DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
This action is in response to amendments and remarks filed on 10/27/2025. In the current amendments, claims 1, 6, 8, 11, and 15 are amended, claim 5 is cancelled, and claim 24 is newly presented. Claims 1-4, 6-9, 11-18, and 21-24 are pending and have been examined.
In response to amendments and remarks filed on 10/27/2025, the 35 U.S.C. 112(d) rejections made in the previous office action are withdrawn.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1-4, 6-9, 11-18, and 21-24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Regarding Claim 1,
Claim 1 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 1 is directed to a method, which is directed to a process, one of the statutory categories.
Step 2A Prong One Analysis: The limitations:
“pre-process the incoming data”
“creating a plurality of child jobs … based on a number of trials”
“the metric used to determine a final model”
“checking a status of the first child job and a status of the second child job”
“determining a final model from the first model and from the second model”
“processing a data set …, wherein processing the data set includes identifying a plurality of discrete entities in the data set”
As drafted, under their broadest reasonable interpretations, cover mental processes (concepts performed in the human mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgement, opinion)) but for the recitation of mere instructions to apply language (See MPEP 2106.05(f)) and insignificant extra-solution activity (See MPEP 2106.05(g)). The above limitations in the context of this claim encompass pre-processing incoming data (corresponds to evaluation and judgement; in particular, a human, with the assistance of pen and paper, can pre-process received data); creating child jobs based on a number of trials (corresponds to evaluation and judgement; in particular, a human, with the assistance of pen and paper, can, based on a number of trials, create a plurality of child jobs); using a metric to determine a final model (corresponds to evaluation and judgement; in particular, a human, with the assistance of pen and paper, can determine a final model using a metric); checking a status of the first and second child jobs (corresponds to evaluation and judgement; in particular, a human, with the assistance of pen and paper, can check a status of a first child job and check a status of a second child job); determining a final model from the first and second models (corresponds to evaluation and judgement; in particular, a human, with the assistance of pen and paper, can use the first and second models to determine a final model); and processing a data set by identifying discrete entities within the data set (corresponds to evaluation and judgement; in particular, a human, with the assistance of pen and paper, can identify discrete entities within a data set to process the data set).
Step 2A Prong Two Analysis: The judicial exceptions are not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim recites additional elements that are mere instructions to apply (See MPEP 2106.05(f)) or insignificant extra-solution activity (See MPEP 2106.05(g)). The limitations:
“executing a master job within a first container”
“by the master job”
“each child job training a corresponding model of a plurality of models using the preprocessed data”
“the plurality of models comprises a plurality of deep neural network (DNN) models stored by a computer system”
“training a first model of the plurality of models with preprocessed data”
“a first child job of the plurality of child jobs executed within a second container”
“a database”
“in parallel with the training of the first model, training a second model of the plurality of models with preprocessed data”
“a second child job of the plurality of child jobs executed within a third container”
“wherein the first container, the second container, and the third container comprise unique graphics processing units or virtual machines”
“the master job”
“using the final model”
As drafted, are additional elements that amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception for the abstract ideas. See MPEP 2106.05(f). The limitations:
“receiving incoming data”
“storing the first model together with a metric in a database”
“wherein the first container communicates with the second container and third container to orchestrate training of the first child job and the second child job”
“storing the status of the first child job and the status of the second child job, within a progress file”
As drafted, are additional elements that correspond to insignificant extra-solution activity. In particular, the additional elements are merely directed towards mere data gathering. See MPEP 2106.05(g). Therefore, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract ideas into a practical application.
Step 2B Analysis: 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, all of the additional elements are “mere instructions to apply an exception” (I.e. the additional elements describe a database, generic containers comprising GPUs or VMs for executing jobs, DNN models, and generic training of the models for applying the abstract ideas) or insignificant extra-solution activity (i.e. storing, communicating/transmitting, and receiving data). Furthermore, the “storing …”, “… communicates …” and “receiving …” limitations are insignificant extra-solution activity that is well-understood, routine, and conventional according to MPEP 2106.05(d) (“The courts have recognized the following computer functions as well‐understood, routine, and conventional functions when they are claimed in a merely generic manner (e.g., at a high level of generality) or as insignificant extra-solution activity… i. Receiving or transmitting data over a network … iv. Storing and retrieving information in memory). Mere instructions to apply an exception cannot provide an inventive concept. The claim is not patent eligible.
Regarding Claim 2,
Claim 2 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 2 is directed to a method, which is directed to a process, one of the statutory categories.
Step 2A Prong One Analysis: Please see the analysis of claim 1. The limitations of claim 2 are only additional elements to the abstract ideas of claim 1.
Step 2A Prong Two Analysis: The judicial exceptions are not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim recites additional elements that are mere instructions to apply (See MPEP 2106.05(f)) or insignificant extra-solution activity (See MPEP 2106.05(g)). The limitations:
“wherein the first container, the second container, and the third container are a Graphics Processing Unit (GPU) based container or a virtual machine (VM) based container”
As drafted, are additional elements that amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception for the abstract ideas. See MPEP 2106.05(f). In addition, the recitation of additional elements in claim 1 of a database, generic containers comprising GPUs or VMs for executing jobs, DNN models, and generic training of the models are reciting mere instructions to apply language such that it amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exceptions. Furthermore, the “storing …”, “… communicates …” and “receiving …” limitations of claim 1 are additional elements that correspond to insignificant extra-solution activity as mere data gathering. Therefore, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract ideas into a practical application.
Step 2B Analysis: 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, all of the additional elements are “mere instructions to apply an exception” (I.e. the additional elements describe a database, generic containers comprising GPUs or VMs for executing jobs, DNN models, and generic training of the models for applying the abstract ideas) or insignificant extra-solution activity (i.e. storing, communicating/transmitting, and receiving data). Furthermore, the “storing …”, “… communicates …” and “receiving …” limitations are insignificant extra-solution activity that is well-understood, routine, and conventional according to MPEP 2106.05(d) (“The courts have recognized the following computer functions as well‐understood, routine, and conventional functions when they are claimed in a merely generic manner (e.g., at a high level of generality) or as insignificant extra-solution activity… i. Receiving or transmitting data over a network … iv. Storing and retrieving information in memory). Mere instructions to apply an exception cannot provide an inventive concept. The claim is not patent eligible.
Regarding Claim 3,
Claim 3 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 3 is directed to a method, which is directed to a process, one of the statutory categories.
Step 2A Prong One Analysis: The limitations:
“checks the status of the first child job and the status of the second child job”
As drafted, under their broadest reasonable interpretations, cover mental processes (concepts performed in the human mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgement, opinion)) but for the recitation of mere instructions to apply language (See MPEP 2106.05(f)) and insignificant extra-solution activity (See MPEP 2106.05(g)). The above limitations in the context of this claim encompass checking the status of the first and second child jobs (corresponds to evaluation and judgement; in particular, a human, with the assistance of pen and paper, can check the status of the first child job and check the status of the second child job).
Step 2A Prong Two Analysis: The judicial exceptions are not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim recites additional elements that are mere instructions to apply (See MPEP 2106.05(f)) or insignificant extra-solution activity (See MPEP 2106.05(g)). The limitations:
“the master job”
“via Hypertext Transfer Protocol (HTTP)”
As drafted, are additional elements that amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception for the abstract ideas. See MPEP 2106.05(f). In addition, the recitation of additional elements in claim 1 of a database, generic containers comprising GPUs or VMs for executing jobs, DNN models, and generic training of the models are reciting mere instructions to apply language such that it amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exceptions. Furthermore, the “storing …”, “… communicates …” and “receiving …” limitations of claim 1 are additional elements that correspond to insignificant extra-solution activity as mere data gathering. Therefore, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract ideas into a practical application.
Step 2B Analysis: 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, all of the additional elements are “mere instructions to apply an exception” (I.e. the additional elements describe a database, generic containers comprising GPUs or VMs for executing jobs, using HTTP, DNN models, and generic training of the models for applying the abstract ideas) or insignificant extra-solution activity (i.e. storing, communicating/transmitting, and receiving data). Furthermore, the “storing …”, “… communicates …” and “receiving …” limitations are insignificant extra-solution activity that is well-understood, routine, and conventional according to MPEP 2106.05(d) (“The courts have recognized the following computer functions as well‐understood, routine, and conventional functions when they are claimed in a merely generic manner (e.g., at a high level of generality) or as insignificant extra-solution activity… i. Receiving or transmitting data over a network … iv. Storing and retrieving information in memory). Mere instructions to apply an exception cannot provide an inventive concept. The claim is not patent eligible.
Regarding Claim 4,
Claim 4 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 4 is directed to a method, which is directed to a process, one of the statutory categories.
Step 2A Prong One Analysis: The limitations:
“checks the status of the first child job and the status of the second child job by reading local progress files of the child jobs”
As drafted, under their broadest reasonable interpretations, cover mental processes (concepts performed in the human mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgement, opinion)) but for the recitation of mere instructions to apply language (See MPEP 2106.05(f)) and insignificant extra-solution activity (See MPEP 2106.05(g)). The above limitations in the context of this claim encompass checking the status of the first and second child jobs by reading local progress files (corresponds to evaluation and judgement; in particular, a human, with the assistance of pen and paper, can read local progress files to check the status of the first child job and check the status of the second child job).
Step 2A Prong Two Analysis: The judicial exceptions are not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim recites additional elements that are mere instructions to apply (See MPEP 2106.05(f)) or insignificant extra-solution activity (See MPEP 2106.05(g)). The limitations:
“the master job”
As drafted, are additional elements that amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception for the abstract ideas. See MPEP 2106.05(f). In addition, the recitation of additional elements in claim 1 of a database, generic containers comprising GPUs or VMs for executing jobs, DNN models, and generic training of the models are reciting mere instructions to apply language such that it amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exceptions. Furthermore, the “storing …”, “… communicates …” and “receiving …” limitations of claim 1 are additional elements that correspond to insignificant extra-solution activity as mere data gathering. Therefore, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract ideas into a practical application.
Step 2B Analysis: 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, all of the additional elements are “mere instructions to apply an exception” (I.e. the additional elements describe a database, generic containers comprising GPUs or VMs for executing jobs, DNN models, and generic training of the models for applying the abstract ideas) or insignificant extra-solution activity (i.e. storing, communicating/transmitting, and receiving data). Furthermore, the “storing …”, “… communicates …” and “receiving …” limitations are insignificant extra-solution activity that is well-understood, routine, and conventional according to MPEP 2106.05(d) (“The courts have recognized the following computer functions as well‐understood, routine, and conventional functions when they are claimed in a merely generic manner (e.g., at a high level of generality) or as insignificant extra-solution activity… i. Receiving or transmitting data over a network … iv. Storing and retrieving information in memory). Mere instructions to apply an exception cannot provide an inventive concept. The claim is not patent eligible.
Regarding Claim 6,
Claim 6 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 6 is directed to a method, which is directed to a process, one of the statutory categories.
Step 2A Prong One Analysis: The limitations:
“wherein the determining comprises selecting the first model as the final model based upon a metric of the first model”
As drafted, is part of the abstract idea of claim 5 of determining the final model. The limitations of claim 6 further limit the limitations of claim 5 by further defining what the determining comprises. The above limitation in the context of this claim encompasses determining a final model from the first and second models by selecting the first model as the final model based on a metric of the first model (corresponds to evaluation and judgement; in particular, a human, with the assistance of pen and paper, can use the first and second models to determine a final model by selecting the first model as the final model based on a metric of the first model).
Step 2A Prong Two Analysis: The judicial exceptions are not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim recites additional elements that are mere instructions to apply (See MPEP 2106.05(f)) or insignificant extra-solution activity (See MPEP 2106.05(g)). In addition, the recitation of additional elements in claim 1 of a database, generic containers comprising GPUs or VMs for executing jobs, DNN models, and generic training of the models are reciting mere instructions to apply language such that it amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exceptions. Furthermore, the “storing …”, “… communicates …” and “receiving …” limitations of claim 1 are additional elements that correspond to insignificant extra-solution activity as mere data gathering. Therefore, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract ideas into a practical application.
Step 2B Analysis: 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, all of the additional elements are “mere instructions to apply an exception” (I.e. the additional elements describe a database, generic containers comprising GPUs or VMs for executing jobs, DNN models, and generic training of the models for applying the abstract ideas) or insignificant extra-solution activity (i.e. storing, communicating/transmitting, and receiving data). Furthermore, the “storing …”, “… communicates …” and “receiving …” limitations are insignificant extra-solution activity that is well-understood, routine, and conventional according to MPEP 2106.05(d) (“The courts have recognized the following computer functions as well‐understood, routine, and conventional functions when they are claimed in a merely generic manner (e.g., at a high level of generality) or as insignificant extra-solution activity… i. Receiving or transmitting data over a network … iv. Storing and retrieving information in memory). Mere instructions to apply an exception cannot provide an inventive concept. The claim is not patent eligible.
Regarding Claim 7,
Claim 7 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 7 is directed to a method, which is directed to a process, one of the statutory categories.
Step 2A Prong One Analysis: The limitations:
“wherein the metric comprises a f1 score”
As drafted, as drafted is part of the abstract idea of claim 6 of selecting the first model as the final model based upon a metric of the first model. The limitation of claim 7 further limits the limitations of claim 6 by further defining what the metric comprises. The above limitation in the context of this claim encompasses determining a final model from the first and second models by selecting the first model as the final model based on a f1 score of the first model (corresponds to evaluation and judgement; in particular, a human, with the assistance of pen and paper, can use the first and second models to determine a final model by selecting the first model as the final model based on a f1 score of the first model).
Step 2A Prong Two Analysis: The judicial exceptions are not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim recites additional elements that are mere instructions to apply (See MPEP 2106.05(f)) or insignificant extra-solution activity (See MPEP 2106.05(g)). In addition, the recitation of additional elements in claim 6 of a database, generic containers comprising GPUs or VMs for executing jobs, DNN models, and generic training of the models are reciting mere instructions to apply language such that it amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exceptions. Furthermore, the “storing …”, “… communicates …” and “receiving …” limitations of claim 1 are additional elements that correspond to insignificant extra-solution activity as mere data gathering. Therefore, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract ideas into a practical application.
Step 2B Analysis: 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, all of the additional elements are “mere instructions to apply an exception” (I.e. the additional elements describe a database, generic containers comprising GPUs or VMs for executing jobs, DNN models, and generic training of the models for applying the abstract ideas) or insignificant extra-solution activity (i.e. storing, communicating/transmitting, and receiving data). Furthermore, the “storing …”, “… communicates …” and “receiving …” limitations are insignificant extra-solution activity that is well-understood, routine, and conventional according to MPEP 2106.05(d) (“The courts have recognized the following computer functions as well‐understood, routine, and conventional functions when they are claimed in a merely generic manner (e.g., at a high level of generality) or as insignificant extra-solution activity… i. Receiving or transmitting data over a network … iv. Storing and retrieving information in memory). Mere instructions to apply an exception cannot provide an inventive concept. The claim is not patent eligible.
Regarding Claim 8,
Claim 8 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 8 is directed to a method, which is directed to a process, one of the statutory categories.
Step 2A Prong One Analysis: The limitations:
“wherein the determining comprises aggregating the first model and the second model to form the final model”
As drafted, is part of the abstract idea of claim 5 of determining the final model. The limitations of claim 6 further limit the limitations of claim 5 by further defining what the determining comprises. The above limitation in the context of this claim encompasses determining a final model from the first and second models by aggregating the first and second models to form the final model (corresponds to evaluation and judgement; in particular, a human, with the assistance of pen and paper, can use the first and second models to determine a final model by aggregating the first model and second model to form the final model).
Step 2A Prong Two Analysis: The judicial exceptions are not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim recites additional elements that are mere instructions to apply (See MPEP 2106.05(f)) or insignificant extra-solution activity (See MPEP 2106.05(g)). In addition, the recitation of additional elements in claim 1 of a database, generic containers comprising GPUs or VMs for executing jobs, DNN models, and generic training of the models are reciting mere instructions to apply language such that it amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exceptions. Furthermore, the “storing …”, “… communicates …” and “receiving …” limitations of claim 1 are additional elements that correspond to insignificant extra-solution activity as mere data gathering. Therefore, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract ideas into a practical application.
Step 2B Analysis: 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, all of the additional elements are “mere instructions to apply an exception” (I.e. the additional elements describe a database, generic containers comprising GPUs or VMs for executing jobs, DNN models, and generic training of the models for applying the abstract ideas) or insignificant extra-solution activity (i.e. storing, communicating/transmitting, and receiving data). Furthermore, the “storing …”, “… communicates …” and “receiving …” limitations are insignificant extra-solution activity that is well-understood, routine, and conventional according to MPEP 2106.05(d) (“The courts have recognized the following computer functions as well‐understood, routine, and conventional functions when they are claimed in a merely generic manner (e.g., at a high level of generality) or as insignificant extra-solution activity… i. Receiving or transmitting data over a network … iv. Storing and retrieving information in memory). Mere instructions to apply an exception cannot provide an inventive concept. The claim is not patent eligible.
Regarding Claim 9,
Claim 9 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 9 is directed to a method, which is directed to a process, one of the statutory categories.
Step 2A Prong One Analysis: The limitations:
“calculating an estimated time of arrival (eta) from the status of the first child job and the status of the second child job”
As drafted, under their broadest reasonable interpretations, cover mental processes (concepts performed in the human mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgement, opinion)) and mathematical concepts (mathematical relationships, mathematical formulas or equations, mathematical calculations) but for the recitation of mere instructions to apply language (See MPEP 2106.05(f)) and insignificant extra-solution activity (See MPEP 2106.05(g)). The above limitations in the context of this claim encompass calculating an eta from the statuses of the first and second child jobs (corresponds to evaluation and judgement; in particular, a human, with the assistance of pen and paper, can use the statuses of the child jobs to calculate an estimated time of arrival).
Step 2A Prong Two Analysis: The judicial exceptions are not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim recites additional elements that are mere instructions to apply (See MPEP 2106.05(f)) or insignificant extra-solution activity (See MPEP 2106.05(g)). The limitations:
“the master job”
As drafted, are additional elements that amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception for the abstract ideas. See MPEP 2106.05(f). In addition, the recitation of additional elements in claim 1 of a database, generic containers comprising GPUs or VMs for executing jobs, DNN models, and generic training of the models are reciting mere instructions to apply language such that it amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exceptions. Furthermore, the “storing …”, “… communicates …” and “receiving …” limitations of claim 1 are additional elements that correspond to insignificant extra-solution activity as mere data gathering. Therefore, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract ideas into a practical application.
Step 2B Analysis: 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, all of the additional elements are “mere instructions to apply an exception” (I.e. the additional elements describe a database, generic containers comprising GPUs or VMs for executing jobs, DNN models, and generic training of the models for applying the abstract ideas) or insignificant extra-solution activity (i.e. storing, communicating/transmitting, and receiving data). Furthermore, the “storing …”, “… communicates …” and “receiving …” limitations are insignificant extra-solution activity that is well-understood, routine, and conventional according to MPEP 2106.05(d) (“The courts have recognized the following computer functions as well‐understood, routine, and conventional functions when they are claimed in a merely generic manner (e.g., at a high level of generality) or as insignificant extra-solution activity… i. Receiving or transmitting data over a network … iv. Storing and retrieving information in memory). Mere instructions to apply an exception cannot provide an inventive concept. The claim is not patent eligible.
Regarding Claim 11,
Claim 11 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 11 is directed to a non-transitory computer readable storage medium, which is directed to an article of manufacture, one of the statutory categories.
Step 2A Prong One Analysis: The limitations:
“preprocess the incoming data”
“creating a plurality of child jobs … based on a number of trials”
“the metric used to determine a final model”
“checking a status of the first child job and a status of the second child job”
“determining a final model from the first model and from the second model”
“processing a data set …, wherein processing the data set includes identifying a plurality of discrete entities in the data set”
As drafted, under their broadest reasonable interpretations, cover mental processes (concepts performed in the human mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgement, opinion)) but for the recitation of mere instructions to apply language (See MPEP 2106.05(f)) and insignificant extra-solution activity (See MPEP 2106.05(g)). The above limitations in the context of this claim encompass pre-processing incoming data (corresponds to evaluation and judgement; in particular, a human, with the assistance of pen and paper, can pre-process received data); creating child jobs based on a number of trials (corresponds to evaluation and judgement; in particular, a human, with the assistance of pen and paper, can, based on a number of trials, create a plurality of child jobs); using a metric to determine a final model (corresponds to evaluation and judgement; in particular, a human, with the assistance of pen and paper, can determine a final model using a metric); checking a status of the first and second child jobs (corresponds to evaluation and judgement; in particular, a human, with the assistance of pen and paper, can check a status of a first child job and check a status of a second child job); determining a final model from the first and second models (corresponds to evaluation and judgement; in particular, a human, with the assistance of pen and paper, can use the first and second models to determine a final model); and processing a data set by identifying discrete entities within the data set (corresponds to evaluation and judgement; in particular, a human, with the assistance of pen and paper, can identify discrete entities within a data set to process the data set).
Step 2A Prong Two Analysis: The judicial exceptions are not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim recites additional elements that are mere instructions to apply (See MPEP 2106.05(f)) or insignificant extra-solution activity (See MPEP 2106.05(g)). The limitations:
“executing a master job within a first container”
“by the master job”
“each child job training a corresponding model of a plurality of models using the preprocessed data”
“the plurality of models comprises a plurality of deep neural network (DNN) models stored by a computer system”
“training a first model of the plurality of models with preprocessed data”
“a first child job of the plurality of child jobs executed within a second container”
“a database”
“in parallel with the training of the first model, training a second model of the plurality of models with preprocessed data”
“a second child job of the plurality of child jobs executed within a third container”
“wherein the first container, the second container, and the third container comprise unique graphics processing units or virtual machines”
“the master job”
“using the final model”
As drafted, are additional elements that amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception for the abstract ideas. See MPEP 2106.05(f). The limitations:
“receiving incoming data”
“storing the first model together with a metric in a database”
“wherein the first container communicates with the second container and third container to orchestrate training of the first child job and the second child job”
“storing the status of the first child job and the status of the second child job, within a progress file”
As drafted, are additional elements that correspond to insignificant extra-solution activity. In particular, the additional elements are merely directed towards mere data gathering. See MPEP 2106.05(g). Therefore, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract ideas into a practical application.
Step 2B Analysis: 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, all of the additional elements are “mere instructions to apply an exception” (I.e. the additional elements describe a database, generic containers comprising GPUs or VMs for executing jobs, DNN models, and generic training of the models for applying the abstract ideas) or insignificant extra-solution activity (i.e. storing, communicating/transmitting, and receiving data). Furthermore, the “storing …”, “… communicates …” and “receiving …” limitations are insignificant extra-solution activity that is well-understood, routine, and conventional according to MPEP 2106.05(d) (“The courts have recognized the following computer functions as well‐understood, routine, and conventional functions when they are claimed in a merely generic manner (e.g., at a high level of generality) or as insignificant extra-solution activity… i. Receiving or transmitting data over a network … iv. Storing and retrieving information in memory). Mere instructions to apply an exception cannot provide an inventive concept. The claim is not patent eligible.
Regarding Claim 12,
Claim 12 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 12 is directed to a non-transitory computer readable storage medium, which is directed to an article of manufacture, one of the statutory categories.
Step 2A Prong One Analysis: The limitations:
“checks the status of the first child job and the status of the second child job: … by reading local progress files of the child jobs”
As drafted, under their broadest reasonable interpretations, cover mental processes (concepts performed in the human mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgement, opinion)) but for the recitation of mere instructions to apply language (See MPEP 2106.05(f)) and insignificant extra-solution activity (See MPEP 2106.05(g)). The above limitations in the context of this claim encompass checking the status of the first and second child jobs by reading local progress files (corresponds to evaluation and judgement; in particular, a human, with the assistance of pen and paper, can read local progress files to check the status of the first child job and check the status of the second child job).
Step 2A Prong Two Analysis: The judicial exceptions are not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim recites additional elements that are mere instructions to apply (See MPEP 2106.05(f)) or insignificant extra-solution activity (See MPEP 2106.05(g)). The limitations:
“the master job”
“via Hypertext Transfer Protocol (HTTP)”
As drafted, are additional elements that amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception for the abstract ideas. See MPEP 2106.05(f). In addition, the recitation of additional elements in claim 11 of a database, generic containers comprising GPUs or VMs for executing jobs, DNN models, and generic training of the models are reciting mere instructions to apply language such that it amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exceptions. Furthermore, the “storing …”, “… communicates …” and “receiving …” limitations of claim 1 are additional elements that correspond to insignificant extra-solution activity as mere data gathering. Therefore, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract ideas into a practical application.
Step 2B Analysis: 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, all of the additional elements are “mere instructions to apply an exception” (I.e. the additional elements describe a database, generic containers comprising GPUs or VMs for executing jobs, using HTTP, DNN models, and generic training of the models for applying the abstract ideas) or insignificant extra-solution activity (i.e. storing, communicating/transmitting, and receiving data). Furthermore, the “storing …”, “… communicates …” and “receiving …” limitations are insignificant extra-solution activity that is well-understood, routine, and conventional according to MPEP 2106.05(d) (“The courts have recognized the following computer functions as well‐understood, routine, and conventional functions when they are claimed in a merely generic manner (e.g., at a high level of generality) or as insignificant extra-solution activity… i. Receiving or transmitting data over a network … iv. Storing and retrieving information in memory). Mere instructions to apply an exception cannot provide an inventive concept. The claim is not patent eligible.
Regarding Claim 13,
Claim 13 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 13 is directed to a non-transitory computer readable storage medium, which is directed to an article of manufacture, one of the statutory categories.
Step 2A Prong One Analysis: The limitations:
“calculates an estimated time of arrival (eta) from the status of the first child job and the status of the second child job”
As drafted, under their broadest reasonable interpretations, cover mental processes (concepts performed in the human mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgement, opinion)) and mathematical concepts (mathematical relationships, mathematical formulas or equations, mathematical calculations) but for the recitation of mere instructions to apply language (See MPEP 2106.05(f)) and insignificant extra-solution activity (See MPEP 2106.05(g)). The above limitations in the context of this claim encompass calculating an eta from the statuses of the first and second child jobs (corresponds to evaluation and judgement; in particular, a human, with the assistance of pen and paper, can use the statuses of the child jobs to calculate an estimated time of arrival).
Step 2A Prong Two Analysis: The judicial exceptions are not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim recites additional elements that are mere instructions to apply (See MPEP 2106.05(f)) or insignificant extra-solution activity (See MPEP 2106.05(g)). The limitations:
“the master job”
As drafted, are additional elements that amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception for the abstract ideas. See MPEP 2106.05(f). In addition, the recitation of additional elements in claim 11 of a database, generic containers comprising GPUs or VMs for executing jobs, DNN models, and generic training of the models are reciting mere instructions to apply language such that it amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exceptions. Furthermore, the “storing …”, “… communicates …” and “receiving …” limitations of claim 1 are additional elements that correspond to insignificant extra-solution activity as mere data gathering. Therefore, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract ideas into a practical application.
Step 2B Analysis: 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, all of the additional elements are “mere instructions to apply an exception” (I.e. the additional elements describe a database, generic containers comprising GPUs or VMs for executing jobs, DNN models, and generic training of the models for applying the abstract ideas) or insignificant extra-solution activity (i.e. storing, communicating/transmitting, and receiving data). Furthermore, the “storing …”, “… communicates …” and “receiving …” limitations are insignificant extra-solution activity that is well-understood, routine, and conventional according to MPEP 2106.05(d) (“The courts have recognized the following computer functions as well‐understood, routine, and conventional functions when they are claimed in a merely generic manner (e.g., at a high level of generality) or as insignificant extra-solution activity… i. Receiving or transmitting data over a network … iv. Storing and retrieving information in memory). Mere instructions to apply an exception cannot provide an inventive concept. The claim is not patent eligible.
Regarding Claim 14,
Claim 14 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 14 is directed to a non-transitory computer readable storage medium, which is directed to an article of manufacture, one of the statutory categories.
Step 2A Prong One Analysis: The limitations:
“wherein determining the final model comprises one of: selecting the first sub model as the final model based upon a metric of the first model; and aggregating the first model and the second model to form the final model”
As drafted, is part of the abstract idea of claim 11 of determining the final model. The limitations of claim 14 further limit the limitations of claim 11 by further defining what the determining comprises. The above limitation in the context of this claim encompasses determining a final model from the first and second models by one of: selecting the first sub model as the final model based on a metric of the first model (corresponds to evaluation and judgement; in particular, a human, with the assistance of pen and paper, can use the first and second models to determine a final model by selecting the first sub model as the final model based on a metric of the first model); and aggregating the first and second models to form the final model (corresponds to evaluation and judgement; in particular, a human, with the assistance of pen and paper, can use the first and second models to determine a final model by aggregating the first model and second model to form the final model).
Step 2A Prong Two Analysis: The judicial exceptions are not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim recites additional elements that are mere instructions to apply (See MPEP 2106.05(f)) or insignificant extra-solution activity (See MPEP 2106.05(g)). In addition, the recitation of additional elements in claim 11 of a database, generic containers comprising GPUs or VMs for executing jobs, DNN models, and generic training of the models are reciting mere instructions to apply language such that it amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exceptions. Furthermore, the “storing …”, “… communicates …” and “receiving …” limitations of claim 1 are additional elements that correspond to insignificant extra-solution activity as mere data gathering. Therefore, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract ideas into a practical application.
Step 2B Analysis: 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, all of the additional elements are “mere instructions to apply an exception” (I.e. the additional elements describe a database, generic containers comprising GPUs or VMs for executing jobs, DNN models, and generic training of the models for applying the abstract ideas) or insignificant extra-solution activity (i.e. storing, communicating/transmitting, and receiving data). Furthermore, the “storing …”, “… communicates …” and “receiving …” limitations are insignificant extra-solution activity that is well-understood, routine, and conventional according to MPEP 2106.05(d) (“The courts have recognized the following computer functions as well‐understood, routine, and conventional functions when they are claimed in a merely generic manner (e.g., at a high level of generality) or as insignificant extra-solution activity… i. Receiving or transmitting data over a network … iv. Storing and retrieving information in memory). Mere instructions to apply an exception cannot provide an inventive concept. The claim is not patent eligible.
Regarding Claim 15,
Claim 15 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 15 is directed to a computer system, which is directed to a machine, one of the statutory categories.
Step 2A Prong One Analysis: The limitations:
“pre-process the incoming data”
“create a plurality of child jobs … based on a number of trials”
“the metric used to determine a final model”
“check … a status of the first child job and a status of the second child job”
“determine … a final model from the first model and from the second model”
“process a data set …, wherein processing the data set includes identifying a plurality of discrete entities in the data set”
As drafted, under their broadest reasonable interpretations, cover mental processes (concepts performed in the human mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgement, opinion)) but for the recitation of mere instructions to apply language (See MPEP 2106.05(f)) and insignificant extra-solution activity (See MPEP 2106.05(g)). The above limitations in the context of this claim encompass pre-processing incoming data (corresponds to evaluation and judgement; in particular, a human, with the assistance of pen and paper, can pre-process received data); creating child jobs based on a number of trials (corresponds to evaluation and judgement; in particular, a human, with the assistance of pen and paper, can, based on a number of trials, create a plurality of child jobs); using a metric to determine a final model (corresponds to evaluation and judgement; in particular, a human, with the assistance of pen and paper, can determine a final model using a metric); checking a status of the first and second child jobs (corresponds to evaluation and judgement; in particular, a human, with the assistance of pen and paper, can check a status of a first child job and check a status of a second child job); determining a final model from the first and second models (corresponds to evaluation and judgement; in particular, a human, with the assistance of pen and paper, can use the first and second models to determine a final model); and processing a data set by identifying discrete entities within the data set (corresponds to evaluation and judgement; in particular, a human, with the assistance of pen and paper, can identify discrete entities within a data set to process the data set).
Step 2A Prong Two Analysis: The judicial exceptions are not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim recites additional elements that are mere instructions to apply (See MPEP 2106.05(f)) or insignificant extra-solution activity (See MPEP 2106.05(g)). The limitations:
“one or more processors”
“a software program, executable on said computer system”
“an in-memory database engine of an in-memory database”
“execute a master job within a first container”
“by the master job”
“each child job trains a corresponding model of a plurality of models using the preprocessed data”
“the plurality of models comprises a plurality of deep neural network (DNN) models stored by the computer system”
“train a first model of the plurality of models with preprocessed data”
“a first child job of the plurality of child jobs executed within a second container”
“in parallel with training of the first model, train a second model of the plurality of models with preprocessed data”
“a second child job of the plurality of child jobs executed within a third container”
“wherein the first container, the second container, and the third container comprise unique graphics processing units or virtual machines”
“by the master job”
“using the final model”
As drafted, are additional elements that amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception for the abstract ideas. See MPEP 2106.05(f). The limitations:
“receive incoming data”
“store the first model together with a metric in the in-memory database”
“wherein the first container communicates with the second container and third container to orchestrate training of the first child job and the second child job”
“store … the status of the first child job and the status of the second child job, within a progress file”
As drafted, are additional elements that correspond to insignificant extra-solution activity. In particular, the additional elements are merely directed towards mere data gathering. See MPEP 2106.05(g). Therefore, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract ideas into a practical application.
Step 2B Analysis: 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, all of the additional elements are “mere instructions to apply an exception” (I.e. the additional elements describe a database, an in-memory database engine, generic containers comprising GPUs or VMs for executing jobs, DNN models, and generic training of the models for applying the abstract ideas) or insignificant extra-solution activity (i.e. storing, communicating/transmitting, and receiving data). Furthermore, the “storing …”, “… communicates …” and “receiving …” limitations are insignificant extra-solution activity that is well-understood, routine, and conventional according to MPEP 2106.05(d) (“The courts have recognized the following computer functions as well‐understood, routine, and conventional functions when they are claimed in a merely generic manner (e.g., at a high level of generality) or as insignificant extra-solution activity… i. Receiving or transmitting data over a network … iv. Storing and retrieving information in memory). Mere instructions to apply an exception cannot provide an inventive concept. The claim is not patent eligible.
Regarding Claim 16,
Claim 16 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 16 is directed to a computer system, which is directed to a machine, one of the statutory categories.
Step 2A Prong One Analysis: Please see the analysis of claim 15. The limitations of claim 16 are only additional elements to the abstract ideas of claim 15.
Step 2A Prong Two Analysis: The judicial exceptions are not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim recites additional elements that are mere instructions to apply (See MPEP 2106.05(f)) or insignificant extra-solution activity (See MPEP 2106.05(g)). The limitations:
“wherein the first container comprises a Graphics Processor Unit (GPU) based container or a Virtual Machine (VM)”
As drafted, are additional elements that amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception for the abstract ideas. See MPEP 2106.05(f). In addition, the recitation of additional elements in claim 15 of a database, an in-memory database engine, generic containers comprising GPUs or VMs for executing jobs, DNN models, and generic training of the models are reciting mere instructions to apply language such that it amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exceptions. Furthermore, the “storing …”, “… communicates …” and “receiving …” limitations of claim 15 are additional elements that correspond to insignificant extra-solution activity as mere data gathering. Therefore, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract ideas into a practical application.
Step 2B Analysis: 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, all of the additional elements are “mere instructions to apply an exception” (I.e. the additional elements describe a database, an in-memory database engine, generic containers comprising GPUs or VMs for executing jobs, DNN models, and generic training of the models for applying the abstract ideas) or insignificant extra-solution activity (i.e. storing, communicating/transmitting, and receiving data). Furthermore, the “storing …”, “… communicates …” and “receiving …” limitations are insignificant extra-solution activity that is well-understood, routine, and conventional according to MPEP 2106.05(d) (“The courts have recognized the following computer functions as well‐understood, routine, and conventional functions when they are claimed in a merely generic manner (e.g., at a high level of generality) or as insignificant extra-solution activity… i. Receiving or transmitting data over a network … iv. Storing and retrieving information in memory). Mere instructions to apply an exception cannot provide an inventive concept. The claim is not patent eligible.
Regarding Claim 17,
Claim 17 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 17 is directed to a computer system, which is directed to a machine, one of the statutory categories.
Step 2A Prong One Analysis: The limitations:
“checks the status of the first child job and the status of the second child job: … by reading local progress files of the child jobs”
As drafted, under their broadest reasonable interpretations, cover mental processes (concepts performed in the human mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgement, opinion)) but for the recitation of mere instructions to apply language (See MPEP 2106.05(f)) and insignificant extra-solution activity (See MPEP 2106.05(g)). The above limitations in the context of this claim encompass checking the status of the first and second child jobs by reading local progress files (corresponds to evaluation and judgement; in particular, a human, with the assistance of pen and paper, can read local progress files to check the status of the first child job and check the status of the second child job).
Step 2A Prong Two Analysis: The judicial exceptions are not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim recites additional elements that are mere instructions to apply (See MPEP 2106.05(f)) or insignificant extra-solution activity (See MPEP 2106.05(g)). The limitations:
“the master job”
“via Hypertext Transfer Protocol (HTTP)”
As drafted, are additional elements that amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception for the abstract ideas. See MPEP 2106.05(f). In addition, the recitation of additional elements in claim 15 of a database, an in-memory database engine, generic containers comprising GPUs or VMs for executing jobs, DNN models, and generic training of the models are reciting mere instructions to apply language such that it amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exceptions. Furthermore, the “storing …”, “… communicates …” and “receiving …” limitations of claim 15 are additional elements that correspond to insignificant extra-solution activity as mere data gathering. Therefore, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract ideas into a practical application.
Step 2B Analysis: 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, all of the additional elements are “mere instructions to apply an exception” (I.e. the additional elements describe a database, an in-memory database engine, generic containers comprising GPUs or VMs for executing jobs, using HTTP, DNN models, and generic training of the models for applying the abstract ideas) or insignificant extra-solution activity (i.e. storing, communicating/transmitting, and receiving data). Furthermore, the “storing …”, “… communicates …” and “receiving …” limitations are insignificant extra-solution activity that is well-understood, routine, and conventional according to MPEP 2106.05(d) (“The courts have recognized the following computer functions as well‐understood, routine, and conventional functions when they are claimed in a merely generic manner (e.g., at a high level of generality) or as insignificant extra-solution activity… i. Receiving or transmitting data over a network … iv. Storing and retrieving information in memory). Mere instructions to apply an exception cannot provide an inventive concept. The claim is not patent eligible.
Regarding Claim 18,
Claim 18 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 18 is directed to a computer system, which is directed to a machine, one of the statutory categories.
Step 2A Prong One Analysis: The limitations:
“calculate an estimated time of arrival (eta) from the status of the first child job and the status of the second child job”
As drafted, under their broadest reasonable interpretations, cover mental processes (concepts performed in the human mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgement, opinion)) and mathematical concepts (mathematical relationships, mathematical formulas or equations, mathematical calculations) but for the recitation of mere instructions to apply language (See MPEP 2106.05(f)) and insignificant extra-solution activity (See MPEP 2106.05(g)). The above limitations in the context of this claim encompass calculating an eta from the statuses of the first and second child jobs (corresponds to evaluation and judgement; in particular, a human, with the assistance of pen and paper, can use the statuses of the child jobs to calculate an estimated time of arrival).
Step 2A Prong Two Analysis: The judicial exceptions are not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim recites additional elements that are mere instructions to apply (See MPEP 2106.05(f)) or insignificant extra-solution activity (See MPEP 2106.05(g)). The limitations:
“the in-memory database engine”
“the master job”
As drafted, are additional elements that amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception for the abstract ideas. See MPEP 2106.05(f). In addition, the recitation of additional elements in claim 15 of a database, an in-memory database engine, generic containers comprising GPUs or VMs for executing jobs, DNN models, and generic training of the models are reciting mere instructions to apply language such that it amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exceptions. Furthermore, the “storing …”, “… communicates …” and “receiving …” limitations of claim 15 are additional elements that correspond to insignificant extra-solution activity as mere data gathering. Therefore, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract ideas into a practical application.
Step 2B Analysis: 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, all of the additional elements are “mere instructions to apply an exception” (I.e. the additional elements describe a database, an in-memory database engine, generic containers comprising GPUs or VMs for executing jobs, DNN models, and generic training of the models for applying the abstract ideas) or insignificant extra-solution activity (i.e. storing, communicating/transmitting, and receiving data). Furthermore, the “storing …”, “… communicates …” and “receiving …” limitations are insignificant extra-solution activity that is well-understood, routine, and conventional according to MPEP 2106.05(d) (“The courts have recognized the following computer functions as well‐understood, routine, and conventional functions when they are claimed in a merely generic manner (e.g., at a high level of generality) or as insignificant extra-solution activity… i. Receiving or transmitting data over a network … iv. Storing and retrieving information in memory). Mere instructions to apply an exception cannot provide an inventive concept. The claim is not patent eligible.
Regarding Claim 21,
Claim 21 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 21 is directed to a method, which is directed to a process, one of the statutory categories.
Step 2A Prong One Analysis: The limitations:
“comparing a model training time with a predetermined time budget, the time budget defining an upper limit for an overall training time”
As drafted, under their broadest reasonable interpretations, cover mental processes (concepts performed in the human mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgement, opinion)) and mathematical concepts (mathematical relationships, mathematical formulas or equations, mathematical calculations) but for the recitation of mere instructions to apply language (See MPEP 2106.05(f)) and insignificant extra-solution activity (See MPEP 2106.05(g)). The above limitations in the context of this claim encompass comparing a model training time with a predetermined time budget defining an upper limit for overall training time (corresponds to evaluation and judgement; in particular, a human, with the assistance of pen and paper, can compare model training time with a time budget).
Step 2A Prong Two Analysis: The judicial exceptions are not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim recites additional elements that are mere instructions to apply (See MPEP 2106.05(f)) or insignificant extra-solution activity (See MPEP 2106.05(g)). The limitations:
“the master job”
As drafted, are additional elements that amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception for the abstract ideas. See MPEP 2106.05(f). In addition, the recitation of additional elements in claim 1 of a database, generic containers comprising GPUs or VMs for executing jobs, DNN models, and generic training of the models are reciting mere instructions to apply language such that it amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exceptions. Furthermore, the “storing …”, “… communicates …” and “receiving …” limitations of claim 1 are additional elements that correspond to insignificant extra-solution activity as mere data gathering. Therefore, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract ideas into a practical application.
Step 2B Analysis: 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, all of the additional elements are “mere instructions to apply an exception” (I.e. the additional elements describe a database, generic containers comprising GPUs or VMs for executing jobs, DNN models, and generic training of the models for applying the abstract ideas) or insignificant extra-solution activity (i.e. storing, communicating/transmitting, and receiving data). Furthermore, the “storing …”, “… communicates …” and “receiving …” limitations are insignificant extra-solution activity that is well-understood, routine, and conventional according to MPEP 2106.05(d) (“The courts have recognized the following computer functions as well‐understood, routine, and conventional functions when they are claimed in a merely generic manner (e.g., at a high level of generality) or as insignificant extra-solution activity… i. Receiving or transmitting data over a network … iv. Storing and retrieving information in memory). Mere instructions to apply an exception cannot provide an inventive concept. The claim is not patent eligible.
Regarding Claim 22,
Claim 22 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 22 is directed to a method, which is directed to a process, one of the statutory categories.
Step 2A Prong One Analysis: The limitations:
“based on a comparison, …, of a first model training time for the first child job and a second model training time for the second child job, finishing the first child job when the status of the first child job is running and otherwise deleting the first child job, and finishing the second child job when the status of the second child job is running and otherwise deleting the second child job”
As drafted, under their broadest reasonable interpretations, cover mental processes (concepts performed in the human mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgement, opinion)) and mathematical concepts (mathematical relationships, mathematical formulas or equations, mathematical calculations) but for the recitation of mere instructions to apply language (See MPEP 2106.05(f)) and insignificant extra-solution activity (See MPEP 2106.05(g)). The above limitations in the context of this claim encompass based on a model training time for the first and second child jobs, finishing the first child job when its status is running and otherwise deleting, and finishing the second child job when its status is running and otherwise deleting (corresponds to evaluation and judgement; in particular, a human, with the assistance of pen and paper, can compare the model training times of the first and second child jobs and finish the child jobs when the status of the child jobs is running and otherwise delete the child jobs).
Step 2A Prong Two Analysis: The judicial exceptions are not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim recites additional elements that are mere instructions to apply (See MPEP 2106.05(f)) or insignificant extra-solution activity (See MPEP 2106.05(g)). The limitations:
“by the master job”
As drafted, are additional elements that amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception for the abstract ideas. See MPEP 2106.05(f). The limitations:
“wherein the master job in the first container communicates with the first child job in the second container and the second child job in the second container over one of hypertext transfer protocol (HTTP) or a representational state transfer (REST) application programming interface (API)”
As drafted, are additional elements that correspond to insignificant extra-solution activity. In particular, the additional elements are merely directed towards mere data gathering. See MPEP 2106.05(g). In addition, the recitation of additional elements in claim 1 of a database, generic containers comprising GPUs or VMs for executing jobs, DNN models, and generic training of the models are reciting mere instructions to apply language such that it amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exceptions. Furthermore, the “storing …”, “… communicates …” and “receiving …” limitations of claim 1 are additional elements that correspond to insignificant extra-solution activity as mere data gathering. Therefore, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract ideas into a practical application.
Step 2B Analysis: 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, all of the additional elements are “mere instructions to apply an exception” (I.e. the additional elements describe a database, generic containers comprising GPUs or VMs for executing jobs, using HTTP or API, DNN models, and generic training of the models for applying the abstract ideas) or insignificant extra-solution activity (i.e. storing, communicating/transmitting, and receiving data). Furthermore, the “storing …”, “… communicates …” and “receiving …” limitations are insignificant extra-solution activity that is well-understood, routine, and conventional according to MPEP 2106.05(d) (“The courts have recognized the following computer functions as well‐understood, routine, and conventional functions when they are claimed in a merely generic manner (e.g., at a high level of generality) or as insignificant extra-solution activity… i. Receiving or transmitting data over a network … iv. Storing and retrieving information in memory). Mere instructions to apply an exception cannot provide an inventive concept. The claim is not patent eligible.
Regarding Claim 23,
Claim 23 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 23 is directed to a method, which is directed to a process, one of the statutory categories.
Step 2A Prong One Analysis: The limitations:
“the preprocessing performed in the master job ensures the plurality of child jobs do not replicate the preprocessing of the incoming data”
As drafted, is part of the abstract idea of claim 1 of preprocessing incoming data. The limitation of claim 23 further limits the limitation of claim 1 by further defining what the preprocessing ensures. The above limitation in the context of this claim encompasses preprocessing incoming data to ensure child jobs do not replicate the preprocessing (corresponds to evaluation and judgement; in particular, a human, with the assistance of pen and paper, can pre-process received data).
Step 2A Prong Two Analysis: The judicial exceptions are not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim recites additional elements that are mere instructions to apply (See MPEP 2106.05(f)) or insignificant extra-solution activity (See MPEP 2106.05(g)). The limitations:
“wherein the incoming data is shared across the trials”
As drafted, are additional elements that correspond to insignificant extra-solution activity. In particular, the additional elements are merely directed towards mere data gathering. See MPEP 2106.05(g). In addition, the recitation of additional elements in claim 1 of a database, generic containers comprising GPUs or VMs for executing jobs, DNN models, and generic training of the models are reciting mere instructions to apply language such that it amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exceptions. Furthermore, the “storing …”, “… communicates …” and “receiving …” limitations of claim 1 are additional elements that correspond to insignificant extra-solution activity as mere data gathering. Therefore, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract ideas into a practical application.
Step 2B Analysis: 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, all of the additional elements are “mere instructions to apply an exception” (I.e. the additional elements describe a database, generic containers comprising GPUs or VMs for executing jobs, DNN models, and generic training of the models for applying the abstract ideas) or insignificant extra-solution activity (i.e. storing, communicating/transmitting/sharing, and receiving data). Furthermore, the “storing …”, “… communicates …”, “… is shared …” and “receiving …” limitations are insignificant extra-solution activity that is well-understood, routine, and conventional according to MPEP 2106.05(d) (“The courts have recognized the following computer functions as well‐understood, routine, and conventional functions when they are claimed in a merely generic manner (e.g., at a high level of generality) or as insignificant extra-solution activity… i. Receiving or transmitting data over a network … iv. Storing and retrieving information in memory). Mere instructions to apply an exception cannot provide an inventive concept. The claim is not patent eligible.
Regarding Claim 24,
Claim 24 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 24 is directed to a method, which is directed to a process, one of the statutory categories.
Step 2A Prong One Analysis: Please see the analysis of claim 1. The limitations of claim 24 are only additional elements to the abstract ideas of claim 1.
Step 2A Prong Two Analysis: The judicial exceptions are not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim recites additional elements that are mere instructions to apply (See MPEP 2106.05(f)) or insignificant extra-solution activity (See MPEP 2106.05(g)). The limitations:
“wherein the plurality of deep neural network (DNN) models comprises a plurality of computationally intensive DNN models, wherein each computationally intensive DNN model is implemented in a graphics processing unit (GPU) container”
As drafted, are additional elements that amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception for the abstract ideas. See MPEP 2106.05(f). In addition, the recitation of additional elements in claim 1 of a database, generic containers comprising GPUs or VMs for executing jobs, DNN models, and generic training of the models are reciting mere instructions to apply language such that it amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exceptions. Furthermore, the “storing …”, “… communicates …” and “receiving …” limitations of claim 1 are additional elements that correspond to insignificant extra-solution activity as mere data gathering. Therefore, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract ideas into a practical application.
Step 2B Analysis: 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, all of the additional elements are “mere instructions to apply an exception” (I.e. the additional elements describe a database, generic containers comprising GPUs or VMs for executing jobs, DNN models, and generic training of the models for applying the abstract ideas) or insignificant extra-solution activity (i.e. storing, communicating/transmitting, and receiving data). Furthermore, the “storing …”, “… communicates …” and “receiving …” limitations are insignificant extra-solution activity that is well-understood, routine, and conventional according to MPEP 2106.05(d) (“The courts have recognized the following computer functions as well‐understood, routine, and conventional functions when they are claimed in a merely generic manner (e.g., at a high level of generality) or as insignificant extra-solution activity… i. Receiving or transmitting data over a network … iv. Storing and retrieving information in memory). Mere instructions to apply an exception cannot provide an inventive concept. The claim is not patent eligible.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, filed 10/27/2025, with respect to the claim rejections under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the 35 U.S.C. 112(d) rejections have been withdrawn.
Applicant's arguments, filed 10/27/2025, with respect to the 35 U.S.C. 101 abstract idea rejections to the claims have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant asserts “Claim 1 (as amended) recites wherein the plurality of models comprises a plurality of deep neural network (DNN) models stored by a computer system. Support for this feature can be found in the specification at [0055] (describing DNN models); and in FIG. 13 (showing the models 1304 stored in the database 1303 of the computer system 1301). It is respectfully submitted that this feature, in combination with the other features recited in the claims, amounts to significantly more than an abstract idea.
In general, entity identification in data processing refers to the process of recognizing and defining unique objects or concepts called entities within data. This involves assigning unique identifiers to these entities to distinguish them clearly within systems or databases, thereby enabling accurate organization, management, and retrieval of data. More specifically, entity identification helps prevent duplication and errors by ensuring that each entity is uniquely represented, which improves data accuracy and consistency. It plays a critical role in data management frameworks by providing a structured way to understand and organize data assets. Additionally, entity identification is foundational for entity resolution, which involves linking and merging records that correspond to the same real-world entity across different data sources to create a unified, accurate view of data. This is essential for improving data quality, eliminating duplicates, and enabling reliable data analytics.
Embodiments are directed to improving the process of entity identification. This improved process is recited in claim 1 (as amended), and includes training models in parallel using child jobs, determining a final model, and identifying entities in a data set using the final model. These features are an improvement on existing systems. See FIG. 12 (showing improvements in both time and accuracy); and the specification at [0089]-[0092]. In summary, the problem is entity identification, and solution involves the parallel model creation recited in claim 1 (as amended), and the result is the identification of entities in a data set.
The USPTO has set forth a multi-step process for evaluating a claim under Section 101. See generally MPEP § 2106.
Under Step 2A, prong two, claim 1 includes limitations that integrate the alleged abstract idea into a practical application. Claim 1 (as amended) recites that the models are DNN models stored in a database of a computer system. These features cannot be performed in the human mind or using pencil and paper because DNN models are artificial neural networks. Artificial neural networks by definition are implemented by a computer system.
In addition, claim 1 (as amended) recites processing a data set using the final model, wherein processing the data set includes identifying a plurality of discrete entities in the data set. This has the real-world result of identifying entities in the data set. This is a practical application of the results of creating the models. This feature cannot be performed in the human mind because the models are created, stored, and processed in the computer system. This feature is not an insignificant extra-solution activity; it is significant because it accomplishes the desired goal of entity identification, and it is inter-solution activity because the entity identification is the solution to the problem of the data set having no identified entities prior to being processed using the model.
Under Step 2B, claim 1 recites additional elements that amount to sufficiently more than the alleged abstract idea. Claim 1 (as amended) recites the use of DNN models, and a specific process of executing the DNN models in parallel to generate a final model. Even assuming arguendo that executing jobs, training models and checking the status of the jobs are an abstract idea, the additional element of using DNN models amounts to significantly more than that abstract idea.
In addition, claim 1 (as amended) recites processing a data set using the final model, wherein processing the data set includes identifying a plurality of discrete entities in the data set. This has the real-world result of identifying entities in the data set. Even assuming arguendo that executing jobs, training models and checking the status of the jobs are an abstract idea, the additional element of using the final model to perform entity identification improves the functioning of the computer itself. As discussed in the specification, embodiments provide improved execution time and accuracy. See FIG. 12. The improved performance is tied to the claims because claim 1 (as amended) recites using the final model to perform entity identification. As a result of the generating and using the final model according to the steps recited in claim 1 (as amended), the time and accuracy of the entity identification process performed by the computer system are improved.
Furthermore, it is respectfully submitted that the USPTO Subject Matter Eligibility Examples support the eligibility of claim 1 (as amended). In particular, claim 1 (as amended) is similar to Claim 3 of Example 47. See July 2024 Subject Matter Eligibility Examples at pages 10- 13. Similarly to how Claim 3 of Example 47 uses the result of processing data using the model to perform the traffic blocking, claim 1 (as amended) uses the model to perform entity identification in a specific data set.
Finally, it is respectfully submitted that the Office Action is inappropriately parsing the elements of the claim. For example, claim 1 (as amended) recites "processing a data set using the final model, wherein processing the data set includes identifying a plurality of discrete entities in the data set". The Office Action at page 4 rewrites this element as "processing a data set ... wherein processing the data set includes identifying a plurality of discrete entities in the data set" and then argues that this is a pencil-and-paper operation under Step 2A, Prong One. Such parsing of the elements in order to read in a pencil-and-paper embodiment is inappropriate. As discussed above, the inventive solution to the problem of entity identification is the use of computationally intensive DNN models executed in parallel in GPU-based containers. See also the specification at [0022] and [0055]. The final model is generated based on the results of the models executed in parallel. Thus, failing to consider the interaction between the final model and processing the data set to identify the discrete entities is erroneous.
Thus, it is respectfully submitted that claims 1, 11 and 15 (as amended), and their respective dependent claims, are directed to significantly more than an abstract idea.” (Remarks Pages 8-11).
Examiner’s Response:
The examiner respectfully disagrees. Applicant has made general assertions that claim 1 recites claim elements that are not directed to an abstract idea and that even if the claim elements are directed to an abstract idea, the judicial exceptions are integrated into a practical application because the claims recite elements that cannot reasonably be characterized as covering mental processes or reflect an improvement to a technology or technical field. Regarding the “wherein the plurality of models comprises a plurality of deep neural network (DNN) models stored by a computer system” limitation of claim 1, applying generic DNN models stored on a computer system to implement the abstract ideas of claim 1 corresponds to mere instructions to apply language using a generic computer. Therefore, this limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, is considered an additional element that corresponds to mere instructions to apply the exception for the abstract ideas. See MPEP 2106.05(f): “Another consideration when determining whether a claim integrates a judicial exception into a practical application in Step 2A Prong Two or recites significantly more than a judicial exception in Step 2B is whether the additional elements amount to more than a recitation of the words "apply it" (or an equivalent) or are more than mere instructions to implement an abstract idea or other exception on a computer. … Thus, for example, claims that amount to nothing more than an instruction to apply the abstract idea using a generic computer do not render an abstract idea eligible.”. Furthermore, regarding the “processing a data set using the final model, wherein processing the data set includes identifying a plurality of discrete entities in the data set” limitation of claim 1, this limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, corresponds to evaluation and judgement with the assistance of pen and paper (the “processing a data set …, wherein processing the data set includes identifying a plurality of discrete entities in the data set” limitation is a mental process performable by the human mind; a human, with the assistance of pen and paper, can process a data set to identify discrete entities within the data set), and mere instructions to apply language using a generic computer (the “using the final model” limitation is mere instructions to apply language for the abstract idea of processing the data set). The “using the final model” limitation is a high level recitation of applying a neural network model to a data set such that it amounts to no more than merely using a computer as a tool to perform generic computer functions. See MPEP 2106.05(f). Furthermore, since the “processing a data set …” limitation is directed to a judicial exception, it cannot provide any alleged solution or improvement. See MPEP 2106.05(a): “It is important to note, the judicial exception alone cannot provide the improvement. The improvement can be provided by one or more additional elements. See the discussion of Diamond v. Diehr, 450 U.S. 175, 187 and 191-92, 209 USPQ 1, 10 (1981)) in subsection II, below.”
Additionally, claim 1 recites pre-processing incoming data (corresponds to evaluation and judgement; in particular, a human, with the assistance of pen and paper, can pre-process received data); creating child jobs based on a number of trials (corresponds to evaluation and judgement; in particular, a human, with the assistance of pen and paper, can, based on a number of trials, create a plurality of child jobs); using a metric to determine a final model (corresponds to evaluation and judgement; in particular, a human, with the assistance of pen and paper, can determine a final model using a metric); checking a status of the first and second child jobs (corresponds to evaluation and judgement; in particular, a human, with the assistance of pen and paper, can check a status of a first child job and check a status of a second child job); and determining a final model from the first and second models (corresponds to evaluation and judgement; in particular, a human, with the assistance of pen and paper, can use the first and second models to determine a final model). Since these limitations are directed to a judicial exception, they cannot provide any alleged solution or improvement. See MPEP 2106.05(a): “It is important to note, the judicial exception alone cannot provide the improvement. The improvement can be provided by one or more additional elements. See the discussion of Diamond v. Diehr, 450 U.S. 175, 187 and 191-92, 209 USPQ 1, 10 (1981)) in subsection II, below.”
Thus, it is the additional elements that are analyzed to determine whether the judicial exception is integrated into a practical application, not the judicial exception itself. The additional elements of claim 1 of “executing a master job within a first container”, “by the master job”, “each child job training a corresponding model of a plurality of models using the preprocessed data”, “the plurality of models comprises a plurality of deep neural network (DNN) models stored by a computer system”, “training a first model of the plurality of models with preprocessed data”, “a first child job of the plurality of child jobs executed within a second container”, “a database”, “in parallel with the training of the first model, training a second model of the plurality of models with preprocessed data”, “a second child job of the plurality of child jobs executed within a third container”, “wherein the first container, the second container, and the third container comprise unique graphics processing units or virtual machines”, “the master job”, and “using the final model”, as drafted, are additional elements that amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception for the abstract ideas. See MPEP 2106.05(f): “Another consideration when determining whether a claim integrates a judicial exception into a practical application in Step 2A Prong Two or recites significantly more than a judicial exception in Step 2B is whether the additional elements amount to more than a recitation of the words "apply it" (or an equivalent) or are more than mere instructions to implement an abstract idea or other exception on a computer. … Thus, for example, claims that amount to nothing more than an instruction to apply the abstract idea using a generic computer do not render an abstract idea eligible.” Moreover, the recitation of “receiving incoming data”, “storing the first model together with a metric in a database”, “wherein the first container communicates with the second container and third container to orchestrate training of the first child job and the second child job”, and “storing the status of the first child job and the status of the second child job, within a progress file”, as drafted, amounts to insignificant extra-solution activity. In particular, the additional elements corresponds to mere data gathering. See MPEP 2106.05(g). Accordingly, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract ideas into a practical application.
Furthermore, 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, all of the additional elements are “mere instructions to apply an exception” (I.e. the additional elements describe a database, generic containers comprising GPUs or VMs for executing jobs, DNN models, and generic training of the models for applying the abstract ideas) or insignificant extra-solution activity (i.e. storing, communicating/transmitting, and receiving data). Furthermore, the “storing …”, “… communicates …” and “receiving …” limitations are insignificant extra-solution activity that is well-understood, routine, and conventional according to MPEP 2106.05(d) (“The courts have recognized the following computer functions as well‐understood, routine, and conventional functions when they are claimed in a merely generic manner (e.g., at a high level of generality) or as insignificant extra-solution activity… i. Receiving or transmitting data over a network … iv. Storing and retrieving information in memory). Accordingly, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract ideas into a practical application.
Additionally, regarding Applicant’s assertion that “claim 1 (as amended) is similar to Claim 3 of Example 47. See July 2024 Subject Matter Eligibility Examples at pages 10- 13. Similarly to how Claim 3 of Example 47 uses the result of processing data using the model to perform the traffic blocking, claim 1 (as amended) uses the model to perform entity identification in a specific data set”, Examiner respectfully disagrees. In contrast to Applicant’s claim 1, per the July 2024 Subject Matter Eligibility Examples, claim 3 of Example 47 is eligible “because it recites a judicial exception (abstract idea), but the claim as a whole integrates the judicial exception into a practical application” and because in the Step 2A Prong One analysis, “Limitations (d)-(f) do not recite mental processes because they cannot be practically performed in the human mind. That is, the human mind is not equipped to detect a source address associated with malicious network packets, drop the malicious network packets in real time, and block future traffic as recited in the claim.” (July 2024 Subject Matter Eligibility Examples, pages 2 and 11). The limitations of Applicant’s claim 1, including “determining a final model from the first model and from the second model” and “processing a data set …, wherein processing the data set includes identifying a plurality of discrete entities in the data set”, which are considered judicial exceptions corresponding to mental processes, do not recite any additional elements comparable to “(d) detecting a source address associated with the one or more malicious network packets in real time; (e) dropping the one or more malicious network packets in real time; and (f) blocking future traffic from the source address”, as in claim 3 of Example 47.
In other words, the limitation of “processing a data set …” is an abstract idea that is directed to a judicial exception, so it cannot provide any alleged solution or improvement. Furthermore, the limitation “wherein the plurality of models comprises a plurality of deep neural network (DNN) models stored by a computer system” is an additional elements corresponding to mere instructions to apply language using a generic computer. Additionally, the limitations of “receiving incoming data”, “storing the first model together with a metric in a database”, “wherein the first container communicates with the second container and third container to orchestrate training of the first child job and the second child job”, and “storing the status of the first child job and the status of the second child job, within a progress file” are additional elements corresponding to insignificant extra-solution activity that is well-understood, routine, and conventional. Furthermore, the other additional elements recited in claim 1 are directed to mere instructions to apply an abstract idea. Therefore, claim 1 does not recite additional element(s) that can provide any alleged solution, improvement, or inventive concept. As such, the judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application, nor do the claims contain significantly more than the judicial exception.
Applicant relies on the arguments above regarding independent claims 11 and 15 and dependent claims 2-4, 6-9, 12-14, 16-18, and 21-24 therefore the response above is applicable to those claims.
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).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BRIAN J HALES whose telephone number is (571)272-0878. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9:00am - 5:00pm.
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, Kamran Afshar can be reached at (571) 272-7796. 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.
/BRIAN J HALES/Examiner, Art Unit 2125
/KAMRAN AFSHAR/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2125