DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
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.
As per claim 1:
The claim(s) recites an abstract idea.
The limitation, “separating a VCR matter into a visual commonsense understanding (VCU) matter and a visual commonsense inference (VCI) matter,” as drafted, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, encompasses performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components. For example, in the context of this limitation, “separating” encompasses a judgment, at a high level of generality, as to a problem solving approach, e.g., when faced with the problem of answering the question “What problem will the people on the ferry face?” regarding a picture of a ferry boat under a cloudy sky – a VCR matter as claimed – that this can be answered by first determining that the picture shows that it is cloudy – a VCU matter as claimed – and then inferring that, because the picture shows it is cloudy, that the people will face the problem of raining – a VCI matter as claimed. See MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)(III)(C)(3) (“The Federal Circuit determined that these claims were directed to mental processes of parsing and comparing data, because the steps were recited at a high level of generality and merely used computers as a tool to perform the processes. “). This limitation therefore falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)(III).
Accordingly, the claim(s) recites an abstract idea. MPEP § 2106.04(a).
The abstract idea of separating a VCR matter into a visual commonsense understanding (VCU) matter and a visual commonsense inference (VCI) matter is not integrated into a practical application.
The additional element, “providing a visual content of the image using a VCU model,” is mere instruction to apply the recited abstract idea because the outcome of the VCU model providing a visual content of the image, i.e., determining that a picture of a ferry boat under a cloudy sky shows that it is cloudy, is recited without detail of how the VCU model provides the visual content. MPEP § 2106.05(f).
The additional element, “providing a conclusion, based on content of the image using a VCI model,” is mere instruction to apply the recited abstract idea because the outcome of the VCI model providing a conclusion, i.e., determining that because the picture shows it is cloudy, that the people will face the problem of raining, is recited without detail of how the VCI model provides the conclusion. MPEP § 2106.05(f).
As an ordered combination, the invention merely links the abstract idea of separating a VCR matter into a visual commonsense understanding (VCU) matter and a visual commonsense inference (VCI) matter to the field of machine learning, because the machine learning elements are invoked as generic computer functions without detail of how the function is performed, and fails to improve the technology of machine learning because the ordered combination of additional elements, being mere instruction to apply the exception themselves, merely claim the idea of an outcome and not a particular way to achieve a desired outcome. MPEP §§ 2106.05(a) (“An important consideration in determining whether a claim improves technology is the extent to which the claim covers a particular solution to a problem or a particular way to achieve a desired outcome, as opposed to merely claiming the idea of a solution or outcome.”), 2106.05(h).
Accordingly, the additional elements, individually or in combination, do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application, even viewing the claim(s) as a whole, and therefore the claim is directed to the recited abstract idea of separating a VCR matter into a visual commonsense understanding (VCU) matter and a visual commonsense inference (VCI) matter. MPEP § 2106.04(d).
As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the conclusions for the additional elements being generic computer components and mere instructions to apply on a computer, insignificant extra-solution activity, and/or mere field of use limitations are carried over and these additional elements do not provide significantly more than the abstract idea. MPEP § 2106.05(II).
As an ordered combination, the claim therefore simply appends well-understood, routine, conventional activities previously known to the industry, specified at a high level of generality, to the abstract idea of separating a VCR matter into a visual commonsense understanding (VCU) matter and a visual commonsense inference (VCI) matter, as the claim as a whole amounts to nothing more than generic computer functions merely used to implement the abstract idea. MPEP §§ 2106.07(a)(III)(B), 2106.05(d)(II); see BASCOM Global Internet Servs. v. AT&T Mobility LLC, 827 F.3d 1341, 1349 (Fed. Cir. 2016).
Accordingly, the claim(s) does not recite additional elements, either individually or in combination, that amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. MPEP § 2106.05. Therefore, as the claim(s) is directed to an abstract idea and does not recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the abstract idea, the claim(s) is not patentable. MPEP § 2106.
As per claim 2:
The claim(s) recites an abstract idea.
The limitation, “infers concepts from the image by recognizing visual patterns in the image and combining other data from the image,” as drafted, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, encompasses performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components. For example, in the context of this limitation, “inferring” encompasses a judgment, at a high level of generality, as to inferring concepts from an image, e.g., by recognizing that there are clouds and that it is outside indicates that it is cloudy. See MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)(III)(C)(3) (“The Federal Circuit determined that these claims were directed to mental processes of parsing and comparing data, because the steps were recited at a high level of generality and merely used computers as a tool to perform the processes. “). This limitation therefore falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)(III).
Accordingly, the claim(s) recites an abstract idea. MPEP § 2106.04(a).
The abstract idea of inferring concepts from an image by recognizing visual patterns in the image and combining other data from the image is not integrated into a practical application.
The additional element, that the concepts are inferred by “the VCU model,” is mere instruction to apply the recited abstract idea because the outcome of the VCU model inferring the concepts is recited without detail of how the VCU model infers the concepts. MPEP § 2106.05(f).
As an ordered combination, the invention merely links the abstract idea of inferring concepts from an image by recognizing visual patterns in the image and combining other data from the image to the field of machine learning, because the machine learning elements are invoked as generic computer functions, and fails to improve the technology of machine learning because the ordered combination of additional elements, being mere instruction to apply the exception themselves, merely claim the idea of an outcome and not a particular way to achieve a desired outcome. MPEP §§ 2106.05(a) (“An important consideration in determining whether a claim improves technology is the extent to which the claim covers a particular solution to a problem or a particular way to achieve a desired outcome, as opposed to merely claiming the idea of a solution or outcome.”), 2106.05(h).
Accordingly, the additional elements, individually or in combination, do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application, even viewing the claim(s) as a whole, and therefore the claim is directed to the recited abstract idea of inferring concepts from an image by recognizing visual patterns in the image and combining other data from the image. MPEP § 2106.04(d).
As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the conclusions for the additional elements being generic computer components and mere instructions to apply on a computer, insignificant extra-solution activity, and/or mere field of use limitations are carried over and these additional elements do not provide significantly more than the abstract idea. MPEP § 2106.05(II).
As an ordered combination, the claim therefore simply appends well-understood, routine, conventional activities previously known to the industry, specified at a high level of generality, to the abstract idea of inferring concepts from an image by recognizing visual patterns in the image and combining other data from the image, as the claim as a whole amounts to nothing more than generic computer functions merely used to implement the abstract idea. MPEP §§ 2106.07(a)(III)(B), 2106.05(d)(II); see BASCOM Global Internet Servs. v. AT&T Mobility LLC, 827 F.3d 1341, 1349 (Fed. Cir. 2016).
Accordingly, the claim(s) does not recite additional elements, either individually or in combination, that amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. MPEP § 2106.05. Therefore, as the claim(s) is directed to an abstract idea and does not recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the abstract idea, the claim(s) is not patentable. MPEP § 2106.
As per claim 3:
The claim(s) recites an abstract idea.
The limitation, “wherein the concepts are one of actions, events, or relations in the image,” as drafted, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, encompasses performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components. For example, in the context of this limitation, the abstract idea of “inferring” encompasses a judgment, at a high level of generality, as to inferring concepts from an image, e.g., by recognizing that there are clouds and that it is outside indicates that it is cloudy, an action or event in the image. See MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)(III)(C)(3) (“The Federal Circuit determined that these claims were directed to mental processes of parsing and comparing data, because the steps were recited at a high level of generality and merely used computers as a tool to perform the processes. “). This limitation therefore falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)(III).
Accordingly, the claim(s) recites an abstract idea. MPEP § 2106.04(a).
As the claim(s) recites no additional elements, the abstract idea is not integrated into a practical application, the claim is directed to the abstract idea, and the claim(s) does not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. MPEP § 2106.07. Therefore, as the claim(s) is directed to an abstract idea and does not recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the abstract idea, the claim(s) is not patentable. MPEP § 2106.
As per claim 4:
The abstract idea of separating a VCR matter into a visual commonsense understanding (VCU) matter and a visual commonsense inference (VCI) matter is not integrated into a practical application.
The additional element, “using large language models (LLMs) as matter classifiers for the VCU matter and the VCI matter,” is mere instruction to apply the recited abstract idea because the outcome of the LLM classifying the VCU matter and the VCI matter is recited without detail of how the LLM classifies the VCU matter and the VCI matter. MPEP § 2106.05(f).
The additional element, “directing VLMs based on the matter classifiers using visual language models (VLMs) commanders,” is mere instruction to apply the recited abstract idea because the outcome of directing VLMs is recited without detail of how the VLM commanders direct the VLMs. MPEP § 2106.05(f).
The additional element, “using pre-trained VLMs for visual recognition and understanding of the image,” is mere instruction to apply the recited abstract idea because the outcome of recognizing and understanding the image is recited without detail of how the pre-trained VLMs perform the visual recognition and understanding of the image. MPEP § 2106.05(f).
As an ordered combination, the invention merely links the abstract idea of separating a VCR matter into a visual commonsense understanding (VCU) matter and a visual commonsense inference (VCI) matter to the field of machine learning, because the machine learning elements are invoked as generic computer functions, and fails to improve the technology of machine learning because the ordered combination of additional elements, being mere instruction to apply the exception themselves, merely claim the idea of an outcome and not a particular way to achieve a desired outcome. MPEP §§ 2106.05(a) (“An important consideration in determining whether a claim improves technology is the extent to which the claim covers a particular solution to a problem or a particular way to achieve a desired outcome, as opposed to merely claiming the idea of a solution or outcome.”), 2106.05(h).
Accordingly, the additional elements, individually or in combination, do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application, even viewing the claim(s) as a whole, and therefore the claim is directed to the recited abstract idea of separating a VCR matter into a visual commonsense understanding (VCU) matter and a visual commonsense inference (VCI) matter. MPEP § 2106.04(d).
As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the conclusions for the additional elements being generic computer components and mere instructions to apply on a computer, insignificant extra-solution activity, and/or mere field of use limitations are carried over and these additional elements do not provide significantly more than the abstract idea. MPEP § 2106.05(II).
As an ordered combination, the claim therefore simply appends well-understood, routine, conventional activities previously known to the industry, specified at a high level of generality, to the abstract idea of separating a VCR matter into a visual commonsense understanding (VCU) matter and a visual commonsense inference (VCI) matter, as the claim as a whole amounts to nothing more than generic computer functions merely used to implement the abstract idea. MPEP §§ 2106.07(a)(III)(B), 2106.05(d)(II); see BASCOM Global Internet Servs. v. AT&T Mobility LLC, 827 F.3d 1341, 1349 (Fed. Cir. 2016).
Accordingly, the claim(s) does not recite additional elements, either individually or in combination, that amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. MPEP § 2106.05. Therefore, as the claim(s) is directed to an abstract idea and does not recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the abstract idea, the claim(s) is not patentable. MPEP § 2106.
As per claim 5:
The abstract idea of separating a VCR matter into a visual commonsense understanding (VCU) matter and a visual commonsense inference (VCI) matter is not integrated into a practical application.
The additional element, “wherein the pre-trained VLMs utilize image-text alignment (ITA) for visual recognition and understanding of the image,” is mere instruction to apply the recited abstract idea because the outcome of utilizing image-text alignment for visual recognition and understanding of the image is recited without detail of how the pre-trained VLMs utilize image-text alignment. MPEP § 2106.05(f).
As an ordered combination, the invention merely links the abstract idea of separating a VCR matter into a visual commonsense understanding (VCU) matter and a visual commonsense inference (VCI) matter to the field of machine learning, because the machine learning elements are invoked as generic computer functions, and fails to improve the technology of machine learning because the ordered combination of additional elements, being mere instruction to apply the exception themselves, merely claim the idea of an outcome and not a particular way to achieve a desired outcome. MPEP §§ 2106.05(a) (“An important consideration in determining whether a claim improves technology is the extent to which the claim covers a particular solution to a problem or a particular way to achieve a desired outcome, as opposed to merely claiming the idea of a solution or outcome.”), 2106.05(h).
Accordingly, the additional elements, individually or in combination, do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application, even viewing the claim(s) as a whole, and therefore the claim is directed to the recited abstract idea of separating a VCR matter into a visual commonsense understanding (VCU) matter and a visual commonsense inference (VCI) matter. MPEP § 2106.04(d).
As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the conclusions for the additional elements being generic computer components and mere instructions to apply on a computer, insignificant extra-solution activity, and/or mere field of use limitations are carried over and these additional elements do not provide significantly more than the abstract idea. MPEP § 2106.05(II).
As an ordered combination, the claim therefore simply appends well-understood, routine, conventional activities previously known to the industry, specified at a high level of generality, to the abstract idea of separating a VCR matter into a visual commonsense understanding (VCU) matter and a visual commonsense inference (VCI) matter, as the claim as a whole amounts to nothing more than generic computer functions merely used to implement the abstract idea. MPEP §§ 2106.07(a)(III)(B), 2106.05(d)(II); see BASCOM Global Internet Servs. v. AT&T Mobility LLC, 827 F.3d 1341, 1349 (Fed. Cir. 2016).
Accordingly, the claim(s) does not recite additional elements, either individually or in combination, that amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. MPEP § 2106.05. Therefore, as the claim(s) is directed to an abstract idea and does not recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the abstract idea, the claim(s) is not patentable. MPEP § 2106.
As per claim 6:
The abstract idea of separating a VCR matter into a visual commonsense understanding (VCU) matter and a visual commonsense inference (VCI) matter is not integrated into a practical application.
The additional element, “wherein communication between LLMs and VLMs is through textual data,” is mere instruction to apply the recited abstract idea because the outcome of communicating through textual data is recited without detail of how the LLMs and VLMs communicate through textual data. MPEP § 2106.05(f).
As an ordered combination, the invention merely links the abstract idea of separating a VCR matter into a visual commonsense understanding (VCU) matter and a visual commonsense inference (VCI) matter to the field of machine learning, because the machine learning elements are invoked as generic computer functions, and fails to improve the technology of machine learning because the ordered combination of additional elements, being mere instruction to apply the exception themselves, merely claim the idea of an outcome and not a particular way to achieve a desired outcome. MPEP §§ 2106.05(a) (“An important consideration in determining whether a claim improves technology is the extent to which the claim covers a particular solution to a problem or a particular way to achieve a desired outcome, as opposed to merely claiming the idea of a solution or outcome.”), 2106.05(h).
Accordingly, the additional elements, individually or in combination, do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application, even viewing the claim(s) as a whole, and therefore the claim is directed to the recited abstract idea of separating a VCR matter into a visual commonsense understanding (VCU) matter and a visual commonsense inference (VCI) matter. MPEP § 2106.04(d).
As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the conclusions for the additional elements being generic computer components and mere instructions to apply on a computer, insignificant extra-solution activity, and/or mere field of use limitations are carried over and these additional elements do not provide significantly more than the abstract idea. MPEP § 2106.05(II).
As an ordered combination, the claim therefore simply appends well-understood, routine, conventional activities previously known to the industry, specified at a high level of generality, to the abstract idea of separating a VCR matter into a visual commonsense understanding (VCU) matter and a visual commonsense inference (VCI) matter, as the claim as a whole amounts to nothing more than generic computer functions merely used to implement the abstract idea. MPEP §§ 2106.07(a)(III)(B), 2106.05(d)(II); see BASCOM Global Internet Servs. v. AT&T Mobility LLC, 827 F.3d 1341, 1349 (Fed. Cir. 2016).
Accordingly, the claim(s) does not recite additional elements, either individually or in combination, that amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. MPEP § 2106.05. Therefore, as the claim(s) is directed to an abstract idea and does not recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the abstract idea, the claim(s) is not patentable. MPEP § 2106.
As per claim 7:
The abstract idea of separating a VCR matter into a visual commonsense understanding (VCU) matter and a visual commonsense inference (VCI) matter is not integrated into a practical application.
The additional element, “evaluating plausibility of an inference by evaluating the inference using non-visual commonsense knowledge to perform reasoning based on visual observations derived from the image by the VCI model,” is mere instruction to apply the recited abstract idea because the outcome of using non-visual commonsense knowledge to perform reasoning based on visual observations derived from the image is recited without detail of how the VCI model evaluates the inference. MPEP § 2106.05(f).
As an ordered combination, the invention merely links the abstract idea of separating a VCR matter into a visual commonsense understanding (VCU) matter and a visual commonsense inference (VCI) matter to the field of machine learning, because the machine learning elements are invoked as generic computer functions, and fails to improve the technology of machine learning because the ordered combination of additional elements, being mere instruction to apply the exception themselves, merely claim the idea of an outcome and not a particular way to achieve a desired outcome. MPEP §§ 2106.05(a) (“An important consideration in determining whether a claim improves technology is the extent to which the claim covers a particular solution to a problem or a particular way to achieve a desired outcome, as opposed to merely claiming the idea of a solution or outcome.”), 2106.05(h).
Accordingly, the additional elements, individually or in combination, do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application, even viewing the claim(s) as a whole, and therefore the claim is directed to the recited abstract idea of separating a VCR matter into a visual commonsense understanding (VCU) matter and a visual commonsense inference (VCI) matter. MPEP § 2106.04(d).
As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the conclusions for the additional elements being generic computer components and mere instructions to apply on a computer, insignificant extra-solution activity, and/or mere field of use limitations are carried over and these additional elements do not provide significantly more than the abstract idea. MPEP § 2106.05(II).
As an ordered combination, the claim therefore simply appends well-understood, routine, conventional activities previously known to the industry, specified at a high level of generality, to the abstract idea of separating a VCR matter into a visual commonsense understanding (VCU) matter and a visual commonsense inference (VCI) matter, as the claim as a whole amounts to nothing more than generic computer functions merely used to implement the abstract idea. MPEP §§ 2106.07(a)(III)(B), 2106.05(d)(II); see BASCOM Global Internet Servs. v. AT&T Mobility LLC, 827 F.3d 1341, 1349 (Fed. Cir. 2016).
Accordingly, the claim(s) does not recite additional elements, either individually or in combination, that amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. MPEP § 2106.05. Therefore, as the claim(s) is directed to an abstract idea and does not recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the abstract idea, the claim(s) is not patentable. MPEP § 2106.
As per claim 8:
The abstract idea of separating a VCR matter into a visual commonsense understanding (VCU) matter and a visual commonsense inference (VCI) matter is not integrated into a practical application.
The additional element, “using large language models (LLMs) to perform initial perception result of a plausibility of the inference,” is mere instruction to apply the recited abstract idea because the outcome of performing initial perception result of a plausibility of the inference is recited without detail of how the LLM performs initial perception result of the plausibility. MPEP § 2106.05(f).
The additional element, “performing problem classification by the LLMs,” is mere instruction to apply the recited abstract idea because the outcome of performing problem classification is recited without detail of how the LLM classifies the problem. MPEP § 2106.05(f).
The additional element, “acquiring visual information according to the problem classification by the LLMs if the initial perception result of the inference is below a predetermined level,” is mere instruction to apply the recited abstract idea because the outcome of acquiring visual information according to the problem classification is recited without detail of how the LLM acquires visual information. MPEP § 2106.05(f).
As an ordered combination, the invention merely links the abstract idea of separating a VCR matter into a visual commonsense understanding (VCU) matter and a visual commonsense inference (VCI) matter to the field of machine learning, because the machine learning elements are invoked as generic computer functions, and fails to improve the technology of machine learning because the ordered combination of additional elements, being mere instruction to apply the exception themselves, merely claim the idea of an outcome and not a particular way to achieve a desired outcome. MPEP §§ 2106.05(a) (“An important consideration in determining whether a claim improves technology is the extent to which the claim covers a particular solution to a problem or a particular way to achieve a desired outcome, as opposed to merely claiming the idea of a solution or outcome.”), 2106.05(h).
Accordingly, the additional elements, individually or in combination, do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application, even viewing the claim(s) as a whole, and therefore the claim is directed to the recited abstract idea of separating a VCR matter into a visual commonsense understanding (VCU) matter and a visual commonsense inference (VCI) matter. MPEP § 2106.04(d).
As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the conclusions for the additional elements being generic computer components and mere instructions to apply on a computer, insignificant extra-solution activity, and/or mere field of use limitations are carried over and these additional elements do not provide significantly more than the abstract idea. MPEP § 2106.05(II).
As an ordered combination, the claim therefore simply appends well-understood, routine, conventional activities previously known to the industry, specified at a high level of generality, to the abstract idea of separating a VCR matter into a visual commonsense understanding (VCU) matter and a visual commonsense inference (VCI) matter, as the claim as a whole amounts to nothing more than generic computer functions merely used to implement the abstract idea. MPEP §§ 2106.07(a)(III)(B), 2106.05(d)(II); see BASCOM Global Internet Servs. v. AT&T Mobility LLC, 827 F.3d 1341, 1349 (Fed. Cir. 2016).
Accordingly, the claim(s) does not recite additional elements, either individually or in combination, that amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. MPEP § 2106.05. Therefore, as the claim(s) is directed to an abstract idea and does not recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the abstract idea, the claim(s) is not patentable. MPEP § 2106.
As per claim 9:
The abstract idea of separating a VCR matter into a visual commonsense understanding (VCU) matter and a visual commonsense inference (VCI) matter is not integrated into a practical application.
The additional element, “performing an initial perception result of a plausibility of the inference using large language models (LLMs), wherein the LLMs takes the initial perception result of the inference as an input to evaluate potential answer candidates when the initial perception result of the inference is below a predetermined level,” is mere instruction to apply the recited abstract idea because the outcome of performing the initial perception result of the plausibility is recited without detail of how the LLM performs the initial perception result, and the outcome of evaluating potential answer candidates is recited without detail of how the LLM evaluates potential answer candidates. MPEP § 2106.05(f).
The additional element, “forming a commonsense inference when the initial perception result of the inference is below a predetermined level using visual factors from the image by the LLMs,” is mere instruction to apply the recited abstract idea because the outcome of forming a commonsense inference is recited without detail of how the LLM forms the commonsense inference. MPEP § 2106.05(f).
The additional element, “forming a new perception result using a vision-and-language model (VLM),” is mere instruction to apply the recited abstract idea because the outcome of forming a new perception result is recited without detail of how the vision-and-language model forms the new perception result. MPEP § 2106.05(f).
The additional element, “returning the new perception result back to the LLM,” is mere instruction to apply the recited abstract idea because the outcome of returning the new perception result back to the LLM is recited without detail of how the new perception result is returned back to the LLM. MPEP § 2106.05(f).
The additional element, “re-evaluation of the potential answer candidates by the LLM based on the new perception results,” is mere instruction to apply the recited abstract idea because the outcome of re-evaluating the potential answer candidates based on the new perception results is recited without detail of how the LLM re-evaluates the potential answer candidates. MPEP § 2106.05(f).
Accordingly, the additional elements, individually or in combination, do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application, even viewing the claim(s) as a whole, and therefore the claim is directed to the recited abstract idea of separating a VCR matter into a visual commonsense understanding (VCU) matter and a visual commonsense inference (VCI) matter. MPEP § 2106.04(d).
As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the conclusions for the additional elements being generic computer components and mere instructions to apply on a computer, insignificant extra-solution activity, and/or mere field of use limitations are carried over and these additional elements do not provide significantly more than the abstract idea. MPEP § 2106.05(II).
As an ordered combination, the claim therefore simply appends well-understood, routine, conventional activities previously known to the industry, specified at a high level of generality, to the abstract idea of separating a VCR matter into a visual commonsense understanding (VCU) matter and a visual commonsense inference (VCI) matter, as the claim as a whole amounts to nothing more than generic computer functions merely used to implement the abstract idea. MPEP §§ 2106.07(a)(III)(B), 2106.05(d)(II); see BASCOM Global Internet Servs. v. AT&T Mobility LLC, 827 F.3d 1341, 1349 (Fed. Cir. 2016).
Accordingly, the claim(s) does not recite additional elements, either individually or in combination, that amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. MPEP § 2106.05. Therefore, as the claim(s) is directed to an abstract idea and does not recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the abstract idea, the claim(s) is not patentable. MPEP § 2106.
As per claim 10:
The abstract idea of separating a VCR matter into a visual commonsense understanding (VCU) matter and a visual commonsense inference (VCI) matter is not integrated into a practical application.
The additional element, “outputting a result by the LLM when current visual information supports the potential answer candidates,” is mere instruction to apply the recited abstract idea because the outcome of outputting a result when current visual information supports the potential answer candidates without detail of how the potential answer candidates are supported by the current visual information. MPEP § 2106.05(f).
As an ordered combination, the invention merely links the abstract idea of separating a VCR matter into a visual commonsense understanding (VCU) matter and a visual commonsense inference (VCI) matter to the field of machine learning, because the machine learning elements are invoked as generic computer functions, and fails to improve the technology of machine learning because the ordered combination of additional elements, being mere instruction to apply the exception themselves, merely claim the idea of an outcome and not a particular way to achieve a desired outcome. MPEP §§ 2106.05(a) (“An important consideration in determining whether a claim improves technology is the extent to which the claim covers a particular solution to a problem or a particular way to achieve a desired outcome, as opposed to merely claiming the idea of a solution or outcome.”), 2106.05(h).
Accordingly, the additional elements, individually or in combination, do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application, even viewing the claim(s) as a whole, and therefore the claim is directed to the recited abstract idea of separating a VCR matter into a visual commonsense understanding (VCU) matter and a visual commonsense inference (VCI) matter. MPEP § 2106.04(d).
As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the conclusions for the additional elements being generic computer components and mere instructions to apply on a computer, insignificant extra-solution activity, and/or mere field of use limitations are carried over and these additional elements do not provide significantly more than the abstract idea. MPEP § 2106.05(II).
As an ordered combination, the claim therefore simply appends well-understood, routine, conventional activities previously known to the industry, specified at a high level of generality, to the abstract idea of separating a VCR matter into a visual commonsense understanding (VCU) matter and a visual commonsense inference (VCI) matter, as the claim as a whole amounts to nothing more than generic computer functions merely used to implement the abstract idea. MPEP §§ 2106.07(a)(III)(B), 2106.05(d)(II); see BASCOM Global Internet Servs. v. AT&T Mobility LLC, 827 F.3d 1341, 1349 (Fed. Cir. 2016).
Accordingly, the claim(s) does not recite additional elements, either individually or in combination, that amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. MPEP § 2106.05. Therefore, as the claim(s) is directed to an abstract idea and does not recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the abstract idea, the claim(s) is not patentable. MPEP § 2106.
As per claim 11:
The claim(s) recites an abstract idea.
The limitation, “separating a VCR matter into a visual commonsense understanding (VCU) matter and a visual commonsense inference (VCI) matter,” as drafted, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, encompasses performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components. For example, in the context of this limitation, “separating” encompasses a judgment, at a high level of generality, as to a problem solving approach, e.g., when faced with the problem of answering the question “What problem will the people on the ferry face?” regarding a picture of a ferry boat under a cloudy sky – a VCR matter as claimed – that this can be answered by first determining that the picture shows that it is cloudy – a VCU matter as claimed – and then inferring that, because the picture shows it is cloudy, that the people will face the problem of raining – a VCI matter as claimed. See MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)(III)(C)(3) (“The Federal Circuit determined that these claims were directed to mental processes of parsing and comparing data, because the steps were recited at a high level of generality and merely used computers as a tool to perform the processes. “). This limitation therefore falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)(III).
Accordingly, the claim(s) recites an abstract idea. MPEP § 2106.04(a).
The abstract idea of separating a VCR matter into a visual commonsense understanding (VCU) matter and a visual commonsense inference (VCI) matter is not integrated into a practical application.
The additional element, “providing a visual content of the image using a VCU model,” is mere instruction to apply the recited abstract idea because the outcome of the VCU model providing a visual content of the image, i.e., determining that a picture of a ferry boat under a cloudy sky shows that it is cloudy, is recited without detail of how the VCU model provides the visual content. MPEP § 2106.05(f).
The additional element, “wherein the VCU model infers concepts of the image by recognizing visual patterns in the image and combines other data from the image to infer the concepts from the image,” is mere instruction to apply the recited abstract idea because the outcome of the VCU model inferring the concepts is recited without detail of how the VCU model infers the concepts. MPEP § 2106.05(f).
The additional element, “providing conclusions based on content of the image using a VCI model,” is mere instruction to apply the recited abstract idea because the outcome of the VCI model providing a conclusion, i.e., determining that because the picture shows it is cloudy, that the people will face the problem of raining, is recited without detail of how the VCI model provides the conclusion. MPEP § 2106.05(f).
The additional element, “using large language models (LLMs) as matter classifiers for the VCU matter and the VCI matter,” is mere instruction to apply the recited abstract idea because the outcome of the LLM classifying the VCU matter and the VCI matter is recited without detail of how the LLM classifies the VCU matter and the VCI matter. MPEP § 2106.05(f).
The additional element, “directing VLMs based on the matter classifiers using visual language models (VLMs) commanders,” is mere instruction to apply the recited abstract idea because the outcome of directing VLMs is recited without detail of how the VLM commanders direct the VLMs. MPEP § 2106.05(f).
The additional element, “using pre-trained VLMs for visual recognition and understanding of the image,” is mere instruction to apply the recited abstract idea because the outcome of recognizing and understanding the image is recited without detail of how the pre-trained VLMs perform the visual recognition and understanding of the image. MPEP § 2106.05(f).
As an ordered combination, the invention merely links the abstract idea of separating a VCR matter into a visual commonsense understanding (VCU) matter and a visual commonsense inference (VCI) matter to the field of machine learning, because the machine learning elements are invoked as generic computer functions, and fails to improve the technology of machine learning because the ordered combination of additional elements, being mere instruction to apply the exception themselves, merely claim the idea of an outcome and not a particular way to achieve a desired outcome. MPEP §§ 2106.05(a) (“An important consideration in determining whether a claim improves technology is the extent to which the claim covers a particular solution to a problem or a particular way to achieve a desired outcome, as opposed to merely claiming the idea of a solution or outcome.”), 2106.05(h).
Accordingly, the additional elements, individually or in combination, do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application, even viewing the claim(s) as a whole, and therefore the claim is directed to the recited abstract idea of separating a VCR matter into a visual commonsense understanding (VCU) matter and a visual commonsense inference (VCI) matter. MPEP § 2106.04(d).
As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the conclusions for the additional elements being generic computer components and mere instructions to apply on a computer, insignificant extra-solution activity, and/or mere field of use limitations are carried over and these additional elements do not provide significantly more than the abstract idea. MPEP § 2106.05(II).
As an ordered combination, the claim therefore simply appends well-understood, routine, conventional activities previously known to the industry, specified at a high level of generality, to the abstract idea of separating a VCR matter into a visual commonsense understanding (VCU) matter and a visual commonsense inference (VCI) matter, as the claim as a whole amounts to nothing more than generic computer functions merely used to implement the abstract idea. MPEP §§ 2106.07(a)(III)(B), 2106.05(d)(II); see BASCOM Global Internet Servs. v. AT&T Mobility LLC, 827 F.3d 1341, 1349 (Fed. Cir. 2016).
Accordingly, the claim(s) does not recite additional elements, either individually or in combination, that amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. MPEP § 2106.05. Therefore, as the claim(s) is directed to an abstract idea and does not recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the abstract idea, the claim(s) is not patentable. MPEP § 2106.
As per claim 12:
The claim(s) recites an abstract idea.
The limitation, “wherein the concepts are one of actions, events, or relations in the image,” as drafted, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, encompasses performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components. For example, in the context of this limitation, the abstract idea of “inferring” encompasses a judgment, at a high level of generality, as to inferring concepts from an image, e.g., by recognizing that there are clouds and that it is outside indicates that it is cloudy, an action or event in the image. See MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)(III)(C)(3) (“The Federal Circuit determined that these claims were directed to mental processes of parsing and comparing data, because the steps were recited at a high level of generality and merely used computers as a tool to perform the processes. “). This limitation therefore falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)(III).
Accordingly, the claim(s) recites an abstract idea. MPEP § 2106.04(a).
As the claim(s) recites no additional elements, the abstract idea is not integrated into a practical application, the claim is directed to the abstract idea, and the claim(s) does not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. MPEP § 2106.07. Therefore, as the claim(s) is directed to an abstract idea and does not recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the abstract idea, the claim(s) is not patentable. MPEP § 2106.
As per claim 13:
The abstract idea of separating a VCR matter into a visual commonsense understanding (VCU) matter and a visual commonsense inference (VCI) matter is not integrated into a practical application.
The additional element, “wherein the pre-trained VLMs utilized image-text alignment (ITA) for visual recognition and understanding of the image,” is mere instruction to apply the recited abstract idea because the outcome of utilizing image-text alignment for visual recognition and understanding of the image is recited without detail of how the pre-trained VLMs utilize image-text alignment. MPEP § 2106.05(f).
As an ordered combination, the invention merely links the abstract idea of separating a VCR matter into a visual commonsense understanding (VCU) matter and a visual commonsense inference (VCI) matter to the field of machine learning, because the machine learning elements are invoked as generic computer functions, and fails to improve the technology of machine learning because the ordered combination of additional elements, being mere instruction to apply the exception themselves, merely claim the idea of an outcome and not a particular way to achieve a desired outcome. MPEP §§ 2106.05(a) (“An important consideration in determining whether a claim improves technology is the extent to which the claim covers a particular solution to a problem or a particular way to achieve a desired outcome, as opposed to merely claiming the idea of a solution or outcome.”), 2106.05(h).
Accordingly, the additional elements, individually or in combination, do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application, even viewing the claim(s) as a whole, and therefore the claim is directed to the recited abstract idea of separating a VCR matter into a visual commonsense understanding (VCU) matter and a visual commonsense inference (VCI) matter. MPEP § 2106.04(d).
As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the conclusions for the additional elements being generic computer components and mere instructions to apply on a computer, insignificant extra-solution activity, and/or mere field of use limitations are carried over and these additional elements do not provide significantly more than the abstract idea. MPEP § 2106.05(II).
As an ordered combination, the claim therefore simply appends well-understood, routine, conventional activities previously known to the industry, specified at a high level of generality, to the abstract idea of separating a VCR matter into a visual commonsense understanding (VCU) matter and a visual commonsense inference (VCI) matter, as the claim as a whole amounts to nothing more than generic computer functions merely used to implement the abstract idea. MPEP §§ 2106.07(a)(III)(B), 2106.05(d)(II); see BASCOM Global Internet Servs. v. AT&T Mobility LLC, 827 F.3d 1341, 1349 (Fed. Cir. 2016).
Accordingly, the claim(s) does not recite additional elements, either individually or in combination, that amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. MPEP § 2106.05. Therefore, as the claim(s) is directed to an abstract idea and does not recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the abstract idea, the claim(s) is not patentable. MPEP § 2106.
As per claim 14:
The abstract idea of separating a VCR matter into a visual commonsense understanding (VCU) matter and a visual commonsense inference (VCI) matter is not integrated into a practical application.
The additional element, “wherein communication between LLMs and VLMs is through textual data,” is mere instruction to apply the recited abstract idea because the outcome of communicating through textual data is recited without detail of how the LLMs and VLMs communicate through textual data. MPEP § 2106.05(f).
As an ordered combination, the invention merely links the abstract idea of separating a VCR matter into a visual commonsense understanding (VCU) matter and a visual commonsense inference (VCI) matter to the field of machine learning, because the machine learning elements are invoked as generic computer functions, and fails to improve the technology of machine learning because the ordered combination of additional elements, being mere instruction to apply the exception themselves, merely claim the idea of an outcome and not a particular way to achieve a desired outcome. MPEP §§ 2106.05(a) (“An important consideration in determining whether a claim improves technology is the extent to which the claim covers a particular solution to a problem or a particular way to achieve a desired outcome, as opposed to merely claiming the idea of a solution or outcome.”), 2106.05(h).
Accordingly, the additional elements, individually or in combination, do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application, even viewing the claim(s) as a whole, and therefore the claim is directed to the recited abstract idea of separating a VCR matter into a visual commonsense understanding (VCU) matter and a visual commonsense inference (VCI) matter. MPEP § 2106.04(d).
As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the conclusions for the additional elements being generic computer components and mere instructions to apply on a computer, insignificant extra-solution activity, and/or mere field of use limitations are carried over and these additional elements do not provide significantly more than the abstract idea. MPEP § 2106.05(II).
As an ordered combination, the claim therefore simply appends well-understood, routine, conventional activities previously known to the industry, specified at a high level of generality, to the abstract idea of separating a VCR matter into a visual commonsense understanding (VCU) matter and a visual commonsense inference (VCI) matter, as the claim as a whole amounts to nothing more than generic computer functions merely used to implement the abstract idea. MPEP §§ 2106.07(a)(III)(B), 2106.05(d)(II); see BASCOM Global Internet Servs. v. AT&T Mobility LLC, 827 F.3d 1341, 1349 (Fed. Cir. 2016).
Accordingly, the claim(s) does not recite additional elements, either individually or in combination, that amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. MPEP § 2106.05. Therefore, as the claim(s) is directed to an abstract idea and does not recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the abstract idea, the claim(s) is not patentable. MPEP § 2106.
As per claim 15:
The abstract idea of separating a VCR matter into a visual commonsense understanding (VCU) matter and a visual commonsense inference (VCI) matter is not integrated into a practical application.
The additional element, “performing an initial perception result of a plausibility of the inference using LLMs, wherein the LLMs takes the initial perception result of the inference as an input to evaluate potential answer candidates when the initial perception result of the inference is below a predetermined level,” is mere instruction to apply the recited abstract idea because the outcome of performing the initial perception result of the plausibility is recited without detail of how the LLM performs the initial perception result, and the outcome of evaluating potential answer candidates is recited without detail of how the LLM evaluates potential answer candidates. MPEP § 2106.05(f).
The additional element, “forming a commonsense inference when the initial perception result of the inference is below a predetermined level using visual factors from the image by the LLMs,” is mere instruction to apply the recited abstract idea because the outcome of forming a commonsense inference is recited without detail of how the LLM forms the commonsense inference. MPEP § 2106.05(f).
The additional element, “forming a new perception result using a vision-and-language model (VLM),” is mere instruction to apply the recited abstract idea because the outcome of forming a new perception result is recited without detail of how the vision-and-language model forms the new perception result. MPEP § 2106.05(f).
The additional element, “returning the new perception result back to the LLM,” is mere instruction to apply the recited abstract idea because the outcome of returning the new perception result back to the LLM is recited without detail of how the new perception result is returned back to the LLM. MPEP § 2106.05(f).
The additional element, “re-evaluation of the potential answer candidates by the LLM based on the new perception results,” is mere instruction to apply the recited abstract idea because the outcome of re-evaluating the potential answer candidates based on the new perception results is recited without detail of how the LLM re-evaluates the potential answer candidates. MPEP § 2106.05(f).
Accordingly, the additional elements, individually or in combination, do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application, even viewing the claim(s) as a whole, and therefore the claim is directed to the recited abstract idea of separating a VCR matter into a visual commonsense understanding (VCU) matter and a visual commonsense inference (VCI) matter. MPEP § 2106.04(d).
As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the conclusions for the additional elements being generic computer components and mere instructions to apply on a computer, insignificant extra-solution activity, and/or mere field of use limitations are carried over and these additional elements do not provide significantly more than the abstract idea. MPEP § 2106.05(II).
As an ordered combination, the claim therefore simply appends well-understood, routine, conventional activities previously known to the industry, specified at a high level of generality, to the abstract idea of separating a VCR matter into a visual commonsense understanding (VCU) matter and a visual commonsense inference (VCI) matter, as the claim as a whole amounts to nothing more than generic computer functions merely used to implement the abstract idea. MPEP §§ 2106.07(a)(III)(B), 2106.05(d)(II); see BASCOM Global Internet Servs. v. AT&T Mobility LLC, 827 F.3d 1341, 1349 (Fed. Cir. 2016).
Accordingly, the claim(s) does not recite additional elements, either individually or in combination, that amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. MPEP § 2106.05. Therefore, as the claim(s) is directed to an abstract idea and does not recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the abstract idea, the claim(s) is not patentable. MPEP § 2106.
As per claim 16:
The abstract idea of separating a VCR matter into a visual commonsense understanding (VCU) matter and a visual commonsense inference (VCI) matter is not integrated into a practical application.
The additional element, “outputting a result by the LLM when current visual information supports the potential answer candidates,” is mere instruction to apply the recited abstract idea because the outcome of outputting a result when current visual information supports the potential answer candidates without detail of how the potential answer candidates are supported by the current visual information. MPEP § 2106.05(f).
As an ordered combination, the invention merely links the abstract idea of separating a VCR matter into a visual commonsense understanding (VCU) matter and a visual commonsense inference (VCI) matter to the field of machine learning, because the machine learning elements are invoked as generic computer functions, and fails to improve the technology of machine learning because the ordered combination of additional elements, being mere instruction to apply the exception themselves, merely claim the idea of an outcome and not a particular way to achieve a desired outcome. MPEP §§ 2106.05(a) (“An important consideration in determining whether a claim improves technology is the extent to which the claim covers a particular solution to a problem or a particular way to achieve a desired outcome, as opposed to merely claiming the idea of a solution or outcome.”), 2106.05(h).
Accordingly, the additional elements, individually or in combination, do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application, even viewing the claim(s) as a whole, and therefore the claim is directed to the recited abstract idea of separating a VCR matter into a visual commonsense understanding (VCU) matter and a visual commonsense inference (VCI) matter. MPEP § 2106.04(d).
As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the conclusions for the additional elements being generic computer components and mere instructions to apply on a computer, insignificant extra-solution activity, and/or mere field of use limitations are carried over and these additional elements do not provide significantly more than the abstract idea. MPEP § 2106.05(II).
As an ordered combination, the claim therefore simply appends well-understood, routine, conventional activities previously known to the industry, specified at a high level of generality, to the abstract idea of separating a VCR matter into a visual commonsense understanding (VCU) matter and a visual commonsense inference (VCI) matter, as the claim as a whole amounts to nothing more than generic computer functions merely used to implement the abstract idea. MPEP §§ 2106.07(a)(III)(B), 2106.05(d)(II); see BASCOM Global Internet Servs. v. AT&T Mobility LLC, 827 F.3d 1341, 1349 (Fed. Cir. 2016).
Accordingly, the claim(s) does not recite additional elements, either individually or in combination, that amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. MPEP § 2106.05. Therefore, as the claim(s) is directed to an abstract idea and does not recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the abstract idea, the claim(s) is not patentable. MPEP § 2106.
As per claim 17:
The claim(s) recites an abstract idea.
The limitation, ”separating a VCR matter into a visual commonsense understanding (VCU) matter and a visual commonsense inference (VCI) matter,” as drafted, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, encompasses performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components. For example, in the context of this limitation, “separating” encompasses a judgment, at a high level of generality, as to a problem solving approach, e.g., when faced with the problem of answering the question “What problem will the people on the ferry face?” regarding a picture of a ferry boat under a cloudy sky – a VCR matter as claimed – that this can be answered by first determining that the picture shows that it is cloudy – a VCU matter as claimed – and then inferring that, because the picture shows it is cloudy, that the people will face the problem of raining – a VCI matter as claimed. See MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)(III)(C)(3) (“The Federal Circuit determined that these claims were directed to mental processes of parsing and comparing data, because the steps were recited at a high level of generality and merely used computers as a tool to perform the processes. “). This limitation therefore falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)(III).
Accordingly, the claim(s) recites an abstract idea. MPEP § 2106.04(a).
The abstract idea of separating a VCR matter into a visual commonsense understanding (VCU) matter and a visual commonsense inference (VCI) matter is not integrated into a practical application.
The additional element, “providing a visual content of the image using a VCU model,” is mere instruction to apply the recited abstract idea because the outcome of the VCU model providing a visual content of the image, i.e., determining that a picture of a ferry boat under a cloudy sky shows that it is cloudy, is recited without detail of how the VCU model provides the visual content. MPEP § 2106.05(f).
The additional element, “wherein the VCU model infers concepts of the image by recognizing visual patterns in the image and combines characteristics and particulars from the image to infer the concepts from the image,” is mere instruction to apply the recited abstract idea because the outcome of the VCU model inferring the concepts is recited without detail of how the VCU model infers the concepts. MPEP § 2106.05(f).
The additional element, “providing conclusions based on content of the image using a VCI model,” is mere instruction to apply the recited abstract idea because the outcome of the VCI model providing a conclusion, i.e., determining that because the picture shows it is cloudy, that the people will face the problem of raining, is recited without detail of how the VCI model provides the conclusion. MPEP § 2106.05(f).
The additional element, “evaluating plausibility of an inference by evaluating the inference using non-visual commonsense knowledge to perform reasoning based on visual observations derived from the image by the VCI model,” is mere instruction to apply the recited abstract idea because the outcome of using non-visual commonsense knowledge to perform reasoning based on visual observations derived from the image is recited without detail of how the VCI model evaluates the inference. MPEP § 2106.05(f).
The additional element, “forming an initial perception result of a plausibility of the inference using large language models (LLMs), wherein the LLMs takes the initial perception result of the inference as an input to evaluate potential answer candidates when the initial perception result of the inference is below a predetermined level,” is mere instruction to apply the recited abstract idea because the outcome of performing the initial perception result of the plausibility is recited without detail of how the LLM performs the initial perception result, and the outcome of evaluating potential answer candidates is recited without detail of how the LLM evaluates potential answer candidates. MPEP § 2106.05(f).
The additional element, “forming a commonsense inference using visual factors from the image by the LLM when the initial perception result of the inference is below a predetermined level,” is mere instruction to apply the recited abstract idea because the outcome of forming a commonsense inference is recited without detail of how the LLM forms the commonsense inference. MPEP § 2106.05(f).
The additional element, “forming a new perception result using a vision-and-language model (VLM),” is mere instruction to apply the recited abstract idea because the outcome of forming a new perception result is recited without detail of how the vision-and-language model forms the new perception result. MPEP § 2106.05(f).
The additional element, “returning the new perception result back to the LLM,” is mere instruction to apply the recited abstract idea because the outcome of returning the new perception result back to the LLM is recited without detail of how the new perception result is returned back to the LLM. MPEP § 2106.05(f).
The additional element, “re-evaluation of the potential answer candidates by the LLM based on the new perception results,” is mere instruction to apply the recited abstract idea because the outcome of re-evaluating the potential answer candidates based on the new perception results is recited without detail of how the LLM re-evaluates the potential answer candidates. MPEP § 2106.05(f).
Accordingly, the additional elements, individually or in combination, do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application, even viewing the claim(s) as a whole, and therefore the claim is directed to the recited abstract idea of separating a VCR matter into a visual commonsense understanding (VCU) matter and a visual commonsense inference (VCI) matter. MPEP § 2106.04(d).
As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the conclusions for the additional elements being generic computer components and mere instructions to apply on a computer, insignificant extra-solution activity, and/or mere field of use limitations are carried over and these additional elements do not provide significantly more than the abstract idea. MPEP § 2106.05(II).
As an ordered combination, the claim therefore simply appends well-understood, routine, conventional activities previously known to the industry, specified at a high level of generality, to the abstract idea of separating a VCR matter into a visual commonsense understanding (VCU) matter and a visual commonsense inference (VCI) matter, as the claim as a whole amounts to nothing more than generic computer functions merely used to implement the abstract idea. MPEP §§ 2106.07(a)(III)(B), 2106.05(d)(II); see BASCOM Global Internet Servs. v. AT&T Mobility LLC, 827 F.3d 1341, 1349 (Fed. Cir. 2016).
Accordingly, the claim(s) does not recite additional elements, either individually or in combination, that amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. MPEP § 2106.05. Therefore, as the claim(s) is directed to an abstract idea and does not recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the abstract idea, the claim(s) is not patentable. MPEP § 2106.
As per claim 18:
The claim(s) recites an abstract idea.
The limitation, “wherein the concepts are one of actions, events, or relations in the image,” as drafted, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, encompasses performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components. For example, in the context of this limitation, the abstract idea of “inferring” encompasses a judgment, at a high level of generality, as to inferring concepts from an image, e.g., by recognizing that there are clouds and that it is outside indicates that it is cloudy, an action or event in the image. See MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)(III)(C)(3) (“The Federal Circuit determined that these claims were directed to mental processes of parsing and comparing data, because the steps were recited at a high level of generality and merely used computers as a tool to perform the processes. “). This limitation therefore falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)(III).
Accordingly, the claim(s) recites an abstract idea. MPEP § 2106.04(a).
As the claim(s) recites no additional elements, the abstract idea is not integrated into a practical application, the claim is directed to the abstract idea, and the claim(s) does not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. MPEP § 2106.07. Therefore, as the claim(s) is directed to an abstract idea and does not recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the abstract idea, the claim(s) is not patentable. MPEP § 2106.
As per claim 19:
The abstract idea of separating a VCR matter into a visual commonsense understanding (VCU) matter and a visual commonsense inference (VCI) matter is not integrated into a practical application.
The additional element, “wherein the pre-trained VLMs utilize image-text alignment (ITA) for visual recognition and understanding of the image,” is mere instruction to apply the recited abstract idea because the outcome of utilizing image-text alignment for visual recognition and understanding of the image is recited without detail of how the pre-trained VLMs utilize image-text alignment. MPEP § 2106.05(f).
As an ordered combination, the invention merely links the abstract idea of separating a VCR matter into a visual commonsense understanding (VCU) matter and a visual commonsense inference (VCI) matter to the field of machine learning, because the machine learning elements are invoked as generic computer functions, and fails to improve the technology of machine learning because the ordered combination of additional elements, being mere instruction to apply the exception themselves, merely claim the idea of an outcome and not a particular way to achieve a desired outcome. MPEP §§ 2106.05(a) (“An important consideration in determining whether a claim improves technology is the extent to which the claim covers a particular solution to a problem or a particular way to achieve a desired outcome, as opposed to merely claiming the idea of a solution or outcome.”), 2106.05(h).
Accordingly, the additional elements, individually or in combination, do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application, even viewing the claim(s) as a whole, and therefore the claim is directed to the recited abstract idea of separating a VCR matter into a visual commonsense understanding (VCU) matter and a visual commonsense inference (VCI) matter. MPEP § 2106.04(d).
As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the conclusions for the additional elements being generic computer components and mere instructions to apply on a computer, insignificant extra-solution activity, and/or mere field of use limitations are carried over and these additional elements do not provide significantly more than the abstract idea. MPEP § 2106.05(II).
As an ordered combination, the claim therefore simply appends well-understood, routine, conventional activities previously known to the industry, specified at a high level of generality, to the abstract idea of separating a VCR matter into a visual commonsense understanding (VCU) matter and a visual commonsense inference (VCI) matter, as the claim as a whole amounts to nothing more than generic computer functions merely used to implement the abstract idea. MPEP §§ 2106.07(a)(III)(B), 2106.05(d)(II); see BASCOM Global Internet Servs. v. AT&T Mobility LLC, 827 F.3d 1341, 1349 (Fed. Cir. 2016).
Accordingly, the claim(s) does not recite additional elements, either individually or in combination, that amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. MPEP § 2106.05. Therefore, as the claim(s) is directed to an abstract idea and does not recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the abstract idea, the claim(s) is not patentable. MPEP § 2106.
As per claim 20:
The abstract idea of separating a VCR matter into a visual commonsense understanding (VCU) matter and a visual commonsense inference (VCI) matter is not integrated into a practical application.
The additional element, “outputting a result by the LLM when current visual information supports the potential answer candidates,” is mere instruction to apply the recited abstract idea because the outcome of outputting a result when current visual information supports the potential answer candidates without detail of how the potential answer candidates are supported by the current visual information. MPEP § 2106.05(f).
As an ordered combination, the invention merely links the abstract idea of separating a VCR matter into a visual commonsense understanding (VCU) matter and a visual commonsense inference (VCI) matter to the field of machine learning, because the machine learning elements are invoked as generic computer functions, and fails to improve the technology of machine learning because the ordered combination of additional elements, being mere instruction to apply the exception themselves, merely claim the idea of an outcome and not a particular way to achieve a desired outcome. MPEP §§ 2106.05(a) (“An important consideration in determining whether a claim improves technology is the extent to which the claim covers a particular solution to a problem or a particular way to achieve a desired outcome, as opposed to merely claiming the idea of a solution or outcome.”), 2106.05(h).
Accordingly, the additional elements, individually or in combination, do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application, even viewing the claim(s) as a whole, and therefore the claim is directed to the recited abstract idea of separating a VCR matter into a visual commonsense understanding (VCU) matter and a visual commonsense inference (VCI) matter. MPEP § 2106.04(d).
As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the conclusions for the additional elements being generic computer components and mere instructions to apply on a computer, insignificant extra-solution activity, and/or mere field of use limitations are carried over and these additional elements do not provide significantly more than the abstract idea. MPEP § 2106.05(II).
As an ordered combination, the claim therefore simply appends well-understood, routine, conventional activities previously known to the industry, specified at a high level of generality, to the abstract idea of separating a VCR matter into a visual commonsense understanding (VCU) matter and a visual commonsense inference (VCI) matter, as the claim as a whole amounts to nothing more than generic computer functions merely used to implement the abstract idea. MPEP §§ 2106.07(a)(III)(B), 2106.05(d)(II); see BASCOM Global Internet Servs. v. AT&T Mobility LLC, 827 F.3d 1341, 1349 (Fed. Cir. 2016).
Accordingly, the claim(s) does not recite additional elements, either individually or in combination, that amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. MPEP § 2106.05. Therefore, as the claim(s) is directed to an abstract idea and does not recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the abstract idea, the claim(s) is not patentable. MPEP § 2106.
Allowable Subject Matter
Applicant has disclosed a novel specific implementation, Specification ¶¶ [0029]-[0038], of the idea of separating a VCR matter into a visual commonsense understanding (VCU) matter and a visual commonsense inference (VCI) matter. See MPEP § 2106.05(a) (“An important consideration in determining whether a claim improves technology is the extent to which the claim covers a particular solution to a problem or a particular way to achieve a desired outcome, as opposed to merely claiming the idea of a solution or outcome”). Applicant is invited to schedule an interview to discuss what subject matter if claimed would make this allowable.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to WILLIAM SPIELER whose telephone number is (571)270-3883. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 11-3.
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, Ann Lo can be reached at 571-272-9767. 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.
WILLIAM SPIELER
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2159
/WILLIAM SPIELER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2159
Prosecution Insights