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 .
Response to Amendment
This office action is responsive to amendment filed on 02/23/2026. Claims 1-30 are pending.
Response to Arguments
In respond to applicant’s argument regarding rejection under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) on page 1, “Claims 10, 23, and 30 are amended in manners consistent with the Examiner’s understanding”.
While Examiner agrees that Applicant has addressed some of the rejection under 112(b), but Applicant fails to address some of the rejection made in previous OA. See rejection below for details.
In response to applicant’s request for the Double Patenting rejection be held in abeyance until the claims of the copending application have been patented.
Examiner respectfully refused such request and maintain the double patent rejection because as the time of this OA, the co-pending application have not been patented.
Applicant’s arguments, see Remarks page 6-10, filed on 02/23/2026, with respect to rejections under 35 U.S.C. 101 patent eligibility have been fully considered and are persuasive. The rejection under 35 U.S.C. 101 has been withdrawn because the claims are directed to method for using a plurality of machine learning models to generate high quality synthetic data and iteratively update hyperparameter until the objective function value reaches an optimal value, which is similar to Desjardins case, where the improvement is reflected by the limitation of adjusting the first values of the plurality of parameters to optimize performance of the machine learning model on the second machine learning task. Thus, as shown in the specification figure 15, the claimed invention involves a feedback-driven hyperparameter optimization loop that controls two different machine learning models with distinct roles, and the multi-model pipeline dynamically update hyperparameter as described in steps (G) and (H) of independent claims. Accordingly, the independent claims recite limitations that reflect the kind of model improvement parameter adjustment hold eligible in Desjardins.
Double Patenting
A rejection based on double patenting of the “same invention” type finds its support in the language of 35 U.S.C. 101 which states that “whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process... may obtain a patent therefor...” (Emphasis added). Thus, the term “same invention,” in this context, means an invention drawn to identical subject matter. See Miller v. Eagle Mfg. Co., 151 U.S. 186 (1894); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Ockert, 245 F.2d 467, 114 USPQ 330 (CCPA 1957).
A statutory type (35 U.S.C. 101) double patenting rejection can be overcome by canceling or amending the claims that are directed to the same invention so they are no longer coextensive in scope. The filing of a terminal disclaimer cannot overcome a double patenting rejection based upon 35 U.S.C. 101.
Claims 1-30 are provisionally rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 as claiming the same invention as that of claim 1-30 of copending Application No. 18/966,543 (reference application). This is a provisional statutory double patenting rejection since the claims directed to the same invention have not in fact been patented.
Claims 1-30 of the instant application and claims 1-30 of co-pending application 18/966,543 are identical, respectively.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(b)
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.
Claim 30 is 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.
Claim 30 lines 8-9 recite “the sixth machine learning model”. There is lack of antecedent basis for such limitation. For examination purposes, Examiner interprets such limitation as “the third machine learning model”.
Claim 30 line 11-12 recites “the first conditional probability distribution and the second conditional probability distribution”. There is lack of antecedent basis for such limitation. For examination purposes, Examiner interprets such limitations as “the first target value and the second target value” as antecedently recited and similar to claim 21.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 HUY DUONG whose telephone number is (571)272-2764. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Friday 7:30-5:30.
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, Andrew Caldwell can be reached at (571) 272-3702. 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.
/HUY DUONG/Examiner, Art Unit 2182 (571)272-2764
/ANDREW CALDWELL/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2182