CTNF 18/333,487 CTNF 79378 DETAILED ACTION Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status 07-03-aia AIA 15-10-aia The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA. 1. This is in response to the communications filed on 14 March 2025. 2. Claims 2-21 are pending in the application. 3. Claims 2-21 have been rejected. 4. Claim 1 has been cancelled in a preliminary amendment. Information Disclosure Statement 5. The examiner has considered the information disclosure statement (IDS) filed on 14 March 2025. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112 07-30-01 AIA The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a): (a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention. The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112: The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention. 07-31-01 6. Claims 2-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre- AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. Independent claims 2, 15 and 20 all recite the limitation of “disentangling, with the model, a latent vector and a manipulation vector”. However, after a review of the applicant’s specification of the instant application as well as the specification of the parent application (U.S. Patent No. 11,715,004 B2) the examiner has not found support for the limitation. Since there is no support in the specification for this limitation it constitutes as new matter. The specification, at the time the application was filed, would not have taught one of ordinary skill in the art how to make and/or use the full scope of the claimed invention without undue experimentation. The state of the art existing at the filing date of the application is used to determine whether a particular disclosure is enabling as of the filing date. Any claims not directly addressed are rejected on the virtue of their dependency. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101 07-04-01 AIA 07-04 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. 7. Claims 15-19 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 independent claim 15 is directed towards a computer device embodied on a computer-readable storage. The “computer device embodied on a computer-readable storage” can be construed as software/data per se as computer-readable storage can include transitory forms of storage. Furthermore, the specification does not explicitly exclude transitory signals or forms of storage as possible storage media for the computer device. A recommended remedy is to have the computer device embodied in a “non-transitory” computer-readable media. Dependent claims 16-19 recite similar subject matter and are non-statutory as well. Double Patenting 08-33 AIA The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg , 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman , 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi , 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum , 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel , 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington , 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969). A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA. A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b). The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13. The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA/25, or PTO/AIA/26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer. 08-36 AIA 8. Claim s 2-21 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim s 1-20 of U.S. Patent No. 11,715,004 B2 (hereinafter the ‘004 patent) in view of Li et al US 2021/0312296 A1 (hereinafter Li) . The ‘004 patent teaches: receiving a feature vector comprising values, the feature vector representing an observation of a ground truth [column 28, lines 25-27]; learning a parameter of a model based on the values of the feature vector [column 28, lines 28-29]; and the manipulation vector representing an effect of a potential manipulation occurring between the ground truth and the observation of the ground truth represented by the feature vector [column 28, lines 34-38], the potential manipulation comprising manipulation of at least one of an image, audio content, or natural language content [column 28, lines 38-40]. The ‘004 patent does not teach disentangling, with the model, a latent vector and a manipulation vector. Li teaches disentangling, with the model (i.e. through building a model from sample inputs) [0018], a latent vector and a manipulation vector (i.e. using an individual-disentanglement encoder) [0018]. Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains to have modified the ‘004 patent so that It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains to have modified the ‘004 patent by the teaching of Li because it helps to separate individual factors of data [0018] . Allowable Subject Matter 9. Claims 2-21 are allowed over the prior art. 13-03 AIA The following is an examiner’s statement of reasons for allowance: The closest prior art to the instant application are Viswanathan US 2020/0175339 A1 and Li et al US 2021/0312296 A1 (hereinafter Li). Viswanathan is directed towards providing a lower-power perception architecture [abstract]. Viswanathan teaches a feature vector that comprises selected training features [0041]. Viswanathan teaches a training module that feeds the feature vectors of the training data set (e.g., the ground truth data) into the machine learning model [0041]. Viswanathan teaches determining a set of model parameters of the machine learning model [0043]. Li is directed towards a method of removing individual variation from emotional representations that may include classifying physiological data based on subject-independent emotion factors [abstract]. Li teaches disentangling, with the model (i.e. through building a model from sample inputs) [0018], a latent vector and a manipulation vector (i.e. using an individual-disentanglement encoder) [0018]. However, the prior art does not disclose, teach or fairly suggest the limitations of “the manipulation vector representing an effect of a potential manipulation occurring between the ground truth and the observation of the ground truth represented by the feature vector” and “the potential manipulation comprising manipulation of at least one of an image, audio content, or natural language content”, as recited by independent claims 2, 15 and 20. Any claims not directly addressed are allowed on the virtue of their dependency . Any comments considered necessary by applicant must be submitted no later than the payment of the issue fee and, to avoid processing delays, should preferably accompany the issue fee. Such submissions should be clearly labeled “Comments on Statement of Reasons for Allowance.” Relevant Prior Art 10. The following references have been considered relevant by the examiner: A. Bui et al US 2020/0312298 A1 directed to generating ground truth annotations of target utterances in digital image editing dialogues in order to create a state-driven training data set [abstract]. B. Yuan et al US 2020/0334492 A1 directed to determining the influence of sub-components of raw input data on machine learning predictions [abstract]. C. Burkhart et al US 2020/0320382 A1 directed to an ensemble deep learning model that includes an estimator ensemble and a neural network [abstract]. Conclusion 11. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ARAVIND K MOORTHY whose telephone number is (571)272-3793. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 4:30-3:00. 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, Catherine Thiaw can be reached at 571-270-1138. 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. /ARAVIND K MOORTHY/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2407 Application/Control Number: 18/333,487 Page 2 Art Unit: 2407 Application/Control Number: 18/333,487 Page 3 Art Unit: 2407 Application/Control Number: 18/333,487 Page 4 Art Unit: 2407 Application/Control Number: 18/333,487 Page 5 Art Unit: 2407 Application/Control Number: 18/333,487 Page 6 Art Unit: 2407 Application/Control Number: 18/333,487 Page 7 Art Unit: 2407 Application/Control Number: 18/333,487 Page 8 Art Unit: 2407 Application/Control Number: 18/333,487 Page 9 Art Unit: 2407