DETAILED ACTION
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1 – 3, 5 – 8, 10 – 13, and 15 – 23, filed 09 December 2025, have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Applicant argues the steps of accessing, performing, and generating are done by a computer processing devices executing applications for generating machine learning training examples (pages 11, 12). The claimed steps being performed by a computer processing devices are nothing more than insignificant extra solution activity. Though training examples are generated, these training examples are merely different forms of the input shape that can be performed by mentally or drawn by a human.
Applicant argues that there is technical improvement by generating sufficient and varied training data for shape recognition models without manually-creating training examples and that various starting points of the identical shapes can be recognized by the machine-learning models (page 12). The claimed steps may generate these training examples, but these training examples are not utilized by the machine learning model and importantly the claims do not demonstrate that the improvement done by the machine learning model.
Applicant argues that there is practical application that creates digital designs by automatically recognizing and suggesting template shapes to replace imperfect hand-drawn shapes (pages 12, 13). The claims do not allude to this practical application.
Applicant argues the point-order rotation is non-conventional implementation (page 13). Generic point-order rotation of a shape is not conventional to a mental process or drawn by a human.
Applicant argues that the claimed invention is directed to the specific computational problem of automatically generating large-scale training datasets for machine learning models (pages 13 and 14). The claim recites “a training example” which is just one training example that can be mentally performed or drawn by a human.
Claim objections have been withdrawn.
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 – 3, 5 – 8, 10 – 13, and 15 – 23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Claims 1 – 3, 5 – 8, 10 – 13, and 15 – 23 recite a system and a method; therefore, these claims pass step 1 of the eligibility analysis.
For step 2A, the claim(s) recite(s) an abstract idea of retrieving polygon data <an input shape> vertices points and rearranging the order of the polygon vertices points and perform basic affine transformation on the rearranged order of the polygon vertices points to create a transformed polygon <generating a training example>.
Using claim 1 as a representative example that is applicable to claims 9 and 16, the abstract idea is defined by the elements of:
accessing, via one or more computer processing devices (insignificant extra solution activity), a first set of points that define an input shape, wherein:
the first set of points includes a plurality of points in a point order;
each point in the first set of points is a coordinate pair that defines a spatial position;
the first set of points includes a first point at a first original position in the point order and a second point at a second original position in the point order, wherein the second original position is immediately after the first original position in the point order (a human can mentally or draw vertices points of a polygon shape in an order that defines continuous edges/lines of the polygon shape using cartesian coordinates for the vertices points of the polygon, i.e. Triangle shape with (x, y) coordinates of vertices point [P0, P1, P2]); and
the first set of points is associated with a first template shape type (a human can define the polygon shape based on the number of non-trilinear points defining edges/lines of the polygon shape);
processing, via the one or more computer processing devices (insignificant extra solution activity), the first set of points to generate a second set of points, wherein processing the first set of points to generate the second set of points includes performing a first point-order rotation operation on the first set of points and wherein performing the first point-order rotation operation includes:
moving the first point from the first original position in the point order to a first new position in the point order; and
moving the second point from the second original position in the point order to a second new position in the point order, wherein the second new position is immediately after the first new position in the point order (a human can mentally or draw the same polygon shape by reorder the vertices points of the polygon shape that still defines the same polygon shape. i.e. Triangle polygon shape with vertices points of [P0, P1, P2] to [P1, P2, P0] or [P2, P1, P0]); and
generating, via the one or more computer processing devices (insignificant extra solution activity), a training example that includes the second set of points and is associated with the first template shape type (a human can mentally or draw the same polygon shape in any of said orders of vertices points).
The above limitations are reciting the retrieval of vertices points that define the order to draw a polygon shape and to reorder the ordering the vertices points of the polygon shape. Before computers, humans were able to draw same polygon shapes at any corner vertices points in a clockwise or counter clockwise order. The drawing of polygon shapes is a certain method of “mathematical concepts – mathematical relationships, mathematical formulas or equations, mathematical calculations” and “mental processes - concepts performed in the human mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion)” that is fundamental to basic geometry and algebra.
For claim 1, the only additional element is the recitation of a computer implemented method, which are merely nothing more than steps. For claim 15, the additional elements are the recited computer processing system, a processing unit and a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium storing instruction. For claim 18 the additional elements are a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium storing instruction.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application (2nd prong of eligibility test for step 2A) because the additional elements of the claim amount to the use of a computing device with a processor and memory that is being merely used as a tool to execute the abstract idea, see MPEP 2106.05(f). The claim is simply instructing one to practice the abstract idea by using a generically recited computing device with a processor and memory to perform steps that define the abstract idea. This does not amount to more than a mere instruction to implement the abstract idea on a computer. This is indicative of the fact that the claim has not integrated the abstract idea into a practical application and therefore the claim is found to be directed to the abstract idea identified by the examiner.
For step 2B, the claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because they do not amount to more than simply instructing one to practice the abstract idea by using a generically recited computing device with a processor and memory to perform steps that define the abstract idea. This does not render the claims as being eligible. See MPEP 2106.05(f). The rationale set forth for the 2" prong of the eligibility test above is also applicable to step 2B in this regard so no further comments are necessary. This is consistent with the PEG found in the MPEP 2106.
Claims 2 recites determination of a closed shape, which a human can mentally perform.
Claims 3 and 5 – 8 recite variations of affine transformation, which a human can mentally perform or draw on a paper.
Claims 10 and 11 recite a user input onto a user interface for drawing input shapes. The recitation to using an interface is an instruction for one to use a computer and does not provide for integration or significantly more, see MPEP 2106.05(f).
Claims 12 and 13 recite classifying geometric shape, which a human can mentally perform.
Claim 21 recites the same principles of claim 1 of rearranging the order of the vertices points of the polygon shape, which a human can mentally perform or draw on a paper.
For claims 15 – 20, 22, and 23, the applicant is reciting a further embellishment of the same abstract idea that was found for claims 1, 2, 8, and 21.
Therefore, for the above reasons claims 1 – 3, 5 – 8, 10 – 13, and 15 – 23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) 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.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JEFFREY J CHOW whose telephone number is (571)272-8078. The examiner can normally be reached 11AM-7PM.
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, Devona Faulk can be reached on 571-272-7515. 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.
/JEFFREY J CHOW/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2615