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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
Applicant argues on page 6, line 21 through line 26 that “Applicant submits that for all but one of the references not considered by the Examiner, the year of publication is sufficiently earlier than the effective U.S. filing date so that the particular month of publication is not in issue. See MPEP 609.04(a)I”. The information disclosure statements submitted on September 8, 2024 and January 6, 2025, specifically the citations that have not been considered, do not comply with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.98(b) which states “The date of publication supplied must include at least the month and year of publication, except that the year of publication (without the month) will be accepted if the applicant points out in the information disclosure statement that the year of publication is sufficiently earlier than the effective U.S. filing date and any foreign priority date so that the particular month of publication is not in issue”. The examiner will consider those citations on the record if Applicant provides the statement for each citation not having a month that “that the year of publication is sufficiently earlier than the effective U.S. filing date and any foreign priority date so that the particular month of publication is not in issue”.
Status of Claims
Claims 1-3, 5-13, 15-18 and 20 are pending in this application.
Rejection under 35 U.S.C. §112(b)
Applicant’s arguments, see page 7, lines 2-3, and the amendment cancelling claim 19, filed July 14, 2026, with respect to the rejection of claim 20 under 35 U.S.C. §112(b), have been fully considered and are persuasive. The rejection of claim 20 under 35 U.S.C. §112(b) has been withdrawn.
Double Patenting Rejection
Applicant’s arguments, see page 7, lines 6-7, and the terminal disclaimer, filed July 14, 2026, with respect to the rejection of claims 1-20 on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-20 of copending U.S. Patent Application No. 18/815,992, have been fully considered but are not persuasive. The terminal disclaimer submitted on July 14, 2026 has not been approved because the person who signed the terminal disclaimer is not the applicant, patentee or an attorney or agent of record. 37CFR 1.32(a) and (b).
Applicant must file Power of Attorney that gives power to the attorney who is signing the TD, along with another copy of the TD, that is signed by the applicant. No new fee required.
The rejection of claims 1-20 on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-20 of copending U.S. Patent Application No. 18/815,992 is hereby maintained until a proper terminal disclaimer is submitted.
Rejection under 35 U.S.C. §103
Applicant’s arguments, see page 7, lines 9-11, and the amendment to independent claims 1 and 8, filed July 14, 2026, with respect to the rejection of claims 1-3, 8, 11-13 and 18 under 35 U.S.C. §103(a) as being unpatentable over Khan et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. US 2020/0410299 A1) in view of Shim et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. US 2021/0383158 A1), Gao et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. US 2020/0410299 A1) or Zhang et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. US 2020/0175384 A1), have been fully considered and are persuasive. The rejection of claims 1-3, 8, 11-13 and 18 under 35 U.S.C. §103(a) as being unpatentable over Khan et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. US 2020/0410299 A1) in view of Shim et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. US 2021/0383158 A1), Gao et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. US 2020/0410299 A1) or Zhang et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. US 2020/0175384 A1) has been withdrawn.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the claims at issue are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); and In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on a nonstatutory double patenting ground provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with this application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP §§ 706.02(l)(1) - 706.02(l)(3) for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/forms/. The filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to:
http://www.uspto.gov/patents/process/file/efs/guidance/eTD-info-I.jsp
Claims 1-20 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-20 of copending U.S. Patent Application No. 18/815,992. Although the conflicting claims are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because both sets of claims are directed towards the common subject matter.
The claims in the present application define the invention differently from the claims in the copending U.S. Patent Application No. 18/815,992, however they are not patentably distinguishable from the claims in the other copending application. In re White et al., 160 USPQ 417, In re Thorington et al., 163 USPQ 644.
For example, comparing representative claim 1 of the present application with representative claim 1 of copending U.S. Patent Application No. 18/815,992. Claim 1 of the present application recites: A system for incrementally training a classifier to continuously learn new classes and classify incoming data, the system comprising (Claim 1 of copending U.S. Patent Application No. 18/815,992 recites: A system for incrementally training a classifier to continuously learn new classes and classify incoming data, the system comprising); a processing component for formatting incoming data for feature extraction (Claim 1 of copending U.S. Patent Application No. 18/815,992 recites: a processing component for formatting incoming data for feature extraction); a transformer backbone for multiplying formatted data with a positional embedding, transforming, by an encoder, formatted data with positional embedding to produce an encoded vector, appending a class token to the encoded vector (Claim 1 of copending U.S. Patent Application No. 18/815,992 recites: a feature extraction backbone for multiplying formatted data with a positional embedding, transforming, by an encoder, formatted data with positional embedding to produce an encoded vector appending a class token to the encoded vector); a single head incremental classifier trained on known classes including a classification weight matrix wk, where k denotes the kth training update for receiving the encoded vector and determining that the incoming data is in a new class, wherein upon determining that the incoming data is in a new class classification weight matrix is augmented with a new null-class weight vector Δwk including adding a new column for new class weights for the new class, wherein the single head incremental classifier is trained on training data having feature samples corresponding to the incoming data directed to the new class (Claim 1 of copending U.S. Patent Application No. 18/815,992 recites: a single head incremental classifier trained on one or more known classes for receiving, by a classification weight matrix wk , where k denotes the kth training update, the encoded vector and determining that the incoming data is in a new class, augmenting the classification weight matrix with a new null-class weight vector Δwk , and training the incremental classifier on training data having feature samples corresponding to the incoming data directed to the new class).
As the comparison shows the claims recite common subject matter, and the differences relate to variations of the claimed limitations, and the processing is carried out on the data and/or elements in no way affects how the data would be received from an input, processed and output within the context of the claims. Therefore, the substitution of the different variations would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention. While present claim 1 includes additional limitations that are not set forth in claim 1 of copending U.S. Patent Application No. 18/815,992, the use of transitional term "comprising" in claim 1 of copending U.S. Patent Application No. 18/815,992 fails to preclude the possibility of additional elements, so that claim 1 of copending U.S. Patent Application No. 18/815,992 fails to define an invention that is patentably distinct from present claim 1. Furthermore, the elements of claim 1 of copending U.S. Patent Application No. 18/815,992 are fully anticipated by the present claim, and anticipation is “the ultimate or epitome of obviousness (In re Kalm, 154 USPQ 10 (CCPA 1967), also In re Dailey, 178 USPQ 293 (CCPA 1973) and In re Pearson, 181 USPQ 641 (CCPA 1974)).
Claims 2-20 of the present application recite limitations which are in most cases word for word the same limitations as found in claims 2-20 respectively of copending U.S. Patent Application No. 18/815,992.
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 Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Jose L. Couso whose telephone number is (571) 272-7388. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday through Friday from 5:30am to 1:30pm.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Matthew Bella, can be reached on 571-272-7778. 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 Center information webpage on the USPTO website. For more information about the Patent Center, see https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center. Should you have questions about access to the Patent Center, contact the Patent Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 571-272-4100 or via email at: ebc@uspto.gov .
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.
/JOSE L COUSO/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2667
July 23, 2026
Prosecution Insights