CTFR 17/254,150 CTFR 96380 DETAILED ACTION Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status 07-03-aia AIA 15-10-aia 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 argument regarding Claims 26, 28-33, 35, 37, 40-42, 44-50, 54-56, and 58-60 Rejection under 35 USC § 101, see REMARKS pages 10-16 filed 02/26 th /2026 have been considered but they are not persuasive. Please review the updated rejection for a detailed analysis of the new limitations Applicant argument# 1: Ex parte Desjardins Examiner response #1 The examiner respectfully disagrees. Different applications are analyzed differently. For example, Desjardins is directed to training machine learning models having multiple parameters, in which the machine learning model has been trained on a first machine learning task to determine first values of the parameters of the machine learning model, while the instant application is directed to detecting fusible operators with machine learning such as by evaluating a set of operators in a graph of a machine learning model to identify fusion candidates comprising subgraphs of the graph with two or more operators to combine. Furthermore, the only recitation of training in the instant application is at a high level of generality and only identifies the use of RNNs for said training. Applicant argument# 2: Step 2A - Claim 26 is Not Directed to an Abstract Idea Examiner response #2 The examiner respectfully disagrees. Independent claim 26 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. §101 for being directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. Please refer to the Step 2A Prong 1 Analysis section of the 101 rejection below for an updated detailed analysis of the amended claim which recite the following mental processes: determining, based on the operator operational parameters, one or more fusion candidates under the broadest reasonable interpretation, this limitation is a process step that covers a mental process including observation, evaluation, judgment or opinion that could be performed in the human mind or with the aid of pencil and paper such as an operator identifying models based on certain values of certain parameters. If a claim, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers a mental process but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Process” grouping of abstract ideas. Furthermore, the recitation of based on the operator operational parameters is recited at a high level of generality and amount to no more than generally linking the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use MPEP 2106.05(h). As explained by the Supreme Court, a claim directed to a judicial exception cannot be made eligible "simply by having the applicant acquiesce to limiting the reach of the patent for the formula to a particular technological use." Diamond v. Diehr, 450 U.S. 175, 192 n.14, 209 USPQ 1, 10 n. 14 (1981). Thus, limitations that amount to merely indicating a field of use or technological environment in which to apply a judicial exception do not amount to significantly more than the exception itself, and cannot integrate a judicial exception into a practical application. applying an edge weight metric to eliminate frequent subgraphs of the one or more fusion candidates having a low computational cost and to eliminate infrequent subgraphs of the one or more fusion candidates having a high computational cost under the broadest reasonable interpretation, this limitation is a process step that covers a mental process including observation, evaluation, judgment or opinion that could be performed in the human mind or with the aid of pencil and paper such as an operator eliminating subgraphs based on thresholds. If a claim, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers a mental process but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Process” grouping of abstract ideas. extract a feature set from the one or more fusion candidates under the broadest reasonable interpretation, this limitation is a process step that covers a mental process including observation, evaluation, judgment or opinion that could be performed in the human mind or with the aid of pencil and paper such as an operator extracting a feature of a selected model. If a claim, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers a mental process but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Process” grouping of abstract ideas. utilize the machine learning classifier to evaluate the one or more fusion candidates based on the core features and the uncore features extracted from each of the one or more fusion candidates under the broadest reasonable interpretation, this limitation is a process step that covers a mental process including observation, evaluation, judgment or opinion that could be performed in the human mind or with the aid of pencil and paper such as an operator identifying the model that best classifies images of cats and dogs. If a claim, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers a mental process but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Process” grouping of abstract ideas. Furthermore, the recitation of a machine learning classifier is mere instructions to implement the exception using generic computer components. identify a proposed candidate of the one or more fusion candidates to fuse based on evaluation of the one or more fusion candidates under the broadest reasonable interpretation, this limitation is a process step that covers a mental process including observation, evaluation, judgment or opinion that could be performed in the human mind or with the aid of pencil and paper such as an operator selecting the model that best classifies images of cats and dogs. If a claim, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers a mental process but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Process” grouping of abstract ideas. Furthermore, the recitation of a machine learning classifier is mere instructions to implement the exception using generic computer components. identify, from the one or more machine learning models, a machine learning model in which to apply the combined operator to execute a deep learning inference workload having an increased performance cost under the broadest reasonable interpretation, this limitation is a process step that covers a mental process including observation, evaluation, judgment or opinion that could be performed in the human mind or with the aid of pencil and paper such as an operator selecting the model that to apply the combined operator based on some metric. If a claim, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers a mental process but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Process” grouping of abstract ideas. Furthermore, the recitation of a machine learning classifier is mere instructions to implement the exception using generic computer components, evaluate computational efficiency of the machine learning model in which the combined operator is applied to execute the deep learning inference workload under the broadest reasonable interpretation, this limitation is a process step that covers a mental process including observation, evaluation, judgment or opinion that could be performed in the human mind or with the aid of pencil and paper such as an operator evaluating the power or memory cost of running a model. If a claim, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers a mental process but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Process” grouping of abstract ideas. Furthermore, the recitation of a machine learning classifier is mere instructions to implement the exception using generic computer components. Furthermore, the elements of applying weighted frequent subgraph mining are recited at a high level of generality and are mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components which does not integrate the exception into a practical application nor does it amount to significantly more than the exception itself. Applicant argument# 3: Step 2B - Claim 26 Amounts to Significantly More than an Abstract Idea Examiner response #3 The examiner respectfully disagrees. While the specification [0014] states that the claimed invention can find new fusible operators quickly and accurately to evolve with the evolution of topologies used in machine learning while coping with the fast evolution of the machine learning industry, and while the specification [0063] states that the claimed invention can train/generate a recurrent neural network (RNN) classifier that automatically classifies operators as fusible or non-fusible, and while the specification [0067] states that comparing computational efficiency between the original operators and the optimized operators using compiler stacks, such as a deep learning stack, end-to-end deep learning stack, and/or a tensor virtual machine (TVM) that supports low-level optimization, there is no improvement to the functioning of a computer nor to any other technology. At best, the claimed combination amounts to an improvement to the abstract idea of determining fusion candidates, applying an edge weight metric to eliminate frequent subgraphs, extracting a feature set from a fusion candidate, evaluating a fusion candidate, identifying a proposed candidate, identifying a machine learning model, and evaluating computational efficiency of a machine learning model rather than to an improvement on the functioning of a computer or to any other technology. See MPEP 2106.05(a). Thus, even when considering the elements in combination, the claim as a whole does not integrate the recited exception into a practical application. Applicant’s arguments regarding Claims 26, 28-33, 35, 37, 40-42, 44-50, 54-56, and 58-60 Rejection under 35 USC § 103, see REMARKS pages 16-19 filed 02/25 th /2026 have been considered and they are persuasive. Therefore, Claims 26, 28-33, 35, 37, 40-42, 44-50, 54-56, and 58-60 Rejection under 35 USC § 103 has been withdrawn. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101 07-04-01 AIA 07-04 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 26, 28-33, 35, 37, 40-42, 44-50, 54-56, and 58-60 are rejected under 35 USC § 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter Regarding Claim 26 : Claim 26 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. Step 1 Analysis : Claim 26 is directed to an apparatus , which is directed to a machine, one of the statutory categories. Step 2A Prong 1 Analysis : Claim 26 recites in part process steps which, under the broadest reasonable interpretation, are a series of mental processes including an observation, evaluation, judgment or opinion that could be performed in the human mind or with the aid of pencil and paper. If a claim, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers a mental process or a mathematical concept but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Process” grouping of abstract ideas. The claim recites in part: determining, based on the operator operational parameters, one or more fusion candidates under the broadest reasonable interpretation, this limitation is a process step that covers a mental process including observation, evaluation, judgment or opinion that could be performed in the human mind or with the aid of pencil and paper such as an operator identifying models based on certain values of certain parameters. If a claim, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers a mental process but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Process” grouping of abstract ideas. Furthermore, the recitation of based on the operator operational parameters is recited at a high level of generality and amount to no more than generally linking the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use MPEP 2106.05(h). As explained by the Supreme Court, a claim directed to a judicial exception cannot be made eligible "simply by having the applicant acquiesce to limiting the reach of the patent for the formula to a particular technological use." Diamond v. Diehr, 450 U.S. 175, 192 n.14, 209 USPQ 1, 10 n. 14 (1981). Thus, limitations that amount to merely indicating a field of use or technological environment in which to apply a judicial exception do not amount to significantly more than the exception itself, and cannot integrate a judicial exception into a practical application. applying an edge weight metric to eliminate frequent subgraphs of the one or more fusion candidates having a low computational cost and to eliminate infrequent subgraphs of the one or more fusion candidates having a high computational cost under the broadest reasonable interpretation, this limitation is a process step that covers a mental process including observation, evaluation, judgment or opinion that could be performed in the human mind or with the aid of pencil and paper such as an operator eliminating subgraphs based on thresholds. If a claim, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers a mental process but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Process” grouping of abstract ideas. extract a feature set from the one or more fusion candidates under the broadest reasonable interpretation, this limitation is a process step that covers a mental process including observation, evaluation, judgment or opinion that could be performed in the human mind or with the aid of pencil and paper such as an operator extracting a feature of a selected model. If a claim, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers a mental process but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Process” grouping of abstract ideas. utilize the machine learning classifier to evaluate the one or more fusion candidates based on the core features and the uncore features extracted from each of the one or more fusion candidates under the broadest reasonable interpretation, this limitation is a process step that covers a mental process including observation, evaluation, judgment or opinion that could be performed in the human mind or with the aid of pencil and paper such as an operator identifying the model that best classifies images of cats and dogs. If a claim, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers a mental process but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Process” grouping of abstract ideas. Furthermore, the recitation of a machine learning classifier is mere instructions to implement the exception using generic computer components. identify a proposed candidate of the one or more fusion candidates to fuse based on evaluation of the one or more fusion candidates under the broadest reasonable interpretation, this limitation is a process step that covers a mental process including observation, evaluation, judgment or opinion that could be performed in the human mind or with the aid of pencil and paper such as an operator selecting the model that best classifies images of cats and dogs. If a claim, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers a mental process but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Process” grouping of abstract ideas. Furthermore, the recitation of a machine learning classifier is mere instructions to implement the exception using generic computer components. identify, from the one or more machine learning models, a machine learning model in which to apply the combined operator to execute a deep learning inference workload having an increased performance cost under the broadest reasonable interpretation, this limitation is a process step that covers a mental process including observation, evaluation, judgment or opinion that could be performed in the human mind or with the aid of pencil and paper such as an operator selecting the model that to apply the combined operator based on some metric. If a claim, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers a mental process but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Process” grouping of abstract ideas. Furthermore, the recitation of a machine learning classifier is mere instructions to implement the exception using generic computer components, evaluate computational efficiency of the machine learning model in which the combined operator is applied to execute the deep learning inference workload under the broadest reasonable interpretation, this limitation is a process step that covers a mental process including observation, evaluation, judgment or opinion that could be performed in the human mind or with the aid of pencil and paper such as an operator evaluating the power or memory cost of running a model. If a claim, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers a mental process but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Process” grouping of abstract ideas. Furthermore, the recitation of a machine learning classifier is mere instructions to implement the exception using generic computer components. Step 2A Prong 2 Analysis : The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim recites the additional element of : An apparatus, comprising: a processor; and a memory comprising instructions that when executed by the processor cause the processor to is recited at a high-level of generality and amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component (See MPEP 2106.05(f)). identify an input including one or more machine learning models that each include a graph of operators amounts to extra-solution activity of receiving data (MPEP 2106.05(g): i.e. pre-solution activity of gathering data for use in the claimed process. apply weighted frequent subgraph mining to mine, by detecting one or more operator operational parameters of the one or more machine learning models, the one or more machine learning models, the mining including recited at a high-level of generality and amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component (See MPEP 2106.05(f)). each of the one or more fusion candidates including a subgraph of at least one graph of operators, a sub-graph operational parameter normalized with respect to the at least one graph of operators for scaling consistency amounts to no more than generally linking the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use MPEP 2106.05(h). As explained by the Supreme Court, a claim directed to a judicial exception cannot be made eligible "simply by having the applicant acquiesce to limiting the reach of the patent for the formula to a particular technological use." Diamond v. Diehr, 450 U.S. 175, 192 n.14, 209 USPQ 1, 10 n. 14 (1981). Thus, limitations that amount to merely indicating a field of use or technological environment in which to apply a judicial exception do not amount to significantly more than the exception itself, and cannot integrate a judicial exception into a practical application. each feature set including one or more core features and one or more uncore features amounts to no more than generally linking the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use MPEP 2106.05(h). As explained by the Supreme Court, a claim directed to a judicial exception cannot be made eligible "simply by having the applicant acquiesce to limiting the reach of the patent for the formula to a particular technological use." Diamond v. Diehr, 450 U.S. 175, 192 n.14, 209 USPQ 1, 10 n. 14 (1981). Thus, limitations that amount to merely indicating a field of use or technological environment in which to apply a judicial exception do not amount to significantly more than the exception itself, and cannot integrate a judicial exception into a practical application. Train, based on the feature set, a machine learning classifier using a recurrent neural network (RNN), the machine learning classifier to classify fusibility of operators based on at least one of a deep learning stack or a tensor virtual machine is recited at a high-level of generality and amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component (See MPEP 2106.05(f)). generate a combined operator as a replacement of the proposed candidate amounts to extra-solution activity of data gathering, and data outputting. As described in MPEP 2106.05(g) the combined operator representing a fusion of the operators associated with the proposed candidate amounts to no more than generally linking the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use MPEP 2106.05(h). As explained by the Supreme Court, a claim directed to a judicial exception cannot be made eligible "simply by having the applicant acquiesce to limiting the reach of the patent for the formula to a particular technological use." Diamond v. Diehr, 450 U.S. 175, 192 n.14, 209 USPQ 1, 10 n. 14 (1981). Thus, limitations that amount to merely indicating a field of use or technological environment in which to apply a judicial exception do not amount to significantly more than the exception itself, and cannot integrate a judicial exception into a practical application. Furthermore, the courts have found limitations directed to linking data to a field of use, recited at a high level of generality, to be well-understood, routine, and conventional (see MPEP 2106.05(d)(II)). After considering all claim elements, both individually and in combination, it has been determined that the claim does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Therefore, claim 26 is directed to a judicial exception. Step 2B Analysis : Claim 26 does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above, the additional elements of: An apparatus, comprising: a processor; and a memory comprising instructions that when executed by the processor cause the processor to is recited at a high-level of generality and amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component (See MPEP 2106.05(f)). identify an input including one or more machine learning models that each include a graph of operators As discussed above, the additional elements of gathering 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"). apply weighted frequent subgraph mining to mine, by detecting one or more operator operational parameters of the one or more machine learning models, the one or more machine learning models, the mining including recited at a high-level of generality and amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component (See MPEP 2106.05(f)). each of the one or more fusion candidates including a subgraph of at least one graph of operators, a sub-graph operational parameter normalized with respect to the at least one graph of operators for scaling consistency amounts to no more than generally linking the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use MPEP 2106.05(h). As explained by the Supreme Court, a claim directed to a judicial exception cannot be made eligible "simply by having the applicant acquiesce to limiting the reach of the patent for the formula to a particular technological use." Diamond v. Diehr, 450 U.S. 175, 192 n.14, 209 USPQ 1, 10 n. 14 (1981). Thus, limitations that amount to merely indicating a field of use or technological environment in which to apply a judicial exception do not amount to significantly more than the exception itself, and cannot integrate a judicial exception into a practical application. Furthermore, the courts have found limitations directed to linking data to a field of use, recited at a high level of generality, to be well-understood, routine, and conventional (see MPEP 2106.05(d)(II)). each feature set including one or more core features and one or more uncore features amounts to no more than generally linking the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use MPEP 2106.05(h). As explained by the Supreme Court, a claim directed to a judicial exception cannot be made eligible "simply by having the applicant acquiesce to limiting the reach of the patent for the formula to a particular technological use." Diamond v. Diehr, 450 U.S. 175, 192 n.14, 209 USPQ 1, 10 n. 14 (1981). Thus, limitations that amount to merely indicating a field of use or technological environment in which to apply a judicial exception do not amount to significantly more than the exception itself, and cannot integrate a judicial exception into a practical application. Furthermore, the courts have found limitations directed to linking data to a field of use, recited at a high level of generality, to be well-understood, routine, and conventional (see MPEP 2106.05(d)(II)). Train, based on the feature set, a machine learning classifier using a recurrent neural network (RNN), the machine learning classifier to classify fusibility of operators based on at least one of a deep learning stack or a tensor virtual machine is recited at a high-level of generality and amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component (See MPEP 2106.05(f)). generate a combined operator as a replacement of the proposed candidate amount to extra-solution activity of data gathering, and data outputting. As described in MPEP 2106.05(g). the combined operator representing a fusion of the operators associated with the proposed candidate amounts to no more than generally linking the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use MPEP 2106.05(h). As explained by the Supreme Court, a claim directed to a judicial exception cannot be made eligible "simply by having the applicant acquiesce to limiting the reach of the patent for the formula to a particular technological use." Diamond v. Diehr, 450 U.S. 175, 192 n.14, 209 USPQ 1, 10 n. 14 (1981). Thus, limitations that amount to merely indicating a field of use or technological environment in which to apply a judicial exception do not amount to significantly more than the exception itself, and cannot integrate a judicial exception into a practical application. Furthermore, the courts have found limitations directed to linking data to a field of use, recited at a high level of generality, to be well-understood, routine, and conventional (see MPEP 2106.05(d)(II)). For the reasons above, claim 26 is rejected as being directed to non-patentable subject matter under §101. The additional limitations of the dependent claims contain no additional elements that provide a practical application or amount to significantly more than the abstract idea and are addressed briefly below Dependent claim 28 recites: Step 2A Prong 1 Analysis : compare computational efficiency of a first machine learning model with the proposed candidate to the computational efficiency of a second machine learning model with the combined operator to validate the proposed candidate under the broadest reasonable interpretation, this limitation is a process step that covers a mental process including observation, evaluation, judgment or opinion that could be performed in the human mind or with the aid of pencil and paper. If a claim, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers a mental process but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Process” grouping of abstract ideas. Step 2A Prong 2: The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the additional element of: wherein the processor is to amounts to mere instructions for applying the judicial exception on a generic computing device (see MPEP 2106.05(f)). Step 2B: In accordance with Step 2B, the claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more that the judicial exception. As discussed above, the additional elements of: wherein the processor is to amounts to mere instructions for applying the judicial exception on a generic computing device (see MPEP 2106.05(f)). Dependent claim 29 recites: Step 2A Prong 1 Analysis : evaluate the computational efficiency of the first and second machine learning models under the broadest reasonable interpretation, this limitation is a process step that covers a mental process including observation, evaluation, judgment or opinion that could be performed in the human mind or with the aid of pencil and paper. If a claim, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers a mental process but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Process” grouping of abstract ideas. Step 2A Prong 2: The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the additional element of: wherein the processor is to utilize compiler stacks amounts to mere instructions for applying the judicial exception on a generic computing device (see MPEP 2106.05(f)). Step 2B: In accordance with Step 2B, the claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more that the judicial exception. As discussed above, the additional elements of: wherein the processor is to utilize compiler stacks amounts to mere instructions for applying the judicial exception on a generic computing device (see MPEP 2106.05(f)). Dependent claim 30 recites: Step 2A Prong 1 Analysis : evaluate the computational efficiency of the first and second machine learning models under the broadest reasonable interpretation, this limitation is a process step that covers a mental process including observation, evaluation, judgment or opinion that could be performed in the human mind or with the aid of pencil and paper. If a claim, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers a mental process but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Process” grouping of abstract ideas. Step 2A Prong 2: The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the additional element of: wherein the processor is to utilize the tensor virtual machine (TVM) amounts to mere instructions for applying the judicial exception on a generic computing device (see MPEP 2106.05(f)). Step 2B: In accordance with Step 2B, the claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more that the judicial exception. As discussed above, the additional elements of: wherein the processor is to utilize the tensor virtual machine (TVM) amounts to mere instructions for applying the judicial exception on a generic computing device (see MPEP 2106.05(f)). Dependent claim 31 recites: Step 2A Prong 1 Analysis : The claim is directed to the same mental processes as prior claims. Step 2A Prong 2: The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the additional element of: the one or more machine learning models include a deep neural network (DNN) model amounts to mere instructions for applying the judicial exception on a generic computing device (see MPEP 2106.05(f)). each operator includes a layer in the DNN model amounts to no more than generally linking the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use MPEP 2106.05(h). As explained by the Supreme Court, a claim directed to a judicial exception cannot be made eligible "simply by having the applicant acquiesce to limiting the reach of the patent for the formula to a particular technological use." Diamond v. Diehr, 450 U.S. 175, 192 n.14, 209 USPQ 1, 10 n. 14 (1981). Thus, limitations that amount to merely indicating a field of use or technological environment in which to apply a judicial exception do not amount to significantly more than the exception itself, and cannot integrate a judicial exception into a practical application. Furthermore, the courts have found limitations directed to linking data to a field of use, recited at a high level of generality, to be well-understood, routine, and conventional (see MPEP 2106.05(d)(II)). Step 2B: In accordance with Step 2B, the claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more that the judicial exception. As discussed above, the additional elements of: the one or more machine learning models include a deep neural network (DNN) model amounts to mere instructions for applying the judicial exception on a generic computing device (see MPEP 2106.05(f)). each operator includes a layer in the DNN model amounts to no more than generally linking the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use MPEP 2106.05(h). As explained by the Supreme Court, a claim directed to a judicial exception cannot be made eligible "simply by having the applicant acquiesce to limiting the reach of the patent for the formula to a particular technological use." Diamond v. Diehr, 450 U.S. 175, 192 n.14, 209 USPQ 1, 10 n. 14 (1981). Thus, limitations that amount to merely indicating a field of use or technological environment in which to apply a judicial exception do not amount to significantly more than the exception itself, and cannot integrate a judicial exception into a practical application. Furthermore, the courts have found limitations directed to linking data to a field of use, recited at a high level of generality, to be well-understood, routine, and conventional (see MPEP 2106.05(d)(II)). Dependent claim 32 recites: Step 2A Prong 1 Analysis : rank each of the one or more fusion candidates based on the feature sets to identify the proposed candidate under the broadest reasonable interpretation, this limitation is a process step that covers a mental process including observation, evaluation, judgment or opinion that could be performed in the human mind or with the aid of pencil and paper. If a claim, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers a mental process but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Process” grouping of abstract ideas. Step 2A Prong 2: The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the additional element of: wherein the processor is to amounts to mere instructions for applying the judicial exception on a generic computing device (see MPEP 2106.05(f)). Step 2B: In accordance with Step 2B, the claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more that the judicial exception. As discussed above, the additional elements of: wherein the processor is to amounts to mere instructions for applying the judicial exception on a generic computing device (see MPEP 2106.05(f)). Dependent claim 33 recites: Step 2A Prong 1 Analysis : The claim is directed to the same mental processes as prior claims. Step 2A Prong 2: The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the additional element of: wherein the feature set includes one or more of frequencies of use, computational costs, and memory costs of the operators amounts to no more than generally linking the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use MPEP 2106.05(h). As explained by the Supreme Court, a claim directed to a judicial exception cannot be made eligible "simply by having the applicant acquiesce to limiting the reach of the patent for the formula to a particular technological use." Diamond v. Diehr, 450 U.S. 175, 192 n.14, 209 USPQ 1, 10 n. 14 (1981). Thus, limitations that amount to merely indicating a field of use or technological environment in which to apply a judicial exception do not amount to significantly more than the exception itself, and cannot integrate a judicial exception into a practical application. Furthermore, the courts have found limitations directed to linking data to a field of use, recited at a high level of generality, to be well-understood, routine, and conventional (see MPEP 2106.05(d)(II)). Step 2B: In accordance with Step 2B, the claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more that the judicial exception. As discussed above, the additional elements of: wherein the feature set includes one or more of frequencies of use, computational costs, and memory costs of the operators amounts to no more than generally linking the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use MPEP 2106.05(h). As explained by the Supreme Court, a claim directed to a judicial exception cannot be made eligible "simply by having the applicant acquiesce to limiting the reach of the patent for the formula to a particular technological use." Diamond v. Diehr, 450 U.S. 175, 192 n.14, 209 USPQ 1, 10 n. 14 (1981). Thus, limitations that amount to merely indicating a field of use or technological environment in which to apply a judicial exception do not amount to significantly more than the exception itself, and cannot integrate a judicial exception into a practical application. Furthermore, the courts have found limitations directed to linking data to a field of use, recited at a high level of generality, to be well-understood, routine, and conventional (see MPEP 2106.05(d)(II)). Dependent claim 58 recites: Step 2A Prong 1 Analysis : The claim is directed to the same mental processes as prior claims. Step 2A Prong 2: The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the additional element of: wherein the processor is to identify the proposed candidate based on a threshold adjusted for an accuracy of classification after validation of fusibility amounts to no more than generally linking the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use MPEP 2106.05(h). As explained by the Supreme Court, a claim directed to a judicial exception cannot be made eligible "simply by having the applicant acquiesce to limiting the reach of the patent for the formula to a particular technological use." Diamond v. Diehr, 450 U.S. 175, 192 n.14, 209 USPQ 1, 10 n. 14 (1981). Thus, limitations that amount to merely indicating a field of use or technological environment in which to apply a judicial exception do not amount to significantly more than the exception itself, and cannot integrate a judicial exception into a practical application. Furthermore, the courts have found limitations directed to linking data to a field of use, recited at a high level of generality, to be well-understood, routine, and conventional (see MPEP 2106.05(d)(II)). Step 2B: In accordance with Step 2B, the claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more that the judicial exception. As discussed above, the additional elements of: wherein the processor is to identify the proposed candidate based on a threshold adjusted for an accuracy of classification after validation of fusibility amounts to no more than generally linking the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use MPEP 2106.05(h). As explained by the Supreme Court, a claim directed to a judicial exception cannot be made eligible "simply by having the applicant acquiesce to limiting the reach of the patent for the formula to a particular technological use." Diamond v. Diehr, 450 U.S. 175, 192 n.14, 209 USPQ 1, 10 n. 14 (1981). Thus, limitations that amount to merely indicating a field of use or technological environment in which to apply a judicial exception do not amount to significantly more than the exception itself, and cannot integrate a judicial exception into a practical application. Furthermore, the courts have found limitations directed to linking data to a field of use, recited at a high level of generality, to be well-understood, routine, and conventional (see MPEP 2106.05(d)(II)). Dependent claim 59 recites: Step 2A Prong 1 Analysis : The claim is directed to the same mental processes as prior claims. Step 2A Prong 2: The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the additional element of: wherein the processor is to apply the weighted frequent subgraph mining to normalize a frequency of the subgraph and normalize a cost of the subgraph amounts to no more than generally linking the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use MPEP 2106.05(h). As explained by the Supreme Court, a claim directed to a judicial exception cannot be made eligible "simply by having the applicant acquiesce to limiting the reach of the patent for the formula to a particular technological use." Diamond v. Diehr, 450 U.S. 175, 192 n.14, 209 USPQ 1, 10 n. 14 (1981). Thus, limitations that amount to merely indicating a field of use or technological environment in which to apply a judicial exception do not amount to significantly more than the exception itself, and cannot integrate a judicial exception into a practical application. Furthermore, the courts have found limitations directed to linking data to a field of use, recited at a high level of generality, to be well-understood, routine, and conventional (see MPEP 2106.05(d)(II)). Step 2B: In accordance with Step 2B, the claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more that the judicial exception. As discussed above, the additional elements of: wherein the processor is to apply the weighted frequent subgraph mining to normalize a frequency of the subgraph and normalize a cost of the subgraph amounts to no more than generally linking the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use MPEP 2106.05(h). As explained by the Supreme Court, a claim directed to a judicial exception cannot be made eligible "simply by having the applicant acquiesce to limiting the reach of the patent for the formula to a particular technological use." Diamond v. Diehr, 450 U.S. 175, 192 n.14, 209 USPQ 1, 10 n. 14 (1981). Thus, limitations that amount to merely indicating a field of use or technological environment in which to apply a judicial exception do not amount to significantly more than the exception itself, and cannot integrate a judicial exception into a practical application. Furthermore, the courts have found limitations directed to linking data to a field of use, recited at a high level of generality, to be well-understood, routine, and conventional (see MPEP 2106.05(d)(II)). Dependent claim 60 recites: Step 2A Prong 1 Analysis : The claim is directed to the same mental processes as prior claims. Step 2A Prong 2: The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the additional element of: wherein the processor is to apply the weighted frequent subgraph mining to rank one or more subgraphs by weight amounts to no more than generally linking the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use MPEP 2106.05(h). As explained by the Supreme Court, a claim directed to a judicial exception cannot be made eligible "simply by having the applicant acquiesce to limiting the reach of the patent for the formula to a particular technological use." Diamond v. Diehr, 450 U.S. 175, 192 n.14, 209 USPQ 1, 10 n. 14 (1981). Thus, limitations that amount to merely indicating a field of use or technological environment in which to apply a judicial exception do not amount to significantly more than the exception itself, and cannot integrate a judicial exception into a practical application. Furthermore, the courts have found limitations directed to linking data to a field of use, recited at a high level of generality, to be well-understood, routine, and conventional (see MPEP 2106.05(d)(II)). Step 2B: In accordance with Step 2B, the claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more that the judicial exception. As discussed above, the additional elements of: wherein the processor is to apply the weighted frequent subgraph mining to rank one or more subgraphs by weight amounts to no more than generally linking the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use MPEP 2106.05(h). As explained by the Supreme Court, a claim directed to a judicial exception cannot be made eligible "simply by having the applicant acquiesce to limiting the reach of the patent for the formula to a particular technological use." Diamond v. Diehr, 450 U.S. 175, 192 n.14, 209 USPQ 1, 10 n. 14 (1981). Thus, limitations that amount to merely indicating a field of use or technological environment in which to apply a judicial exception do not amount to significantly more than the exception itself, and cannot integrate a judicial exception into a practical application. Furthermore, the courts have found limitations directed to linking data to a field of use, recited at a high level of generality, to be well-understood, routine, and conventional (see MPEP 2106.05(d)(II)). Claim 35 is rejected based upon the same rationale as the rejection of claim 26 since it’s the non-transitory computer readable medium claim corresponding to the apparatus claim. Dependent claim 37 recites: Step 2A Prong 1 Analysis : generate the edge weight metric based on the operator operational parameters to mine the one or more machine learning models under the broadest reasonable interpretation, this limitation is a process step that covers a mental process including observation, evaluation, judgment or opinion that could be performed in the human mind or with the aid of pencil and paper. If a claim, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers a mental process but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Process” grouping of abstract ideas. Step 2A Prong 2: The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the additional element of: The at least one non-transitory computer-readable medium wherein the instructions cause the processor circuit to amounts to mere instructions for applying the judicial exception on a generic computing device (see MPEP 2106.05(f)). Step 2B: In accordance with Step 2B, the claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more that the judicial exception. As discussed above, the additional elements of: The at least one non-transitory computer-readable medium instructions that, in response to being executed by the processor circuit cause the processor circuit to amounts to mere instructions for applying the judicial exception on a generic computing device (see MPEP 2106.05(f)). Dependent claim 40 recites: Step 2A Prong 1 Analysis : The claim does not recite any limitations that cover a mental process. Step 2A Prong 2: The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the additional element of: the uncore features include one or more of read bytes from memory controllers, bytes written to memory controllers, and data traffic transferred via interconnect links amounts to no more than generally linking the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use MPEP 2106.05(h). As explained by the Supreme Court, a claim directed to a judicial exception cannot be made eligible "simply by having the applicant acquiesce to limiting the reach of the patent for the formula to a particular technological use." Diamond v. Diehr, 450 U.S. 175, 192 n.14, 209 USPQ 1, 10 n. 14 (1981). Thus, limitations that amount to merely indicating a field of use or technological environment in which to apply a judicial exception do not amount to significantly more than the exception itself, and cannot integrate a judicial exception into a practical application. Furthermore, the courts have found limitations directed to linking data to a field of use, recited at a high level of generality, to be well-understood, routine, and conventional (see MPEP 2106.05(d)(II)). Step 2B: In accordance with Step 2B, the claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more that the judicial exception. As discussed above, the additional elements of: the uncore features include one or more of read bytes from memory controllers, bytes written to memory controllers, and data traffic transferred via interconnect links amounts to no more than generally linking the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use MPEP 2106.05(h). As explained by the Supreme Court, a claim directed to a judicial exception cannot be made eligible "simply by having the applicant acquiesce to limiting the reach of the patent for the formula to a particular technological use." Diamond v. Diehr, 450 U.S. 175, 192 n.14, 209 USPQ 1, 10 n. 14 (1981). Thus, limitations that amount to merely indicating a field of use or technological environment in which to apply a judicial exception do not amount to significantly more than the exception itself, and cannot integrate a judicial exception into a practical application. Furthermore, the courts have found limitations directed to linking data to a field of use, recited at a high level of generality, to be well-understood, routine, and conventional (see MPEP 2106.05(d)(II)). Dependent claim 41 recites: Step 2A Prong 1 Analysis : extract the feature sets under the broadest reasonable interpretation, this limitation is a process step that covers a mental process including observation, evaluation, judgment or opinion that could be performed in the human mind or with the aid of pencil and paper. If a claim, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers a mental process but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Process” grouping of abstract ideas. Step 2A Prong 2: The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the additional element of: The at least one non-transitory computer-readable medium of claim 35, wherein the instructions cause the processor circuit to utilize a performance counter monitor (PCM) amounts to mere instructions for applying the judicial exception on a generic computing device (see MPEP 2106.05(f)). Step 2B: In accordance with Step 2B, the claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more that the judicial exception. As discussed above, the additional elements of: The at least one non-transitory computer-readable medium of claim 35, wherein the instructions cause the processor circuit to utilize a performance counter monitor (PCM) amounts to mere instructions for applying the judicial exception on a generic computing device (see MPEP 2106.05(f)). Dependent claim 42 recites: Step 2A Prong 1 Analysis : The claim does not recite any limitations that cover a mental process. Step 2A Prong 2: The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the additional element of: wherein each feature set includes indications of one or more of data movement patterns, computation patterns, system resource utilization, frequency, computation cost, and memory cost amounts to no more than generally linking the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use MPEP 2106.05(h). As explained by the Supreme Court, a claim directed to a judicial exception cannot be made eligible "simply by having the applicant acquiesce to limiting the reach of the patent for the formula to a particular technological use." Diamond v. Diehr, 450 U.S. 175, 192 n.14, 209 USPQ 1, 10 n. 14 (1981). Thus, limitations that amount to merely indicating a field of use or technological environment in which to apply a judicial exception do not amount to significantly more than the exception itself, and cannot integrate a judicial exception into a practical application. Furthermore, the courts have found limitations directed to linking data to a field of use, recited at a high level of generality, to be well-understood, routine, and conventional (see MPEP 2106.05(d)(II)). Step 2B: In accordance with Step 2B, the claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more that the judicial exception. As discussed above, the additional elements of: wherein each feature set includes indications of one or more of data movement patterns, computation patterns, system resource utilization, frequency, computation cost, and memory cost amounts to no more than generally linking the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use MPEP 2106.05(h). As explained by the Supreme Court, a claim directed to a judicial exception cannot be made eligible "simply by having the applicant acquiesce to limiting the reach of the patent for the formula to a particular technological use." Diamond v. Diehr, 450 U.S. 175, 192 n.14, 209 USPQ 1, 10 n. 14 (1981). Thus, limitations that amount to merely indicating a field of use or technological environment in which to apply a judicial exception do not amount to significantly more than the exception itself, and cannot integrate a judicial exception into a practical application. Furthermore, the courts have found limitations directed to linking data to a field of use, recited at a high level of generality, to be well-understood, routine, and conventional (see MPEP 2106.05(d)(II)). Dependent claim 44 recites: Step 2A Prong 1 Analysis : map the feature sets to vectors corresponding to fusibility under the broadest reasonable interpretation, this limitation is a process step that covers a mental process including observation, evaluation, judgment or opinion that could be performed in the human mind or with the aid of pencil and paper. If a claim, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers a mental process but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Process” grouping of abstract ideas. Step 2A Prong 2: The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the additional element of: The at least one non-transitory computer-readable medium wherein the instructions cause the processor circuit to amounts to mere instructions for applying the judicial exception on a generic computing device (see MPEP 2106.05(f)). Step 2B: In accordance with Step 2B, the claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more that the judicial exception. As discussed above, the additional elements of: The at least one non-transitory computer-readable medium wherein the instructions cause the processor circuit to amounts to mere instructions for applying the judicial exception on a generic computing device (see MPEP 2106.05(f)). Dependent claim 45 recites: Step 2A Prong 1 Analysis : calculate a probability that each fusion candidate is fusible with the vectors corresponding to fusibility under the broadest reasonable interpretation, this limitation is a process step that covers a mental process including observation, evaluation, judgment or opinion that could be performed in the human mind or with the aid of pencil and paper. If a claim, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers a mental process but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Process” grouping of abstract ideas. Step 2A Prong 2: The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the additional element of: The at least one non-transitory computer-readable medium wherein the instructions cause the processor circuit to amounts to mere instructions for applying the judicial exception on a generic computing device (see MPEP 2106.05(f)). Step 2B: In accordance with Step 2B, the claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more that the judicial exception. As discussed above, the additional elements of: The at least one non-transitory computer-readable medium wherein the instructions cause the processor circuit to amounts to mere instructions for applying the judicial exception on a generic computing device (see MPEP 2106.05(f)). Claim 46 is rejected based upon the same rationale as the rejection of claim 26 since it’s the computer implemented method claim corresponding to the apparatus claim. Dependent claim 47 recites: Step 2A Prong 1 Analysis : combining each operator in the subgraph of the proposed candidate to fuse the proposed candidate into a fused candidate under the broadest reasonable interpretation, this limitation is a process step that covers a mental process including observation, evaluation, judgment or opinion that could be performed in the human mind or with the aid of pencil and paper. If a claim, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers a mental process but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Process” grouping of abstract ideas. Step 2A Prong 2: The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the additional element of: computer-implemented method amounts to mere instructions for applying the judicial exception on a generic computing device (see MPEP 2106.05(f)). Step 2B: In accordance with Step 2B, the claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more that the judicial exception. As discussed above, the additional elements of: computer-implemented method amounts to mere instructions for applying the judicial exception on a generic computing device (see MPEP 2106.05(f)). Dependent claim 48 recites: Step 2A Prong 1 Analysis : comparing computational efficiency of a first machine learning model with the proposed candidate to the computational efficiency of a second machine learning model with the combined operator to validate the proposed candidate under the broadest reasonable interpretation, this limitation is a process step that covers a mental process including observation, evaluation, judgment or opinion that could be performed in the human mind or with the aid of pencil and paper. If a claim, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers a mental process but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Process” grouping of abstract ideas. Step 2A Prong 2: The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the additional element of: computer-implemented method amounts to mere instructions for applying the judicial exception on a generic computing device (see MPEP 2106.05(f)). Step 2B: In accordance with Step 2B, the claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more that the judicial exception. As discussed above, the additional elements of: computer-implemented method amounts to mere instructions for applying the judicial exception on a generic computing device (see MPEP 2106.05(f)). Dependent claim 49 recites: Step 2A Prong 1 Analysis : evaluate the computational efficiency of the first and second machine learning models under the broadest reasonable interpretation, this limitation is a process step that covers a mental process including observation, evaluation, judgment or opinion that could be performed in the human mind or with the aid of pencil and paper. If a claim, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers a mental process but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Process” grouping of abstract ideas. Step 2A Prong 2: The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the additional element of: computer-implemented method further including utilizing compiler stacks amounts to mere instructions for applying the judicial exception on a generic computing device (see MPEP 2106.05(f)). Step 2B: In accordance with Step 2B, the claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more that the judicial exception. As discussed above, the additional elements of: computer-implemented method further including utilizing compiler stacks amounts to mere instructions for applying the judicial exception on a generic computing device (see MPEP 2106.05(f)). Dependent claim 50 recites: Step 2A Prong 1 Analysis : evaluate the computational efficiency of the first and second machine learning models under the broadest reasonable interpretation, this limitation is a process step that covers a mental process including observation, evaluation, judgment or opinion that could be performed in the human mind or with the aid of pencil and paper. If a claim, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers a mental process but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Process” grouping of abstract ideas. Step 2A Prong 2: The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the additional element of: computer-implemented method further including utilizing the tensor virtual machine (TVM) amounts to mere instructions for applying the judicial exception on a generic computing device (see MPEP 2106.05(f)). Step 2B: In accordance with Step 2B, the claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more that the judicial exception. As discussed above, the additional elements of: computer-implemented method further including utilizing the tensor virtual machine (TVM) amounts to mere instructions for applying the judicial exception on a generic computing device (see MPEP 2106.05(f)). Dependent claim 54 recites: Step 2A Prong 1 Analysis : determine a weight of the subgraph with respect to the at least one graph of operators based on the sub-graph operational parameter normalized with respect to the at least one graph of operators under the broadest reasonable interpretation, this limitation is a process step that covers a mental process including observation, evaluation, judgment or opinion that could be performed in the human mind or with the aid of pencil and paper. If a claim, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers a mental process but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Process” grouping of abstract ideas. Step 2A Prong 2: The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the additional element of: the processor is to amounts to mere instructions for applying the judicial exception on a generic computing device (see MPEP 2106.05(f)). Step 2B: In accordance with Step 2B, the claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more that the judicial exception. As discussed above, the additional elements of: the processor is to amounts to mere instructions for applying the judicial exception on a generic computing device (see MPEP 2106.05(f)). Dependent claim 55 recites: Step 2A Prong 1 Analysis : evaluate the one or more fusion candidates based on a technique with similarity to sentiment classification of natural language processing under the broadest reasonable interpretation, this limitation is a process step that covers a mental process including observation, evaluation, judgment or opinion that could be performed in the human mind or with the aid of pencil and paper. If a claim, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers a mental process but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Process” grouping of abstract ideas. Step 2A Prong 2: The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the additional element of: the processor is to amounts to mere instructions for applying the judicial exception on a generic computing device (see MPEP 2106.05(f)). Step 2B: In accordance with Step 2B, the claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more that the judicial exception. As discussed above, the additional elements of: the processor is to amounts to mere instructions for applying the judicial exception on a generic computing device (see MPEP 2106.05(f)). Dependent claim 56 recites: Step 2A Prong 1 Analysis : The claim does not recite any limitations that cover a mental process. Step 2A Prong 2: The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the additional element of: wherein the operator operational parameters include at least one of a frequency of use, a computational cost, or a memory cost amounts to no more than generally linking the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use MPEP 2106.05(h). As explained by the Supreme Court, a claim directed to a judicial exception cannot be made eligible "simply by having the applicant acquiesce to limiting the reach of the patent for the formula to a particular technological use." Diamond v. Diehr, 450 U.S. 175, 192 n.14, 209 USPQ 1, 10 n. 14 (1981). Thus, limitations that amount to merely indicating a field of use or technological environment in which to apply a judicial exception do not amount to significantly more than the exception itself, and cannot integrate a judicial exception into a practical application. Furthermore, the courts have found limitations directed to linking data to a field of use, recited at a high level of generality, to be well-understood, routine, and conventional (see MPEP 2106.05(d)(II)). Step 2B: In accordance with Step 2B, the claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more that the judicial exception. As discussed above, the additional elements of: wherein the operator operational parameters include at least one of a frequency of use, a computational cost, or a memory cost amounts to no more than generally linking the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use MPEP 2106.05(h). As explained by the Supreme Court, a claim directed to a judicial exception cannot be made eligible "simply by having the applicant acquiesce to limiting the reach of the patent for the formula to a particular technological use." Diamond v. Diehr, 450 U.S. 175, 192 n.14, 209 USPQ 1, 10 n. 14 (1981). Thus, limitations that amount to merely indicating a field of use or technological environment in which to apply a judicial exception do not amount to significantly more than the exception itself, and cannot integrate a judicial exception into a practical application. Furthermore, the courts have found limitations directed to linking data to a field of use, recited at a high level of generality, to be well-understood, routine, and conventional (see MPEP 2106.05(d)(II)). Conclusion Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL . See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a). 07-96 AIA The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. AMARAL (US 9,003,373 B2) “AMARAL teaches a method for identifying a pattern in a graph that has a support value greater than a threshold, wherein: the graph comprises a plurality of weighted nodes coupled to one another by one or more weighted edges, and each of the plurality of nodes is associated with at least one weighted attribute” INOKUCHI (US 2005/0044073 Al) “INOKUCHI teaches Efficiently mining frequent subgraphs contained commonly in a plurality of objects by considering abstraction” McCann (US 2018/0349359 Al) “McCann teaches a neural network for performing a first natural language processing task” Wang - Attention-based LSTM for Aspect-level Sentiment Classification “Wang teaches that the sentiment polarity of a sentence is not only determined by the content but is also highly related to the concerned aspect” Xu (US20180267927A1) “Xu teaches a machine learning model to reduce a data transmission amount and implement dynamical adjustment of computing resources during model parameter fusion” Wang (US20200356875A1) “Wang teaches a model training method to obtain a sample subset according to a sample set configured to train models“ Fawcett ( US 2018/0083839 Al ) “Fawcett teaches a method for operator fusion management in a streaming environment” Jiang (Frequent Subgraph Mining Algorithms on Weighted Graphs) “Jiang teaches weighted frequent subgraph mining in graph model based classification” Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SHAMCY ALGHAZZY whose telephone number is (571)272-8824. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F 7:30am-5:00pm EST. Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice. If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, OMAR FERNANDEZ RIVAS can be reached on (571) 272-2589. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300. 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 https://ppair-my.uspto.gov/pair/PrivatePair. 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. /SHAMCY ALGHAZZY/Examiner, Art Unit 2128 /OMAR F FERNANDEZ RIVAS/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2128 Application/Control Number: 17/254,150 Page 2 Art Unit: 2128 Application/Control Number: 17/254,150 Page 3 Art Unit: 2128 Application/Control Number: 17/254,150 Page 4 Art Unit: 2128 Application/Control Number: 17/254,150 Page 5 Art Unit: 2128 Application/Control Number: 17/254,150 Page 6 Art Unit: 2128 Application/Control Number: 17/254,150 Page 7 Art Unit: 2128 Application/Control Number: 17/254,150 Page 8 Art Unit: 2128 Application/Control Number: 17/254,150 Page 9 Art Unit: 2128 Application/Control Number: 17/254,150 Page 10 Art Unit: 2128 Application/Control Number: 17/254,150 Page 11 Art Unit: 2128 Application/Control Number: 17/254,150 Page 12 Art Unit: 2128 Application/Control Number: 17/254,150 Page 13 Art Unit: 2128 Application/Control Number: 17/254,150 Page 14 Art Unit: 2128 Application/Control Number: 17/254,150 Page 15 Art Unit: 2128 Application/Control Number: 17/254,150 Page 16 Art Unit: 2128 Application/Control Number: 17/254,150 Page 17 Art Unit: 2128 Application/Control Number: 17/254,150 Page 18 Art Unit: 2128 Application/Control Number: 17/254,150 Page 19 Art Unit: 2128 Application/Control Number: 17/254,150 Page 20 Art Unit: 2128 Application/Control Number: 17/254,150 Page 21 Art Unit: 2128 Application/Control Number: 17/254,150 Page 22 Art Unit: 2128 Application/Control Number: 17/254,150 Page 23 Art Unit: 2128 Application/Control Number: 17/254,150 Page 24 Art Unit: 2128 Application/Control Number: 17/254,150 Page 25 Art Unit: 2128 Application/Control Number: 17/254,150 Page 26 Art Unit: 2128 Application/Control Number: 17/254,150 Page 27 Art Unit: 2128 Application/Control Number: 17/254,150 Page 28 Art Unit: 2128 Application/Control Number: 17/254,150 Page 29 Art Unit: 2128 Application/Control Number: 17/254,150 Page 31 Art Unit: 2128 Application/Control Number: 17/254,150 Page 32 Art Unit: 2128 Application/Control Number: 17/254,150 Page 33 Art Unit: 2128 Application/Control Number: 17/254,150 Page 34 Art Unit: 2128 Application/Control Number: 17/254,150 Page 35 Art Unit: 2128 Application/Control Number: 17/254,150 Page 36 Art Unit: 2128 Application/Control Number: 17/254,150 Page 37 Art Unit: 2128 Application/Control Number: 17/254,150 Page 38 Art Unit: 2128 Application/Control Number: 17/254,150 Page 39 Art Unit: 2128 Application/Control Number: 17/254,150 Page 40 Art Unit: 2128 Application/Control Number: 17/254,150 Page 41 Art Unit: 2128 Application/Control Number: 17/254,150 Page 42 Art Unit: 2128 Application/Control Number: 17/254,150 Page 43 Art Unit: 2128 Application/Control Number: 17/254,150 Page 44 Art Unit: 2128 Application/Control Number: 17/254,150 Page 45 Art Unit: 2128 Application/Control Number: 17/254,150 Page 46 Art Unit: 2128 Application/Control Number: 17/254,150 Page 47 Art Unit: 2128 Application/Control Number: 17/254,150 Page 48 Art Unit: 2128
Prosecution Insights