DETAILED ACTION
This Office Action is in response to Applicants application filing received on June 27, 2025. Claim(s) 1-20 is/are currently pending in the instant application. The application is a Continuation of U.S. application 17/839,260 filed on June 13, 2022, now U.S. Patent 12,373,759.
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
The Examiner acknowledges the Applicants filing of IDS references on June 27, 2025. The references have been considered at this time. A copy of the annotated IDS sheet is included in this correspondence.
Specification
The abstract of the disclosure is objected to because it contains a paragraph number [0001] . A corrected abstract of the disclosure is required and must be presented on a separate sheet, apart from any other text. See MPEP § 608.01(b).
Applicant is reminded of the proper content of an abstract of the disclosure.
A patent abstract is a concise statement of the technical disclosure of the patent and should include that which is new in the art to which the invention pertains. The abstract should not refer to purported merits or speculative applications of the invention and should not compare the invention with the prior art.
If the patent is of a basic nature, the entire technical disclosure may be new in the art, and the abstract should be directed to the entire disclosure. If the patent is in the nature of an improvement in an old apparatus, process, product, or composition, the abstract should include the technical disclosure of the improvement. The abstract should also mention by way of example any preferred modifications or alternatives.
Where applicable, the abstract should include the following: (1) if a machine or apparatus, its organization and operation; (2) if an article, its method of making; (3) if a chemical compound, its identity and use; (4) if a mixture, its ingredients; (5) if a process, the steps.
Extensive mechanical and design details of an apparatus should not be included in the abstract. The abstract should be in narrative form and generally limited to a single paragraph within the range of 50 to 150 words in length.
See MPEP § 608.01(b) for guidelines for the preparation of patent abstracts.
Claim Objections
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities: The claim contains a period on line 13 after the word “feature”. The claim is only supposed to have a period at the end. Appropriate correction is required.
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 conflicting claims 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); 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 nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined 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 § 2146 et seq. 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 filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual 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 www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1-14, and 16-20 rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-20 of U.S. Patent No. 12,373,759. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because they are claiming the same invention.
Claim 1 can be drawn to claim 1 of U.S. Patent No. 12,373,759; specifically 1. A device, comprising:
a processor; and
a memory that stores executable instructions that, when executed by the processor, facilitate performance of operations, comprising:
determining, in response to receiving incoming model data for a model, a variable performance metric corresponding to a feature of the model affected by temporal generalization of the model;
determining, based on a behavior of the variable performance metric as a function of time, a temporal stability measurement, the temporal stability measurement indicating an effect of the feature on the temporal generalization of the model over time;
determining, based on the temporal stability measurement, a feature-target relationship for the model based on the feature, including generating a group of mutations of the model, respective mutations of the group of mutations modifying the feature based on the feature corresponding to an elevated temporal effect of the feature on temporal stability of the model, wherein the modifying comprises one of pruning the feature, replacing the feature with a new feature, weighting a feature value associated with the feature, or combinations of these, to identify a current model experiencing temporal generalization effects; and
generating an indication of a preferred updated model that may replace the current model experiencing temporal generalization effects to mitigate the temporal generalization of the current model experiencing temporal generalization effects, wherein the preferred updated model comprises one mutation of the group of mutations of the model; and
replacing the current model experiencing temporal generalization effects with the preferred updated model to reduce a likelihood of temporal generalization.
Claim 2 is drawn to claim 6 of U.S. Patent No. 12,373,759.
Claim 3 is drawn to claim 15 of U.S. Patent No. 12,373,759.
Claim 4 is drawn to claim 9 of U.S. Patent No. 12,373,759.
Claim 5 is drawn to claims 2 and 6 of U.S. Patent No. 12,373,759 and Col. 16, lines 6-12 regarding displayed recommendations.
Claim 6 is drawn to claim 6 of U.S. Patent No. 12,373,759.
Claim 7 is drawn to claim 11 of U.S. Patent No. 12,373,759.
Claim 8 is drawn to claim 1 of U.S. Patent No. 12,373,759.
Claim 9 is drawn to claims 1 and 4 of U.S. Patent No. 12,373,759.
Claim 10 is drawn to claim 1 of U.S. Patent No. 12,373,759.
Claim 11 is drawn to claim 1 of U.S. Patent No. 12,373,759.
Claim 12 is drawn to claims 18, 1, and 6 of U.S. Patent No. 12,373,759; specifically A non-transitory machine-readable storage medium, comprising executable instructions that, when executed by a processor, facilitate performance of operations, comprising:
selecting a group of variable performance metrics corresponding to features of a first trained model, wherein the selecting employs a second trained model to indicate features of the first trained model that are predicted to have a greater effect on a performance of the first trained model;
determining a group of temporal stability measurements based on analysis of the first trained model relative to variable performance metric of the group of variable performance metrics, wherein the first trained model is affected by temporal generalization of the first trained model, the group of temporal stability measurements corresponding to effects of the features on the temporal generalization of the model over time;
determining a feature-target relationship for the first trained model based on the group of temporal stability measurements, including generating a group of mutations of the first trained model, respective mutations of the group of mutations modifying the features based on the features corresponding to elevated temporal effect of the features on temporal stability of the model, wherein the modifying comprises one of pruning the feature, replacing the features with new features, weighting a feature value associated with the features, or combinations thereof, to identify the first trained model as a current model susceptible to temporal generalization;
determining a third trained model based on the first trained model and a mutation selected from the group of mutations, wherein the mutation is selected based on a temporal stability measurement of the group of temporal stability measurements to reduce a susceptibility to temporal generalization; and
generating an indication of a preferred updated model, the preferred updated model selected automatically to replace the first trained model to mitigate the temporal generalization of the first trained model, wherein the preferred updated model comprises one mutation of the group of mutations, and
replacing the first trained model with the preferred updated model according to the indication to thereby mitigate the temporal generalization of the first trained model.
determining the temporal stability measurement comprises performing a fixed-point calculation for a feature corresponding to the variable performance metric and a time window calculation for the feature corresponding to the variable performance metric, wherein the fixed-point calculation is performed for a static time value, and wherein the time window calculation is performed for at least one time window.
a variable performance metric corresponding to a feature of the model affected by temporal generalization of the model; determining, based on a behavior of the variable performance metric as a function of time, a temporal stability measurement, the temporal stability measurement indicating an effect of the feature on the temporal generalization of the model over time,
Claim 13 is drawn to claim 16 of U.S. Patent No. 12,373,759.
Claim 14 is drawn to claim 19 of U.S. Patent No. 12,373,759.
Claim 16 is drawn to claims 1 and 3 of U.S. Patent No. 12,373,759.
Claim 17 is drawn to claim 14 of U.S. Patent No. 12,373,759; specifically A method, comprising:
selecting, by a processor of a system, a group of variable performance metrics corresponding to features of a first trained model, wherein the selecting employs a second trained model to indicate features of the first trained model that are predicted to have more influence on a performance of the first trained model;
determining, by the processor, a group of temporal stability measurements based on analysis of the first trained model relative to variable performance metric of the group of variable performance metrics, wherein the first trained model is affected by temporal generalization of the first trained model, the group of temporal stability measurements corresponding to effects of the features on the temporal generalization of the model over time;
determining, by the processor, a feature-target relationship for the first trained model for the features based on the group of temporal stability measurements, including generating mutations of the model, the mutations modifying the features based on the features corresponding to an elevated temporal effect of the features on temporal stability of the first trained model, wherein the modifying comprises one of pruning the features, replacing the features with new features, weighting a feature value associated with the features, or combinations thereof, to identify the first trained model as a current model experiencing temporal generalization; and
generating, by the processor, an indication of a preferred updated model, the preferred updated model automatically selected to replace the first trained model in order to mitigate the temporal generalization of the first trained model, wherein the preferred updated model comprises one mutation of the mutations, and
replacing, by the processor, the first trained model with the preferred updated model according to the indication to thereby mitigate the temporal generalization of the first trained model.
Claim 18 is drawn to claim 18 of U.S. Patent No. 12,373,759.
Claim 19 is drawn to claim 14 of U.S. Patent No. 12,373,759.
Claim 20 is drawn to claim 19 of U.S. Patent No. 12,373,759.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
The Examiner does not find support for the limitation of normalizing the variable performance metrics across the plurality of time periods prior to computing the temporal stability measurement.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. The cited prior art generally refers to genetic algorithms and model update based on measuring performance of a model as well as associated methods and systems.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DYLAN C WHITE whose telephone number is (571)272-1406. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7:30-4:00 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, Beth Boswell can be reached at (571)272-6737. 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.
/DYLAN C WHITE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3625 September 1, 2026
Prosecution Insights