CTNF 18/627,810 CTNF 88251 Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status 07-03-aia AIA 15-10-aia The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA. DETAILED ACTION Art Unit – Location The Art Unit location of your application in the USPTO may have changed. To aid in correlating any papers for this application, all further correspondence regarding this application should be directed to Art Unit 2682. 07-30-03-h AIA Claim Interpretation 07-30-03 AIA The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f): (f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof. The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph: An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof. 07-30-05 The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked. As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph: (A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function; (B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and (C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function. Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function. Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function. Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. 07-30-06 This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: An Anatomy Decomposer (AD) module in claims 1, 9, and 17. Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof: Neural Network in the Applicant’s as-filed specification [0007]. Using the processes in [0035], [0037], or [0041]. If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101 07-04-01 AIA 07-04 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. 07-05-01 AIA the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter. The claim(s) does/do not fall within at least one of the four categories of patent eligible subject matter because the claimed invention is directed to an Abstract Idea without significantly more. The claim(s) recite(s): implementing a self-supervised learning (SSL) model that learns from anatomy in a plurality of medical images, the computer-implemented method comprising: receiving the plurality of medical images at the system; selecting one of the plurality of medical images; dividing the anatomy in the selected medical image into a plurality of parts via an Anatomy Decomposer (AD) module, the AD module: receiving as an input the selected medical image; generating a random anchor instance that represents a selected one of a plurality of parts of the selected medical image; and generating embedding vectors based the random anchor instance . This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the claims cite a mental process and mathematical manipulations that can be performed using a mathematical aid. The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the method is performed by a generic computer, no function of the computer is improved, and there is no significant improved result from the generated embedding vectors claimed. Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because: The claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claim(s) recite(s) mathematical concepts, a mental process, or certain methods of organizing human activity. This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the abstract idea is implemented using generic machine learning. The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the use of machine learning is generic and lacks detailed improvements to the technology or to the machine learning technology. Step 1. The claims are directed to a Process, Machine, and Article of Manufacture. Step 2A. Prong 1. The invention comprises an Abstract Idea of: Mathematical Concepts and a Mental Process. Mathematical Concepts of: “A Self-supervised Learning model” and “generating embedding vectors based on the random anchor instance. Implementing a SSL model and generating vectors are mathematical concepts. Please refer to MPEP 2106.04(a)(2) I C. e.g. “Mathematical Calculations”. A Mental Process of: “receiving a plurality of medical images“; selecting one of the plurality of medical images; “dividing the anatomy in the selected medical image into a plurality of parts” and “generating a random anchor instance that represents a selected one of a plurality of parts of the selected medical image”. A person can receive images, select an image, divide an anatomy of an image in hierarchal parts, and assign a random anchor to one of the plurality of parts. Please refer to MPEP 2106.04(a)(2) III B. e.g. “A Claim That Encompasses a Human Performing the Step(s) Mentally With or Without a Physical Aid Recites a Mental Process”. Step 2A Prong 2. There are no additional elements which are directed to a significant improved result from the generated embedding vectors. There is no technical improvement to the claimed learning-machine 2106.04(d)(1), 2106.05 Step 2B. Are there additional elements that amount to significantly more? The claims cite a process which can be performed by a human using mathematical concepts and mental processes; where the inclusion of a learning machine as a substitute for a human is generic and lacks the details for a significant technical improvement or an inventive concept. MPEP 2106.05. Thus, the learning machine is merely a generic machine which is well-understood, routine, and conventional. The additional claim limitation elements in combination with the learning machine do not amount to significantly more because: In combination the well-understood, routine, conventional functions do not improve the function of learning machine and there appears to be no meaningful result from the updated learning machine. Therefore, the Applicant’s claimed invention is rejected. Allowable Subject Matte Claims 1-20 would be allowable if the 35 USC § 101 Abstract Idea rejection is overcome. The closest reference of record is Yan. US 2022/0180126 A1. In the Applicant’s independent claims 1, 9, and 17 the reference of Yan does not teach: dividing the anatomy in the selected medical image into a plurality of parts via an Anatomy Decomposer (AD) module, the AD module: receiving as an input the selected medical image; generating a random anchor instance that represents a selected one of a plurality of parts of the selected medical image; and generating embedding vectors based the random anchor instance . Yan fails to directly anticipate or render the above underlined limitations obvious (to be used with other claimed limitations). Relevant Prior Art US 12,106,549 B2 Abstract Systems and methods for training an artificial intelligence-based system using self-supervised learning are provided. For each respective training medical image of a set of unannotated training medical images, the following steps are performed. A first augmented image is generated by applying a first augmentation operation to the respective training medical image. A second augmented image is generated by applying a second augmentation operation to the respective training medical image. A first representation vector is created from the first augmented image using an encoder network. A second representation vector is created from the second augmented image using the encoder network. The first representation vector is mapped to first cluster codes. The second representation vector is mapped to second cluster codes. The encoder network is optimized using the first and second representation vectors and the first and second cluster codes. Conclusion Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to TED W BARNES whose telephone number is (571)270-1785. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri. 8:00-5:00. 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, Benny Tieu can be reached at 571-272-7490. 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. /TED W. BARNES/ Ph.D. Electrical Engineering Primary Examiner Art Unit 2682 /TED W BARNES/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2682 Application/Control Number: 18/627,810 Page 2 Art Unit: 2682 Application/Control Number: 18/627,810 Page 3 Art Unit: 2682 Application/Control Number: 18/627,810 Page 4 Art Unit: 2682 Application/Control Number: 18/627,810 Page 5 Art Unit: 2682 Application/Control Number: 18/627,810 Page 6 Art Unit: 2682 Application/Control Number: 18/627,810 Page 7 Art Unit: 2682 Application/Control Number: 18/627,810 Page 8 Art Unit: 2682 Application/Control Number: 18/627,810 Page 9 Art Unit: 2682 Application/Control Number: 18/627,810 Page 10 Art Unit: 2682 Application/Control Number: 18/627,810 Page 11 Art Unit: 2682
Prosecution Insights