The present application, filed on or after 16 March 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
DETAILED ACTION
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 29 November 2025 has been entered.
THIS ACTION IS NON- FINAL.
Status of Claims
Claims 1-20 are pending.
Claims 1-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 for being directed to software per se.
Claim 15-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 for being directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more.
There is no art rejection for claims 1-20.
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.
Non-Statutory Subject Matter
Claims 1-14 are directed to non-statutory subject matter. The claim(s) does/do not fall within at least one of the four categories of patent eligible subject matter because the claim is directed to software per se., as the system claimed could be software according to specification p.1,
PNG
media_image1.png
185
862
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Judicial Exception
Claims 15-20 of the claimed invention are directed to a judicial exception, an abstract idea, without significantly more.
Regarding claims 15-19,
(Independent Claims) With regards to claim 15, the claim recites a process, which falls into one of the statutory categories.
2A – Prong 1: Claim 15, in part, recites “changing said AI system trained neural network between a first state and a second state, wherein: in said first state said AI system trained neural network categorizes events in a first category type by said trained neural network;- upon categorizing a first event in a predefined category of said first category type, said AI system trained neural network is set to said second state, and in said second state said AI system trained neural network categorizes subsequent events in a second category type” (mental process and/or math concept), as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components. That is, other than reciting a computing device, nothing in the claim element precludes the step from practically being performed in the mind. For example, but for the language about generic computer components, “changing”, “categorizes”, in the limitation citied above encompasses observing / processing / categorizing event data using abstract model (neural network ) processing via inserting activation function and model pruning which is based on observation, evaluation, judgement, and/or opinion, that could be performed by human using paper / pen / calculator. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
2A – Prong 2: This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim recites the additional element of using generic computer elements (like processor, program stored in computer readable medium to be executed by processor) (merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea, MPEP 2106.05(f)), which is recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as a generic processor performing a generic computer function of state transition probability calculation) such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. There is no additional elements showing integration of the abstract idea into a practical application and/or providing anything significantly more to the abstract idea. The claim is directed to an abstract idea.
2B Analysis: The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above, the use of one or more generic computer element is merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea (MPEP 2106.05(f)). Hence the additional elements do not add anything significant to the abstract idea. The claim is not patent eligible.
(Dependent claims)
Claims 16-19 are dependent on claim 15 and include all the limitations of claim 15. Therefore, claims 16-19 recite the same abstract ideas.
With regards to claim 16, the claim recites further limitations “wherein said Al system comprises a series of states comprising said first and second state, wherein each of said states comprises a category type, resulting in a series of category types comprising said first and second category type, wherein: - said Al system is in said first state and said trained neural network categorizes events in a first category type; - upon categorizing a first event in a predefined category of said first category type, said Al system is set to said second state, and - in said second state said trained neural network categorizes subsequent events in a second category type”, which is further limitations for classification event data processing with abstract model and does not include additional elements to show integration into a practical application nor does it add anything sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the additional elements when considered both individually and as an ordered combination do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. The claim is not patent eligible.
With regards to claim 17, the claim recites further limitations “wherein said AI system changes between states of said series of state”, which is further limitations for classification event data processing with abstract model and does not include additional elements to show integration into a practical application nor does it add anything sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the additional elements when considered both individually and as an ordered combination do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. The claim is not patent eligible.
With regards to claim 18, the claim recites further limitations “wherein at least one category type of at least one of said states comprises a series of said predefined categories, each predefined category linking to at least one of said states, wherein categorizing of an event in one of said predefined categories sets said AI system to another of said series of states”, which is further limitations for classification event data processing with abstract model and does not include additional elements to show integration into a practical application nor does it add anything sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the additional elements when considered both individually and as an ordered combination do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. The claim is not patent eligible.
With regards to claim 19, the claim recites further limitations “wherein if said AI system is in said second state and upon categorizing a second event in a further predefined category of said second category type, then said AI system is set to said first state”, which is further limitations for classification event data processing with abstract model and does not include additional elements to show integration into a practical application nor does it add anything sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the additional elements when considered both individually and as an ordered combination do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. The claim is not patent eligible.
Regarding claim 20, the claim recites an article of manufacturing, which falls into one of the statutory categories.
2A – Prong 1: the claim, in part, recites “sets said AI system trained neural network in said first state; … said trained neural network categorizing said events in a first category type; upon categorizing one of said events as said first event in a predefined category of said first category type, sets said AI system trained neural network to said second state, and … deducts subsequent events from said data; said trained neural network in said second state categorizes said subsequent events in a second category type” (mental process and/or math concept), as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components. That is, other than reciting a computing device, nothing in the claim element precludes the step from practically being performed in the mind. For example, but for the language about generic computer components, “sets”, “deducts”, “categorizing”, “categorizes”, in the limitation citied above encompasses observing / processing / categorizing event data using abstract model (neural network ) processing via inserting activation function and model pruning which is based on observation, evaluation, judgement, and/or opinion, that could be performed by human using paper / pen / calculator. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
2A – Prong 2: This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim recites the additional element of: (a) using generic computer elements (like processor, program stored in computer readable medium to be executed by processor) (merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea, MPEP 2106.05(f)); (b) “receives data”, “receives subsequent data” (insignificant extra solution activity, MPEP 2106(g)). For (a), these computer components are recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as a generic processor performing a generic computer function of state transition probability calculation) such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. For (b), these steps are insignificant extra solution activity, like mere data gathering, MPEP.2106.05(g). There is no additional elements showing integration of the abstract idea into a practical application and/or providing anything significantly more to the abstract idea. The claim is directed to an abstract idea.
2B Analysis: The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above, the use of one or more generic computer element is merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea (MPEP 2106.05(f)). the additional element of “receives data”, “receives subsequent data”, which is recited at a high level of generality and amounts to extra-solution activity of receiving data i.e. pre-solution activity of gathering data for use in the claimed process. The courts have found limitations directed to obtaining information electronically, recited at a high level of generality, to be well-understood, routine, and conventional (see MPEP 2106.05(d)(II), “receiving or transmitting data over a network”, "electronic record keeping," and "storing and retrieving information in memory"). Hence the additional elements do not add anything significant to the abstract idea. The claim is not patent eligible.
Regarding claims 1-14,
(Independent Claims) With regards to claim 1, the claim is directed to software per se, which does not fall into one of the statutory categories. As the claim includes a limitation that is directed to an abstract idea, for compact prosecution, 101 analysis is provided below.
2A – Prong 1: the claim, in part, recites “said Al system trained neural network is in a first state for categorizing events in a first category type; upon categorizing of a first event in a predefined category of said first category type by said trained neural network in said first state, said Al system trained neural network is set to said second state, in said second state said Al system trained neural network is set for categorizing subsequent events in a second category” (mental process and/or math concept), as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components. That is, other than reciting a computing device, nothing in the claim element precludes the step from practically being performed in the mind. For example, but for the language about generic computer components, “categorizing”, “set”, in the limitation citied above encompasses observing / processing / categorizing event data using abstract model (neural network ) processing via inserting activation function and model pruning which is based on observation, evaluation, judgement, and/or opinion, that could be performed by human using paper / pen / calculator. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
2A – Prong 2: This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim includes possibly the additional element of using generic computer elements (like processor, program stored in computer readable medium to be executed by processor) (merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea, MPEP 2106.05(f)), which is recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as a generic processor performing a generic computer function of state transition probability calculation) such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. There is no additional elements showing integration of the abstract idea into a practical application and/or providing anything significantly more to the abstract idea. The claim is directed to an abstract idea.
2B Analysis: The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above, the use of one or more generic computer element is merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea (MPEP 2106.05(f)). Hence the additional elements do not add anything significant to the abstract idea. The claim is not patent eligible.
(Dependent claims)
Claims 2-14 are dependent on claim 1 and include all the limitations of claim 1. Therefore, claims 2-14 recite the same abstract ideas.
With regards to claim 2, the claim recites further limitations “wherein said trained neural network in said second state categorizes said events functionally real-time” which is further limitations for classification event data processing with abstract model and does not include additional elements to show integration into a practical application nor does it add anything sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the additional elements when considered both individually and as an ordered combination do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. The claim is not patent eligible.
With regards to claim 3, the claim recites further limitations “wherein said trained neural network in said first and second state categorizes said events functionally real-time” which is further limitations for classification event data processing with abstract model and does not include additional elements to show integration into a practical application nor does it add anything sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the additional elements when considered both individually and as an ordered combination do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. The claim is not patent eligible.
With regards to claim 4, the claim recites further limitations “wherein upon categorizing said subsequent event in a predefined category of said second category type by said trained neural network, said Al system returns to said first stat”, which is further limitations for classification event data processing with abstract model and does not include additional elements to show integration into a practical application nor does it add anything sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the additional elements when considered both individually and as an ordered combination do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. The claim is not patent eligible.
With regards to claim 5, the claim recites further limitations “wherein in said second state said Al system for categorizing an event uses at least one selected from: - different system resources; - different data; - more system resources; - more time; - more energy; - more data; - less system resources; - less time; - less energy; - less data, and - a combination thereof, in comparison to categorizing an event in said first state” which is further limitations for classification event data processing with abstract model and does not include additional elements to show integration into a practical application nor does it add anything sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the additional elements when considered both individually and as an ordered combination do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. The claim is not patent eligible.
With regards to claim 6, the claim recites further limitations “wherein said Al system comprises a series of states comprising said first and second state, and wherein each of said states comprises a category type, resulting in a series of category types comprising said first and second category type” events in a first category type; - upon categorizing a first event in a predefined category of said first category type, said Al system is set to said second state, and - in said second state said Al system categorizes subsequent events in a second category type”, which is further limitations for classification event data processing with abstract model and does not include additional elements to show integration into a practical application nor does it add anything sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the additional elements when considered both individually and as an ordered combination do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. The claim is not patent eligible.
With regards to claim 7, the claim recites further limitations “wherein said Al system changes between states of said series of states” events in a first category type; - upon categorizing a first event in a predefined category of said first category type, said Al system is set to said second state, and - in said second state said Al system categorizes subsequent events in a second category type”, which is further limitations for classification event data processing with abstract model and does not include additional elements to show integration into a practical application nor does it add anything sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the additional elements when considered both individually and as an ordered combination do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. The claim is not patent eligible.
With regards to claim 8, the claim recites further limitations “wherein each category type of each of said series of states comprises at least one predefined category, and wherein categorizing an event in said predefined category results in a change of state” events in a first category type; - upon categorizing a first event in a predefined category of said first category type, said Al system is set to said second state, and - in said second state said Al system categorizes subsequent events in a second category type”, which is further limitations for classification event data processing with abstract model and does not include additional elements to show integration into a practical application nor does it add anything sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the additional elements when considered both individually and as an ordered combination do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. The claim is not patent eligible.
With regards to claim 9, the claim recites further limitations “wherein at least one category type of at least one of said states comprises a series of said predefined categories, each predefined category linking to at least one of said states, wherein categorizing of an event in one of said predefined categories causes said Al system to be set another of said series of states” which is further limitations for classification event data processing with abstract model and does not include additional elements to show integration into a practical application nor does it add anything sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the additional elements when considered both individually and as an ordered combination do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. The claim is not patent eligible.
With regards to claim 10, the claim recites further limitations “further comprising a data input device for providing a stream of data”, which is further limitations for classification event data processing with abstract model, which is an abstract idea.
The claim recites further limitations “wherein a change in said stream of data results in an event in said AI system that is part of said events for categorizing”, which is further limitations for classification model generation, and does not include additional elements to show integration into a practical application nor does it add anything sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the additional elements when considered both individually and as an ordered combination do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. The claim is not patent eligible.
With regards to claim 11, the claim recites further limitations “comprising a plurality of said data input devices for providing said stream of data”, which is further limitations for classification event data processing with abstract model and does not include additional elements to show integration into a practical application nor does it add anything sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the additional elements when considered both individually and as an ordered combination do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. The claim is not patent eligible.
With regards to claim 12, the claim recites further limitations “further comprising a sensor operationally coupled to a said data input device”, which is further limitations for classification event data processing with abstract model and does not include additional elements to show integration into a practical application nor does it add anything sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the additional elements when considered both individually and as an ordered combination do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. The claim is not patent eligible.
With regards to claim 13, the claim recites further limitations “wherein said Al system comprises at least two trained machine learning networks, wherein in said first state said Al system uses a first trained machine learning network of said at least two trained machine learning networks for said categorizing events in said first category type, and in said second state said Al system uses a second trained machine learning network of said at least two trained machine learning networks for said categorizing events in said second category type” which is further limitations for classification event data processing with abstract model and does not include additional elements to show integration into a practical application nor does it add anything sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the additional elements when considered both individually and as an ordered combination do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. The claim is not patent eligible.
With regards to claim 14, the claim recites further limitations: (a) “wherein said Al system comprises a data processor and software stored on non-transitory computer readable medium of said AI system which when running on said data processor” (merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea, MPEP 2106.05(f)); (b) “receives data” (insignificant extra solution activity, MPEP.2106.05(g)); (c) “sets said Al system in said first state; … - deducts events from said data; - categorizing said events in a first category type; - upon categorizing one of said events as said first event in a predefined category of said first category type, sets said Al system to said second state, and - receives subsequent data; - deducts subsequent events from said data; - categorizes said subsequent events in a second category type” (abstract idea). For (a), these computer components are recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as a generic processor performing a generic computer function) which is mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea, as discussed in MPEP 2106.05(f). For (b), these steps are recited at a high level of generality and amounts to extra-solution element for data input / output as described in MPEP.2106.05(g). The courts have found limitations directed to obtaining information electronically, recited at a high level of generality, to be well-understood, routine, and conventional (see MPEP 2106.05(d)(II), “receiving or transmitting data over a network”, "electronic record keeping," and "storing and retrieving information in memory"). For (c) the limitation is further limitations for classification model generation, and does not include additional elements to show integration into a practical application nor does it add anything sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the additional elements when considered both individually and as an ordered combination do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. The claim is not patent eligible.
Response to Argument
Applicant’s arguments filed 19 December 2025 has been fully considered but they are not fully persuasive.
Regarding 101 rejections,
(1)For Software per se rejections, Applicant argued that (p.7-8) ….
PNG
media_image2.png
141
763
media_image2.png
Greyscale
…
Examiner replies: The system claimed in Claim 1 can be computer software, according to specification, p.1:
PNG
media_image1.png
185
862
media_image1.png
Greyscale
The 101 rejection for software per se is maintained.
For 101 judiciary exception rejection,
1)Applicant argued that (p.8) the claim includes neural network that is not an abstract idea, and (p.10-11)
PNG
media_image3.png
306
754
media_image3.png
Greyscale
…
Examiner replies: Neural network model in the claim is abstract data processing models that can be performed by human. Except citing generic computer element to implement the abstract idea, there is no additional element identified adding something significantly more to the abstract idea. Hence the claims are not patent eligible.
2) Applicant argued that (p.9-10) …
PNG
media_image4.png
281
761
media_image4.png
Greyscale
…
PNG
media_image5.png
207
764
media_image5.png
Greyscale
…
Examiner replies: As stated earlier, Neural network is abstract data processing model. Improving an abstract idea is still an abstract idea. There is no additional element identified that add something significantly more to the abstract idea. Hence the claims are not patent eligible.
3) To overcome the issues, suggest Applicant to include additional inventive concept elements into claims: (1) to show integration into a practical application; and/or (2) to show a specific physical implementation that is not WURC; (3) that is not practical for human mind to process and not WURC.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to TSU-CHANG LEE whose telephone number is 571-272-3567. The fax number is 571-273-3567.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Omar Fernandez Rivas, can be reached 571-272-2589.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/TSU-CHANG LEE/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2128