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 .
Status of Claims
Claims 1-20 are pending.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 1/25/24 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(5) because they do not include the following reference sign(s) mentioned in the description: user devices 102 in Pg. 3, line 11. Only user devices 102-1, 102-2,…102-M are mentioned, not user devices 102 collectively. Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Claim Objections
Claim 2 is objected to because of the following informalities:
In Pg. 1, lines 20-21, “at least one defect” should read –the at least one defect–.
In Pg. 1, lines 21-22, “at least a portion of the image data and at least a portion of the user input” should read –the at least a portion of the image data and the at least a portion of the user input–.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 3 is objected to because of the following informalities:
In Pg. 1, lines 25-27, “at least a portion of the image data and at least a portion of the user input using one or more deep learning-based image classification techniques” should read –the at least a portion of the image data and the at least a portion of the user input using the one or more deep learning-based image classification techniques–.
In Pg. 1, line 28, “at least a portion of the user input” should read –the at least a portion of the user input–.
In Pg. 1, line 29, “at least a portion of the one or more device components” should read –the at least a portion of the one or more device components–.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 4 is objected to because of the following informalities: In Pg. 2, lines 2-4, “at least a portion of the image data and at least a portion of the user input using one or more deep learning-based image classification techniques” should read –the at least a portion of the image data and the at least a portion of the user input using the one or more deep learning-based image classification techniques–. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 5 is objected to because of the following informalities: In Pg. 2, lines 8-9, “at least one defect” should read –the at least one defect–. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 6 is objected to because of the following informalities:
In Pg. 2, lines 13-14, “at least one defect” should read –the at least one defect–.
In Pg. 2, lines 14-15, “at least a portion of the image data and at least a portion of the user input” should read –the at least a portion of the image data and the at least a portion of the user input–.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 7 is objected to because of the following informalities: In Pg. 2, 17-19, “at least a portion of the image data and at least a portion of the user input using at least one object detection model” should read –the at least a portion of the image data and the at least a portion of the user input using the at least one object detection model–. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 8 is objected to because of the following informalities:
In Pg. 2, lines 23-24, “one or more recommendations” should read –the one or more recommendations–.
In Pg. 2, lines 24-25, “a second set of one or more artificial intelligence techniques” should read –the second set of one or more artificial intelligence techniques–.
In Pg. 2, line 26, “information” should read –the information–.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 9 is objected to because of the following informalities: In Pg. 3, lines 1-2, “one or more recommendations” should read –the one or more recommendations–.
Claim 10 is objected to because of the following informalities: In Pg. 3, lines 5-6, “one or more automated actions” should read –the one or more automated actions–.
Claim 11 is objected to because of the following informalities: In Pg. 3, lines 10-11, “one or more automated actions” should read –the one or more automated actions–.
Claim 12 is objected to because of the following informalities: In Pg. 3, lines 15-16, “one or more automated actions” should read –the one or more automated actions–.
Claim 13 is objected to because of the following informalities: In Pg. 3, line 20, “user input” should read –the user input–.
Claim 15 is objected to because of the following informalities:
In Pg. 4, line 14, “at least one defect” should read –the at least one defect–.
In Pg. 4, line 15, “at least a portion of the image data and at least a portion of the user input” should read –the at least a portion of the image data and the at least a portion of the user input–.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 16 is objected to because of the following informalities:
In Pg. 4, line 19, “at least one defect” should read –the at least one defect–.
In Pg. 4, line 20, “at least a portion of the image data and at least a portion of the user input” should read –the at least a portion of the image data and the at least a portion of the user input–.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 17 is objected to because of the following informalities:
In Pg. 4, line 24, “one or more recommendations” should read –the one or more recommendations–.
In Pg. 4, lines 24-25, “a second set of one or more artificial intelligences techniques” should read –the second set of one or more artificial intelligence techniques–.
In Pg. 4, line 26, “information” should read –the information–.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 19 is objected to because of the following informalities:
In Pg. 5, line 19, “at least one defect” should read –the at least one defect–.
In Pg. 5, lines 20-21, “at least a portion of the image data and at least a portion of the user input” should read –the at least a portion of the image data and the at least a portion of the user input–.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 20 is objected to because of the following informalities:
In Pg. 5, line 24, “one or more recommendations” should read –the one or more recommendations–.
In Pg. 5, lines 25-26, “a second set of one or more artificial intelligence techniques” should read –the second set of one or more artificial intelligence techniques–.
In Pg. 5, line 27, “information” should read –the information–.
Appropriate correction is required.
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 1-10 and 13-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claims recite a method, non-transitory processor-readable storage medium, and an apparatus for determining and repairing defects. With respect to the analysis of claim 1 (claims 14 and 18 are similar to claim 1):
Step 1:
With regard to Step 1, claim 1 is directed to a method; and therefore, the claims are directed to one of the statutory categories of inventions.
Step 2A, Prong One:
With regard to Step 2A, Prong One, the limitations in claim 1 “predicting at least one defect associated with the one or more device components by processing at least a portion of the image data and at least a portion of the user input; determining that the at least one predicted defect is repairable; generating one or more recommendations for repairing the at least one predicted defect by processing, the at least a portion of the image data, the at least a portion of the user input, and information pertaining to the at least one predicted defect; and performing one or more automated actions based at least in part on the one or more generated recommendations” as drafted, recite an abstract idea, such as a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation manually or in the mind by a human. That is, a repair technician (i.e., human) can predict/determine defects in an image of a laptop screen (i.e., cracks, lines, pixelation) and using information received from the laptop owner (i.e., user input). Then, the repair technician can determine if the defect can be repaired and come up with recommendations on how to repair the laptop screen. The repair technician can then repair the laptop screen (i.e., perform one or more actions). These are concepts that fall under the grouping of abstract idea mental processes, i.e., a concept performed in the human mind, evaluation, judgment, and/or opinion of a human.
Step 2A, Prong Two:
The 2019 PEG defines the phrase “integration into a practical application” to require an additional element or a combination of additional elements in the claim to apply, rely on, or use the judicial exception. In the instant case, there are no additional steps/elements/limitations in the claims, with the exception of the following in the claims: “obtaining image data of one or more device components and user input pertaining to at least a portion of the one or more device components”, “using a first set of one or more artificial intelligence techniques”, “using a second set of one or more artificial intelligence techniques”, “using the second set of one or more artificial intelligence techniques” and “wherein the method is performed by at least one processing device comprising a processor coupled to a memory” in claim 1, “causes the at least one processing device: to obtain image data of one or more device components and user input pertaining to at least a portion of the one or more device components ”, “using a first set of one or more artificial intelligence techniques”, “using a second set of one or more artificial intelligence techniques”, “using the second set of one or more artificial intelligence techniques” in claim 14, and “at least one processing device comprising a processor coupled to a memory;
the at least one processing device being configured: to obtain image data of one or more device components and user input pertaining to at least a portion of the one or more device components”, “using a first set of one or more artificial intelligence techniques”, “using a second set of one or more artificial intelligence techniques”, “using the second set of one or more artificial intelligence techniques” in claim 18. The obtaining limitation is just data gathering/data input. The first set and second set of artificial intelligence techniques are just generic algorithms (i.e., the specifics of the algorithms are not recited). The processing device, processor, and memory are generic computer components. These limitations are regarded as adding routine and conventional elements to perform the judicial exception, and do not apply into a practical application. Accordingly, the above-mentioned additional elements/limitations do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application; and therefore, the claims recite an abstract idea.
Step 2B:
Because the claims fail under Step 2A, the claims are further evaluated under Step 2B. The claims herein do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception, because as discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into practical application, the additional elements/limitations to perform the steps, amount to no more than insignificant routine and conventional elements. Mere instructions to apply an exception using generic components cannot provide an inventive concept. Therefore, claims 1, 14, and 18 are not patent eligible.
Furthermore, with regard to claims 2-10, 13, 15-17, and 19-20 viewed individually, these additional steps, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, provide extra-solution activities to cover performance of the limitations as an abstract idea, and do not provide meaningful limitations to transform the abstract idea into a patent eligible application of the abstract idea such that the claims amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself. Accordingly, they are not patent eligible.
However, claims 11 and 12 provide meaningful limitations to transform the abstract idea into a patent eligible application of the abstract idea such that the claims amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself. Accordingly, they are patent eligible.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-10 and 13-20 would be allowable if rewritten or amended to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 101 set forth in this Office action.
Claims 11 and 12 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: Ji (CN 109118482 A, see provided machine translation) teaches a panel defect analysis method in which a panel image is obtained to be analyzed (Paras. 0010-0011). Ji also teaches using machine learning models to determine repair strategies (Para. 0047). Ambikapathi et al. (US 2020/0005449 A1) teaches a visual inspector classifying defect images using a labeling re-inspection terminal in which the classification is input into a deep learning model (Para. 0019). However, the prior art of record, either alone or in combination, does not provide a motivation to teach the ordered combination of the following in claim 1: “predicting at least one defect associated with the one or more device components by processing at least a portion of the image data and at least a portion of the user input using a first set of one or more artificial intelligence techniques; determining, using a second set of one or more artificial intelligence techniques, that the at least one predicted defect is repairable; generating one or more recommendations for repairing the at least one predicted defect by processing, using the second set of one or more artificial intelligence techniques, the at least a portion of the image data, the at least a portion of the user input, and information pertaining to the at least one predicted defect; and performing one or more automated actions based at least in part on the one or more generated recommendations.” Independent claims 14 and 18 recite similar limitations as claim 1. Claims 2-13 depend on claim 1, claims 15-17 depend on claim 14, and claims 19-20 depend on claim 18. The dependent claims therefore also contain allowable subject matter.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
CN 113643224A (see provided machine translation)
Contact Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Daniella M. DiGuglielmo whose telephone number is (571)272-0183. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8:00 AM - 4:00 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, Emily Terrell can be reached at (571)270-3717. 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.
/Daniella M. DiGuglielmo/Examiner, Art Unit 2666
/EMILY C TERRELL/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2666