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 .
DETAILED ACTION
This office action is in response to the communication filed on 5/26/2026.
Claims 1-6, 9-17, and 19 have been examined.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments 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.
All objections and rejections not set forth below have been withdrawn.
Specification
The specification is objected to as failing to provide proper antecedent basis for the claimed subject matter. See 37 CFR 1.75(d)(1) and MPEP § 608.01(o). Correction of the following is required:
The claim 1 has been amended to add “applying an arbitration logic to derive a result with a relatively high reliability among the identified conflicting verification results” The portion of the specification pointed to by the applicants discusses “relatively higher reliability” and does not mention “relatively high reliability”. While the difference may seem minor, they are quite different in their meaning and in their scope. Furthermore, the specification is silent with respect to “…reliability among the identified conflicting verification results”. The specification does not discuss to what the “relatively high reliability” is directed. It certainly does not state that it is “relatively high reliability among the identified conflicting verification results”. The examiner has reviewed the specification and can find no support for such language. As such, the specification is objected to for failing to provide proper antecedent basis for the claimed subject matter.
The claim 12 has been amended to add “applying an arbitration logic to derive a result with a relatively higher reliability among the identified conflicting verification results” The specification is silent with respect to “…reliability among the identified conflicting verification results”. The specification does not discuss to what the “relatively higher reliability” is directed. It certainly does not state that it is “relatively higher reliability among the identified conflicting verification results”. The examiner has reviewed the specification and can find no support for such language. As such, the specification is objected to for failing to provide proper antecedent basis for the claimed subject matter.
The claims have been amended to add “…computing a composite score based on weighted factors applied to the verification results from the plurality of micro verification engines”. The applicant has not pointed to any particular portion of the specification as providing support for such an amendment. The examiner has reviewed the specification and can find no support for such language. As such, the specification is objected to for failing to provide proper antecedent basis for the claimed subject matter.
The claims have been amended to add “establish an optimized verification plan…when an incremental update of the artificial intelligence mode is made”. The portion of the specification pointed to by the applicants does not provide support for this language. The specification is silent as to what has been incrementally updated, and certainly does not teach that it is the artificial intelligence model that has been incrementally updated. The examiner has reviewed the specification and can find no support for such language. As such, the specification is objected to for failing to provide proper antecedent basis for the claimed subject matter.
Claim 1 has been amended to add “establish an optimized verification plan…to coordinate the execution of the plurality of micro verification engines”. The portion of the specification pointed to by the applicants fail in providing full support for such an amendment. While this portion of the specification mentions that “the system may…coordinate the execution of the plurality of micro verification engines” the specification does not support that this coordination is performed by establishing an optimized verification plan. The examiner has reviewed the specification and can find no support for such language. As such, the specification is objected to for failing to provide proper antecedent basis for the claimed subject matter.
Claim 12 has been amended to add “wherein the execution of the plurality of micro verification engines is coordinated in accordance with the optimized verification plan”. The portion of the specification pointed to by the applicants fail in providing full support for such an amendment. While this portion of the specification mentions that “the system may…coordinate the execution of the plurality of micro verification engines” the specification does not support that this coordination is performed in accordance with the optimized verification plan. The examiner has reviewed the specification and can find no support for such language. As such, the specification is objected to for failing to provide proper antecedent basis for the claimed subject matter.
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.
Claims 1-6, 9-17 and 19 are 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 claims contain 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, at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
The claim 1 has been amended to add “applying an arbitration logic to derive a result with a relatively high reliability among the identified conflicting verification results” The portion of the specification pointed to by the applicants discusses “relatively higher reliability” and does not mention “relatively high reliability”. While the difference may seem minor, they are quite different in their meaning and in their scope. Furthermore, the specification is silent with respect to “…reliability among the identified conflicting verification results”. The specification does not discuss to what the “relatively high reliability” is directed. It certainly does not state that it is “relatively high reliability among the identified conflicting verification results”. The examiner has reviewed the specification and can find no support for such language. As such, the person having ordinary skill in the art would not be able to ascertain whether, at the time of filing, the applicants were in possession of the invention as claimed. Therefore, the claims are rejected for failing to meet the written description requirement of 35 USC 112(a).
The claim 12 has been amended to add “applying an arbitration logic to derive a result with a relatively higher reliability among the identified conflicting verification results” The specification is silent with respect to “…reliability among the identified conflicting verification results”. The specification does not discuss to what the “relatively higher reliability” is directed. It certainly does not state that it is “relatively higher reliability among the identified conflicting verification results”. The examiner has reviewed the specification and can find no support for such language. As such, the person having ordinary skill in the art would not be able to ascertain whether, at the time of filing, the applicants were in possession of the invention as claimed. Therefore, the claims are rejected for failing to meet the written description requirement of 35 USC 112(a).
The claims have been amended to add “…computing a composite score based on weighted factors applied to the verification results from the plurality of micro verification engines”. The applicant has not pointed to any particular portion of the specification as providing support for such an amendment. The examiner has reviewed the specification and can find no support for such language. As such, the person having ordinary skill in the art would not be able to ascertain whether, at the time of filing, the applicants were in possession of the invention as claimed. Therefore, the claims are rejected for failing to meet the written description requirement of 35 USC 112(a).
The claims have been amended to add “establish an optimized verification plan…when an incremental update of the artificial intelligence mode is made”. The portion of the specification pointed to by the applicants does not provide support for this language. The specification is silent as to what has been incrementally updated, and certainly does not teach that it is the artificial intelligence model that has been incrementally updated. The examiner has reviewed the specification and can find no support for such language. As such, the person having ordinary skill in the art would not be able to ascertain whether, at the time of filing, the applicants were in possession of the invention as claimed. Therefore, the claims are rejected for failing to meet the written description requirement of 35 USC 112(a).
Claim 1 has been amended to add “establish an optimized verification plan…to coordinate the execution of the plurality of micro verification engines”. The portion of the specification pointed to by the applicants fail in providing full support for such an amendment. While this portion of the specification mentions that “the system may…coordinate the execution of the plurality of micro verification engines” the specification does not support that this coordination is performed by establishing an optimized verification plan. The examiner has reviewed the specification and can find no support for such language. As such, the person having ordinary skill in the art would not be able to ascertain whether, at the time of filing, the applicants were in possession of the invention as claimed. Therefore, the claims are rejected for failing to meet the written description requirement of 35 USC 112(a).
Claim 12 has been amended to add “wherein the execution of the plurality of micro verification engines is coordinated in accordance with the optimized verification plan”. The portion of the specification pointed to by the applicants fail in providing full support for such an amendment. While this portion of the specification mentions that “the system may…coordinate the execution of the plurality of micro verification engines” the specification does not support that this coordination is performed in accordance with the optimized verification plan. The examiner has reviewed the specification and can find no support for such language. As such, the person having ordinary skill in the art would not be able to ascertain whether, at the time of filing, the applicants were in possession of the invention as claimed. Therefore, the claims are rejected for failing to meet the written description requirement of 35 USC 112(a).
All claims depending from any of the above rejected claims are also rejected by virtue of their dependence upon their respective rejected parent claim(s).
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-6, 9-17, and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
The term “relatively high reliability” in claim 1 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “relatively high reliability” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. It would not be possible based upon the claim language or the specification as to how high the reliability needs to be in order to achieve “relatively high reliability”. And further, the claim does not indicate to what the reliability is relatively high. In other words, the reliability is high relative to what? As such, the scope of the claim cannot be determined.
The term “relatively higher reliability” in claim 12 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “relatively higher reliability” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. It would not be possible based upon the claim language or the specification as to how much higher the reliability needs to be in order to achieve “relatively higher reliability”. And further, the claim does not indicate to what the reliability is relatively higher than. In other words, the reliability is higher relative to what? As such, the scope of the claim cannot be determined.
Conclusion
Claims 1-6, 9-17 and 19 have been rejected.
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
US 2024/0273411 taught mechanisms for enforcing compliance with artificial intelligence (AI) and machine learning (ML) regulatory frameworks. The AI regulatory enforcement mechanisms are capable of testing AI systems for quality, accuracy, and robustness, as well as for compliance with AI regulatory requirements. AI regulatory enforcement mechanisms provide restrictions and safeguards by controlling actions of AI systems and/or other components to prevent erroneous or biased AI system predictions from being used, and potentially causing harm to individuals or objects. The AI regulatory enforcement mechanisms ensure that AI systems function in ways that are secure, trustworthy, and ethical.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MATTHEW T HENNING whose telephone number is (571)272-3790. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9AM-3PM 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, William Korzuch can be reached at (571)272-7589. 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.
/MATTHEW T HENNING/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2491
Prosecution Insights