DETAILED ACTION
This office action is in response to the application filed on August 30, 2024.
Claims 1-7 are pending and have been examined. Claims 1-7 are rejected.
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 .
Priority
Applicants’ claim for the benefit of a prior-filed application under 35 U.S.C. 119(e) or under 35 U.S.C. 120, 121, 365(c), or 386(c) is acknowledged. The present application claims foreign priority based on Chinese Patent Application No. 202410354820.4 filed March 27, 2024. The examiner notes that a certified copy (in Chinese) of the above-noted application was received on October 14, 2024.
Information Disclosure Statement
Acknowledgment is made of the information disclosure statement(s) filed September 4, 2024, which complies with 37 CFR 1.97. As such, the information disclosure statement(s) has been placed in the application file and the information referred to therein has been considered by the examiner.
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 1-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter.
According to the USPTO guidelines, a claim is directed to non-statutory subject matter if:
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?
Step 2A, Prong 2: Does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application?
Step 2B: Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception? - see MPEP 2106.05
MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(I) states: “The mathematical concepts grouping is defined as mathematical relationships, mathematical formulas or equations, and mathematical calculations.”
MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III) states: “Accordingly, the “mental processes” abstract idea grouping is defined as concepts performed in the human mind, and examples of mental processes include observations, evaluations, judgements, and opinions.
Further, the MPEP states: “The courts do not distinguish between mental processes that are performed entirely in the human mind and mental processes that require a human to use a physical aid (e.g. pen and paper or a slide run) to perform the claim limitation.
Using the two-step inquiry, it is clear that Claim(s) 1-7 are each directed to non-statutory subject matter as shown below:
With respect to Claim(s) 1:
Step 1: The claim(s) are directed to a method, also known as a process, which is one of the four statutory categories of patentable subject matter.
Step 2A, Prong 1: A judicial exception is recited in the claim(s) as they recite mental processes and mathematical relationships, which are abstract ideas:
“the feature extraction and fusion network generates a fusion feature according to the multimodal data, and the fusion feature is clustered by the multimodal feature enhanced prototype network to obtain a biased cluster result;” (Covers mental concepts that could be practically performed in the human mind or through the use of a pencil and paper, including observation, evaluation, and judgement - see MPEP 2106.04.)
“and finally, carrying out unbiased risk estimation on the biased cluster result by using the PU contrastive learning network and correcting a deviation to realize a classification of the multimodal data;” (Covers mental concepts that could be practically performed in the human mind or through the use of a pencil and paper, including observation, evaluation, and judgement - see MPEP 2106.04.)
“wherein, the fusion feature is merged with a prototype ck through the PU contrastive learning network to obtain a sample pair Zi;” (Covers mental concepts that could be practically performed in the human mind or through the use of a pencil and paper, including observation, evaluation, and judgement - see MPEP 2106.04.)
“and an unbiased risk estimation function is constructed based on the sample pair Zi, wherein the unbiased risk estimation function is a PU contrastive learning loss function;” (Covers mental concepts that could be practically performed in the human mind or through the use of a pencil and paper, including observation, evaluation, and judgement - see MPEP 2106.04.)
“the PU contrastive learning network is optimized according to the PU contrastive learning loss function;” (Covers mental concepts that could be practically performed in the human mind or through the use of a pencil and paper, including observation, evaluation, and judgement - see MPEP 2106.04.)
“wherein an operation of merging the fusion feature with the prototype ck to obtain the sample pair Zi comprises: calculating a positive sample pair ZP i, ZP i={zP 1, ZP 2, . . . , zP n p }, by a fusion feature OP of a partial labeled positive sample XP and a positive class prototype cP, and calculating a sample pair ZU j, ZU j={zU 1, zU 2, . . . , zU n u }, by a fusion feature OU of an unlabeled sample XU and an unlabeled prototype cU;” (Covers the abstract idea of a mathematical relationship, as directed to “a mathematical relationship is a relationship between variables or numbers. A mathematical relationship may be expressed in words or using mathematical symbols” - see MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)(I)(A).)
“calculating an Euclidean distance between the fusion feature Oi and each prototype ck in the multimodal feature enhanced prototype network in an embedding space to obtain a probability distribution pϕ of a sample classification;” (Covers the abstract idea of a mathematical relationship, as directed to “a mathematical relationship is a relationship between variables or numbers. A mathematical relationship may be expressed in words or using mathematical symbols” - see MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)(I)(A).)
“and deciding the category to which the multimodal data belongs according to the probability distribution pϕ.” (Covers mental concepts that could be practically performed in the human mind or through the use of a pencil and paper, including observation, evaluation, and judgement - see MPEP 2106.04.)
Step 2A, Prong 2: The claim(s) do not recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application:
“An anomaly detection method based on positive unlabeled (PU) contrastive learning within a multimodal prototype network, comprising: acquiring multimodal data, wherein the multimodal data comprises electroencephalography (EEG) modal data and text modal data;” (Acquiring multimodal data comprised of EEG model data and text modal data is akin to collecting or receiving data, which adds insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception, as discussed in MPEP 2106.05(g).)
“constructing and training an unbiased classification model;” (Constructing and training an unbiased classification model only amounts to “apply it” and mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer - see MPEP 2106.05(f)(1).)
“wherein the unbiased classification model comprises a feature extraction and fusion network, a multimodal feature enhanced prototype network and a PU contrastive learning network;” (Reciting the unbiased classification model comprises a feature extraction and fusion network, a multimodal feature enhanced prototype network and a PU contrastive learning network is akin to insignificant application, which adds insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception, as discussed in MPEP 2106.05(g).)
“inputting the multimodal data into a trained unbiased classification model, and outputting a category to which the multimodal data belongs, comprising: inputting the multimodal data into the feature extraction and fusion network to generate a fusion feature Oi;” (Inputting multimodal data into a feature extraction and fusion network to generate a fusion feature is akin to the inputting and outputting of data, which adds insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception, as discussed in MPEP 2106.05(g).)
Step 2B: The claim(s) do not recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception:
Acquiring multimodal data comprised of EEG model data and text modal data is akin to collecting or receiving data, which adds insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception, as discussed in MPEP 2106.05(g). Furthermore, the additional element is directed to receiving or transmitting data over a network / performing repetitive calculations / electronic recordkeeping / storing and retrieving information in memory / electronically scanning or extracting data from a physical document, which the courts have recognized as well‐understood, routine, and conventional when they are claimed in a generic manner. See MPEP § 2106.05(d)(II).
Constructing and training an unbiased classification model only amounts to “apply it” and mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer - see MPEP 2106.05(f)(1).
Reciting the unbiased classification model comprises a feature extraction and fusion network, a multimodal feature enhanced prototype network and a PU contrastive learning network is akin to insignificant application, which adds insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception, as discussed in MPEP 2106.05(g).
Inputting multimodal data into a feature extraction and fusion network to generate a fusion feature is akin to the inputting and outputting of data, which adds insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception, as discussed in MPEP 2106.05(g). Furthermore, the additional element is directed to receiving or transmitting data over a network / performing repetitive calculations / electronic recordkeeping / storing and retrieving information in memory / electronically scanning or extracting data from a physical document, which the courts have recognized as well‐understood, routine, and conventional when they are claimed in a generic manner. See MPEP § 2106.05(d)(II).
With respect to Claim(s) 2:
Step 2A, Prong 1: Inherits the limitations and abstract ideas from Claim(s) 1. A judicial exception is recited in the claim(s) as they recite mental processes, which are abstract ideas:
“dividing the multimodal data into the partial labeled positive sample XP, XP={x1, x2, . . . , xn p }, and the unlabeled sample XU, XU={x1, x2, . . . , xn u }, (Covers mental concepts that could be practically performed in the human mind or through the use of a pencil and paper, including observation, evaluation, and judgement - see MPEP 2106.04.)
Step 2A, Prong 2: The claim(s) do not recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application:
“wherein the acquiring the multimodal data comprises preprocessing the multimodal data;” (Preprocessing multimodal data is akin to manipulating data, which adds insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception, as discussed in MPEP 2106.05(g).)
“wherein a label of the partial labeled positive sample XP is Y=+1, and the unlabeled sample XU has no label” (Reciting a label of the partial labeled positive sample XP is Y=+1, and the unlabeled sample XU has no label is akin to insignificant application, which adds insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception, as discussed in MPEP 2106.05(g).)
Step 2B: The claim(s) do not recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception:
Preprocessing multimodal data is akin to manipulating data, which adds insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception, as discussed in MPEP 2106.05(g). Furthermore, the additional element is directed to receiving or transmitting data over a network / performing repetitive calculations / electronic recordkeeping / storing and retrieving information in memory / electronically scanning or extracting data from a physical document, which the courts have recognized as well‐understood, routine, and conventional when they are claimed in a generic manner. See MPEP § 2106.05(d)(II).
Reciting a label of the partial labeled positive sample XP is Y=+1, and the unlabeled sample XU has no label is akin to insignificant application, which adds insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception, as discussed in MPEP 2106.05(g). Furthermore, the additional element is directed to receiving or transmitting data over a network / performing repetitive calculations / electronic recordkeeping / storing and retrieving information in memory / electronically scanning or extracting data from a physical document, which the courts have recognized as well‐understood, routine, and conventional when they are claimed in a generic manner. See MPEP § 2106.05(d)(II).
With respect to Claim(s) 3:
Step 2A, Prong 1: Inherits the limitations and abstract ideas from Claim(s) 1. A judicial exception is recited in the claim(s) as they recite mental processes, which are abstract ideas:
“the dilated convolutional network and the BERT model are respectively configured to extract features of the EEG modal data and the text modal data,” (Configuring the dilated convolutional network and the BERT model to extract features of the EEG modal data and the text modal data covers mental concepts that could be practically performed in the human mind or through the use of a pencil and paper, including observation, evaluation, and judgement - see MPEP 2106.04.)
“and the multi-head self-attention mechanism is configured to fuse features of the multimodal data to generate the fusion feature.” (Configuring the multi-head self-attention mechanism to fuse features of the multimodal data to generate the fusion feature covers mental concepts that could be practically performed in the human mind or through the use of a pencil and paper, including observation, evaluation, and judgement - see MPEP 2106.04.)
Step 2A, Prong 2: The claim(s) do not recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application:
“wherein the feature extraction and fusion network comprises a dilated convolutional network, a Bidirectional Encoder Representations from Transformers (BERT) model, and a multi-head self-attention mechanism;” (Reciting the feature extraction and fusion network comprises a dilated convolutional network, a Bidirectional Encoder Representations from Transformers (BERT) model, and a multi-head self-attention mechanism is akin to insignificant application, which adds insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception, as discussed in MPEP 2106.05(g).)
Step 2B: The claim(s) do not recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception:
Reciting the feature extraction and fusion network comprises a dilated convolutional network, a Bidirectional Encoder Representations from Transformers (BERT) model, and a multi-head self-attention mechanism is akin to insignificant application, which adds insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception, as discussed in MPEP 2106.05(g).
With respect to Claim(s) 4:
Step 2A, Prong 1: Inherits the limitations and abstract ideas from Claim(s) 3. An additional judicial exception is recited in the claim(s) as they recite mathematical relationships, which are abstract ideas:
“wherein the multimodal prototype network calculates k-class prototypes ck by fusing features, ck={cP, cU},” (Covers the abstract idea of a mathematical relationship, as directed to “a mathematical relationship is a relationship between variables or numbers. A mathematical relationship may be expressed in words or using mathematical symbols” - see MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)(I)(A).)
“and calculating the Euclidean distance between each sample xi and each prototype ck in the embedding space to obtain the probability distribution pϕ(y=k|xi) of a binary classification;” (Covers the abstract idea of a mathematical relationship, as directed to “a mathematical relationship is a relationship between variables or numbers. A mathematical relationship may be expressed in words or using mathematical symbols” - see MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)(I)(A).)
Step 2A, Prong 2: The claim(s) do not recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application:
“wherein cP is a prototype of the partial labeled positive sample XP, (Reciting cP is a prototype of the partial labeled positive sample XP is akin to insignificant application, which adds insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception, as discussed in MPEP 2106.05(g).)
wherein the prototype of the partial labeled positive sample XP is the positive class prototype, cP∈Rd; (Reciting the prototype of the partial labeled positive sample XP is the positive class prototype, cP∈Rd is akin to insignificant application, which adds insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception, as discussed in MPEP 2106.05(g).)
cU is a prototype of the unlabeled sample XU, wherein the prototype of the unlabeled sample XU is the unlabeled prototype cU∈Rd;” (Reciting cU is a prototype of the unlabeled sample XU, wherein the prototype of the unlabeled sample XU is the unlabeled prototype cU∈Rd is akin to insignificant application, which adds insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception, as discussed in MPEP 2106.05(g).)
“wherein, k is the category, y is a probability of being equal to a particular category k, Rd is a feature space, and d is a feature dimension” (Reciting k is the category, y is a probability of being equal to a particular category k, Rd is a feature space, and d is a feature dimension is akin to insignificant application, which adds insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception, as discussed in MPEP 2106.05(g).)
Step 2B: The claim(s) do not recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception:
Reciting cP is a prototype of the partial labeled positive sample XP is akin to insignificant application, which adds insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception, as discussed in MPEP 2106.05(g).
Reciting the prototype of the partial labeled positive sample XP is the positive class prototype, cP∈Rd is akin to insignificant application, which adds insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception, as discussed in MPEP 2106.05(g).
Reciting cU is a prototype of the unlabeled sample XU, wherein the prototype of the unlabeled sample XU is the unlabeled prototype cU∈Rd is akin to insignificant application, which adds insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception, as discussed in MPEP 2106.05(g).
Reciting k is the category, y is a probability of being equal to a particular category k, Rd is a feature space, and d is a feature dimension is akin to insignificant application, which adds insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception, as discussed in MPEP 2106.05(g).
With respect to Claim(s) 5:
Step 2A, Prong 1: Inherits the limitations and abstract ideas from Claim(s) 4. An additional judicial exception is recited in the claim(s) as they recite mathematical calculations, which are abstract ideas:
“wherein a loss function of the multimodal feature enhanced prototype network is:
PNG
media_image1.png
40
490
media_image1.png
Greyscale
“ (Covers the abstract idea of a mathematical formula or equation, as directed to “a claim that recites a numerical formula or equation will be considered as falling within the "mathematical concepts" grouping. In addition, there are instances where a formula or equation is written in text format that should also be considered as falling within this grouping” - see MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)(I)(B).)
Step 2A, Prong 2: The claim(s) do not recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application:
wherein, X is a data sample, and Oxi is a fusion feature of a sample xi.” (Reciting X is a data sample, and Oxi is a fusion feature of a sample xi is akin to insignificant application, which adds insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception, as discussed in MPEP 2106.05(g).)
Step 2B: The claim(s) do not recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception:
Reciting X is a data sample, and Oxi is a fusion feature of a sample xi is akin to insignificant application, which adds insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception, as discussed in MPEP 2106.05(g).
With respect to Claim(s) 6:
Step 2A, Prong 1: Inherits the limitations and abstract ideas from Claim(s) 1. An additional judicial exception is recited in the claim(s) as they recite mathematical calculations, which are abstract ideas:
“wherein the PU contrastive learning loss function is:
PNG
media_image2.png
56
563
media_image2.png
Greyscale
” (Covers the abstract idea of a mathematical formula or equation, as directed to “a claim that recites a numerical formula or equation will be considered as falling within the "mathematical concepts" grouping. In addition, there are instances where a formula or equation is written in text format that should also be considered as falling within this grouping” - see MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)(I)(B).)
Step 2A, Prong 2: The claim(s) do not recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application:
“wherein, πp is a prior probability of a positive sample” (Reciting πp is a prior probability of a positive sample is akin to insignificant application, which adds insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception, as discussed in MPEP 2106.05(g).)
Step 2B: The claim(s) do not recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception:
Reciting πp is a prior probability of a positive sample is akin to insignificant application, which adds insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception, as discussed in MPEP 2106.05(g).
With respect to Claim(s) 7:
For Step 1, Claim 7 is directed to a system, also known as an apparatus, which is one of the four statutory categories of patentable subject matter. For Step 2A, Prong 1, Step 2A, Prong 2, and Step 2B, since Claim 7 contains similar limitations to Claim 1, refer to the 101 rejection for Claim 1.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim(s) 1-7 include allowable subject matter, but are currently rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Vibha Bhat whose telephone number is (571)-272-7091. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday – Thursday from 8:00 AM to 5:00 PM EST and every other Friday from 8:00 AM to 4:00 PM EST.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. See MPEP § 713.01. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at https://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Mariela Reyes, can be reached at telephone number (571)-270-1006. 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 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://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 (572)-272-1000.
/Vibha Bhat/Examiner
Art Unit 2142
/Mariela Reyes/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2142
Prosecution Insights