Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application 18/541,134, filed on 11/18/2024 (or after March 16, 2013), is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA (First Inventor to File).
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.
This application has PRO 63/387,901 filed 12/16/2022
DETAILED ACTION
Claims 1-20 are pending in this application.
Drawings
The Drawings filed on 12/15/2023 are acceptable for examination purpose.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 7/29/2025 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant’s claim for domestic priority application
U.S. Provisional Patent application serial number # 63/387,901 filed 12/16/2022
under 35 U.S.C. 119 (e)
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 an abstract idea without significantly more. The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application.
Claim 1-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. The eligibility analysis in support of these findings is provided below, in accordance with the 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance, Federal Register (84 FR 50) on January 7, 2019 hereinafter 2019 PEG
Step 1. In accordance with Step 1 of the eligibility inquiry (as explained in MPEP 2106), it is noted that the method of claim 1,8,15, directed to one of the eligible categories of subject matter and therefore satisfy Step 1.
Step 2A. In accordance with Step 2A prong one of the 2019 PEG, the limitations reciting the abstract idea are highlighted, and the limitations directed to additional elements are highlighted, as set forth in exemplary claim 1
Claim 1,8,15.
“A method for semi-automated labeling of datasets, the method comprising:
collecting data via one or more time-series sensors to form an unlabeled dataset
corresponding to raw sensor data;
receiving one or more event type labels for a subset of the unlabeled dataset
thereby forming a labeled dataset;
generating a new convolved dataset by convolving the labeled dataset with the
unlabeled dataset corresponding to the raw sensor data;
automatically determining potential new labels for any unlabeled segments
remaining in the unlabeled dataset via cross correlation between the labeled dataset and the unlabeled dataset; and
presenting the new labelled data as training data and/or testing data for a
machine learning algorithm”, 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. For example, in the context of this claim, this limitation encompasses the user thinking of collection of data using generic computer component(s)
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 set forth in the 2019 PEG. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
With respect to Step 2A prong two of the 2019 PEG, the judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. The additional elements are directed to method steps, however, these elements fail to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they fail to provide an improvement to the functioning of a computer or to any other technology or technical field, fail to apply the exception with a particular machine, fail to apply the judicial exception to effect a particular data structure of receiving, generating, automatically labelling, presenting data, to effect a transformation of a particular article to a different state or thing, and fail to apply/use the abstract idea in a meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment.
Furthermore, although these elements have been fully considered, they are directed to the use of generic computing elements (fig 4, para 0035-0037, of the instant specification make it clear that the disclosed functionality is implemented on well-known computing systems and general purpose computing devices) to perform the abstract idea, which is not sufficient to amount to a practical application (as noted in the 2019 PEG) and is amount to simply saying "apply it" using a general purpose computer, which merely serves to tie the abstract idea to a particular technological environment computer based operating environment) by using the computer as a tool to perform the abstract idea.
Since the analysis of Step 2A prong one and prong two results in the conclusion that the claims are directed to an abstract idea, additional analysis under Step 2B of the eligibility inquiry must be conducted in order to determine whether any claim element or combination of elements amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Step 2B. The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. The additional method limitations are directed to a generic computer, at a very high level of generality and without imposing meaningful limitations on the scope of the claim. In addition fig 4, 0035-0037 of the instant specification describe generic off-the-shelf computer-based elements for implementing the claimed invention which does not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea and is not enough to transform an abstract idea into eligible subject matter. Such generic, high-level, and nominal involvement of a computer or computer-based elements for carrying out the invention merely serves to tie the abstract idea to a particular technological environment, which is not enough to render the claims patent-eligible, as noted at pg. 74624 of Federal Register/Vol. 79, No. 241, citing Alice, which in turn cites Mayo. Further, See, e.g., Alice Corp. Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank Int'l, 134 S. Ct. 2347, 2359-60, 110 USPQ2d 1976, 1984 (2014). See also OIP Techs. v. Amazon.com, 788 F.3d 1359, 1364, 115 USPQ2d 1090, 1093-94 (Fed. Cir. 2015) ("Just as Diehr could not save the claims in Alice, which were directed to 'implement[ing] the abstract idea of intermediated settlement on a generic computer', it cannot save O/P's claims directed to implementing the abstract idea of price optimization on a generic computer.") (citations omitted). See also, Affinity Labs of Texas LLC v. DirecTV LLC, 838 F.3d 1253, 1257-1258 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (mere recitation of a GUI does not make a claim patent-eligible); Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Capital One Bank, 792 F.3d 1363, 1370 (Fed. Cir. 2015) ("the interactive interface limitation is a generic computer element".)
The additional elements are broadly applied to the abstract idea at a high level of generality ("similar to how the recitation of the computer in the claims in Alice amounted to mere instructions to apply the abstract idea of intermediated settlement on a generic computer,") as explained in MPEP § 2106.05(f)) and they operate in a well-understood, routine, and conventional manner.
MPEP § 2106.05 (d)(II) sets forth the following:
The courts have recognized the following computer functions as well-understood, routine, and conventional functions when they are claimed in a merely generic manner (e.g. at a high level of generality) as insignificant extra-solution activity.
Receiving or transmitting data over a network, e.g., using the Internet to gather data, Symantec...; TLI Communications LLC v. AV Auto. LLC...; OIP Techs., Inc., v. Amazon.com, Inc... ; buySAFE, Inc. v. Google, Inc...;
Performing repetitive calculations, Flook ... ; Bancorp Services v. Sun Life...;
Electronic recordkeeping, Alice Corp...; Ultramercial... ;
Storing and retrieving information in memory, Versata Dev. Group, Inc. v. SAP Am., Inc...;
Electronically scanning or extracting data from a physical document, Content Extraction and Transmission, LLC v. Wells Fargo Bank...; and
A web browser's back and forward button functionality, Internet Patent Corp. v. Active Network, Inc.
Courts have held computer-implemented processes not to be significantly more than an abstract idea (and thus ineligible) where the claim as a whole amounts to nothing more than generic computer functions merely used to implement an abstract idea, such as an idea that could be done by a human analog (i.e., by hand or by merely thinking).
Claim 2,9,16, further elaborates “wherein the time-series sensors include one or more of the following: accelerometers, gyroscopes, magnetometers, thermometers, pressure sensors, ultrasonic time-of-flight sensors, humidity sensors, and microphones”, which have been determined to be extra-solution activity that does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. See MPEP 2106.05(b)(I). Even in combination, the additional details recited in these claims do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
Claim 3,10,17, further elaborates “wherein the dataset includes one or more recorded events of interest”, which have been determined to be extra-solution activity that does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. See MPEP 2106.05(b)(I). Even in combination, the additional details recited in these claims do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
Claim 4,11,18, further elaborates “wherein determining the potential new labels includes determining whether the one or more event type labels is an event label or a
background label”, which have been determined to be extra-solution activity that does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. See MPEP 2106.05(b)(I). Even in combination, the additional details recited in these claims do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
Claim 5,12,19, further elaborates “wherein determining the potential new labels includes summing cross correlation results across all sensor data streams in the dataset”, which have been determined to be extra-solution activity that does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. See MPEP 2106.05(b)(I). Even in combination, the additional details recited in these claims do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
Claim 6,13,20, further elaborates “wherein determining the potential new labels includes collapsing all raw data in the dataset into one dimension”, which have been determined to be extra-solution activity that does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. See MPEP 2106.05(b)(I). Even in combination, the additional details recited in these claims do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
Claim 7, 14, further elaborates “wherein determining the potential new labels includes identifying candidate potential new labels using multiple peak identification in a given segment”, which have been determined to be extra-solution activity that does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. See MPEP 2106.05(b)(I). Even in combination, the additional details recited in these claims do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Alford, US Pub. No. 2023/0059697 based on provisional application filed Aug, 2021 in view of Chen et al., (hereafter Chen), US Pub. No. 2019/0325344 published Oct, 2019
As to Claim 1,8,15.A method for semi-automated labeling of datasets, the method comprising: (Alford: 0018,0141 – Alford teaches automated identification of potentially valuable data from sensor data, also knowledge datasets are added to support the labelling of data as detailed in 0141)
“collecting data via one or more to form an unlabeled dataset
corresponding to raw sensor data” (Alford: fig 1, 100,0081,0086, 0145 – Alford teaches generating training data for time-series sensors for example audio or motion data, timing data, touch sensor data and like);
PNG
media_image1.png
186
300
media_image1.png
Greyscale
“receiving one or more event type labels for a subset of the unlabeled dataset
thereby forming a labeled dataset” (Alford: 0141, fig 20 – Alford teaches classifications of the datasets and respective labels, particularly machine learning data sets refers unlabeled data, Alford teaches extracting dataset of the sensor data for analysis process of specific time periods as detailed in fig 20)
PNG
media_image2.png
139
238
media_image2.png
Greyscale
“generating a new dataset labeled dataset with the unlabeled dataset corresponding to the raw sensor data” (Alford: 0133-0134, fig 5, – Alford teaches generating data samples of smaller datasets including features of both labelled and unlabeled datasets, where VDDS provides sample datasets for further analysis);
PNG
media_image3.png
114
201
media_image3.png
Greyscale
automatically determining potential new labels segments dataset via cross correlation between the labeled dataset” (Alford: 0123-0125, fig 6 – Alford teaches automatically identifying new datasets of parameter types, patterns, analyzed data matching parameters as detailed in fig 6) and
PNG
media_image4.png
160
337
media_image4.png
Greyscale
“presenting the new labelled data as training data and/or testing data for a
machine learning algorithm” (Alford: fig 9, 0142-0143,0145- Alford teaches labelling training data, labeling training data “voice” and ambient environment” of the audio sample .
PNG
media_image5.png
134
255
media_image5.png
Greyscale
It is however, noted that Alford does not teach “generating a new convolved dataset by convolving the labeled dataset with the unlabeled dataset”. “unlabeled segments remaining in the unlabeled dataset via cross correlation between the labeled dataset and the unlabeled dataset;”, , although Alford teaches sensor based data sets identifying instances and regions of changes highlighting visualization and extraction of datasets (Alford: Abstract). On the other hand, Chen disclosed “generating a new convolved dataset by convolving the labeled dataset with the unlabeled dataset” (Chen: 0069, 0079, fig 1, fig 4 – Chen teaches generating unlabeled and labelled data sets using data labelling application associated with predictive model, further prediction application performs operational flow sequence particularly generat[ing] data labelling and the labelling model selected used a convolutional layer followed by maximum pooling layer and the respective filter size, kernel size). Chen disclosed “unlabeled segments remaining in the unlabeled dataset via cross correlation between the labeled dataset and the unlabeled dataset;” (Chen: fig 2A-2B, 0043-0045 – Chen teaches identifying both unlabeled and labeled data sets correlating values and the combinations between labelled datasets.
PNG
media_image6.png
176
247
media_image6.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image7.png
170
161
media_image7.png
Greyscale
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing the claimed invention machine learning predictive labeling system, particularly trained labeling model of Chen et al., into indexing large volumes and durations of sensor datasets of Alford because both Alford, Chen directed to extraction of sensor datasets (Alford: Abstract; Chen: Abstract) and both Alford, Chen teaches training datasets using machine larning (Alford: 105,0123, particularly label training data, fig 9; Chen: 0027,0084, fig 1) and they both are from the same field of endeavor. Because both Alford, Chen teaches training sensor datasets using machine learning, it would have been obvious to one skill ed in the art to substitute and/or modify one method for the other particularly generating both unlabeled, labeled data sets, predict, and training label model thereby improves the performance of the sensor datasets in predefined observation vector combination for the computing mutual information value(s) of the labeled data (Chen: 0006), thus improves overall quality and reliability of the system
As to Claim 2,9,16, the combination of Alford, Chen disclosed “ wherein the time-series sensors include one or more of the following: microphones” (Alford: 0127,0134, fig 8). On the other hand, Chen disclosed one or more of the following accelerometers, gyroscopes, magnetometers, thermometers, pressure sensors, ultrasonic time-of-flight sensors, humidity sensors (Chen: 0029, fig 1 – Chen teaches sensors including microphone, infrared pressure sensor, temperature sensor, humidity sensor, ultrasound machine sensor and like)
PNG
media_image8.png
208
340
media_image8.png
Greyscale
As to Claim 3,10,17, the combination of Alford, Chen disclosed “wherein the dataset includes one or more recorded events of interest” (Alford: fig 8-9) .
As to Claim 4,11,18, the combination of Alford, Chen disclosed “wherein determining the potential new labels includes determining whether the one or more event type labels is an event label or a background label” (Alford: 0148-0149, 0152-0153, fig 14).
As to Claim 5,12,19, the combination of Alford, Chen disclosed “wherein determining the potential new labels includes summing cross correlation results across all sensor data streams in the dataset” (Alford: 0107-0108, 0123-0125, fig 6)
As to Claim 6,13,20, the combination of Alford, Chen disclosed “wherein determining the potential new labels includes collapsing all raw data in the dataset into one dimension” (Alford: 0135-0136,0140)
As to Claim 7, 14, the combination of Alford, Chen disclosed “wherein determining the potential new labels includes identifying candidate potential new labels using multiple peak identification in a given segment” (Alford: 0134-0135 fig 9).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record
a. US Pub. No. 2023/0059697
b. US Pub. No. 2019/0325344
Examiner's Note: Examiner has cited particular columns and line numbers in the references applied to the claims above for the convenience of the applicant. Although the specified citations are representative of the teachings of the art and are applied to specific limitations within the individual claim, other passages and figures may apply as well. It is respectfully requested from the applicant in preparing responses, to fully consider the references in entirety as potentially teaching all or part of the claimed invention, as well as the context of the passage as taught by the prior art or disclosed by the Examiner.
SEE MPEP 2141.02 [R-5] VI. PRIOR ART MUST BE CONSIDERED IN ITS ENTIRETY, INCLUDING DISCLOSURES THAT TEACH AWAY FROM THE CLAIMS: A prior art reference must be considered in its entirety, i.e., as a whole, including portions that would lead away from the claimed invention. W.L. Gore & Associates, Inc. v. Garlock, Inc., 721 F.2d 1540, 220 USPQ 303 (Fed. Cir. 1983), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 851 (1984) In re Fulton, 391 F.3d 1195, 1201,73 USPQ2d 1141, 1146 (Fed. Cir. 2004). >See also MPEP §2123.
In the case of amending the Claimed invention, Applicant is respectfully requested to indicate the portion(s) of the specification which dictate(s) the structure relied on for proper interpretation and also to verify and ascertain the metes and bounds of the claimed invention.
The prior art made of record, listed on form PTO-892, and not relied upon, if any, is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure
Authorization for Internet Communications
The examiner encourages Applicant to submit an authorization to communicate with the examiner via the Internet by making the following statement (from MPEP 502.03):
“Recognizing that Internet communications are not secure, I hereby authorize the USPTO to communicate with the undersigned and practitioners in accordance with 37 CFR 1.33 and 37 CFR 1.34 concerning any subject matter of this application by video conferencing, instant messaging, or electronic mail. I understand that a copy of these communications will be made of record in the application file.”
Please note that the above statement can only be submitted via Central Fax (not Examiner's Fax), Regular postal mail, or EFS Web using PTO/SB/439.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Srirama Channavajjala whose telephone number is 571-272-4108. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday from 8:00 AM to 5:30 PM Eastern Time.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Gorney, Boris, can be reached on (571) 270- 5626. The fax phone numbers for the organization where the application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300 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)
/Srirama Channavajjala/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2154
Prosecution Insights