform the abstract idea itself, this also does not serve to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application as it merely amounts to instructions to "apply it." (See MPEP 2106.04(d)(2) indicating mere instructions to apply an abstract idea does not amount to integrating the abstract idea into a practical application).
The limitation “…used to train the model…” is found to mere instructions to apply the abstract idea mental process steps present in the aforementioned data manipulation and/or observation (See MPEP 2106.05(f).
The limitation “receiving…” is found to be pre- or post-extra-solution activity or data gathering steps (See MPEP 2106.05(g)).
Step 2B:
The only limitation on the performance of the described method is a limitation reciting “A method” and “dataset” These elements are insufficient to transform a judicial exception to a patentable invention because the recited elements are considered insignificant extra-solution activity (generic computer system, processing resources, links the judicial exception to a particular, respective, technological environment). The claim thus recites computing components only at a high-level of generality such that it amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components; mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept (see MPEP 2106.05(f)).
The limitation “…used to train the model…” is found to mere instructions to apply the abstract idea mental process steps present in the aforementioned data manipulation and/or observation (See MPEP 2106.05(f).
The limitation “receiving…” are found to well-understood, routine, or conventional activity (See MPEP 2106.05(d)(II)(i)(first list)).
Taken alone or in ordered combination, these additional elements do not amount to significantly more than the above-identified abstract idea. There is no indication that the combination of elements improves the functioning of a computer or improves any other technology. Their collective functions merely provide conventional computer implementation.
Claims 13-14 and 16-17: Claims 13-14 and 16-17 recite similar limitations to Claims 1 and 12, with the exception of “A data processing device comprising at least one processor…” (Claims 13 and 16) and “A non-transitory computer readable medium including a computer program product comprising instructions which, when the program is executed by a computer or data processing device, cause the computer or the data processing device to…” (Claims 14 and 17). These are found to be generic computer components recited at a high level of generality (the Specification does not indicate these elements are different from a typical processing unit). Although it has and executes instructions to perform the abstract idea itself, this also does not serve to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application as it merely amounts to instructions to "apply it." (See MPEP 2106.04(d)(2) indicating mere instructions to apply an abstract idea does not amount to integrating the abstract idea into a practical application); therefore, Claims 13-14 and 16-17 are similarly rejected.
Dependent Claims:
Claim 4 recites an abstract idea mental process step (the steps of Claim 1 are performed periodically).
Claim 5 recites refinements to the k-means clustering.
Claim 6 recites an abstract idea mental process step (the steps of Claim 1 are performed periodically), and additional elements (ensemble classifier) recognized as non-generic computer components, however, they are found to generally link the abstract idea to a particular technological field (See MPEP 2106.05(h)).
Claim 8 recites refinements to the data types.
Claim 9 recites refinements to the representation of the data.
Claim 10 recites refinements to the data types.
Claim 11 recites refinements to the representation of the data.
Conclusion
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 GRIFFIN T BEAN whose telephone number is (703)756-1473. The examiner can normally be reached M - F 7:30 - 4:30.
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, Li Zhen can be reached at (571) 272-3768. 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.
/GRIFFIN TANNER BEAN/Examiner, Art Unit 2121
/Li B. Zhen/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2121
Prosecution Insights