The present application, filed on or after 16 March 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
DETAILED ACTION
This office action is in response to Applicant’s submission filed on 28 November 2023. THIS ACTION IS NON-FINAL.
Status of Claims
Claims 1-20 are pending.
Claim 1 includes limitations interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f), because it uses a generic placeholder coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to achieve the function.
Claims 1-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) as failing to comply with the written description requirement.
Claims 1-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as indefinite.
Claim 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 for being directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as unpatentable.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
In claim 1, claim limitations "first module", "second module", "third module" have been interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f), because they use a generic placeholder coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to achieve the function. The specification does not provide descriptions of the structure of these elements.
If applicant wishes to provide further explanation or dispute the examiner’s interpretation of the corresponding structure, applicant must identify the corresponding structure with reference to the specification by page and line number, and to the drawing, if any, by reference characters in response to this Office action.
If applicant does not intend to have the claim(s) limitations treated under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112 , sixth paragraph, applicant may amend the claim(s) so that it/they will clearly not invoke 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, or present a sufficient showing that the claim recites/recite sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function to preclude application of 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
For more information, see MPEP § 2173 et seq. and Supplementary Examination Guidelines for Determining Compliance With 35 U.S.C. 112 and for Treatment of Related Issues in Patent Applications, 76 FR 7162, 7167 (Feb. 9, 2011).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
112(b) Rejection
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
A claim is indefinite if, when read in light of the specification, it fails to inform, with reasonable certainty, those skilled in the art about the scope of the invention. Nautilus, Inc. v. Biosig Instruments, Inc., 110 USPQ.2d 1688, U.S. Supreme Court (2014).
Claims 1-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor, or for pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
Regarding claim 1, “first module”, “second module”, “third module”, the specification does not provide sufficient structural description to determine the scope of these limitations, the claim is therefore indefinite.
Regarding claims 2-9, which depend on above rejected claim 1, are rejected for the same reason.
Regarding claim 3 / 12, “…comprises one or more augmentation samples of a minority class”, there is no definitive description in the specification for “minority class” to determine the boundary of this limitation, the claim is therefore indefinite. For the purpose of applying prior art, this limitation is construed to be “… comprises one or more augmentation samples of a class”.
Regarding claim 8 / 17, “to infer an optimal architecture …”, optimal is relative term, the specification does not provide limiting definition to determine the boundary of this limitation, the claim is therefore indefinite. For the purpose of applying prior art, this limitation is construed to be “to infer an architecture …”.
Regarding claim 9 / 18, which depend on above rejected claim 8 / 17, are rejected for the same reason.
35 U.S.C. 112(a) Rejections
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.
Claims 1-20 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 pre-AIA the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Regarding claim 1, "first module", "second module", "third module", the specification does not provide descriptions of the structure of these elements. The claim is therefore rejected for failing to comply with the written description requirement.
Regarding claims 2-9, which depend on above rejected claim 1, are rejected for the same reason.
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.
Judicial Exception
Claims 1-9 of the claimed invention are directed to a judicial exception, an abstract idea, without significantly more.
(Independent Claims) With regards to claim 1,
Step 1: The claim recites a machine, which falls into one of the statutory categories.
Step 2A – Prong 1: the claim, in part, recites
(a)“…. to generate augmented input data …” (mental process and/or math concept), as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components. That is, other than reciting generic computer elements, nothing in the claim element precludes the step from practically being performed in the mind. For example, but for the language about generic computer elements, “to generate”, in the limitation citied above encompasses analyzing / processing / updating data, which is based on observation, evaluation, judgement, and/or opinion, that could be performed by human using paper / pen / calculator. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
(b) “….to perform a specific task based at least in part on the augmented input data” (mental process and/or math concept), as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components. That is, other than reciting generic computer elements, nothing in the claim element precludes the step from practically being performed in the mind. For example, but for the language about generic computer elements, “to perform”, in the limitation citied above encompasses performing data processing task, which is based on observation, evaluation, judgement, and/or opinion, that could be performed by human using paper / pen / calculator. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
(c) “….to adapt a network architecture … based on changes …” (mental process and/or math concept), as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components. That is, other than reciting generic computer elements, nothing in the claim element precludes the step from practically being performed in the mind. For example, but for the language about generic computer elements, “to adapt …”, in the limitation citied above encompasses analyzing / processing data to update data processing models, which is based on observation, evaluation, judgement, and/or opinion, that could be performed by human using paper / pen / calculator. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
Step 2A – Prong 2: This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim recites the additional elements of: (a) “processing circuitry in communication with storage media, the processing circuitry configured to execute a machine learning system comprising at least a first module, a second module and a third module, wherein the machine learning system is configured to train one or more machine learning models”, “first / second / third module …”, “… machine learning model …”, which is mere instructions to implement an abstract idea using generic computing device, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea (see MPEP 2106.05(f)); (b) “… streaming input data …”, which is extra-solution activity of pre-solution data gathering and/or post solution data output (see MPEP.2106.05(g)). Accordingly. the additional elements individually or in combination do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. The claim is directed to an abstract idea.
Step 2B Analysis: The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above, the claim recites the additional elements of: (a) “processing circuitry in communication with storage media, the processing circuitry configured to execute a machine learning system comprising at least a first module, a second module and a third module, wherein the machine learning system is configured to train one or more machine learning models”, “first / second / third module …”, “… machine learning model …”, which merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea (MPEP 2106.05(f)); (b) “… streaming input data …”, which is insignificant extra solution activity of pre-solution data gathering and/or post-solution data output (see MPEP 2106.05(g)). The courts have found limitations directed to obtaining information electronically, recited at a high level of generality, to be well-understood, routine, and conventional (see MPEP 2106.05(d)(II), “receiving or transmitting data over a network”, "electronic record keeping," and "storing and retrieving information in memory"). Accordingly, the additional elements individually or in combination do not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. The claim is not patent eligible.
(Dependent claims)
Claims 2-9 are dependent on claim 1 and include all the limitations of claim 1. Therefore, claims 2-9 recite the same abstract ideas.
With regards to claim 2, The claim recites additional element of “wherein the streaming input data comprises streaming input data having a class imbalance among a plurality of classes represented in the streaming input data”, which is recited at a high level of generality and amounts to extra-solution activity of pre-solution data gathering (MPEP.2106.05(g)). Accordingly, at Step 2A, prong two, the additional elements individually or in combination do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. The claim is directed to an abstract idea.
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above, the additional element of “wherein the streaming input data comprises streaming input data having a class imbalance among a plurality of classes represented in the streaming input data”, is insignificant extra solution activity of pre-solution data gathering (see MPEP 2106.05(g)). The courts have found limitations directed to obtaining information electronically, recited at a high level of generality, to be well-understood, routine, and conventional (see MPEP 2106.05(d)(II), “receiving or transmitting data over a network”, "electronic record keeping," and "storing and retrieving information in memory"). Accordingly, at Step 2B the additional elements individually or in combination do not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
The claim is not patent eligible.
With regards to claim 3, the claim recites element of “wherein the augmented input data comprises one or more augmentation samples of a minority class”, which is further details on analyzing / processing / updating data for data classification model, which is based on observation, evaluation, judgement, and/or opinion, that could be performed by human using paper / pen / calculator. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas Except citing generic computer elements to implement the abstract idea, there is no additional element showing integration into a practical application or adding something significantly more to the abstract idea. The claim is not patent eligible.
With regards to claim 4, The claim recites additional element of “wherein the machine learning system is configured to train the one or more machine learning models using one or more semi-supervised incremental learning techniques”, which is merely using computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea (see MPEP 2106.05(f)). Accordingly, at Step 2A, prong two, the additional elements individually or in combination do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. The claim is directed to an abstract idea.
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above, the additional element of “wherein the machine learning system is configured to train the one or more machine learning models using one or more semi-supervised incremental learning techniques”, which is merely using computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea (see MPEP 2106.05(f)). Accordingly, at Step 2B the additional elements individually or in combination do not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
The claim is not patent eligible.
With regards to claim 5, the claim recites further limitation of “… to process the streaming input data by performing at least one of: a format transformation operation, a metadata derivation operation, or a data association operation” (mental process and/or math concept), as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components. That is, other than reciting generic computer elements, nothing in the claim element precludes the step from practically being performed in the mind. For example, but for the language about generic computer elements, “to process … by perform …”, in the limitation citied above encompasses analyzing / processing / updating data for data process model, which is based on observation, evaluation, judgement, and/or opinion, that could be performed by human using paper / pen / calculator. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
The claim recited additional element of “further comprising one or more modules …”, which is mere instructions to implement an abstract idea using generic computing device, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea (MPEP 2106.05(f)). Accordingly, at Step 2A, prong two, the additional elements individually or in combination do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. The claim is directed to an abstract idea.
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above, the additional element of “further comprising one or more modules …”, which is mere instructions to implement an abstract idea using generic computing device, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea (MPEP 2106.05(f)). Accordingly, at Step 2B the additional elements individually or in combination do not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
The claim is not patent eligible.
With regards to claim 6, the claim recites further limitation of “… to generate one or more new data samples that are similar to the one or more representative data samples stored in the DMR, and … to distinguish between real data and fake data in the one or more new data samples generated by the generative AI architecture” (mental process and/or math concept), as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components. That is, other than reciting generic computer elements, nothing in the claim element precludes the step from practically being performed in the mind. For example, but for the language about generic computer elements, “to generate”, “to distinguish” in the limitation citied above encompasses analyzing / processing / updating / identifying data for data classification model, which is based on observation, evaluation, judgement, and/or opinion, that could be performed by human using paper / pen / calculator. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
The claim recited additional element of: (a) “wherein the first module further comprises a Dynamic Memory Repository (DMR), a replay generative Artificial Intelligence (AI) architecture and a discriminator/classifier …”, which is mere instructions to implement an abstract idea using generic computing device, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea (MPEP 2106.05(f); (b) “wherein the DMR is configured to selectively store one or more representative data samples” , which is extra-solution activity of post-solution data output (see MPEP.2106.05(g)). Accordingly, at Step 2A, prong two, the additional elements individually or in combination do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. The claim is directed to an abstract idea.
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above, the additional element of: (a) “wherein the first module further comprises a Dynamic Memory Repository (DMR), a replay generative Artificial Intelligence (AI) architecture and a discriminator/classifier …”, which is mere instructions to implement an abstract idea using generic computing device, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea (MPEP 2106.05(f); (b) “wherein the DMR is configured to selectively store one or more representative data samples” , which is extra-solution activity of post-solution data output (see MPEP.2106.05(g)). The courts have found limitations directed to obtaining information electronically, recited at a high level of generality, to be well-understood, routine, and conventional (see MPEP 2106.05(d)(II), “receiving or transmitting data over a network”, "electronic record keeping," and "storing and retrieving information in memory"). Accordingly, at Step 2B the additional elements individually or in combination do not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
The claim is not patent eligible.
With regards to claim 7, the claim recites further limitation of “… to select one or more new data samples to be stored in the DMR” (mental process and/or math concept), as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components. That is, other than reciting generic computer elements, nothing in the claim element precludes the step from practically being performed in the mind. For example, but for the language about generic computer elements, “to select” in the limitation citied above encompasses analyzing / processing / updating / identifying data for data classification model, which is based on observation, evaluation, judgement, and/or opinion, that could be performed by human using paper / pen / calculator. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas Except citing generic computer elements to implement the abstract idea, there is no additional element showing integration into a practical application or adding something significantly more to the abstract idea. The claim is not patent eligible.
With regards to claim 8, the claim recites further limitation of “… to infer an optimal architecture for a current task based on the trained super-model” (mental process and/or math concept), as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components. That is, other than reciting generic computer elements, nothing in the claim element precludes the step from practically being performed in the mind. For example, but for the language about generic computer elements, “to infer …”, in the limitation citied above encompasses analyzing / processing / updating data for data process model, which is based on observation, evaluation, judgement, and/or opinion, that could be performed by human using paper / pen / calculator. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
The claim recited additional element of “to train a super-model on a plurality of candidate tasks using at least one of a training data set and input streaming data …”, which is mere instructions to implement an abstract idea using generic computing device, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea (MPEP 2106.05(f)). Accordingly, at Step 2A, prong two, the additional elements individually or in combination do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. The claim is directed to an abstract idea.
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above, the additional element of “to train a super-model on a plurality of candidate tasks using at least one of a training data set and input streaming data …”, which is mere instructions to implement an abstract idea using generic computing device, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea (MPEP 2106.05(f)). Accordingly, at Step 2B the additional elements individually or in combination do not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
The claim is not patent eligible.
With regards to claim 9, the claim recites further limitation of “… to optimize one or more architecture weights with respect to the training data” (mental process and/or math concept), as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components. That is, other than reciting generic computer elements, nothing in the claim element precludes the step from practically being performed in the mind. For example, but for the language about generic computer elements, “to select” in the limitation citied above encompasses analyzing / processing / updating / identifying data for data classification model, which is based on observation, evaluation, judgement, and/or opinion, that could be performed by human using paper / pen / calculator. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas Except citing generic computer elements to implement the abstract idea, there is no additional element showing integration into a practical application or adding something significantly more to the abstract idea. The claim is not patent eligible.
Claims 10-18 of the claimed invention are directed to a judicial exception, an abstract idea, without significantly more.
(Independent Claims) With regards to claim 10,
Step 1: The claim recites a process, which falls into one of the statutory categories.
Step 2A – Prong 1: the claim, in part, recites
(a)“…. generating … augmented input data …” (mental process and/or math concept), as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components. That is, other than reciting generic computer elements, nothing in the claim element precludes the step from practically being performed in the mind. For example, but for the language about generic computer elements, “generating”, in the limitation citied above encompasses analyzing / processing / updating data, which is based on observation, evaluation, judgement, and/or opinion, that could be performed by human using paper / pen / calculator. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
(b) “….performing … a specific task based at least in part on the augmented input data” (mental process and/or math concept), as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components. That is, other than reciting generic computer elements, nothing in the claim element precludes the step from practically being performed in the mind. For example, but for the language about generic computer elements, “performing”, in the limitation citied above encompasses performing data processing task, which is based on observation, evaluation, judgement, and/or opinion, that could be performed by human using paper / pen / calculator. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
(c) “….adapting … a network architecture … based on changes …” (mental process and/or math concept), as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components. That is, other than reciting generic computer elements, nothing in the claim element precludes the step from practically being performed in the mind. For example, but for the language about generic computer elements, “adapting …”, in the limitation citied above encompasses analyzing / processing data to update data processing models, which is based on observation, evaluation, judgement, and/or opinion, that could be performed by human using paper / pen / calculator. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
Step 2A – Prong 2: This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim recites the additional elements of: (a) “first / second / third module …”, “… machine learning model …”, which is mere instructions to implement an abstract idea using generic computing device, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea (see MPEP 2106.05(f)); (b) “… streaming input data …”, which is extra-solution activity of pre-solution data gathering and/or post solution data output (see MPEP.2106.05(g)). Accordingly. the additional elements individually or in combination do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. The claim is directed to an abstract idea.
Step 2B Analysis: The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above, the claim recites the additional elements of: (a) “first / second / third module …”, “… machine learning model …”, which merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea (MPEP 2106.05(f)); (b) “… streaming input data …”, which is insignificant extra solution activity of pre-solution data gathering and/or post-solution data output (see MPEP 2106.05(g)). The courts have found limitations directed to obtaining information electronically, recited at a high level of generality, to be well-understood, routine, and conventional (see MPEP 2106.05(d)(II), “receiving or transmitting data over a network”, "electronic record keeping," and "storing and retrieving information in memory"). Accordingly, the additional elements individually or in combination do not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. The claim is not patent eligible.
(Dependent claims)
Claims 11-18 are dependent on claim 10 and include all the limitations of claim 10. Therefore, claims 11-18 recite the same abstract ideas.
With regards to claim 11, The claim recites additional element of “wherein the streaming input data comprises streaming input data having a class imbalance among a plurality of classes represented in the streaming input data”, which is recited at a high level of generality and amounts to extra-solution activity of pre-solution data gathering (MPEP.2106.05(g)). Accordingly, at Step 2A, prong two, the additional elements individually or in combination do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. The claim is directed to an abstract idea.
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above, the additional element of “wherein the streaming input data comprises streaming input data having a class imbalance among a plurality of classes represented in the streaming input data”, is insignificant extra solution activity of pre-solution data gathering (see MPEP 2106.05(g)). The courts have found limitations directed to obtaining information electronically, recited at a high level of generality, to be well-understood, routine, and conventional (see MPEP 2106.05(d)(II), “receiving or transmitting data over a network”, "electronic record keeping," and "storing and retrieving information in memory"). Accordingly, at Step 2B the additional elements individually or in combination do not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
The claim is not patent eligible.
With regards to claim 12, the claim recites additional element of “wherein the augmented input data comprises one or more augmentation samples of a minority class”, which is further details on analyzing / processing / updating data for data classification model, which is based on observation, evaluation, judgement, and/or opinion, that could be performed by human using paper / pen / calculator. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas Except citing generic computer elements to implement the abstract idea, there is no additional element showing integration into a practical application or adding something significantly more to the abstract idea. The claim is not patent eligible.
With regards to claim 13, The claim recites additional element of “wherein the machine learning system is configured to train the one or more machine learning models using one or more semi-supervised incremental learning techniques”, which is merely using computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea (see MPEP 2106.05(f)). Accordingly, at Step 2A, prong two, the additional elements individually or in combination do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. The claim is directed to an abstract idea.
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above, the additional element of “wherein the machine learning system is configured to train the one or more machine learning models using one or more semi-supervised incremental learning techniques”, which is merely using computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea (see MPEP 2106.05(f)). Accordingly, at Step 2B the additional elements individually or in combination do not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
The claim is not patent eligible.
With regards to claim 14, the claim recites further limitation of “… processing … the streaming input data by performing at least one of: a format transformation operation, a metadata derivation operation, or a data association operation” (mental process and/or math concept), as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components. That is, other than reciting generic computer elements, nothing in the claim element precludes the step from practically being performed in the mind. For example, but for the language about generic computer elements, “processing … by performing …”, in the limitation citied above encompasses analyzing / processing / updating data for data process model, which is based on observation, evaluation, judgement, and/or opinion, that could be performed by human using paper / pen / calculator. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
The claim recited additional element of “using one or more modules …”, which is mere instructions to implement an abstract idea using generic computing device, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea (MPEP 2106.05(f)). Accordingly, at Step 2A, prong two, the additional elements individually or in combination do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. The claim is directed to an abstract idea.
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above, the additional element of “using one or more modules …”, which is mere instructions to implement an abstract idea using generic computing device, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea (MPEP 2106.05(f)). Accordingly, at Step 2B the additional elements individually or in combination do not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
The claim is not patent eligible.
With regards to claim 15, the claim recites further limitation of “… generating …. one or more new data samples that are similar to the one or more representative data samples stored in the DMR, and … distinguishing … between real data and fake data in the one or more new data samples generated by the generative AI architecture” (mental process and/or math concept), as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components. That is, other than reciting generic computer elements, nothing in the claim element precludes the step from practically being performed in the mind. For example, but for the language about generic computer elements, “generating”, “to distinguishing” in the limitation citied above encompasses analyzing / processing / updating / identifying data for data classification model, which is based on observation, evaluation, judgement, and/or opinion, that could be performed by human using paper / pen / calculator. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
The claim recited additional element of: (a) “a generative Artificial Intelligence (AI) architecture”, “a discriminator/classifier …”, which is mere instructions to implement an abstract idea using generic computing device, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea (MPEP 2106.05(f); (b) “selectively storing in a Dynamic Memory Repository (DMR) one or more representative data samples”, which is extra-solution activity of post-solution data output (see MPEP.2106.05(g)). Accordingly, at Step 2A, prong two, the additional elements individually or in combination do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. The claim is directed to an abstract idea.
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above, the additional element of: (a) “a generative Artificial Intelligence (AI) architecture”, “a discriminator/classifier …”, which is mere instructions to implement an abstract idea using generic computing device, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea (MPEP 2106.05(f); (b) “selectively storing in a Dynamic Memory Repository (DMR) one or more representative data samples” , which is extra-solution activity of post-solution data output (see MPEP.2106.05(g)). The courts have found limitations directed to obtaining information electronically, recited at a high level of generality, to be well-understood, routine, and conventional (see MPEP 2106.05(d)(II), “receiving or transmitting data over a network”, "electronic record keeping," and "storing and retrieving information in memory"). Accordingly, at Step 2B the additional elements individually or in combination do not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
The claim is not patent eligible.
With regards to claim 16, the claim recites further limitation of “… selecting … one or more new data samples to be stored in the DMR” (mental process and/or math concept), as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components. That is, other than reciting generic computer elements, nothing in the claim element precludes the step from practically being performed in the mind. For example, but for the language about generic computer elements, “to select” in the limitation citied above encompasses analyzing / processing / updating / identifying data for data classification model, which is based on observation, evaluation, judgement, and/or opinion, that could be performed by human using paper / pen / calculator. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas Except citing generic computer elements to implement the abstract idea, there is no additional element showing integration into a practical application or adding something significantly more to the abstract idea. The claim is not patent eligible.
With regards to claim 17, the claim recites further limitation of “… inferring an optimal architecture for a current task based on the trained super-model” (mental process and/or math concept), as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components. That is, other than reciting generic computer elements, nothing in the claim element precludes the step from practically being performed in the mind. For example, but for the language about generic computer elements, “inferring …”, in the limitation citied above encompasses analyzing / processing / updating data for data process model, which is based on observation, evaluation, judgement, and/or opinion, that could be performed by human using paper / pen / calculator. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
The claim recited additional element of “training, using the third module, a super-model on a plurality of candidate tasks using at least one of a training data set and input streaming data …”, which is mere instructions to implement an abstract idea using generic computing device, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea (MPEP 2106.05(f)). Accordingly, at Step 2A, prong two, the additional elements individually or in combination do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. The claim is directed to an abstract idea.
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above, the additional element of “training, using the third module, a super-model on a plurality of candidate tasks using at least one of a training data set and input streaming data …”, which is mere instructions to implement an abstract idea using generic computing device, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea (MPEP 2106.05(f)). Accordingly, at Step 2B the additional elements individually or in combination do not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
The claim is not patent eligible.
With regards to claim 18, the claim recites further limitation of “… optimizing … one or more architecture weights with respect to the training data” (mental process and/or math concept), as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components. That is, other than reciting generic computer elements, nothing in the claim element precludes the step from practically being performed in the mind. For example, but for the language about generic computer elements, “to select” in the limitation citied above encompasses analyzing / processing / updating / identifying data for data classification model, which is based on observation, evaluation, judgement, and/or opinion, that could be performed by human using paper / pen / calculator. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas Except citing generic computer elements to implement the abstract idea, there is no additional element showing integration into a practical application or adding something significantly more to the abstract idea. The claim is not patent eligible.
Claims 19-20 of the claimed invention are directed to a judicial exception, an abstract idea, without significantly more.
(Independent Claims) With regards to claim 19,
Step 1: The claim recites an article of manufacturing, which falls into one of the statutory categories.
Step 2A – Prong 1: the claim, in part, recites
(a)“…. generate … augmented input data …” (mental process and/or math concept), as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components. That is, other than reciting generic computer elements, nothing in the claim element precludes the step from practically being performed in the mind. For example, but for the language about generic computer elements, “generate”, in the limitation citied above encompasses analyzing / processing / updating data, which is based on observation, evaluation, judgement, and/or opinion, that could be performed by human using paper / pen / calculator. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
(b) “….perform … a specific task based at least in part on the augmented input data” (mental process and/or math concept), as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components. That is, other than reciting generic computer elements, nothing in the claim element precludes the step from practically being performed in the mind. For example, but for the language about generic computer elements, “perform”, in the limitation citied above encompasses performing data processing task, which is based on observation, evaluation, judgement, and/or opinion, that could be performed by human using paper / pen / calculator. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
(c) “….adapt … a network architecture … based on changes …” (mental process and/or math concept), as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components. That is, other than reciting generic computer elements, nothing in the claim element precludes the step from practically being performed in the mind. For example, but for the language about generic computer elements, “adapt …”, in the limitation citied above encompasses analyzing / processing data to update data processing models, which is based on observation, evaluation, judgement, and/or opinion, that could be performed by human using paper / pen / calculator. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
Step 2A – Prong 2: This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim recites the additional elements of: (a) “Non-transitory computer-readable media having instructions encoded thereon, the instructions configured to cause processing circuitry to…”, “first / second / third module …”, “… machine learning model …”, which is mere instructions to implement an abstract idea using generic computing device, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea (see MPEP 2106.05(f)); (b) “… streaming input data …”, which is extra-solution activity of pre-solution data gathering and/or post solution data output (see MPEP.2106.05(g)). Accordingly. the additional elements individually or in combination do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. The claim is directed to an abstract idea.
Step 2B Analysis: The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above, the claim recites the additional elements of: (a) “Non-transitory computer-readable media having instructions encoded thereon, the instructions configured to cause processing circuitry to …”, “first / second / third module …”, “… machine learning model …”, which merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea (MPEP 2106.05(f)); (b) “… streaming input data …”, which is insignificant extra solution activity of pre-solution data gathering and/or post-solution data output (see MPEP 2106.05(g)). The courts have found limitations directed to obtaining information electronically, recited at a high level of generality, to be well-understood, routine, and conventional (see MPEP 2106.05(d)(II), “receiving or transmitting data over a network”, "electronic record keeping," and "storing and retrieving information in memory"). Accordingly, the additional elements individually or in combination do not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. The claim is not patent eligible.
(Dependent claims)
Claim 20 is dependent on claim 19 and include all the limitations of claim 19. Therefore, claim 20 recites the same abstract ideas.
With regards to claim 20, The claim recites additional element of “wherein the streaming input data comprises streaming input data having a class imbalance among a plurality of classes represented in the streaming input data”, which is recited at a high level of generality and amounts to extra-solution activity of pre-solution data gathering (MPEP.2106.05(g)). Accordingly, at Step 2A, prong two, the additional elements individually or in combination do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. The claim is directed to an abstract idea.
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above, the additional element of “wherein the streaming input data comprises streaming input data having a class imbalance among a plurality of classes represented in the streaming input data”, is insignificant extra solution activity of pre-solution data gathering (see MPEP 2106.05(g)). The courts have found limitations directed to obtaining information electronically, recited at a high level of generality, to be well-understood, routine, and conventional (see MPEP 2106.05(d)(II), “receiving or transmitting data over a network”, "electronic record keeping," and "storing and retrieving information in memory"). Accordingly, at Step 2B the additional elements individually or in combination do not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
The claim is not patent eligible.
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 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.
Claims 1, 4-5, 8-10, 13-14, 17-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Puscas et al, US-PATENT NO.11544532B2 [hereafter Puscasi] in view of Roth et al, US-PGPUB NO.20210374502A1 [hereafter Roth].
With regards to claim 1, Puscas teaches “A system comprising: processing circuitry in communication with storage media, the processing circuitry configured to execute a machine learning system comprising at least a first module, a second module and a third module, wherein the machine learning system is configured to train one or more machine learning models (Puscas, FIG.1,7-8,
PNG
media_image1.png
430
797
media_image1.png
Greyscale
) and wherein: the first module is configured to generate augmented input data (Puscas, FIG.1, 7, C1L48-67‘… to generate a first synthetic training sample emulating the first training sample …’)…; the second module comprises a machine learning model configured to perform a specific task based at least in part on the augmented input data (Puscas, FIG.1, 7, C1L48-67 ‘… the reinitialized discriminator network further being retrained, based at least on the first synthetic training sample, to perform the first task…’); and the third module configured to adapt a network architecture of the one or more machine learning models based on changes in the streaming input data (Puscas, FIG.1, 7-8, C5L43-46 ‘… the capacity of the generator network may expand, for example, through the addition of neurons …’)”.
Puscas does not explicitly detail “based on streaming input data”.
However Roth teaches “based on streaming input data (Roth, FIG.37, [0094] ‘… supernet is trained using randomly cropped patches of size 256x256x32 from input images …’. [0118] ‘…streaming video content …’)”.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, and having the teachings of Puscas and Roth before him or her, to modify the learning network adaptation system and method of Puscas to include streaming data as shown in Roth.
The motivation for doing so would have been to facilitates training with FL (Roth, Abstract).
With regards to claim 4, Puscas in view of Roth teaches
“The system of claim 1”.
Puscas does not explicitly detail “wherein the machine learning system is configured to train the one or more machine learning models using one or more semi-supervised incremental learning techniques”.
However Roth teaches “wherein the machine learning system is configured to train the one or more machine learning models using one or more semi-supervised incremental learning techniques (Roth, FIG.10, [0111] ‘…semi-supervised learning may be used…. to perform incremental learning…’)”.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, and having the teachings of Puscas and Roth before him or her, to modify the learning network adaptation system and method of Puscas to include further details about model training as shown in Roth.
The motivation for doing so would have been to facilitates training with FL (Roth, Abstract).
With regards to claim 5, Puscas in view of Roth teaches
“The system of claim“.
Puscas does not explicitly detail “further comprising one or more modules configured to process the streaming input data by performing at least one of: a format transformation operation, a metadata derivation operation, or a data association operation”.
However Roth teaches “further comprising one or more modules configured to process the streaming input data by performing at least one of: a format transformation operation, a metadata derivation operation, or a data association operation (Roth, FIG.22, [0336] ‘…processing cluster array 2212 can include logic to execute processing tasks including filtering of video and/or …performing data transformation’)”.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, and having the teachings of Puscas and Roth before him or her, to modify the learning network adaptation system and method of Puscas to include further details about model training as shown in Roth.
The motivation for doing so would have been to facilitates training with FL (Roth, Abstract).
With regards to claim 8, Puscas in view of Roth teaches
“The system of claim 1”.
Puscas does not explicitly detail “wherein the third module is further configured to train a super-model on a plurality of candidate tasks using at least one of a training data set and input streaming data and is configured to infer an optimal architecture for a current task based on the trained super-model”.
However Roth teaches “wherein the third module is further configured to train a super-model on a plurality of candidate tasks using at least one of a training data set and input streaming data and is configured to infer an optimal architecture for a current task based on the trained super-model (Roth, FIG.1-2, 5, 37, [0070-0077] ‘… adapting a sub-network to a target domain…’,
PNG
media_image2.png
830
586
media_image2.png
Greyscale
)”.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, and having the teachings of Puscas and Roth before him or her, to modify the learning network adaptation system and method of Puscas to include further details about model training as shown in Roth.
The motivation for doing so would have been to facilitates training with FL (Roth, Abstract).
With regards to claim 9, Puscas in view of Roth teaches
“The system of claim 8”.
Puscas does not explicitly detail “wherein the third module is further configured to optimize one or more architecture weights with respect to the training data”.
However Roth teaches “wherein the third module is further configured to optimize one or more architecture weights with respect to the training data (Roth, FIG.1-2, 5, [0082-0087]
PNG
media_image3.png
403
537
media_image3.png
Greyscale
)”.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, and having the teachings of Puscas and Roth before him or her, to modify the learning network adaptation system and method of Puscas to include further details about model training as shown in Roth.
The motivation for doing so would have been to facilitates training with FL (Roth, Abstract).
Claims 10, 13-14, 17-19 are substantially similar to claims 1, 4-5, 8-9. The arguments as given above for claims 1, 4-5, 8-9 are applied, mutatis mutandis, to claims 10, 13-14, 17-19, therefore the rejection of claims 1, 4-5, 8-9 are applied accordingly.
The combined teaching described above will be referred as Puscas + Roth hereafter.
Claims 2-3, 11-12, 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Puscas et al, US-PATENT NO.11544532B2 [hereafter Puscasi] in view of Roth et al, US-PGPUB NO.20210374502A1 [hereafter Roth] and Kumar et al., US-PATENT NO.11741693B2 [hereafter Kumar].
With regards to claim 2, Puscas + Roth teaches
“The system of claim 1”.
Puscas + Roth does not explicitly detail “wherein the streaming input data comprises streaming input data having a class imbalance among a plurality of classes represented in the streaming input data”.
However Kumar teaches “wherein the streaming input data comprises streaming input data having a class imbalance among a plurality of classes represented in the streaming input data (Kumar, FIG.1-4, C4L37-39 ‘…a small fraction of the data is labeled …’ shows imbalance of labeled and unlabeled classes.)”.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, and having the teachings of Puscas + Roth and Kumar before him or her, to modify the learning network adaptation system and method of Puscas + Roth to include unbalanced representation with class labels as shown in Kumar.
The motivation for doing so would have been to facilitate generating synthetic data object (Kumar, Abstract).
With regards to claim 3, Puscas in view of Roth teaches
“The system of claim 1”.
Puscas + Roth does not explicitly detail “wherein the augmented input data comprises one or more augmentation samples of a minority class”.
However Kumar teaches “wherein the augmented input data comprises one or more augmentation samples of a minority class (Kumar, FIG.1-4,
PNG
media_image4.png
832
617
media_image4.png
Greyscale
C5L15-24, ‘each individual dimension of an attribute tag can belong to one of K different classes …’, C11L60-C12L24, ‘…the system synthesizes, by a generator module, a data object xG derived from a noise vector z and attribute label y … …’, C12L47-48 ,’…data set consists of 60,000 32x32 color images in 10 classes ..’)”.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, and having the teachings of Puscas + Roth and Kumar before him or her, to modify the learning network adaptation system and method of Puscas + Roth to include unbalanced representation with class labels as shown in Kumar.
The motivation for doing so would have been to facilitate generating synthetic data object (Kumar, Abstract).
Claims 11-12, 20 are substantially similar to claims 2-3. The arguments as given above for claims 2-3 are applied, mutatis mutandis, to claims 11-12 and 20, therefore the rejection of claims 2-3 are applied accordingly.
Claims 6-7, 15-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Puscas et al, US-PATENT NO.11544532B2 [hereafter Puscasi] in view of Roth et al, US-PGPUB NO.20210374502A1 [hereafter Roth] and Madani et al., US-PATENT NO.10592779B2 [hereafter Madni].
With regards to claim 6, Puscas in view of Roth teaches
“The system of claim 1”.
Puscas + Roth does not explicitly detail “wherein the first module further comprises a Dynamic Memory Repository (DMR), a replay generative Artificial Intelligence (AI) architecture and a discriminator/classifier, wherein the DMR is configured to selectively store one or more representative data samples, wherein the generative AI architecture is configured to generate one or more new data samples that are similar to the one or more representative data samples stored in the DMR, and wherein the discriminator/classifier is configured to distinguish between real data and fake data in the one or more new data samples generated by the generative AI architecture”.
However Madni teaches “wherein the first module further comprises a Dynamic Memory Repository (DMR), a replay generative Artificial Intelligence (AI) architecture and a discriminator/classifier (Madni, FIG.7-9,
PNG
media_image5.png
724
539
media_image5.png
Greyscale
), wherein the DMR is configured to selectively store one or more representative data samples wherein the generative AI architecture is configured to generate one or more new data samples that are similar to the one or more representative data samples stored in the DMR (Madni, FIG.7-9, C1L42-45 ‘…augmenting … a set of training medical images to include one or more generated medical images generated by the image generator …’, and claims 2, 12), and wherein the discriminator/classifier is configured to distinguish between real data and fake data in the one or more new data samples generated by the generative AI architecture (Madni, FIG.7-9, C6L26-28 ‘…the discriminator D may be utilized with actual input medical image data to differentiate between normal and abnormal medical images …’, and claim 2,
PNG
media_image6.png
767
468
media_image6.png
Greyscale
)”.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, and having the teachings of Puscas + Roth and Kumar before him or her, to modify the learning network adaptation system and method of Puscas + Roth to include further details of system structure as shown in Madni.
The motivation for doing so would have been to implement ML model (Madni, Abstract).
With regards to claim 7, Puscas in view of Roth teaches
“The system of claim 6”.
Puscas + Roth does not explicitly detail “wherein the discriminator/classifier is further configured to select one or more new data samples to be stored in the DMR”.
However Madni teaches “wherein the discriminator/classifier is further configured to select one or more new data samples to be stored in the DMR (Madni, FIG.7-9, C1L42-45 ‘…augmenting … a set of training medical images to include one or more generated medical images generated by the image generator …’, and claims 5 ‘the training is based on a feedback obtained from the output of the discriminator’. Notes that the teaching in Madni shows that the discriminator’s output serves as the feedback/gating signal that determines which generator outputs are of sufficient quality to be incorporated into the augmented /stored training image set.)”.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, and having the teachings of Puscas + Roth and Kumar before him or her, to modify the learning network adaptation system and method of Puscas + Roth to include further details of system structure as shown in Madni.
The motivation for doing so would have been to implement ML model (Madni, Abstract).
Claims 15-16 are substantially similar to claims 6-7. The arguments as given above for claims 6-7 are applied, mutatis mutandis, to claims 15-16, therefore the rejection of claims 6-7 are applied accordingly.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to TSU-CHANG LEE whose telephone number is 571-272-3567. The fax number is 571-273-3567.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Omar Fernandez Rivas, can be reached 571-272-2589.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/TSU-CHANG LEE/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2128
Prosecution Insights