DETAILED ACTION
This action is responsive to the communication filed on 10/22/2025. Claims 1-22 are pending in the case. Claims 1, 13, and 22 are independent claims.
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 Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 10/22/2025, with respect to the 35 U.S.C 101 rejections have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that the claims do not recite an abstract idea. Applicant concludes that the claims do not recite a mental process because they do not contain limitations that can practically be performed in the human mind because the mind is not equipped to perform the complex operations in the claim.
Examiner disagrees. As pointed out in the rejection that at least the independent claim recites the abstract idea of “detecting a missing event…”. Such a limitation describes an evaluation about data which can be made in the human mind. Applicant provides no rational as to why detecting of missing data cannot be performed in the mind beyond an assertion that it is complex. On the contrary, detecting missing data as claimed does not appear to be accompanied by any additional limitations to suggest that the detection cannot be an evaluation in the human mind. Merely being connected generally to computer technology does not suggest that the detection of events is not a process which can be performed in the mind.
Applicant argues the claim as a whole recites an improvement to any recited judicial exception. Applicant argues the claims impose a meaningful limit on the judicial exception. Applicant argues the claim includes an additional element which reflects an improvement in the functioning of a technology. Specifically, on pg 10-11 of the Remarks applicant cites sections of the specification to assert that the claims account for the missing event and optimize the neural network based on the profile data and specifically underlines “detecting a missing event…” and “generating a profile of the neural network operations” as the claimed features which realize the improvement.
Examiner disagrees. Critically, these limitations are identified in the rejection as being the judicial exception as they can be performed in the mind. As addressed above, Applicant has not provided any rational that such limitation cannot be performed in the mind beyond an assertion that they are too complex. As best understood, the specification describes the detecting in para 0028 in which it involves determining an operation does not match an execution sequence. No details about the operation or execution sequence are provided to suggest that this determination cannot be made in the mind. Similarly, the same paragraph describes generating a profile as inserting the missing event. As noted in the MPEP, the abstract idea alone cannot be the basis for any improvement in the technology and further the claim does not include any additional elements which reflect the improvement because as demonstrated by the rejection the only additional element (receiving an event…. And a control program) is insignificant extra solution activity. The rejection is therefore maintained.
Other(s) of applicant’s arguments filed 10/22/2025, with respect to the art rejections, have been fully considered and are persuasive.
Applicant argues the cited art does not teach the claimed amendments.
Examiner agrees. The prior art rejection has 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 1-22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed towards an abstract idea without significantly more.
Regarding claim 1:
Step 1: Claim 1 recites a processor-implemented neural network method, thus a process, one of the four statutory categories of patentable subject matter.
Step 2A Prong 1: However, claim 1 further recites the limitations “detecting a missing event not included in an execution sequence comprised in the control program, based on the event and the control program; and generating a profile of the neural network operation by inserting the missing event into the profile in response to the missing event not being included in the execution sequence, based on whether a type of the missing event is a start event or an end event of the execution sequence.”. The limitations describe a mental process capable of being performed in the human mind (specifically, “detecting a missing event” is a mental process). Thus, the claim recites an abstract idea.
Step 2A Prong 2: The claim also does not recite any additional elements which integrate the abstract idea into a practical application, because the additional elements consist of “receiving an event corresponding to a neural network operation” (which is insignificant extra-solution activity of data gathering, see MPEP 2106.05(g)). Thus, this claim is directed towards the abstract idea.
Step 2B: Finally, the additional elements, taken individually and in combination, do not provide an inventive concept or significantly more than the abstract idea itself because they are well-understood, routine, and conventional activity (“receiving an event” amounts to “receiving or transmitting data over a network” which is recognized by MPEP 2106.05(d)(II)(i) as well-understood, routine, and conventional activity). Therefore, the claim is ineligible.
Regarding claim 2, the rejection of claim 1 is incorporated and further:
Step 2A Prong 1: Regarding Claim 2, this claim is dependent on claim 1, which has abstract ideas.
Step 2A Prong 2: This claim further recites “wherein the event comprises the start event and the end event”. This amounts to applying the judicial exception with a generic technology (i.e., generic instructions) in the field of use/particular technological environment (2106.05(h)). These additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Thus, this claim is directed towards the abstract idea.
Step 2B: Finally, the additional elements, taken individually and in combination, do not provide an inventive concept of significantly more than the abstract idea itself for the reasons set forth in step2A prong 2 above. Therefore, the claim is ineligible.
Regarding claim 3, the rejection of claim 1 is incorporated and further:
Step 2A Prong 1: Regarding Claim 3, this claim is dependent on claim 1, which has abstract ideas.
Step 2A Prong 2: This claim further recites “wherein the execution sequence is of the neural network operation”. This amounts to applying the judicial exception with a generic technology (i.e., generic instructions) in the field of use/particular technological environment (2106.05(h)). These additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Thus, this claim is directed towards the abstract idea.
Step 2B: Finally, the additional elements, taken individually and in combination, do not provide an inventive concept of significantly more than the abstract idea itself for the reasons set forth in step2A prong 2 above. Therefore, the claim is ineligible.
Regarding claim 4, the rejection of claim 1 is incorporated and further:
Step 2A Prong 1: Regarding Claim 4, this claim further recites “determining whether the event matches the execution sequence comprised in the control program; and detecting the missing event based on a result of the determining”. The limitation describes a mental process capable of being performed in the human mind (specifically, “determining whether the event matches an execution sequence” and “detecting the missing event” are mental processes). Thus, the claim recites an abstract idea.
Step 2A Prong 2 and Step 2B: The claim does not recite any additional elements which integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or does not amount to anything significantly more. Therefore, the claim is ineligible.
Regarding claim 5, the rejection of claim 1 is incorporated and further:
Step 2A Prong 1: Regarding Claim 5, this claim further recites “determining a type of the missing event; and generating the profile by compensating for the missing event based on the determined type”. The limitations describe a mental process capable of being performed in the human mind. Thus, the claim recites an abstract idea.
Step 2A Prong 2 and Step 2B: The claim does not recite any additional elements which integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or does not amount to anything significantly more. Therefore, the claim is ineligible.
Regarding claim 6, the rejection of claim 5 is incorporated and further:
Step 2A Prong 1: Regarding Claim 6, this claim further recites “in response to the type of missing event being a start event, inserting the start event into the profile at a time determined by subtracting a first time amount from a subsequent event of the missing event”. The limitations describe a mental process capable of being performed in the human mind (specifically, “inserting the start event into the profile” is a mental process). Thus, the claim recites an abstract idea.
Step 2A Prong 2 and Step 2B: The claim does not recite any additional elements which integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or does not amount to anything significantly more. Therefore, the claim is ineligible.
Regarding claim 7, the rejection of claim 6 is incorporated and further:
Step 2A Prong 1: Regarding Claim 7, this claim is dependent on claim 6, which has abstract ideas.
Step 2A Prong 2: This claim further recites “wherein the subsequent event is an end event”. This amounts to applying the judicial exception with a generic technology (i.e., generic instructions) in the field of use/particular technological environment (2106.05(h)). These additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Thus, this claim is directed towards the abstract idea.
Step 2B: Finally, the additional elements, taken individually and in combination, do not provide an inventive concept of significantly more than the abstract idea itself for the reasons set forth in step2A prong 2 above. Therefore, the claim is ineligible.
Regarding claim 8, the rejection of claim 5 is incorporated and further:
Step 2A Prong 1: Regarding Claim 8, this claim further recites “determining whether the neural network operation overlaps an event corresponding to another operation; and inserting the end event into the profile based on a result of the determining”. The limitations describe a mental process capable of being performed in the human mind. Thus, the claim recites an abstract idea.
Step 2A Prong 2 and Step 2B: The claim does not recite any additional elements which integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or does not amount to anything significantly more. Therefore, the claim is ineligible.
Regarding claim 9, the rejection of claim 8 is incorporated and further:
Step 2A Prong 1: Regarding Claim 9, this claim further recites “in response to a determination the the neural network operation overlaps the even corresponding to the other operation inserting the end event in a portion from which the overlapping starts”. The limitations describe a mental process capable of being performed in the human mind (specifically, “inserting the end event” is a mental process). Thus, the claim recites an abstract idea.
Step 2A Prong 2 and Step 2B: The claim does not recite any additional elements which integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or does not amount to anything significantly more. Therefore, the claim is ineligible.
Regarding claim 10, the rejection of claim 8 is incorporated and further:
Step 2A Prong 1: Regarding Claim 10, this claim further recites “in response to a determination that the neural network operation does not overlap the event corresponding to the other operation, inserting the end event at a time determined by subtracting a second time amount from a subsequent event of the missing event”. The limitations describe a mental process capable of being performed in the human mind (specifically, “inserting the end event at a time determined by subtracting” is a mental process). Thus, the claim recites an abstract idea.
Step 2A Prong 2 and Step 2B: The claim does not recite any additional elements which integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or does not amount to anything significantly more. Therefore, the claim is ineligible.
Regarding claim 11, the rejection of claim 1 is incorporated and further:
Step 2A Prong 1: Regarding Claim 11, this claim further recites “optimizing the neural network operation based on the generated profile” and “performing inference using the optimized neural network operation”. The limitations describe a mental process capable of being performed in the human mind. Thus, the claim recites an abstract idea.
Step 2A Prong 2: This claim further recites “the neural network operation comprises any one of a convolution, a padding, a pooling, and a reformatting”. This amounts to applying the judicial exception with a generic technology (i.e., generic instructions) in the field of use/particular technological environment (2106.05(h)). These additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Thus, this claim is directed towards the abstract idea.
Step 2B: Finally, the additional elements, taken individually and in combination, do not provide an inventive concept of significantly more than the abstract idea itself for the reasons set forth in step2A prong 2 above. Therefore, the claim is ineligible.
Regarding claim 12, the rejection of claim 1 is incorporated and further:
Step 2A Prong 1: Regarding Claim 12, this claim is dependent on claim 1, which has abstract ideas.
Step 2A Prong 2: The claim recites a processor. The processor is a generic computer component performing generic computer functions (2106.5(f)) in addition “configure the processor to perform” is employed to perform the judicial exceptions therefore amounts to the mere instruction to apply the judicial exception (2106.05(f)). These additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Thus, this claim is directed towards the abstract idea.
Step 2B: Finally, the additional elements, taken individually and in combination, do not provide an inventive concept of significantly more than the abstract idea itself for the reasons set forth in step 2A prong 2 above. Therefore, the claim is ineligible.
Regarding claim 13:
Step 1: Claim 13 recites a neural network apparatus, thus a machine, one of the four statutory categories of patentable subject matter.
Step 2A Prong 1: However, claim 1 further recites the limitations “detect a missing event based on the event and the control program; and generate a profile of the neural network operation based on a result of the detecting”. The limitations describe a mental process capable of being performed in the human mind. Thus, the claim recites an abstract idea.
Step 2A Prong 2: The claim recites a processor and a receiver. The processor and receiver are generic computer components performing generic computer functions (2106.5(f)) in addition “performing the neural network operation” is employed to perform the judicial exceptions therefore amounts to the mere instruction to apply the judicial exception (2106.05(f)). The claim also does not recite any additional elements which integrate the abstract idea into a practical application, because the additional elements consist of “receive an event corresponding to a neural network operation” (which is insignificant extra-solution activity of data gathering, see MPEP 2106.05(g)). Thus, this claim is directed towards the abstract idea.
Step 2B: Finally, the additional elements, taken individually and in combination, do not provide an inventive concept or significantly more than the abstract idea itself because they are well-understood, routine, and conventional activity (“receive an event” is similar to “receiving or transmitting data over a network” which is recognized by MPEP 2106.05(d)(II)(i) as well-understood, routine, and conventional activity). Therefore, the claim is ineligible.
Regarding claim 14, the rejection of claim 13 is incorporated and further:
The claim is rejected for the reasons set forth in the rejection of claim 2 in connection with claim 13
Regarding claim 15, the rejection of claim 13 is incorporated and further:
The claim is rejected for the reasons set forth in the rejection of claim 3 in connection with claim 13
Regarding claim 16, the rejection of claim 13 is incorporated and further:
The claim is rejected for the reasons set forth in the rejection of claim 4 in connection with claim 13
Regarding claim 17, the rejection of claim 13 is incorporated and further:
The claim is rejected for the reasons set forth in the rejection of claim 5 in connection with claim 13
Regarding claim 18, the rejection of claim 17 is incorporated and further:
The claim is rejected for the reasons set forth in the rejection of claim 6 in connection with claim 13
Regarding claim 19, the rejection of claim 17 is incorporated and further:
The claim is rejected for the reasons set forth in the rejection of claim 8 in connection with claim 13
Regarding claim 20, the rejection of claim 19 is incorporated and further:
The claim is rejected for the reasons set forth in the rejection of claim 9 in connection with claim 13
Regarding claim 21, the rejection of claim 19 is incorporated and further:
The claim is rejected for the reasons set forth in the rejection of claim 10 in connection with claim 13
Regarding claim 22:
Step 1: Claim 22 recites a processor-implemented neural network method, thus a process, one of the four statutory categories of patentable subject matter.
Step 2A Prong 1: However, claim 22 further recites the limitations “detecting a missing event by determining that an event corresponding to a neural network operation does not match an execution sequence included in a control program for performing the neural network operation; and generating a profile of the neural network operation by inserting the missing event of the profile based on a type of the missing event”. The limitations describe a mental process capable of being performed in the human mind. Thus, the claim recites an abstract idea.
Step 2A Prong 2 and Step 2B: The claim does not recite any additional elements which integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or does not amount to anything significantly more. Therefore, the claim is ineligible.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-22 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 101, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
From independent claim 1:
detecting a missing event not included in an execution sequence comprised in the control program, …
and generating a profile of the neural network operation by inserting the missing event into the profile in response to the missing event not being included in the execution sequence, based on whether a type of the missing event is a start event or an end event of the execution sequence
The closes prior art of Record, Xing et al. “Dnnvm: end-to-end compiler leveraging heterogeneous optimizations on FPGA-based Cnn accelerators” describes inserting start and end event into a neural network profile, the inserted events are not inserted in response to the detected missing events not being included in an execution sequence. Further, Huang et al “Precise and Maximal Race Detection from Incomplete Traces” describes checking for race conditions and missing events in an execution sequence but does not insert those missing events into a neural network profile based on the events not being included in the execution sequence. Further still, Nguyen “Neural Computing for Event Log Quality Improvement” describes a neural network which both a neural network for detecting and removing events and separately a neural network for reconstructing missing events in an event log. Nguyen does not address inserting missing event based into a profile of a neural network based on whether a type of missing event is a start or end event. It would not have been obvious to one or ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing data to combine these references to teach at least the limitations above.
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 extension fee 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 JOHNATHAN R GERMICK whose telephone number is (571)272-8363. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7:30-4:30.
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, Kakali Chaki can be reached on 571-272-3719. 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.
/J.R.G./
Examiner, Art Unit 2122
/KAKALI CHAKI/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2122
Prosecution Insights