DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the
first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
This action is responsive to the application filed 08/18/2023.
Claims 1-20 are presented for examination. Claims 1, 11, and 20 are independent Claims.
Drawings
2. The drawings filed 08/18/2023 are acceptable for examination purposes.
Information Disclosure Statement
3. The Applicant’s Information Disclosure Statement (filed 09/19/2024) has been received, entered into the record, and considered.
Specification
The specification has not been checked to the extent necessary to determine the presence of all possible minor errors. Applicant's cooperation is requested in correcting any errors of which applicant may become aware in the specification.
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 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., an abstract idea) without significantly more.
Step1: determine whether the claim is directed to one of the four statutory categories of invention, i.e., process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter. If YES, proceed to Step 2A, broken into two prongs.
Step 2A, Prong 1: determine whether or not the claims recite a judicial exception (e.g., mathematical concepts, mental processes, certain methods of organizing human activity). If YES, the analysis proceeds to the second prong.
Step 2A, Prong 2: determine whether or not the claims integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. If NOT, the analysis proceeds to determining whether the claim is a patent-eligible application of the exception (Step 2B).
Step 2B: If any element or combination of elements in the claim is sufficient to ensure that the claim integrates the judicial exception into a practical application, or else amounts to significantly more than the abstract idea itself.
Regarding Claims 1-10:
Step 1 Analysis
Claims 1-10 are directed to a system and therefore fall into one of the statutory categories.
Step 2 Analysis
Independent Claim 1 includes the following recitation of an abstract idea:
“generating, using ground truth data, first training input, wherein the first training input includes training labels” ; “generating an augmented dataset from multiple data sources as second training input, wherein the augmented dataset is generated using (i) bathymetric data and (ii) simulated data based on satellite data indicating one or more coastal ecosystems”; and “training the machine learning model using (i) the first training input and (ii) the second training input, such that the machine learning model is trained to predict biomass growth” (the limitations encompass a human mind carrying out the function through observation, evaluation, judgment and /or opinion, or even with the aid of pen and paper. Thus, these limitations recite and fall within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas);
Independent Claim 1 recites the following additional elements, which, considered individually and as an ordered combination do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application:
The elements “a machine learning model”, “one or more computers” and “one or more storage devices on which are stored instructions” are recited at a high-level of generality such that they amount no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer, and/or mere computer components, MPEP 2106.05(f).
The claimed limitations therefore do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. After considering all claim elements individually and as an ordered combination, it is determined that the claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception for the reasons given above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application. Therefore, the claim is not patent eligible.
Regarding Claim 2, the limitations “the machine learning model is trained to predict a likelihood of plant growth in a coastal region” encompass a human mind carrying out the function through observation, evaluation, judgment and /or opinion, or even with the aid of pen and paper. Thus, the claim recites further mental process. The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. After considering all claim elements individually and as an ordered combination, it is determined that the claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception for the reasons given above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application. Therefore, the claim is not patent eligible.
Regarding Claim 3, the limitation “the second training input includes an indication of one or more of temperature, chlorophyl, salinity, nutrients, or currents” is recited at a high-level of generality such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer, and/or mere computer components, MPEP 2106.05(f). The additional limitation “obtaining a likelihood that an area of a coastal region includes sea plants” is insignificant extra-solution activity, which does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. See MPEP 2106.05(g). The courts have identified mere data gathering is well-understood, routine and conventional activity. See MPEP 2106.05(d)). After considering all claim elements individually and as an ordered combination, it is determined that the claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception for the reasons given above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application. Therefore, the claim is not patent eligible.
Regarding Claim 4, the limitation “generating an indication of sea plant coverage within a coastal region as output of the machine learning model processing the second training input,” encompasses a human mind carrying out the function through observation, evaluation, judgment and /or opinion, or even with the aid of pen and paper. Thus, the claim recites further mental process. The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. After considering all claim elements individually and as an ordered combination, it is determined that the claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception for the reasons given above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application. Therefore, the claim is not patent eligible.
Regarding Claim 5, the limitation “the machine learning model includes one or more of the following structures: a convolutional neural network, a random forest, a gradient boosted tree, or a Gaussian process” is recited at a high-level of generality such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer, and/or mere computer components, MPEP 2106.05(f). The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. After considering all claim elements individually and as an ordered combination, it is determined that the claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception for the reasons given above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application. Therefore, the claim is not patent eligible.
Regarding Claim 6, the limitation “the machine learning model includes one or more of: kernel density estimation, one class support vector machines, or variational autoencoder” is recited at a high-level of generality such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer, and/or mere computer components, MPEP 2106.05(f). The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. After considering all claim elements individually and as an ordered combination, it is determined that the claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception for the reasons given above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application. Therefore, the claim is not patent eligible.
Regarding Claim 7, the limitation “providing the satellite data with one or more public datasets as input to an ocean simulation” encompasses a human mind carrying out the function through observation, evaluation, judgment and /or opinion, or even with the aid of pen and paper. Thus, the claim recites further mental process. The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. After considering all claim elements individually and as an ordered combination, it is determined that the claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception for the reasons given above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application. Therefore, the claim is not patent eligible.
Regarding Claim 8, the limitation “the ground truth data includes sensor data from one or more underwater sensors” is recited at a high-level of generality such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer, and/or mere computer components, MPEP 2106.05(f). The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. After considering all claim elements individually and as an ordered combination, it is determined that the claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception for the reasons given above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application. Therefore, the claim is not patent eligible.
Regarding Claim 9, the limitation “the ground truth data includes an indication of sea plant coverage” is insignificant extra-solution activity, which does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. See MPEP 2106.05(g). The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. After considering all claim elements individually and as an ordered combination, it is determined that the claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception for the reasons given above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application. Therefore, the claim is not patent eligible.
Regarding Claim 10, the limitation “the training labels indicate a presence of biomass” and “the operation unit” is insignificant extra-solution activity, which does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. See MPEP 2106.05(g). The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. After considering all claim elements individually and as an ordered combination, it is determined that the claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception for the reasons given above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application. Therefore, the claim is not patent eligible.
Regarding Claims 11-19:
Step 1 Analysis
Claims 11-19 are directed to a method and therefore fall into one of the statutory categories.
Step 2 Analysis
Independent Claim 11 includes the following recitation of an abstract idea:
“generating, using ground truth data, first training input, wherein the first training input includes training labels”; “generating an augmented dataset from multiple data sources as second training input, wherein the augmented dataset is generated using (i) bathymetric data and (ii) simulated data based on satellite data indicating one or more coastal ecosystems”; and “training the machine learning model using (i) the first training input and (ii) the second training input, such that the machine learning model is trained to predict biomass growth” (the limitations encompass a human mind carrying out the function through observation, evaluation, judgment and /or opinion, or even with the aid of pen and paper. Thus, these limitations recite and fall within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas).
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. After considering all claim elements individually and as an ordered combination, it is determined that the claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception for the reasons given above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application. Therefore, the claim is not patent eligible.
Claims 12-19 correspond to claims 2-9. Therefore, they are rejected for the same reasons.
Regarding Claim 20:
Step 1 Analysis
Claim 20 is directed to one or more non-transitory computer storage media and therefore falls into one of the statutory categories.
Step 2 Analysis
Independent Claim 20 includes the following recitation of an abstract idea:
“generating, using ground truth data, first training input, wherein the first training input includes training labels”; “generating an augmented dataset from multiple data sources as second training input, wherein the augmented dataset is generated using (i) bathymetric data and (ii) simulated data based on satellite data indicating one or more coastal ecosystems”; and “training the machine learning model using (i) the first training input and (ii) the second training input, such that the machine learning model is trained to predict biomass growth” (the limitations encompass a human mind carrying out the function through observation, evaluation, judgment and /or opinion, or even with the aid of pen and paper. Thus, these limitations recite and fall within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas);
Independent Claim 20 recites the following additional elements, which, considered individually and as an ordered combination do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application:
The elements “one or more non-transitory computer storage media encoded with instructions” and “one or more computers” are recited at a high-level of generality such that they amount no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer, and/or mere computer components, MPEP 2106.05(f).
The claimed limitations therefore do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. After considering all claim elements individually and as an ordered combination, it is determined that the claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception for the reasons given above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application. Therefore, the claim is not patent eligible.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
6. 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 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.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Trim et al. (US 20230281924).
It is noted that any citations to specific, pages, columns, paragraphs, lines, or figures in the prior art references and any interpretation of the reference 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. See MPEP 2123.
As to Claim 1:
Trim teaches a system (Fig.5 and [0063-0065]) for training a machine learning model, the system comprising one or more computers and one or more storage devices on which are stored instructions that are operable, when executed by the one or more computers, to cause the one or more computers to perform operations comprising:
generating, using ground truth data, first training input, wherein the first training input includes training labels ([0048-0049] and [0061-0063]);
generating an augmented dataset from multiple data sources as second training input, wherein the augmented dataset is generated using (i) bathymetric data and (ii) simulated data based on satellite data indicating one or more coastal ecosystems ([0021-0023], [0025-0026], and [0058]); and
training the machine learning model using (i) the first training input and (ii) the second training input, such that the machine learning model is trained to predict biomass growth ([0063-0065]).
As to Claim 2:
Trim teaches the machine learning model is trained to predict a likelihood of plant growth in a coastal region ([0037], [0053], and [0059]).
As to Claim 3:
Trim teaches the second training input includes an indication of one or more of temperature, chlorophyl, salinity, nutrients, or currents, and the operations comprise: obtaining a likelihood that an area of a coastal region includes sea plants ([0037] and [0072-0074]).
As to Claim 4:
Trim teaches the operations comprise: generating an indication of sea plant coverage within a coastal region as output of the machine learning model processing the second training input ([0021-0023]).
As to Claim 5:
Trim teaches the machine learning model includes one or more of the following structures: a convolutional neural network, a random forest, a gradient boosted tree, or a Gaussian process ([0067-0068]).
As to Claim 6:
Trim teaches the machine learning model includes one or more of: kernel density estimation, one class support vector machines, or variational autoencoders ([0024-0025]).
As to Claim 7:
Trim teaches the operations comprise: providing the satellite data with one or more public datasets as input to an ocean simulation ([0025-0026] and [0058]).
As to Claim 8:
Trim teaches the ground truth data includes sensor data from one or more underwater sensors ([0028] and [0037]).
As to Claim 9:
Trim teaches the ground truth data includes an indication of sea plant coverage ([0072-0074]).
As to Claim 10:
Trim teaches the training labels indicate a presence of biomass ([0061-0063]).
As to Claims 11-19:
Refer to the discussion of Claims 1-9 above, respectively, for rejections. Claims 11-19 are the same as Claims 1-9, except claims 11-19 are method Claims and claims 1-9 are system Claims.
As to Claim 20:
Refer to the discussion of Claim 1 above for rejection. Claim 20 is the same as Claim 1, except Claim 20 is a computer storage media Claim and Claim 1 is a system Claim.
Conclusion
7. The prior art made of record, listed on PTO 892 provided to Applicant is considered to have relevancy to the claimed invention. Applicant should review each identified reference carefully before responding to this office action to properly advance the case in light of the prior art.
Contact information
8. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the
examiner should be directed to MAIKHANH NGUYEN whose telephone number is (571) 272-4093. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday (8:00 am – 5:30 pm). If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, TAMARA KYLE can be reached at (571)272-4241.
The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from Patent Center and the Private Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from Patent Center or Private PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Patent Center or Private PAIR to authorized users only. Should you have questions about access to Patent Center or the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free).
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) Form at https://www.uspto.gov/patents/uspto-automated- interview-request-air-form.
/MAIKHANH NGUYEN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2144
Prosecution Insights