CTNF 18/554,672 CTNF 80016 DETAILED ACTION Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status 07-03-aia AIA 15-10-aia The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA. 07-30-03-h AIA Claim Interpretation Claim(s) 1-7 do not use “means for” (or “step for”) language, or generic placeholders for "means” coupled with functional language without recitation of sufficient structure for carrying out the claimed functions and therefore do not invoke 35 U.S.C. 112(f) (pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph). Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102 07-06 AIA 15-10-15 In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status. 07-07-aia AIA 07-07 The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action: A person shall be entitled to a patent unless – 07-08-aia AIA (a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention. 07-12-aia AIA (a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention. 07-15-aia AIA Claim(s) 1, 6 and 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102 (a)(1) or 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Chatterjee et al. (US 10,824,959 B1). [claim 1] Regarding claim 1, Chaterjee discloses an information processing device comprising: a processor (Figure 10, 9010a-9019n), and a memory storing program instructions that cause the processor (Figure 10, 9020 storing code 9025; c. 20, ll. 23-55) to: acquire estimation result data indicating an estimation result of a machine learning model (Figure 1, 137; c. 2, l. 43 – c. 3, l. 33; c. 6, l. 43-63, c. 8, ll. 3-19) and first explanation data for explaining the estimation result (Figure 1, 160/162 and 165; c. 6, l. 64 – c. 7, l. 55; ranked explanatory ruleset); and convert the first explanation data into second explanation data based on the estimation result data (Figure 1, 172; Figure 8, Action taken to provide output (i.e. appropriate explanation or “No explanation currently available”) based on converting the ranked explanatory ruleset to the output based on “Values match predicates?” and “Classifier’s predication matches rule implication?”). Note that the claims as written do not define the particular type or format of the “first explanation data” or the “second explanation data” and further does not define the particular processing used to “convert the first explanation data into second explanation data based on the estimation result data”. Thus the system of Chaterjee which converts a wide set of explanations, i.e. the ranked rule set, into a single appropriate explanation or message stating “No explanation currently available” based on the criteria described in Figure 8 reads on the claim as written. [claim 6] Claim 6 is a method claim corresponding to apparatus claim 1. Therefore, claim 6 is analyzed and rejected as previously discussed with respect to claim 1. [claim 7] Regarding claim 7, see the rejection of claim 1 above and note that Chaterjee discloses a memory which is a non-transitory computer-readable recording medium and which stores the program as claimed (c. 20, ll. 23-55) . Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103 07-20-aia AIA 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. 07-21-aia AIA Claim (s) 4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chatterjee et al. (US 10,824,959 B1) in view of Official Notice. [claim 4] Regarding claim 4, Chaterjee discloses wherein the machine learning model is a neural network (Figure 6; c. 5, l. 46 – c. 6, l. 10, c. 6, ll. 22-41, c. 14, l. 49 – c. 15, l. 27) but does not disclose the use of a ReLU activation function. However, ReLU activation function is a well-known activation function for neural networks with advantages such as sparse activation, better gradient propagation, efficient and scale-invariance. Therefore, it would have been obvious to use a ReLU activation function for the neural network of Chaterjee to achieve sparse activation, better gradient propagation, efficient and scale-invariance . Allowable Subject Matter 07-43 Claims 2, 3 and 5 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims. [claims 2 and 3] Regarding claims 2 and 3, the prior art does not teach or reasonably suggest wherein the processor determines whether or not a bias term is included in the estimation result data, and converts the estimation result data into the second explanation data including perturbation when the bias term is included. While Chaterjee discloses a similar system, Chaterjee and the other cited prior art references does not disclose converting the estimation result data on the basis of whether or not a bias term is included in the estimation result data as required in claims 2 and 3. [claim 5] Regarding claim 5, the prior art does not teach or reasonably suggest wherein the first explanation data is explanation data by Integrated Gradient (IG), and the second explanation data is explanation data by Vanilla Gradient (VG). While the prior art teaches the use of IG and VG explanation data, the prior art does not teach or reasonably suggest converting IG explanation data into VG explanation data based on the estimation result data as required in claim 5. Conclusion 07-96 AIA The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. The following teach additional prior art systems/methods for generation of explanation data for prediction results: Gupta, S. Watson and H. Yin, "3D Point Cloud Feature Explanations Using Gradient-Based Methods," 2020 International Joint Conference on Neural Networks (IJCNN), Glasgow, UK, 2020, pp. 1-8, doi: 10.1109/IJCNN48605.2020.9206688. Galinkin, "Robustness and usefulness in AI explanation methods." arXiv preprint arXiv:2203.03729 (2022). Seah et al., "Generative visual rationales." arXiv preprint arXiv:1804.04539 (2018). Agarwal et al., “Towards the Unification and Robustness of Perturbation and Gradient Based Explanations”, arXiv preprint arXiv:2102.10618 (2021) Fisher EP 3767543 A1 Angele US 7,333,970 B2 Paiement et al. US 2023/0206096 A1 Courtney et al. US 2022/0237509 A1 Karanth et al. US 2021/0241047 A1 Guiver et al. US 2015/0142717 A1 Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to TIMOTHY J HENN whose telephone number is (571)272-7310. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday ~10-6. Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice. If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Twyler Haskins can be reached at (571) 272-7406. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300. Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000. /Timothy J Henn/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2639 Application/Control Number: 18/554,672 Page 2 Art Unit: 2639 Application/Control Number: 18/554,672 Page 3 Art Unit: 2639 Application/Control Number: 18/554,672 Page 4 Art Unit: 2639 Application/Control Number: 18/554,672 Page 5 Art Unit: 2639 Application/Control Number: 18/554,672 Page 6 Art Unit: 2639 Application/Control Number: 18/554,672 Page 7 Art Unit: 2639
Prosecution Insights