Office Action Predictor
Last updated: April 16, 2026
Application No. 18/440,199

VISUALIZATION METHODS AND SYSTEMS FOR EVALUATING PERFORMANCE OF A CLASSIFIER AND SELECTION OF OPTIMAL WORKING THRESHOLDS

Non-Final OA §102§103
Filed
Feb 13, 2024
Examiner
AUGUSTINE, NICHOLAS
Art Unit
2178
Tech Center
2100 — Computer Architecture & Software
Assignee
Xai.Health, INC.
OA Round
1 (Non-Final)
73%
Grant Probability
Favorable
1-2
OA Rounds
3y 8m
To Grant
99%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 73% — above average
73%
Career Allow Rate
596 granted / 814 resolved
+18.2% vs TC avg
Strong +30% interview lift
Without
With
+29.7%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
3y 8m
Avg Prosecution
44 currently pending
Career history
858
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
9.6%
-30.4% vs TC avg
§103
36.2%
-3.8% vs TC avg
§102
50.1%
+10.1% vs TC avg
§112
2.3%
-37.7% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 814 resolved cases

Office Action

§102 §103
DETAILED ACTION A. This action is in response to the following communications: Transmittal of New Application filed 02/13/2024. B. Claims 1-9 remains pending. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102 In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status. The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action: A person shall be entitled to a patent unless – (a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention. Claim(s) 1-9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being clearly anticipated by Sachs, Michael (Journal of Statistical Software August 2017, Volume 79, Code Snippet 2. doi: 10.18637/jss.v079.c02), herein referred to as “Sachs”. As for claim 1, Sachs teaches. A method for displaying a user interface that presents a classifier statistic, mathematical equation output, or ROC curve on a computing device or mobile phone or tablet, comprising (pg. 1 section 1.1 discusses what receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve is used for such as to access accuracy of a continuous measurement for predicting a binary outcome): receiving a user’s input on said screen using a cursor or pointing element whereby user input comprises selection of a point along a plotted curve, ROC curve, or mathematical function so that input results in displaying one or more figures corresponding to the select statistics or threshold term defined by the user input (pg. 10 Figure 4: Screen shot of an interactive plot created with plotROC being displayed in the RStudio viewer. Hovering the mouse cursor over the plot causes the cutoff label nearest to the cursor to be displayed. Clicking will display a confidence region, if available, and make the label stick until the next click) . PNG media_image1.png 508 450 media_image1.png Greyscale As for claim 2, Sachs teaches. The method of claim 1, wherein said user input comprises a text entry including a predefined statistic (pg. 13 section 2.5 plotROC uses the ggplot2 package to create the objects to be plotted. Therefore, users can add themes and annotations in the usual ggplot2 way; the annotations are inputted by the user as text). As for claim 3, Sachs teaches. The method of claim 2, wherein selecting an input by any means leads to creation of or changes to a confusion matrix, model statistics, and/or threshold selections (pg. 2 par. 2 The confusion matrix cross-classifies the predicted outcome M ≥ c versus the true outcome D. The four cells of the matrix correspond to the possible classification outcomes: a true positive, a false positive, a true negative, and a false negative. ROC analysis assesses the trade-offs between the test’s fraction of true positives versus the false positives as c varies over the range of M). As for claim 5, Sachs teaches. The method of claim 1, wherein changing a selected input leads to a video demonstrating (graphical user interface depicting user interaction with cursor) the change in a plot that graphically illustrates the impact of or magnitude of the changes by showing original and destination plots or outputs (pg. 10 Figure 4. Hovering over the display shows the cutoff value at the point nearest to the cursor. Clicking makes the cutoff label stick until the next click, and if confidence regions are available, clicks will also display those as grey rectangles. By default, plot_interactive_roc removes any existing rocci geom and adds a high-density layer of confidence regions. This can be suppressed by using the add.cis = FALSE option. The points and labels layer of the roc geom can be hidden by using the hide.points = TRUE option. Then, points and labels will be displayed only when the mouse is hovering over the plotting region. Also by default, the style_roc function is applied, the settings can be modified by passing a call to that function). As for claim 6, Sachs teaches. The method of claim 5, whereby changing a selected input leads to a video demonstrating the change in a graphical plot to illustrate the magnitude of the change by other means such as changing color, line width or other dynamic modification that visually depicts the magnitude and or direction of a change (fig. 4 dynamically shows user interaction with the ROC plot within plotROC; Hovering the mouse cursor over the plot causes the cutoff label nearest to the cursor to be displayed. Clicking will display a confidence region, if available, and make the label stick until the next click.). As for claim 7, Sachs teaches. The method of claim 1, wherein the dynamic outputs depict bias in a mathematical model (fig. 5 Showing multiple curves is also useful when there is a factor that affects the classification accuracy of the test; here the type of data in patient data is displayed in the ROC plots to show bias). As for claim 8, Sachs teaches. The method of claim 1, wherein the dynamic outputs depict bias in an AI model or system (fig. 5 Showing multiple curves is also useful when there is a factor that affects the classification accuracy of the test; here the type of data in patient data is displayed in the ROC plots to show bias). As for claim 9, Sachs teaches. The method of claim 1, wherein the dynamic outputs depict sex or age bias in an AI model or system, or in a mathematical model (fig. 5 Showing multiple curves is also useful when there is a factor that affects the classification accuracy of the test; here the sex in patient data is displayed in the ROC plots). Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103 In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status. The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action: A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole 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. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made. Claim(s) 4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sachs in view of Turner, Helen et al. (US Pub. 2022/0130493 A1), herein referred to as “Turner”. As for claim 4, Sachs teaches. The method of claim 1. Sachs does not specifically teach wherein selecting an input leads to changes in a graphical plot such as a Forrest plot or violin plot; however in the same field of endeavor Turner teaches this in paragraph 419 and 457 PhAROS_USER client has a graphical user interface (GUI). The interface such as a graphical user interface (GUI) may be the visual component of the application for a user to enter inputs, selects different data entries, and views results generated by the computing server. In some embodiments, the interface may not include visual elements but allow a user to interface with the computing server directly through code instructions, such as in the case of an API. The interface may display various visualizations of data and results. For example, the interface may display various charts and analytics that summarize the results of a data analysis. User is able to select different plots such as Forest Plot, ROC Plot and Violin Plot for displaying the selected data to rendered to the display screen). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Turner in the Sachs because Turner suggests the interface may display various charts and analytics that summarize the results of a data analysis; one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize the tool for summarizing various results as useful feature to be included in Sachs since Sachs only renders data into ROC curve plots and Turners can select from ROC curve plot, Forest plot and Violin plots; par. 419. Table 1 states PhAROS visualize functions allow the user to visualize data and datasets within the PhAROS system and subsystems offering rapid, simplified and/or intuitive insights into the complex data, and datasets within these systems depending on the type of user and their use case. Thus the benefits of this visualization system would complement Sachs visualization system to not only display ROC curve plots but also other plots. (Note :) It is noted that any citation to specific, pages, columns, lines, or figures in the prior art references and any interpretation of the references should not be considered to be limiting in any way. A reference is relevant for all it contains and may be relied upon for all that it would have reasonably suggested to one having ordinary skill in the art. In re Heck, 699 F.2d 1331, 1332-33, 216 USPQ 1038, 1039 (Fed. Cir. 1983) (quoting In re Lemelson, 397 F.2d 1006,1009, 158 USPQ 275, 277 (CCPA 1968)). Conclusion The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Inquires Any inquiry concerning this communication should be directed to NICHOLAS AUGUSTINE at telephone number (571)270-1056. 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. PNG media_image2.png 213 559 media_image2.png Greyscale /NICHOLAS AUGUSTINE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2178 September 17, 2025
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Feb 13, 2024
Application Filed
Sep 17, 2025
Non-Final Rejection — §102, §103
Apr 10, 2026
Response after Non-Final Action

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12598212
Cybersecurity Risk Analysis and Modeling of Risk Data on an Interactive Display
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 07, 2026
Patent 12584752
VISUAL VEHICLE-POSITIONING FUSION SYSTEM AND METHOD THEREOF
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 24, 2026
Patent 12586264
WORD EVALUATION VALUE ACQUISITION METHOD, APPARATUS AND PROGRAM
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 24, 2026
Patent 12578836
USER INTERFACE FOR INTERACTING WITH AN AFFORDANCE IN AN ENVIRONMENT
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 17, 2026
Patent 12580920
SYSTEM AND METHOD FOR FACILITATING USER INTERACTION WITH A SIMULATED OBJECT ASSOCIATED WITH A PHYSICAL LOCATION
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 17, 2026
Study what changed to get past this examiner. Based on 5 most recent grants.

AI Strategy Recommendation

Get an AI-powered prosecution strategy using examiner precedents, rejection analysis, and claim mapping.
Powered by AI — typically takes 5-10 seconds

Prosecution Projections

1-2
Expected OA Rounds
73%
Grant Probability
99%
With Interview (+29.7%)
3y 8m
Median Time to Grant
Low
PTA Risk
Based on 814 resolved cases by this examiner. Grant probability derived from career allow rate.

Sign in for Full Analysis

Enter your email to receive a magic link. No password needed.

Free tier: 3 strategy analyses per month