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 .
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 03/02/2026 has been entered.
Examiner’s Note
The Examiner strongly encourages Applicant to schedule an interview to discuss issues related to, for example, the rejections noted below under 35 U.S.C § 112 and 101, for moving toward allowance.
Providing supporting paragraph(s) with a clear explanation for each limitation of amended/new claim(s) in Remarks is strongly requested for clear and definite claim interpretations by Examiner.
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant's claim for the provisional application (62/719,849) filed on 08/20/2018.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed on 03/02/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
In Remarks, pp. 11-31, Applicant contends:
"Obtaining, at the computer system, at least one machine learning model relevant to the problem by generating, at the computer system, a new model based on type, morphology, and parameter information" is not insignificant extra-solution activity or data gathering.
…
The invention provides an improvement to the functioning of a computer under Ex parte Desiardins
…
Accordingly, one of ordinary skill in the art, upon reading the specification, would understand that foregoing the mapping step and unilaterally executing all steps on one of the three layers would be possible but not preferable, or in other words, that mapping each step of the solution plan to one of the plurality of layers based on the task objective provides an improvement to the functioning of a computer compared to the alternatives. Additionally, while the "three layer computing infrastructure ... may provide flexibility and adaptability ... ", one of ordinary skill in the art upon reading the specification would understand that the three layer computing infrastructure requires the mapping step to realize the improvement (flexibility, adaptability, and minimization of unnecessary delay, as understood by one of ordinary skill in the art upon reading the specification.)
Therefore, just as Ex parte Desjardins presented an improvement to the functioning of a computer with a machine learning system, wherein the improvement was set forth in the specification and reflected in the claims, the present invention similarly presents an improvement to the functioning of a computer by "[ minimizing] bias and variance," "[broadening] the applicability of the solution," "[providing] flexibility and adaptability," and minimizing the delay of the workflow. Accordingly, and assuming arguendo that a judicial exception exists, the claimed invention integrates the judicial exception into a practical application. Applicant thusly respectfully submits that the rejection under 35 U.S.C. 101 is overcome and respectfully requests it be withdrawn.
…
The claimed invention integrates the alleged judicial exception into a practical application according to SME Example 47 … Para. [0076] recites a prior treatment method for Parkinson's disease (PD), levodopa (L-DOPA), stating that "Although it is the most effective pharmaceutical treatment for PD to date, L-DOPA can have severe side effects such as dyskinesias and motor fluctuations. Among the dyskinesia adverse effects we can mention tics, writhing movements, dystonias, as well as periods of time when the medication has no effect. Moreover, patients can develop unresponsiveness to L-DOP A requiring increased doses over time, which can lead to more severe side effects."
…
Step 2B … when read in combination, are not well-understood, routine, or conventional activity in the art and therefore recite significantly more. Even if one or more of the additional elements are found to be well-understood, routine, or conventional activity when considered individually, Applicant respectfully submits that the combination of additional elements amounts to an inventive concept (MPEP 2106.05(d)(I)(3)). Furthermore, Applicant respectfully submits that the additional elements, when read in combination, amount to more than a recitation of the words "apply it" or the like; in other words, the combination of the additional elements amount to more than mere instructions to apply the alleged judicial exception.
Examiner’s response:
The examiner understands the applicant’s assertion.
However, it appears that each processing step is just applying the abstract idea to a general field of endeavor with additional elements. In addition, improvements to technology or technical field are not necessarily reflected in the claims. Thus, the claim does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application, and the claim does not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
The examiner understands the applicant’s assertion “"Obtaining, at the computer system, at least one machine learning model relevant to the problem by generating, at the computer system, a new model based on type, morphology, and parameter information" is not insignificant extra-solution activity or data gathering”.
However, the limitation just says “generating … a new model based on type, morphology, and parameter information”. It is not clear what kind of new model is generated and it is not clear what kind of type, morphology, and parameter information are used for what kind of model. Under a broadest reasonable interpretation (BRI), the limitation may be interpreted broadly (e.g., any kind of model (e.g., even a non-ML model) may be generated based on any kind information). Thus, as rejected under Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101, it may be interpreted as an insignificant extra-solution activity. The “obtaining” step may be amended as e.g., “training, at the computer system, at least one machine learning model relevant to the problem by training, at the computer system, a new model” or something else. In addition, in the “determining” and “assembling” steps, “models” may be amended as e.g., “machine learning models” or something else, since it is not clear how generic “models” may be used to generate the “at least one machine learning model”.
The examiner understands the applicant’s assertion “The invention provides an improvement to the functioning of a computer under Ex parte Desiardins … Therefore, just as Ex parte Desjardins presented an improvement to the functioning of a computer with a machine learning system, wherein the improvement was set forth in the specification and reflected in the claims, the present invention similarly presents an improvement to the functioning of a computer by "[minimizing] bias and variance," "[broadening] the applicability of the solution," "[providing] flexibility and adaptability," and minimizing the delay of the workflow. Accordingly, and assuming arguendo that a judicial exception exists, the claimed invention integrates the judicial exception into a practical application. Applicant thusly respectfully submits that the rejection under 35 U.S.C. 101 is overcome and respectfully requests it be withdrawn.”
However, unlike Desiardins, the alleged improvements of the present invention are about "[minimizing] bias and variance," "[broadening] the applicability of the solution," "[providing] flexibility and adaptability," and minimizing the delay of the workflow. Note that “variance” is stated only in par 155, and “bias” is stated only in pars 110 and 155 as a specific feature for “Model Combination”. Thus, it is not clear if [minimizing] bias and variance (e.g., even along with the cosine similarity) is the key improvement of the whole invention. In addition, it is not clear if “mapping each step of the solution plan to one of the plurality of layers based on the task objective provides an improvement to the functioning of a computer compared to the alternatives” is an improvement since it may be known that using some layers instead of all layers may reduce a delay. Furthermore, it appears that "[broadening] the applicability of the solution" and "[providing] flexibility and adaptability" are not actual improvements of the whole invention, but just improvements for the abstract ideas.
The examiner understands the applicant’s assertion “The claimed invention integrates the alleged judicial exception into a practical application according to SME Example 47 … Moreover, patients can develop unresponsiveness to L-DOP A requiring increased doses over time, which can lead to more severe side effects."” and “Accordingly, one of ordinary skill in the art, upon reading the specification, would realize that the claimed invention provides several improvements over prior treatment methods, such as fewer side effects than levodopa treatment, a more effective stimulation approach using the closed-loop system, causal investigation of neural circuitry, and directly testing inferred models of dynamics, connectivity, and causation in vivo.”
However, it is not clear how the last two limitations provide the asserted improvements regarding the “severe side effects”. It appears that “executing the at least one machine learning model” just outputs a signal, but it is not clear how the signal helps prevent/remove/reduce/mitigate the severe side effects toward the asserted improvements. In addition, “wherein the at least one implant device is operable to conduct electrophysiologic and/or optogenetic stimulation based on the at least one signal” may be amended to show how “the at least one implant device” is used for the electrophysiologic and/or optogenetic stimulation. (e.g., the at least one implant device performs/delivers/conducts electrophysiologic and/or optogenetic stimulation.) Currently, it is not clear if the implant device is just possible to conduct the stimulation or the implant device actually conducts the stimulation. Furthermore, “at least one signal” may be amended to indicate what kind of data is predicted by “the at least one machine learning model” to operate the implant device (e.g., to alleviate side effects of medical treatments).
The examiner understands the applicant’s assertion “Step 2B …the combination of the additional elements amount to more than mere instructions to apply the alleged judicial exception.”
However, as rejected as rejected under Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101, when read individually and/or in combination as a whole, the claim does not provide improvements for the whole invention. Thus, the claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
The Remarks states that the claimed invention provides improvements for each technology mentioned above, but details of how the claimed invention provides improvements for those technologies is missing. Showing details of how the claimed invention provides improvements for a specific technology may help overcome the rejections under 35 USC § 101.
It does not appear that the limitations clearly show e.g., improvements in computer technology and improvements to other technical fields. Rather, it appears that the improvements in Remarks are about just improving the abstract ideas of the independent claims. It doesn’t seem that the specification and/or the independent claims clearly show how the inventive concept of the claims enables improvements and how they are tied together. The applicant may need to amend the claims to show how the claim languages and improvements are tied together.
To find a valid improvement to a technology, MPEP 2106.04(d)(1) says the specification must explain the improvement and that the claim must reflect the disclosed improvement. Furthermore, the improvement should not be merely a consequence of the abstract idea. See MPEP 2106.05(a). An improvement in the abstract idea itself is not an improvement to technology.
For at least these reasons, Applicant's arguments are not convincing.
The Examiner encourages Applicant to schedule an interview to discuss issues related to, for example, the rejections noted below under 35 U.S.C § 101.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1, 4, 6-7, 10, 12-13, 16, 18 would be allowable if rewritten or amended to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112 and 35 U.S.C. 101, set forth in this Office action.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: Claims 1, 4, 6-7, 10, 12-13, 16, 18 are considered allowable since when reading the claims in light of the specification, none of the references of record either alone or in combination fairly disclose or suggest the combination of limitations specific in the independent claim including at least:
From independent claim 1, 7, 13:
obtaining, at the computer system, at least one machine learning model relevant to the problem by generating, at the computer system, a new model based on type, morphology, and parameter information, wherein the at least one machine learning model relevant to the problem is further obtained by:
determining, at the computer system, a combination of selected and generated models that produces higher accuracy results than the selected and generated models based on a calculated cosine similarity between results of the selected and generated models, and
assembling, at the computer system, a combination of the selected and generated models based on the determination of the combination of the selected and generated models that produces higher accuracy results than the selected and generated models;
selecting, at the computer system, computing infrastructure upon which to execute the at least one machine learning model relevant to the problem, wherein the selected computing infrastructure comprises a mesh of interconnected applications, wherein the selected computing infrastructure includes at least one framework configured to perform model tuning and hyperparameters optimization using at least Bayesian optimization and metaheuristics, at least one container configured to run stateful services, and at least one graphics processing unit, and wherein each application comprises analog and digital input, event ingestion processing, event consumption processing, event generation processing, and analog and digital output; and
The closest prior art of record, Sun et al. (US 2017/0011308 A1) teaches receiving a description of a problem and applying machine learning to automatically solve the problem. The system receives a description of a problem, and assigning, by a clustering engine, the problem to a class, and identifying, by a correlation engine, a database associated with the class. The system also provides a suggestion for solving the problem, based on the retrieved data.
Kshepakaran et al. (US 20170364637 A1) teaches various deep learning and machine learning applications by taking advantage of big data, using exemplary deep learning algorithms, neural networks and/or artificial intelligence and/or expert systems and/or convolutional neural networks, to identify potential automated recommendations and/or electronic alerts.
Claesen et al. (Hyperparameter Search in Machine Learning) teaches a wide variety of optimization methods for hyperparameter search, including particle swarm optimization, genetic algorithms, coupled simulated annealing and racing algorithms. Software packages are released which implement various dedicated optimization methods for hyperparameter search, including Bayesian methods and metaheuristic optimization approaches.
Shintre et al. (US10225277B1) teaches application programming interface (API) queries of a model inversion attack against the machine learning classifier to protect the user data point from being exposed by the model inversion attack. The machine learning classifier may be exposed to the API as a Machine Learning as a Service (MLaaS) offering to enable API queries against the machine learning classifier.
WETMORE et al. (US 20140057232 A1) teaches an Arduino system which includes digital inputs and outputs, analog inputs and outputs, serial receiver, serial transmission, and power (both 5V and 3.3V). The microcontroller system is programmed with custom software for controlling the various elements of the system for memory enhancement.
TEIG et al. (US 20180025268 A1) teaches configurable machine learning assemblies for autonomous operation in personal devices. Example systems implement machine learning based on neural networks that draw low power for use in diverse devices. The onboard machine learning assemblies can be powered by batteries, and once onboard a small personal device can learn to perform object recognition and autonomous decision-making without access to outside resources.
Ross et al. (US 2018/0232663 A1) teaches a system that gathers machine learning models from various sources, and the machine learning models are identified by the input format that they receive, and an output label that they identify from the input format. In addition, the system can improve the accuracy of the machine learning model by combining the existing machine learning models in serial, in parallel, or hierarchically, to create a resulting machine learning model.
However, none of the references of record either alone or in combination fairly disclose or suggest the combination of limitations specific in the independent claim including at least:
the limitations recited above from the independent claim 1, 7, 13,
as in the claims for the purpose of providing an intelligent adaptive system that combines input data types, processing history and objectives, research knowledge, and situational context to determine the most appropriate mathematical model, choose the computing infrastructure, and propose the best solution for a given problem based on a selected computing infrastructure.
In addition, the dependent claim(s) is/are also considered allowable since the dependent claim(s) is/are dependent on the independent claim(s) above which is/are allowable.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier.
Such claim limitation(s) is/are:
Claim 7: “the at least one implant device is operable to conduct electrophysiologic and/or optogenetic stimulation based on the at least one signal”
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
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 7, 10, 12 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 limitations (Claim 7: “the at least one implant device is operable to conduct electrophysiologic and/or optogenetic stimulation based on the at least one signal) invoke 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function. The specification is devoid of adequate structure to perform the claimed functions. The specification does not provide sufficient details such that one of ordinary skill in the art would understand which structures perform(s) the claimed functions, as recited in the claim(s) previously stated under 112(f). Therefore, the claim is indefinite and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph.
Applicant may:
(a) Amend the claim so that the claim limitation will no longer be interpreted as a limitation under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph;
(b) Amend the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites what structure, material, or acts perform the entire claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(c) Amend the written description of the specification such that it clearly links the structure, material, or acts disclosed therein to the function recited in the claim, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)).
If applicant is of the opinion that the written description of the specification already implicitly or inherently discloses the corresponding structure, material, or acts and clearly links them to the function so that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize what structure, material, or acts perform the claimed function, applicant should clarify the record by either:
(a) Amending the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function and clearly links or associates the structure, material, or acts to the claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(b) Stating on the record what the corresponding structure, material, or acts, which are implicitly or inherently set forth in the written description of the specification, perform the claimed function. For more information, see 37 CFR 1.75(d) and MPEP §§ 608.01(o) and 2181.
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 7, 10, 12 is/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 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. As described above, the disclosure does not provide adequate structure to perform the claimed functions. The specification does not demonstrate that the applicant has made an invention that achieves the claimed functions because the invention is not described with sufficient detail such that one of ordinary skill in the art can reasonably conclude that the inventor had possession of the claimed invention. (FP 7.31.01)
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(s) 1, 4, 6-7, 10, 12-13, 16, 18 is/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 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.
Claim(s) 1 recite(s) “executing, at the computer system, the at least one machine learning model relevant to the problem using the one of the plurality of layers of the selected computing infrastructure corresponding to the each step of the series of processing steps to generate and output at least one signal to at least one implant device; wherein the at least one implant device is operable to conduct electrophysiologic and/or optogenetic stimulation based on the at least one signal”. However, it appears that the specification is silent in regards to i) executing, at the computer system, the at least one machine learning model relevant to the problem … to generate and output at least one signal to at least one implant device, and ii) operating the at least one implant device based on the at least one signal. Instead, pars 77-78 state “A promising therapeutic approach free from the side effects of levodopa treatment is using implanted devices for neural modulation through electrophysiology or optogenetics. The Neural Modulation Treatment Approach. Using electrophysiology and/or optogenetics the chemical behavior of the neurons may be controlled. Brain stimulation is more effective when it is applied in response to specific brain states, via, for example, Closed Loop Monitoring, as opposed to continuous, open loop stimulation. A conceptual sketch of a closed loop control system can be seen in Fig. 3. As shown in Fig. 3, a target input 302 may be applied to an error component 304, which may generate an error signal 306 that may be input to controller 308. Controller 308 may generate a control input signal 310 based on error signal 306, which may be applied to system under control 312. System 312 may generate an output, which may be measured 316 and a signal 318 representing the measured output may be input to error component 304.” Thus, it is not clear, based on the specification, how the machine learning model help generate and output a signal to the implant device, and how the implant device is operated using the signal. This is changing the scope of the claimed invention without support from the specification, therefore it is rejected under 112(a) lack of written description. In addition, claim(s) 7, 13 is/are rejected for the same reason.
Claim(s) 1, 7, 13 each recite(s) limitations that raise issues of indefiniteness as set forth above, and their dependent claims is/are rejected at least based on their direct and/or indirect dependency from the claims listed above. Appropriate explanation and/or amendment is required.
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, 4, 6-7, 10, 12-13, 16, 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Regarding claim 1
The claim is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1: The claim recites a method; therefore, it falls into the statutory category of processes.
Step 2A Prong 1:
The limitations of
“…, the method comprising:
…;
generating, …, a description of the problem, wherein the description conforms to defined format, by: determining, by a planner component, a processing flow for the problem …;
…;
… determining, …, a combination of selected and generated models that produces higher accuracy results than the selected and generated models based on a calculated cosine similarity between results of the selected and generated models, and
assembling, …, a combination of the selected and generated models based on the determination of the combination of the selected and generated models that produces higher accuracy results than the selected and generated models;
selecting, …, computing infrastructure upon which to execute the at least one machine learning model relevant to the problem…;
mapping each step of the series of processing steps of the processing flow to one of a plurality of layers of the selected computing infrastructure, …; and
…;
…”, as drafted, are a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind. That is, nothing in the claim element precludes the step from practically being performed in the mind. For example, the limitations in the context of this claim encompass the user mentally thinking with a physical aid (e.g., pencil and paper).
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.
Step 2A Prong 2: This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application.
In particular, the claim recites additional elements (“implemented in a computer system comprising a processor, memory accessible by the processor, and computer program instructions stored in the memory and executable by the processor”, “at the computer system”, “by running at least one heuristic search algorithm on a bidirectional graph”, “executing, at the computer system, the at least one machine learning model relevant to the problem using the selected computing infrastructure to generate at least one recommendation relevant to the problem”, “executing, at the computer system, the at least one machine learning model relevant to the problem using the one of the plurality of layers of the selected computing infrastructure corresponding to the each step of the series of processing steps to") – using a computing system and a machine learning model to process data. The computing system and the machine learning model in each step are recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as a generic computer performing a generic computer function of processing data) such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Accordingly, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to an abstract idea. See MPEP 2106.05(f).
In particular, the claim recites an additional element(s) (“stored”) – the act of storing data. The claim is adding an insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception – see MPEP 2106.05(g). The act of storing data is recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as a generic act of storing performing a generic act function of storing data) such that it amounts no more than a mere act to apply the exception using a generic act of storing. Accordingly, this additional element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to an abstract idea.
In particular, the claim recites additional elements (“receiving from data channels, at the computer system, data relating to a problem to be solved”, “obtaining, at the computer system, at least one machine learning model relevant to the problem by generating, at the computer system, a new model based on type, morphology, and parameter information, wherein the at least one machine learning model relevant to the problem is further obtained by:”) – the act of receiving data. The claim is adding an insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception – see MPEP 2106.05(g). The act of receiving data is recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as a generic act of receiving performing a generic act function of receiving data) such that it amounts no more than a mere act to apply the exception using a generic act of receiving. Accordingly, this additional element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to an abstract idea.
In particular, the claim recites an additional element (“the received data comprising feedback from a measured output”, “the processing flow comprising a series of processing steps”, “wherein the selected computing infrastructure comprises a mesh of interconnected applications, wherein the selected computing infrastructure includes at least one framework configured to perform model tuning and hyperparameters optimization using at least Bayesian optimization and metaheuristics, at least one container configured to run stateful services, and at least one graphics processing unit, and wherein each application comprises analog and digital input, event ingestion processing, event consumption processing, event generation processing, and analog and digital output”, “the plurality of layers comprising a sensors layer, a gateway layer, and a cloud layer, wherein the sensors layer is deployed on an edge computing layer, wherein the gateway layer is equipped with a computing capability suitable for executing a neural network, and wherein the cloud layer is equipped with a computing capability suitable for training the neural network and/or executing simulation tasks”, “wherein the at least one implant device is operable to conduct electrophysiologic and/or optogenetic stimulation based on the at least one signal”). This is a recitation of a particular type or source of model/data/device to be used in performing the abstract idea. Limiting the abstract idea to a particular type or source of model/ data/device is an attempt to limit the abstract idea to a particular field of use or technological environment, which does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. See MPEP 2106.05(h)
In particular, the claim recites an additional element(s) (“generate and output at least one signal to at least one implant device”) – the act of outputting data. The claim is adding an insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception – see MPEP 2106.05(g). The act of outputting data is recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as a generic act of performing a generic act function of outputting data) such that it amounts no more than a mere act to apply the exception using a generic act of outputting. Accordingly, this additional element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to an abstract idea.
Step 2B: The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
As discussed above, with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements of using a generic computer to perform each step amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. The claim is not patent eligible. See MPEP 2106.05(f).
As discussed above, the claim recites the additional element(s) of storing data at a high-level of generality and is adding an insignificant extra-solution activity – see MPEP 2106.05(g) – storing data. However, the addition of insignificant extra-solution activity does not amount to an inventive concept, particularly when the activity is well-understood, routine, and conventional. See MPEP 2106.05(d)(II) – “Receiving or transmitting data over a network” or “Storing and retrieving information in memory”. Accordingly, this additional element does not provide an inventive concept and significantly more than the abstract idea. Thus, the claim is not patent eligible.
As discussed above, the claim recites the additional element(s) of receiving data at a high-level of generality and is adding an insignificant extra-solution activity – see MPEP 2106.05(g). However, the addition of insignificant extra-solution activity does not amount to an inventive concept, particularly when the activity is well-understood, routine, and conventional. See MPEP 2106.05(d)(II) – “Receiving or transmitting data over a network” or “Storing and retrieving information in memory”. Accordingly, this additional element does not provide an inventive concept and significantly more than the abstract idea. Thus, the claim is not patent eligible.
This is a recitation of a particular type or source of model/ data/device to be used in performing the abstract idea. Limiting the abstract idea to a particular type or source of model/data/device is an attempt to limit the abstract idea to a particular field of use or technological environment, which does not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. See MPEP 2106.05(h).
As discussed above, the claim recites the additional element(s) of outputting data at a high-level of generality and is adding an insignificant extra-solution activity – see MPEP 2106.05(g). However, the addition of insignificant extra-solution activity does not amount to an inventive concept, particularly when the activity is well-understood, routine, and conventional. See MPEP 2106.05(d)(II) – “Receiving or transmitting data over a network” or “Storing and retrieving information in memory”. Accordingly, this additional element does not provide an inventive concept and significantly more than the abstract idea. Thus, the claim is not patent eligible.
Regarding claim 4
The claim is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1: The claim recites a method; therefore, it falls into the statutory category of processes.
Step 2A Prong 1:
The limitations of
“wherein the at least one machine learning model relevant to the problem is further obtained by at least one of:
selecting, …, at least one model from among previously used processed models stored at the computer system; and
selecting, …, at least one model from among models obtained from public sources, proprietary sources, or both”, as drafted, are a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind. That is, nothing in the claim element precludes the step from practically being performed in the mind. For example, the limitations in the context of this claim encompass the user mentally thinking with a physical aid (e.g., pencil and paper).
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.
Step 2A Prong 2: This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application.
In particular, the claim recites additional elements (“at the computer system”) – using a computing system to process data. The computing system in each step is recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as a generic computer performing a generic computer function of processing data) such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Accordingly, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to an abstract idea. See MPEP 2106.05(f).
In particular, the claim recites an additional element(s) (“stored”) – the act of storing data. The claim is adding an insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception – see MPEP 2106.05(g). The act of storing data is recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as a generic act of storing performing a generic act function of storing data) such that it amounts no more than a mere act to apply the exception using a generic act of storing. Accordingly, this additional element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to an abstract idea.
Step 2B: The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
As discussed above, with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements of using a generic computer to perform each step amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. The claim is not patent eligible. See MPEP 2106.05(f).
As discussed above, the claim recites the additional element (“stored”) at a high-level of generality and is adding an insignificant extra-solution activity – see MPEP 2106.05(g) – storing data. However, the addition of insignificant extra-solution activity does not amount to an inventive concept, particularly when the activity is well-understood, routine, and conventional. See MPEP 2106.05(d)(II) – “Receiving or transmitting data over a network” or “Storing and retrieving information in memory”. Accordingly, this additional element does not provide an inventive concept and significantly more than the abstract idea. Thus, the claim is not patent eligible.
Regarding claim 6
The claim is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1: The claim recites a method; therefore, it falls into the statutory category of processes.
Step 2A Prong 1:
The limitations of
“wherein the combination of the selected and generated models that produces higher accuracy results than the selected and generated models may be determined …”, as drafted, are a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind. That is, nothing in the claim element precludes the step from practically being performed in the mind. For example, the limitations in the context of this claim encompass the user mentally thinking with a physical aid (e.g., pencil and paper).
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.
Step 2A Prong 2: This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application.
In particular, the claim recites additional elements (“by selected and trained heuristics or by a machine learning model”) – using a machine learning model to process data. The machine learning model in each step is recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as a generic computer performing a generic computer function of processing data) such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Accordingly, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to an abstract idea. See MPEP 2106.05(f).
Step 2B: The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
As discussed above, with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements of using a generic computer to perform each step amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. The claim is not patent eligible. See MPEP 2106.05(f).
Regarding claim 7
The claim recites “A computer system comprising a processor, memory accessible by the processor, and computer program instructions stored in the memory and executable by the processor to perform:” to perform precisely the method of Claim 1. As performance of an abstract idea on generic computer components (see MPEP 2106.05(f)) and “Storing and retrieving information in memory” (see MPEP 2106.05(g) on Insignificant Extra-Solution Activity, and MPEP 2106.05(d) on Well-Understood, Routine, Conventional Activity) cannot integrate the abstract idea into a practical application nor provide significantly more than the abstract idea itself, the claim is rejected for reasons set forth in the rejection of Claim 1.
Regarding claim 10
The claim is rejected for the reasons set forth in the rejection of Claim 4 under 35 U.S.C. 101, mutatis mutandis, as reciting an abstract idea without integrating the judicial exception into a practical application nor providing significantly more than the judicial exception.
Regarding claim 12
The claim is rejected for the reasons set forth in the rejection of Claim 6 under 35 U.S.C. 101, mutatis mutandis, as reciting an abstract idea without integrating the judicial exception into a practical application nor providing significantly more than the judicial exception.
Regarding claim 13
The claim recites “A computer program product comprising a non-transitory computer readable storage having program instructions embodied therewith, the program instructions executable by a computer system, to cause the computer system to perform a method comprising:” to perform precisely the method of Claim 1. As performance of an abstract idea on generic computer components (see MPEP 2106.05(f)) cannot integrate the abstract idea into a practical application nor provide significantly more than the abstract idea itself, the claim is rejected for reasons set forth in the rejection of Claim 1.
Regarding claim 16
The claim is rejected for the reasons set forth in the rejection of Claim 4 under 35 U.S.C. 101, mutatis mutandis, as reciting an abstract idea without integrating the judicial exception into a practical application nor providing significantly more than the judicial exception.
Regarding claim 18
The claim is rejected for the reasons set forth in the rejection of Claim 6 under 35 U.S.C. 101, mutatis mutandis, as reciting an abstract idea without integrating the judicial exception into a practical application nor providing significantly more than the judicial exception.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SEHWAN KIM whose telephone number is (571)270-7409. The examiner can normally be reached Mon - Thu 7:00 AM - 5:00 PM.
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, Michael J Huntley can be reached on (303) 297-4307. 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.
/SEHWAN KIM/Examiner, Art Unit 2129 3/18/2026