CTNF 18/574,995 CTNF 81690 DETAILED ACTION 07-03-aia AIA 15-10-aia 1. The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA. Information Disclosure Statement 2. The information disclosure statements (IDS) submitted on 12/28/2023 and 07/30/2025 have been received, entered into the record, and considered. The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statements are being considered by the examiner. Response to Amendment 3. Receipt of Applicant’s Preliminary Amendment filed on 12/28/2023 is acknowledged. The preliminary amendment includes the amending of the specification, the cancellation of claims 1-24, and the addition of claims 25-42. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101 07-04-01 AIA 07-04 4. 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. 5. Claims (25-30), (31-36), and (37-42) are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more. Under the 2019 PEG, when considering subject matter eligibility under 35 U.S.C. § 101, it must be determined whether the claim is directed to one of the four statutory categories of invention, i.e., process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter (step 1). If the claim does fall within one of the statutory categories, it must then be determined whether the claim is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., law of nature, natural phenomenon, and abstract idea) (step 2A prong 1), and if so, it must additionally be determined whether the claim is integrated into a practical application (step 2A prong 2). If an abstract idea is present in the claim without integration into a practical application, any element or combination of elements in the claim must be sufficient to ensure that the claim amounts to significantly more than the abstract idea itself (step 2B). In the instant case, claims (25-30), (31-36), and (37-42) are directed to an apparatus, method, and non-transitory machine readable storage medium. Thus, each of the claims falls within one of the four statutory categories. However, the claims also fall within the judicial exception of an abstract idea. Under Step 2A Prong 1, the test is to identify whether the claims are “directed to” a judicial exception. The examiner notes that the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea in that the instant application is directed to mental processes, specifically performing calibration. The examiner further notes that claims (25-30), (31-36), and (37-42) recite an apparatus, method, and non-transitory machine readable storage medium for performing calibration which is similar to themes defined above of method of mental processes such as performing calibration, and is similar to the abstract idea identified in the 2019 PEG in grouping “c” in that the claims recite certain methods of mental processes such as performing calibration. The limitations, substantially comprising the body of the claim, recite a process of performing calibration. The examiner notes that the claimed invention performs calibration. Because the limitations above closely follow the steps in performing calibration, and the steps of the claims involve mental processes, the claim recites an abstract idea consistent with the “mental processes” grouping set forth in the 2019 PEG. Claim 25: An apparatus, comprising: interface circuitry configured to receive a training dataset; and processor circuitry coupled to the interface circuitry; the processor circuitry being configured to: generate a small ground truth dataset by selecting images with a ground truth number of 1 from the training dataset; generate a calibration dataset randomly from the training dataset; if any image in the calibration dataset has the ground truth number of 1, remove the image from the small ground truth dataset; generate a label balanced calibration dataset by replacing an image with a ground truth number greater than a preset threshold in the calibration dataset with a replacing image selected randomly from the small ground truth dataset; and perform calibration using the label balanced calibration dataset in post-training quantization of a deep neural network (DNN). These limitations, as drafted, is an apparatus that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers the performance of mental processes specifically performing calibration. Performing calibration has long before the modern computer was invented, and continues to be predominantly a product of human endeavor. The instant application is directed to performing calibration. Moreover, the generation of small ground truth data set can be performed by a human via their mind and/or pen & paper. Additionally, the generation of a calibration dataset can be performed by a human via their mind and/or pen & paper. Furthermore, the removal of an image from a dataset can be performed by a human via their mind and/or pen & paper. Moreover, the generation of a dataset via the replacement of members can be performed by a human via their mind and/or pen & paper. Additionally, the performing of a calibration can be performed by a human via their mind and/or pen & paper. Because the limitations above closely follow the steps of performing calibration, and the steps involved human judgments, observations and evaluations that can be practically or reasonably performed in the human mind and/or pen & paper, the claim recites an abstract idea consistent with the “mental process” grouping set forth in the 2019 PEG. The mere nominal recitation of generic computing components such as “interface circuitry” and “processor circuitry” do not take the claim out of certain methods of mental processes grouping. Therefore, the limitation is directed to an abstract idea. If the claims are directed toward the judicial exception of an abstract idea, it must then be determined under Step 2A Prong 2 whether the judicial exception is integrated into a practical application. The Examiner notes that considerations under Step 2A Prong 2 comprise most the consideration previously evaluated in the context of Step 2B. The Examiner submits that the considerations discussed previously determined that the claim does not recite “significantly more” at Step 2B would be evaluated the same under Step 2A Prong 1 and result in the determination that the claim does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. The instant application fails to integrate the judicial exception into a practical application because the instant application merely recites words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception or merely includes instructions to implement an abstract idea. The instant application is directed to an apparatus instructing the reader to implement the identified apparatus of mental processes of performing calibration. The elements of the claim do not themselves amount to an improvement to the computer, to a technology or another technical field. Moreover, the receiving of a training dataset is a data gathering operation that is an insignificant data gathering operation that does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Here, the claim elements entirely comprise the abstract idea, leaving little if any aspects of the claim for further consideration under Step 2A Prong 2. In short, the claims have failed to integrate a practical application (see at least 84 Fed. Reg. (4) at 55). Under the 2019 PEG, this supports the conclusion that the claim is directed to an abstract idea, and the analysis proceeds to Step 2B. While many considerations in Step 2A need not be reevaluated in Step 2B because the outcome will be the same. Here, on the basis of the additional elements other than the abstract idea, considered individually and in combination as discussed above, the Examiner respectfully submits that the claim 25 does not contain any additional elements that individually or as an ordered combination amount to an inventive concept and the claims are ineligible. With respect to the dependent claims do not recite anything that is found to render the abstract idea as being transformed into a patent eligible invention. The dependent claims are merely reciting further embellishments of the abstract idea and do not claim anything that amounts to significantly more than the abstract idea itself. With respect to the dependent claims, they have been considered and are not found to be reciting anything that amounts to being significantly more than the abstract idea. Claims 26-30 are directed to further embellishments of the central theme of the abstract idea in that the claims are directed to further embellishments of the performing calibration of the steps of claim 25 and do not amount to significantly more. Specifically, claim 26 is directed towards the generation of a message which can be performed by the human mind and/or pen & paper and does not amount to significantly more. Moreover, the transmission of a generated message is a data transmission operation that is an insignificant data transmission operation that does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Furthermore, claim 27 is directed towards the appending of an image to a dataset which is still a data storage operation that is an insignificant data storage operation that does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application Additionally, claim 28 is directed towards the defining of a DNN which can be performed by the human mind and/or pen & paper and does not amount to significantly more. Moreover, claim 29 is directed towards the defining of received data which is still a data gathering operation that is an insignificant data gathering operation that does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application Furthermore, claim 30 is directed towards the defining of a first domain and second domain which can be performed by the human mind and/or pen & paper and does not amount to significantly more. Claim 31: A method, comprising: generating a small ground truth dataset by selecting images with a ground truth number of 1 from a training dataset; generating a calibration dataset randomly from the training dataset; if any image in the calibration dataset has the ground truth number of 1, removing the image from the small ground truth dataset; generating a label balanced calibration dataset by replacing an image with a ground truth number greater than a preset threshold in the calibration dataset with a replacing image selected randomly from the small ground truth dataset; and performing calibration using the label balanced calibration dataset in post-training quantization of a deep neural network (DNN). These limitations, as drafted, is an apparatus that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers the performance of mental processes specifically performing calibration. Performing calibration has long before the modern computer was invented, and continues to be predominantly a product of human endeavor. The instant application is directed to performing calibration. Moreover, the generation of small ground truth data set can be performed by a human via their mind and/or pen & paper. Additionally, the generation of a calibration dataset can be performed by a human via their mind and/or pen & paper. Furthermore, the removal of an image from a dataset can be performed by a human via their mind and/or pen & paper. Moreover, the generation of a dataset via the replacement of members can be performed by a human via their mind and/or pen & paper. Additionally, the performing of a calibration can be performed by a human via their mind and/or pen & paper. Because the limitations above closely follow the steps of performing calibration, and the steps involved human judgments, observations and evaluations that can be practically or reasonably performed in the human mind and/or pen & paper, the claim recites an abstract idea consistent with the “mental process” grouping set forth in the 2019 PEG. If the claims are directed toward the judicial exception of an abstract idea, it must then be determined under Step 2A Prong 2 whether the judicial exception is integrated into a practical application. The Examiner notes that considerations under Step 2A Prong 2 comprise most the consideration previously evaluated in the context of Step 2B. The Examiner submits that the considerations discussed previously determined that the claim does not recite “significantly more” at Step 2B would be evaluated the same under Step 2A Prong 1 and result in the determination that the claim does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. The instant application fails to integrate the judicial exception into a practical application because the instant application merely recites words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception or merely includes instructions to implement an abstract idea. The instant application is directed to an apparatus instructing the reader to implement the identified apparatus of mental processes of performing calibration. The elements of the claim do not themselves amount to an improvement to the computer, to a technology or another technical field. Here, the claim elements entirely comprise the abstract idea, leaving little if any aspects of the claim for further consideration under Step 2A Prong 2. In short, the claims have failed to integrate a practical application (see at least 84 Fed. Reg. (4) at 55). Under the 2019 PEG, this supports the conclusion that the claim is directed to an abstract idea, and the analysis proceeds to Step 2B. While many considerations in Step 2A need not be reevaluated in Step 2B because the outcome will be the same. Here, on the basis of the additional elements other than the abstract idea, considered individually and in combination as discussed above, the Examiner respectfully submits that the claim 31 does not contain any additional elements that individually or as an ordered combination amount to an inventive concept and the claims are ineligible. With respect to the dependent claims do not recite anything that is found to render the abstract idea as being transformed into a patent eligible invention. The dependent claims are merely reciting further embellishments of the abstract idea and do not claim anything that amounts to significantly more than the abstract idea itself. With respect to the dependent claims, they have been considered and are not found to be reciting anything that amounts to being significantly more than the abstract idea. Claims 32-36 are directed to further embellishments of the central theme of the abstract idea in that the claims are directed to further embellishments of the performing calibration of the steps of claim 31 and do not amount to significantly more. Specifically, claim 32 is directed towards the generation of a message which can be performed by the human mind and/or pen & paper and does not amount to significantly more. Moreover, the transmission of a generated message is a data transmission operation that is an insignificant data transmission operation that does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Furthermore, claim 33 is directed towards the appending of an image to a dataset which is still a data storage operation that is an insignificant data storage operation that does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application Additionally, claim 34 is directed towards the defining of a DNN which can be performed by the human mind and/or pen & paper and does not amount to significantly more. Moreover, claim 35 is directed towards the defining of received data which is still a data gathering operation that is an insignificant data gathering operation that does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application Furthermore, claim 36 is directed towards the defining of a first domain and second domain which can be performed by the human mind and/or pen & paper and does not amount to significantly more. Claim 37: A non-transitory machine readable storage medium having instructions stored thereon, which when executed by a machine, cause the machine to perform operations, comprising: generating a small ground truth dataset by selecting images with a ground truth number of 1 from a training dataset; generating a calibration dataset randomly from the training dataset; if any image in the calibration dataset has the ground truth number of 1, removing the image from the small ground truth dataset; generating a label balanced calibration dataset by replacing an image with a ground truth number greater than a preset threshold in the calibration dataset with a replacing image selected randomly from the small ground truth dataset; and performing calibration using the label balanced calibration dataset in post-training quantization of a deep neural network (DNN). These limitations, as drafted, is an apparatus that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers the performance of mental processes specifically performing calibration. Performing calibration has long before the modern computer was invented, and continues to be predominantly a product of human endeavor. The instant application is directed to performing calibration. Moreover, the generation of small ground truth data set can be performed by a human via their mind and/or pen & paper. Additionally, the generation of a calibration dataset can be performed by a human via their mind and/or pen & paper. Furthermore, the removal of an image from a dataset can be performed by a human via their mind and/or pen & paper. Moreover, the generation of a dataset via the replacement of members can be performed by a human via their mind and/or pen & paper. Additionally, the performing of a calibration can be performed by a human via their mind and/or pen & paper. Because the limitations above closely follow the steps of performing calibration, and the steps involved human judgments, observations and evaluations that can be practically or reasonably performed in the human mind and/or pen & paper, the claim recites an abstract idea consistent with the “mental process” grouping set forth in the 2019 PEG. The mere nominal recitation of generic computing components such as a “non-transitory machine readable storage medium” and a “machine” do not take the claim out of certain methods of mental processes grouping. Therefore, the limitation is directed to an abstract idea. If the claims are directed toward the judicial exception of an abstract idea, it must then be determined under Step 2A Prong 2 whether the judicial exception is integrated into a practical application. The Examiner notes that considerations under Step 2A Prong 2 comprise most the consideration previously evaluated in the context of Step 2B. The Examiner submits that the considerations discussed previously determined that the claim does not recite “significantly more” at Step 2B would be evaluated the same under Step 2A Prong 1 and result in the determination that the claim does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. The instant application fails to integrate the judicial exception into a practical application because the instant application merely recites words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception or merely includes instructions to implement an abstract idea. The instant application is directed to an apparatus instructing the reader to implement the identified apparatus of mental processes of performing calibration. The elements of the claim do not themselves amount to an improvement to the computer, to a technology or another technical field. Here, the claim elements entirely comprise the abstract idea, leaving little if any aspects of the claim for further consideration under Step 2A Prong 2. In short, the claims have failed to integrate a practical application (see at least 84 Fed. Reg. (4) at 55). Under the 2019 PEG, this supports the conclusion that the claim is directed to an abstract idea, and the analysis proceeds to Step 2B. While many considerations in Step 2A need not be reevaluated in Step 2B because the outcome will be the same. Here, on the basis of the additional elements other than the abstract idea, considered individually and in combination as discussed above, the Examiner respectfully submits that the claim 37 does not contain any additional elements that individually or as an ordered combination amount to an inventive concept and the claims are ineligible. With respect to the dependent claims do not recite anything that is found to render the abstract idea as being transformed into a patent eligible invention. The dependent claims are merely reciting further embellishments of the abstract idea and do not claim anything that amounts to significantly more than the abstract idea itself. With respect to the dependent claims, they have been considered and are not found to be reciting anything that amounts to being significantly more than the abstract idea. Claims 38-42 are directed to further embellishments of the central theme of the abstract idea in that the claims are directed to further embellishments of the performing calibration of the steps of claim 37 and do not amount to significantly more. Specifically, claim 38 is directed towards the generation of a message which can be performed by the human mind and/or pen & paper and does not amount to significantly more. Moreover, the transmission of a generated message is a data transmission operation that is an insignificant data transmission operation that does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Furthermore, claim 39 is directed towards the appending of an image to a dataset which is still a data storage operation that is an insignificant data storage operation that does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application Additionally, claim 40 is directed towards the defining of a DNN which can be performed by the human mind and/or pen & paper and does not amount to significantly more. Moreover, claim 41 is directed towards the defining of received data which is still a data gathering operation that is an insignificant data gathering operation that does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application Furthermore, claim 42 is directed towards the defining of a first domain and second domain which can be performed by the human mind and/or pen & paper and does not amount to significantly more. Conclusion 07-96 AIA 6. The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. U.S. PGPUB 2020/0315587 issued to Toporek et al. on 22 September 2022. The subject matter disclosed therein is pertinent to that of claims 25-42 (e.g., methods to generate ground truth image datasets). U.S. PGPUB 2021/0117760 issued to Krishnan et al. on 22 April 2021. The subject matter disclosed therein is pertinent to that of claims 25-42 (e.g., methods to generate ground truth image datasets). Contact Information 7. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Mahesh Dwivedi whose telephone number is (571) 272-2731. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday to Friday 8:20 am – 4:40 pm. If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Charles Rones can be reached (571) 272-4085. The fax number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is (571) 273-8300. Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from 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 20. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). Mahesh Dwivedi Primary Examiner Art Unit 2168 June 09, 2026 /MAHESH H DWIVEDI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2168 Application/Control Number: 18/574,995 Page 2 Art Unit: 2168 Application/Control Number: 18/574,995 Page 3 Art Unit: 2168 Application/Control Number: 18/574,995 Page 4 Art Unit: 2168 Application/Control Number: 18/574,995 Page 5 Art Unit: 2168 Application/Control Number: 18/574,995 Page 6 Art Unit: 2168 Application/Control Number: 18/574,995 Page 7 Art Unit: 2168 Application/Control Number: 18/574,995 Page 8 Art Unit: 2168
Prosecution Insights