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 communication is a First Action Non-Final on the merits. Claims 1-14 as originally filed on December 22, 2023, are currently pending and have been considered below.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 12/22/2023 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
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 1-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claim recites method for verifying delivery of a package to the correct address.
Step 2A – Prong 1
Independent Claims 1 as a whole recite a method of organizing human activity. The limitations from exemplary Claim 1 reciting “constructing, a numerical comprising a physical and a systematic error prediction network, wherein the physical is an error-free ideal physical of a physical system, the systematic error prediction network is an error of the physical system; determining measurement values of the physical system and measurement values of the numerical, wherein the measurement values of the physical system comprise final output values of the physical system, and the measurement values of the numerical comprise final output values of the numerical ; determining a similarity loss function based on comparison results between the measurement values of the physical system and the measurement values of the numerical; determining a task loss function based on fused results of the measurement values of the physical system and the measurement values of the numerical; and optimizing and updating parameters of the numerical based on the similarity loss function and the task loss function for in situ training of the physical” is a method of managing interactions between people, which falls into the certain methods of organizing human activity grouping. The mere recitation of a generic computer (neural network, computer, model of claim 1) does not take the claim out of the methods of organizing human activity grouping. Thus, the claim recites an abstract idea.
Step 2A - Prong 2: Claims 1-14 and their underlining limitations, steps, features and terms, are further inspected by the Examiner under the current examining guidelines, and found, both individually and as a whole, not to include additional elements that are sufficient to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. The limitations are directed to limitations referenced in MPEP 2106.05 that are not enough to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Limitations that are not enough include, as a non-limiting or non-exclusive examples, such as: (i) adding the words "apply it" (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, e.g., a claim to an abstract idea requiring no more than a generic computer to perform generic computer functions, (ii) insignificant extra solution activity, and/or (iii) generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the claim recites the additional elements of (neural network, computer, model of claim 1). The neural network, computer, model of claim 1, are recited at a high level of generality and are generically recited computer elements. The generically recited computer elements amount to simply implementing the abstract idea on a computer. The combination of these additional elements are additional elements do no more than generally link the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use. Accordingly, in combination, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
The claim do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because, as discussed above, the additional elements do no more than generally link the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use. Thus, even when viewed as an ordered combination, nothing in the claims add significantly more (i.e. an inventive concept) to the abstract idea. The claims are ineligible.
Dependent claims 2-14 are also directed to same grouping of methods of organizing human activity. The additional elements of the neural network in claims 8, 11-14; computer in claims 11-12; model of claim 2-7, 9-10; signals in claims 3 and 6; digitally encoding in claims 3; electronic device in claim 11; processor in claims 11-12; computer program in claims 11-12; computer-readable storage medium in claims 12; spatial light modulator in claims 13-14; NPBS in claim 13; CCD sensor in claims 13-14; optical field in claims 6, 10 and 13-14, are additional elements do no more than generally link the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use. Accordingly, in combination, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
Novel/Non-Obvious Subject Matter
Examiner has determined that all of Applicant’s claims have overcome having prior art rejections. The reason for this is that Examiner does not believe that, at the time of Applicant’s priority date, it would have been obvious for a person of ordinary skill in the art to combine prior art disclosures to result in the particular combination of elements/limitations in that claim, including the particular configuration of the elements/limitations with respect to each other in the particular combination, without the use of impermissible hindsight.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to IBRAHIM EL-BATHY whose telephone number is (571)272-7545. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 9am - 7pm.
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, Shannon Campbell can be reached at 5712725587. 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.
/IBRAHIM N EL-BATHY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3626
Prosecution Insights