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 .
Priority
The actual filing date for the instant application is 17 Oct 24. However, the instant application requests domestic benefit to a provisionally filed application 62/559279, filed 15 Sep 17. As such, the effective filing date of each of the instant application’s claims under examination may be as recent as the instant application’s actual filing date of 17 Oct 24, or potentially as early as the filing date of 15 Sep 17 (filing date of 62/559279), depending on whether there is appropriate specification support for each particular claim in the earlier-filed specification. In the case that a prior art rejection to one or more claims made in an Office action during prosecution of the instant application includes one or more prior art references that fall somewhere between 17 Oct 24 and 15 Sep 17 (an "intervening" reference), if Applicant can specifically identify appropriate specification support for each of these claims in the earlier filed provisional application, then the Examiner may determine that one or more of these prior art rejections against one or more of these claims will need to be withdrawn.
Status of Claims
Claims 1-20 are pending and examined below.
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 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception without significantly more. Subject matter eligibility analysis follows:
Step 1: This part of the eligibility analysis evaluates whether the claims fall within any statutory category. Claim 1 appears to be directed to a method (Step 1: YES).
Step 2A, Prong One: This part of the eligibility analysis evaluates whether the claim recites a judicial exception.
The claim recites the steps of
generating a first predicted output based on processing of simulated training example input, of a simulated training example, using a machine learning model
generating a first loss, wherein generating the first loss comprises applying, to a first loss function, the first predicted output and simulated training example output of the simulated training example;
generating a second predicted output based on processing of real training example input, of a real training example, using the machine learning model or an additional machine learning model that includes a portion of the machine learning model;
generating a second loss, wherein generating the second loss comprises applying, to a second loss function that differs from the first loss function, the second predicted output and real training example output of the real training example
training at least the portion of the machine learning model based on both: the first loss generated using the first loss function the second loss generated using the second loss function that differs from the first loss function
Examiner contends that that these steps fall within the mathematical concepts grouping of abstract ideas. The machine learning model is being trained based on two loss functions. When given their broadest reasonable interpretation in light of the background, the two loss functions are mathematical calculations.
Step 2A, Prong Two: This part of the eligibility analysis evaluates whether the claim as a whole integrates the recited judicial exception into a practical application of the exception or whether the claim is “directed to” the judicial exception. This evaluation is performed by (1) identifying whether there are any additional elements recited in the claim beyond the judicial exception, and (2) evaluating those additional elements individually and in combination to determine whether the claim as a whole integrates the exception into a practical application. See MPEP 2106.04(d). The claim recites that the steps are performed by one or more processors. However, these processors are recited at a high level of generality is at best the equivalent of merely adding the words “apply it” to the judicial exception. Accordingly, this does not integrate the recited judicial exception into a practical application and the claim is therefore directed to the judicial exception. (Step 2A: YES)..
Step 2B: This part of the eligibility analysis evaluates 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. MPEP 2106.05. As explained with respect to Step 2A Prong Two, the claim recites a single additional element in the preamble, which does not require any particular application of the recited calculation and is at best the equivalent of merely adding the words “apply it” to the judicial exception. Mere instructions to apply an exception cannot provide an inventive concept (Step 2B: NO). The claim is not eligible.
Claims 2-11 are dependent on claim 1 and do not rectify the underlying issues and are similarly rejected.
Claim 12 is an apparatus claim that is substantially similar to claim 1 with the addition of a memory that is described at a high level of generality. Claim 12 is rejected for similar reasons as claim 1.
Claims 13-20 are dependent on claim 12 and do not rectify the underlying issues and are similarly rejected.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
US 10933530 B2 discloses a system for analyzing geometric properties for an object including designing the object in a first computer process and producing information relating to the geometric properties of the object, and receiving the information in a second computer processor which identifies a first portion of the geometric property information as masked or private and second portion identified as public or shared, analysis is performed by the second processor on the public/shared portion of the geometric property information. An output based on the analysis may be provided to an industrial system performing processes on the object. A binary privacy label may be assigned to each triangle in a set of triangles representing the surfaces of the object in a 3D object mesh. The privacy label denotes an associated triangle as being private or shared. The system may be used to produce a set of planned grasps for a robotic gripper.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BASIL T JOS whose telephone number is (571)270-5915. The examiner can normally be reached 11:00 - 8:00 PM.
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, THOMAS WORDEN can be reached at (571) 272-4876. 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.
/Basil T. Jos/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3658
Prosecution Insights