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 .
Status of Claims
This Office Action is in response to application number 18/737,378 filed on 06/07/2024, in which claims 1-20 are presented for examination.
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant’s claim no priority for this application submitted on
06/07/2024.
Information Disclosure Statement
No Information Disclosure Statement (IDS) has been submitted as of the date of this Office Action.
Election/Restrictions
This application contains claims directed to the following patentably distinct species:
Species I drawn to a first device for generating inference(s) using a machine learning model that is selected based on similarity metric(s), which is/are obtained by comparing statistical distribution corresponding to measurement information to one or more second statistical distributions corresponding to the one or more respective sets of training measurement information (shown in Fig(s).10 & 16 & ¶¶250-253 ), and
Species II drawn to a second device for outputting reference signal associated with a prediction target for one or more machine learning models, wherein upon obtaining control message indicating similarity metric(s), outputting a second control message indicating a configuration for a machine learning model, which is selected based on the similarity metric(s). (shown in Fig(s). 14 & 18 & ¶¶259-262 ).
The species are independent or distinct because each species require a limitation that is not present in another species and each species present a different device. In particular, species I & II depend on different mechanisms to determine different out objectives, i.e., using selected machine learning model for generating inferences, and outputting message(s) indicating configuration of a selected machine learning, respectively. In addition, these species are not obvious variants of each other based on the current record.
Applicant is required under 35 USC §121 to elect a single disclosed species, or a single grouping of patentably indistinct species, for prosecution on the merits to which the claims shall be restricted if no generic claim is finally held to be allowable. Currently, no claims appear to be generic in the examiner's opinion.
There is a serious search and/or examination burden for the patentably distinct species as set forth above because at least the following reason(s) apply:
the species or groupings of patentably indistinct species have acquired a separate status in the art in view of their different classification,
the species or groupings of patentably indistinct species have acquired a separate status in the art due to their recognized divergent subject matter; and
the species require a different field of search, e.g., searching different classes/subclasses or electronic resources, or employing different search queries.
Furthermore, the different embodiments have a separate classification and substantially different fields of search. In particular, the first embodiment would not require search terms such as to “output a second control message indicating a configuration for a first machine learning model”, which would be required in the second embodiment. And, the second embodiment would not require search terms such as to “generate one or more inferences using a first machine learning model”, which would be required in the first embodiment.
Applicant is advised that the reply to this requirement to be complete must include (i) an election of a species to be examined even though the requirement may be traversed (37 CFR 1.143) and (ii) identification of the claims encompassing the elected species or grouping of patentably indistinct species, including any claims subsequently added. An argument that a claim is allowable or that all claims are generic is considered nonresponsive unless accompanied by an election.
The election may be made with or without traverse. To preserve a right to petition, the election must be made with traverse. If the reply does not distinctly and specifically point out supposed errors in the election of species requirement, the election shall be treated as an election without traverse. Traversal must be presented at the time of election in order to be considered timely. Failure to timely traverse the requirement will result in the loss of right to petition under 37 CFR 1.144. If claims are added after the election, applicant must indicate which of these claims are readable on the elected species or grouping of patentably indistinct species.
Should applicant traverse on the ground that the species, or groupings of patentably indistinct species from which election is required, are not patentably distinct, applicant should submit evidence or identify such evidence now of record showing them to be obvious variants or clearly admit on the record that this is the case. In either instance, if the examiner finds one of the species unpatentable over the prior art, the evidence or admission may be used in a rejection under 35 USC §103 or pre-AIA 35 USC §103(a) of the other species.
Upon the allowance of a generic claim, applicant will be entitled to consideration of claims to additional species which depend from or otherwise require all the limitations of an allowable generic claim as provided by 37 CFR 1.141.
It is noted that an additional species (corresponding to Fig. 17) is/are disclosed. However, there is no generic or specific claim that encompasses or claims this species. Accordingly, this election requirement is limited only to that which is claimed.
Applicant is reminded that upon the cancelation of claims to a non-elected invention, the inventorship must be corrected in compliance with 37 CFR 1.48(a) if one or more of the currently named inventors is no longer an inventor of at least one claim remaining in the application. A request to correct inventorship under 37 CFR 1.48(a) must be accompanied by an application data sheet in accordance with 37 CFR 1.76 that identifies each inventor by his or her legal name and by the processing fee required under 37 CFR 1.17(i).
Examiner requested an oral election to restriction requirement. During a telephone interview with Mr. Mathew Harvey (65,032) on 08/17/2026 & 08/19/2026, a provisional election was made without traverse to prosecute the invention of comprising Species I, i.e., claim 1-12 & 16-20. Accordingly, claim(s) 13-15 is/are withdrawn from further consideration by the examiner, as being drawn to a non-elected invention.
Claim Rejections – 35 USC §101
35 USC §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.
Claim(s) 1-4, 6-12 & 16-19 is/are rejected under 35 USC §101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. See MPEP 2106 (III)
The determination of whether a claim recites patent ineligible subject matter is a two-step inquiry.
STEP 1: the claim does not fall within one of the four statutory categories of invention (process, machine, manufacture or composition of matter), See MPEP 2106.03, or
STEP 2: the claim recites a judicial exception, e.g. an abstract idea, without reciting additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception, as determined using the following analysis: See MPEP 2106.04
STEP 2A (PRONG 1): Does the claim recite an abstract idea, law of nature, or natural phenomenon? See MPEP 2106.04(II)(A)(1)
STEP 2A (PRONG 2): Does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application? See MPEP 2106.04(II)(A)(2)
STEP 2B: Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception? See MPEP 2106.05
Claim 16. A method for wireless communications at a first device, comprising:
obtaining measurement information for a prediction target associated with one or more machine learning models, the one or more machine learning models associated with one or more respective sets of training input information and one or more respective sets of training measurement information [pre-solution activity (data gathering)];
comparing a first statistical distribution corresponding to the measurement information to one or more second statistical distributions corresponding to the one or more respective sets of training measurement information to obtain one or more similarity metrics [mental process/step]; and
generating one or more inferences using a first machine learning model from among the one or more machine learning models [particular technological environment or field of use without telling you how it is accomplished], wherein the first machine learning model is selected in accordance with the one or more similarity metrics [mental process/step].
101 Analysis - Step 1: Statutory category – Yes
The claim recites a method that executes including at least one step. The claim falls within one of the four statutory categories. See MPEP 2106.03
Step 2A Prong one evaluation: Judicial Exception – Yes – Mental processes
In Step 2A, Prong one of the 2019 Patent Eligibility Guidance (PEG), a claim is to be analyzed to determine whether it recites subject matter that falls within one of the following groups of abstract ideas: a) mathematical concepts, b) mental processes, and/or c) certain methods of organizing human activity.
The Office submits that the foregoing bolded limitation(s) constitutes judicial exceptions in terms of “mental processes” because under its broadest reasonable interpretation, the limitations can be “performed in the human mind, or by a human using a pen and paper”. See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III)
The claim recites the limitation of comparing a first statistical distribution corresponding to the measurement information to one or more second statistical distributions corresponding to the one or more respective sets of training measurement information to obtain one or more similarity metrics, and wherein the first machine learning model is selected in accordance with the one or more similarity metrics.
These limitation, as drafted, are simple processes that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of “obtaining measurement information” and/or “using a first machine learning model”. That is, other than reciting the limitation for obtaining measurement information and/or using a first machine learning model nothing in the claim elements precludes the steps from practically being performed in the mind. For example, but for the “measurement information” and/or “a first machine learning model” language, the claim encompasses a person looking at data collected and forming a simple judgement, i.e., comparing and/or selecting. The mere nominal recitation of by processors/ memories of base claim 1 does not take the claim limitations out of the mental process grouping. Thus, the claim(s) recite(s) a mental process.
Step 2A Prong two evaluation: Practical Application - No
In Step 2A, Prong two of the 2019 PEG, a claim is to be evaluated whether, as a whole, it integrates the recited judicial exception into a practical application. As noted in MPEP 2106.04(d), it must be determined whether any additional elements in the claim beyond the abstract idea integrate the exception into a practical application in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on the judicial exception, such that the claim is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the judicial exception. The courts have indicated that additional elements such as: merely using a computer to implement an abstract idea, adding insignificant extra solution activity, or generally linking use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use do not integrate a judicial exception into a “practical application.”
The Office submits that the foregoing underlined limitation(s) recite additional elements that do not integrate the recited judicial exception into a practical application.
The claim recites additional elements and/or steps for obtaining measurement information for a prediction target associated with one or more machine learning models, the one or more machine learning models associated with one or more respective sets of training input information and one or more respective sets of training measurement information, and generating one or more inferences using a first machine learning model from among the one or more machine learning models.
The obtaining step(s) is/are recited at a high level of generality, i.e. as a general means of gathering measurement information for use in the comparing and/or selection steps, and amount to mere data gathering, which is a form of insignificant extra-solution activity.
The “using a first machine learning model …” for “generating one or more inferences” step(s) also recited at a high level of generality, and amounts to mere linking use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use without telling us how it is accomplished.
The memories and the processor(s) of base claim 1 merely describes how to generally and merely automates the comparing and/or selection steps, therefore acting as a generic computer to perform the abstract idea and/ or “apply” the otherwise mental judgements using generic or general-purpose processor(s), i.e. a computer. The processor(s)/ memories system is recited at a high level of generality and is merely automates the calculate and determine steps.
Accordingly, even in combination, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
Step 2B evaluation: Inventive concept - No
In Step 2B of the 2019 PEG, a claim is to be evaluated as to whether the claim, as a whole, amounts to significantly more than the recited exception, i.e., whether any additional element, or combination of additional elements, adds an inventive concept to the claim. See MPEP 2106.05.
As discussed with respect to Step 2A Prong Two, the additional elements in the claim amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. The same analysis applies here in 2B, i.e., mere instructions to apply an exception on a generic computer cannot integrate a judicial exception into a practical application at Step 2A or provide an inventive concept in Step 2B. See MPEP 2106.05(f).
Under the 2019 PEG, a conclusion that an additional element is insignificant extra- solution activity in Step 2A should be re-evaluated in Step 2B. Here, the obtaining, and generating steps of all and the memories/ processor(s) elements of base claim 1 was considered to be insignificant extra-solution activity in Step 2A, and thus they are re-evaluated in Step 2B to determine if they are more than what is well-understood, routine, conventional activity in the field.
The background recites that the device(s) is/are a conventional user equipment (UE), and the Specification does not provide any indication that the processors/ memories is/are anything other than a conventional computer within a vehicle.
MPEP 2106.05(d)(II), and the cases cited therein, including Intellectual Ventures I, LLC v. Symantec Corp., 838 F.3d 1307, 1321 (Fed. Cir. 2016), TLI Communications LLC v. AV Auto. LLC, 823 F.3d 607, 610 (Fed. Cir. 2016), and OIP Techs., Inc., v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363 (Fed. Cir. 2015), indicate that mere collection or receipt of data (i.e., measurement information) over a network, i.e., wireless communication is/are a well‐understood, routine, and conventional function when it is claimed in a merely generic manner (as it is here).
The “using a first machine learning model” step/element also recited at a high level of generality, and amounts to mere linking use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use without telling you how it is accomplished. The Specification recites that the machine learning model is a conventional artificial neural networks, and the Specification does not provide any indication that the said artificial neural network (ANN) model is anything other than a conventional neural network model. See Specification at least ¶103 & Fig. 2
Accordingly, a conclusion that the obtaining, and generating steps and the memories, processor(s) elements is well-understood, routine, conventional activity is supported under Berkheimer. Thus, the claim is ineligible.
Independent first device claim 1, recites similar limitations performed by the method of claim 16. Therefore, all base claim(s) is/are rejected under the same rationales used in the rejections of claim 16 as outlined above.
Dependent claims 2-4, 6-12 & 17-19 do not recite any further limitations that cause the claim(s) to be patent eligible. Rather, the limitations of dependent claims are directed toward additional aspects of the judicial exception and/or well-understood, routine and conventional additional elements that do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application and amounts to mere input and/or output data manipulation.
Therefore, dependent claims 2-4, 6-12 & 17-19 are not patent eligible under the same rationale as provided for in the rejection of claim 16.
Thus, claims 1-4, 6-12 & 16-19 are ineligible under 35 USC §101.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim(s) 5 & 20 is/are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 USC §101, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Examiner Notes
Claim(s) 1-4, 6-12 & 16-19 is/are rejected under 35 USC §101 as being an abstract idea without significantly more. Due to the significant issues of claim(s) 1-4, 6-12 & 16-19 of being directed to a judicial exception without significantly more, this will be the only rejection of these claims.
Thus, the claims will not be further examined on substantive grounds. The examiner will not attempt to examine the claims over the prior art for each plausible/potential interpretation. Once applicant has corrected the mentioned issues, a prior art rejection may be issued. It should be noted that if an art rejection is issued, it will not be considered a new grounds of rejection.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant’s disclosure. See attached PTO-892 form.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Tarek Elarabi whose telephone number is (313)446-4911. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday thru Thursday; 6:00 AM - 4:00 PM EST.
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, Peter Nolan can be reached on (571)270-7016. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is (571)273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see https://ppair-my.uspto.gov/pair/PrivatePair.
Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or (571)272-1000.
/Tarek Elarabi, Ph.D./Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3661
Prosecution Insights