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 .
Status of Claims
Claims 1 – 26 remain pending.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed April 11, 2026 with respect to claims 1 – 26 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Response to Remarks
Applicant argues that Mensink is silent on the following limitations below. Examiner respectfully disagrees for the reasons provided below:
In the Remarks (p. 12) regarding claim 1, applicants assert, “The Mensink merely discloses a process for image classification or feature analysis, and does not disclose or suggest comparing a labeled category with an inference category, nor does it disclose automatically listing the labeled image data as anomaly labeled data when the two categories are inconsistent. That is, the present application first compares the labeled category and the inference category in this step, and lists the labeled image data as anomaly labeled data when the labeled category is different from the inference category. This feature differs from the technical means of simply predicting labels in cited Mensink. Therefore, Mensink does not reveal any technical features regarding the comparison relationship between the label category and the inference category”.
Examiner respectfully disagrees because Mensink in [0036] discloses about generating an inferred or predicted label category, “The system 10 optionally includes a classifier system 40 , stored in memory 22 , which has been trained on training images to predict labels 14 for new images, based on image content. Such classifier systems are well known and can be based, for example, on a variety of training algorithms ... The exemplary classifier system 40 may include a set of binary classifiers, each trained on a respective one of the categories (labels) in the set 18”.
In the Remarks (p. 13) regarding claim 1, applicants assert, Mensink fails to disclose or suggest "the computing apparatus compares the labeled category and the inference category according to each piece of labeled image data, and automatically lists the labeled image data as anomaly labeled data when the labeled category of the labeled image data is different from the inference category", as recited in claim 1.
Examiner respectfully disagrees because Mensink in [0042] discloses the system receives a predicted label generated from image features and compares that predicted label against user provided label information, “the user may be asked to verify the label rocks, which in this example, is in a third node at some distance from the first and second nodes. Through inference in the graphical model 44 , the system fuses the information from the image content and the user responses, and is able to identify labels that are highly informative, once provided with some information by the user”. Furthermore, Mensink in [0140] discloses about re-ranking after comparing with the predicted label and user given label to match he ground truth label better which equates to the same comparison concept recited in claim 1, “The predicted order of labels 14 , output by the classifier 40 alone, starting with the most probable are shown in the Before column in Table 1. The Questions column shows the five labels presented to the user as queries. Each subsequent query presented is dependent on the user's answer to the previous query and the structured model. The After column shows the re-ranked order of labels after all these queries were answered by the user. The ground truth for this image, in this case, the top five labels which would be manually applied, are shown in bold. As can be seen, the top five labels in the After column correspond to the ground truth. Although this is not always the case, the labels can be expected to match the ground truth better (assuming that the user is responding correctly to the queries)”.
For the reasons above, the rejections of claims 1 – 26 as established in the last Office
Action (Non-Final, 01/14/2026) are proper and are hereby maintained and incorporated in this Office Action.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1 – 5, 14 – 18, 23 and 24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Mensink et al. US Patent Application Publication No. US-20120269436-A1 (hereinafter Mensink).
Regarding claims 1 – 5, 14 – 18, 23 and 24, the same ground of rejection based on Mensink from the last Non-Final Office Action of 01/14/2026 applies in here.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 6 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C 103 as being unpatentable over Mensink in view of Zhang Patent Application Publication No. WO-2024031999-A1 (hereinafter Zhang).
Regarding claims 6 and 19, Mensink teaches claims 1 and 15 but fails to teach the further limitations as recited in claim 6 and 19. Zhang teaches claims 6 and 19 for the same grounds of rejection and motivation established in the Non-Final Office Action of 01/14/2026.
Claims 7 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C 103 as being unpatentable over Mensink in view of Khan US Patent Application Publication No. US-20200380312-A1 (hereinafter Khan).
Regarding claims 7 and 20, Mensink teaches claims 1 and 15 but fails to teach the further limitations as recited in claims 7 and 20. Khan teaches claims 7 and 20 for the same grounds of rejection and motivation established in the Non-Final Office Action of 01/14/2026.
Claims 8 – 13, 21, 22, 25 and 26 are rejected under 35 U.S.C 103 as being unpatentable over Mensink in view of Bai US Patent Application Publication No. US-20220292131-A1 (hereinafter Bai) and further in view of Chen Patent Application Publication No. WO-2023088174-A1 (hereinafter Chen).
Regarding claims 8 – 13, 21, 22, 25 and 26, Mensink teaches claims 1 and 15 but fails to teach the further limitations as recited in claims 8 – 13, 21, 22, 25 and 26. Bai and Chen teaches claims 8 – 13, 21, 22, 25 and 26 for the same grounds of rejection and motivation established in the Non-Final Office Action of 01/14/2026.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a). A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any extension fee pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Contact
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ZAID MUHAMMAD SALEH whose telephone number is (703)756-1684. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8 am - 5 pm ET.
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, Vu Le can be reached on (571)272-7332. 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.
/ZAID MUHAMMAD SALEH/
Examiner, Art Unit 2668
06/24/2026
/VU LE/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2668
Prosecution Insights