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 .
DETAILED ACTION
This action is responsive to the application filed on 03/10/2026. Claims 1, 5-8, 10-17, 21-24 and 26-33 are pending in this case. Claims 1, 17 and 33 are independent claims.
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.
Claim(s) 1, 5-8, 10-17, 21-24 and 26-33 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
When considering subject matter eligibility under 35 U.S.C. 101, it must be determined whether the claim is directed to one of the four statutory categories of invention, i.e., process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter (Step 1). If the claim does fall within one of the statutory categories, the second step in the analysis is to determine whether the claim is directed to a judicial exception (Step 2A). The Step 2A analysis is broken into two prongs. In the first prong (Step 2A, Prong 1), it is determined whether or not the claims recite a judicial exception (e.g., mathematical concepts, mental processes, certain methods of organizing human activity). If it is determined in Step 2A, Prong 1 that the claims recite a judicial exception, the analysis proceeds to the second prong (Step 2A, Prong 2), where it is determined whether or not the claims integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. If it is determined at step 2A, Prong 2 that the claims do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application, the analysis proceeds to determining whether the claim is a patent-eligible application of the exception (Step 2B). If an abstract idea is present in the claim, any element or combination of elements in the claim must be sufficient to ensure that the claim integrates the judicial exception into a practical application, or else amounts to significantly more than the abstract idea itself. Applicant is advised to consult the 2019 PEG for more details of the analysis.
Step 1 Analysis: Is the claim to a process, machine, manufacture or composition of matter? See MPEP § 2106.03.
Claims 1, 5-8, 10-16 and 33 are drawn to a method, claims 17, 21-24 and 26-32 are drawn to a system, therefore each of these claim groups falls under one of four categories of statutory subject matter (machine/products/apparatus, process/method, manufactures and compositions of mater; Step 1).
Nonetheless, the claims are directed to a judicially recognized exception of an abstract idea without significant more (Step 2A, see below). Independent claims 1, 17 and 33 are nonverbatim but similar in claim construction, hence share the same rationale that the claimed inventions are directed to non-statutory subject matter as follows:
Regarding claim 1:
Claim 1 recites: A method for regularizing deep neural networks (DNNs) during DNN model evolution and improved DNN model training to discover optimal DNN model architectures for performing a predetermined task, comprising:
initializing a random initial population of individuals having a corresponding DNN model having multiple hidden layers, wherein the individuals include multiple hyperparameters, greater than 100K model weights and individual fitness values, and further wherein one of the hyperparameters is a Taylor GLO loss function
selecting a first set of individuals from the initial population of a generation, wherein the selecting is based on a combination of fitness value and novelty;
generating a second set of individuals from the first set of individuals, wherein the second set consists of one or more new individuals each having a corresponding DNN model, including inherited model weights and fitness, and updated hyperparameters associated therewith;
evaluating the one or more new individuals by training the corresponding DNN model to perform the predetermined task and determining an updated fitness value for the corresponding DNN model based on performance thereof, wherein the evaluated one or more new individuals with updated DNN model establish a pool of evaluated individuals;
selecting a third set of individuals from the pool of evaluated individuals in accordance with updated fitness value; and
iteratively performing steps ii through v. for multiple generations until fitness of an optimum individual for performing the predetermined task converges, wherein fitness value is used to select a first set of individuals in every generation and novelty is used with fitness value to select a first set of individuals only in every other generation
Step 2A Prong One Analysis: Does the claim recite an abstract idea, law of nature, or natural phenomenon? See MPEP § 2106.04(II)(A)(1).
Claim 1 is directed to an abstract idea, specifically, a mathematical concept, when the claim recites," a mathematical calculation is a mathematical operation (such as multiplication) or an act of calculating using mathematical methods to determine a variable or number." See MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)(I)(C). As well as a mental process—concepts that can practically be performed in the human mind, with or without the use of a physical aid such as pen and paper (including observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion). See MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)(III).
Independent claim 1 recites in part:
initializing a random initial population of individuals having a corresponding DNN model having multiple hidden layers, wherein the individuals include multiple hyperparameters, greater than 100K model weights and individual fitness values, and further wherein one of the hyperparameters is a Taylor GLO loss function
The limitation above is broadly and reasonably interpreted as a mathematical concept, when the claim recites," a mathematical calculation is a mathematical operation (such as multiplication) or an act of calculating using mathematical methods to determine a variable or number." See MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)(I)(C). Taylor GLO loss function is a mathematical method used to quantify the difference or "error," between a model's predicted output and the actual target value (ground truth). Also, “initializing a random initial population…” is linked to several mathematical concepts.
selecting a first set of individuals from the initial population of a generation, wherein the selecting is based on a combination of fitness value and novelty
The limitation above is broadly and reasonably interpreted as a mental process that can practically be performed in the human mind, with or without the use of a physical aid such as pen and paper (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion). See MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)(III). For example, one can choose a first group of data based on their values and novelty.
selecting a third set of individuals from the pool of evaluated individuals in accordance with updated fitness value
The limitation above is broadly and reasonably interpreted as a mental process that can practically be performed in the human mind, with or without the use of a physical aid such as pen and paper (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion). See MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)(III). For example, one can choose from a third group of data based on a new set of values.
Step 2A Prong Two Analysis: Does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application? See MPEP § 2106.04(d).
Independent claim 1 recites in part:
“A method for regularizing deep neural networks (DNNs) during DNN model evolution and improved DNN model training to discover optimal DNN model architectures for performing a predetermined task, comprising:” as drafted, amount to adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception and reciting only the idea of a solution or outcome, i.e., the claim fails to recite details of how a solution to a problem is accomplished because it is unclear how the “DNN” is used nor the specification makes it clear how these actions are performed. Thus, these additional elements are recited in a manner that represent no more than mere instructions to apply the judicial exceptions on a computer. See MPEP § 2106.05(f) and §2106.04(d).
“generating a second set of individuals from the first set of individuals, wherein the second set consists of one or more new individuals each having a corresponding DNN model, including inherited model weights and fitness, and updated hyperparameters associated therewith” as drafted, amount to adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception and reciting only the idea of a solution or outcome, i.e., the claim fails to recite details of how a solution to a problem is accomplished because it is unclear how the “DNN” is used nor the specification makes it clear how these actions are performed. Thus, these additional elements are recited in a manner that represent no more than mere instructions to apply the judicial exceptions on a computer. See MPEP § 2106.05(f) and §2106.04(d).
“evaluating the one or more new individuals by training the corresponding DNN model to perform the predetermined task and determining an updated fitness value for the corresponding DNN model based on performance thereof, wherein the evaluated one or more new individuals with updated DNN model establish a pool of evaluated individuals” as drafted, amount to adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception and reciting only the idea of a solution or outcome, i.e., the claim fails to recite details of how a solution to a problem is accomplished because it is unclear how the “DNN” is used nor the specification makes it clear how these actions are performed. Thus, these additional elements are recited in a manner that represent no more than mere instructions to apply the judicial exceptions on a computer. See MPEP § 2106.05(f) and §2106.04(d).
“iteratively performing steps ii through v. for multiple generations until fitness of an optimum individual for performing the predetermined task converges, wherein fitness value is used to select a first set of individuals in every generation and novelty is used with fitness value to select a first set of individuals only in every other generation” as drafted, amount to adding insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception. See MPEP §§ 2106.04(d), 2106.05(g).
Step 2B Analysis: Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception? See MPEP § 2106.05.
First, the additional elements directed to generally linking the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use are deemed insufficient to transform the judicial exception to a patentable invention because the claimed limitations generally link the judicial exception to the technology environment, see MPEP 2106.05(h). However, they are included below for the sake of completeness.
Second, the additional elements mere application of the abstract idea or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer are deemed insufficient to transform the judicial exception to a patentable invention because the limitations generally apply the use of a generic computer and/or process with the judicial exception. See MPEP 2106.05(f). However, they are included below for the sake of completeness.
Independent claim 1 recites in part:
“A method for regularizing deep neural networks (DNNs) during DNN model evolution and improved DNN model training to discover optimal DNN model architectures for performing a predetermined task, comprising:” as drafted, amount to adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception and reciting only the idea of a solution or outcome, i.e., the claim fails to recite details of how a solution to a problem is accomplished because it is unclear how the “DNN” is used nor the specification makes it clear how these actions are performed. Thus, these additional elements are recited in a manner that represent no more than mere instructions to apply the judicial exceptions on a computer. See MPEP § 2106.05(f) and §2106.04(d).
“generating a second set of individuals from the first set of individuals, wherein the second set consists of one or more new individuals each having a corresponding DNN model, including inherited model weights and fitness, and updated hyperparameters associated therewith” as drafted, amount to adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception and reciting only the idea of a solution or outcome, i.e., the claim fails to recite details of how a solution to a problem is accomplished because it is unclear how the “DNN” is used nor the specification makes it clear how these actions are performed. Thus, these additional elements are recited in a manner that represent no more than mere instructions to apply the judicial exceptions on a computer. See MPEP § 2106.05(f) and §2106.04(d).
“evaluating the one or more new individuals by training the corresponding DNN model to perform the predetermined task and determining an updated fitness value for the corresponding DNN model based on performance thereof, wherein the evaluated one or more new individuals with updated DNN model establish a pool of evaluated individuals” as drafted, amount to adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception and reciting only the idea of a solution or outcome, i.e., the claim fails to recite details of how a solution to a problem is accomplished because it is unclear how the “DNN” is used nor the specification makes it clear how these actions are performed. Thus, these additional elements are recited in a manner that represent no more than mere instructions to apply the judicial exceptions on a computer. See MPEP § 2106.05(f) and §2106.04(d).
“iteratively performing steps ii through v. for multiple generations until fitness of an optimum individual for performing the predetermined task converges, wherein fitness value is used to select a first set of individuals in every generation and novelty is used with fitness value to select a first set of individuals only in every other generation” as drafted, amount to adding insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception. See MPEP §§ 2106.04(d), 2106.05(g).
Thus, considering the additional elements individually and in combination and the claims as a whole, the additional elements do not provide significantly more than the abstract idea. The claims are not eligible subject matter.
Therefore, in examining elements as recited by the limitations individually and as an ordered combination, as a whole the independent claim limitations do not recite what have the courts have identified as “significantly more”.
Regarding claim 17:
Claim 17 recites: A system for regularizing deep neural networks (DNNs) during DNN model evolution and improved DNN model training to discover optimal DNN model architectures for performing a predetermined task, comprising:
a processing arrangement; and
a computer-readable medium which includes thereon a set of instructions, wherein the set of instructions is configured to effectuate the processing arrangement to perform procedures comprising:
initializing a random initial population of individuals having a corresponding DNN model having multiple hidden layers, wherein the individuals include multiple hyperparameters, greater than 100K model weights and individual fitness values, and further wherein one of the hyperparameters is a TaylorGLO loss function;
selecting a first set of individuals from the initial population of a generation, wherein the selecting is based on a combination of fitness value and novelty;
generating a second set of individuals from the first set of individuals, wherein the second set consists of one or more new individuals each having a corresponding DNN model, including inherited model weights and fitness, and updated hyperparameters associated therewith;
evaluating the one or more new individuals by training the corresponding DNN model to perform the predetermined task and determining an updated fitness value for the corresponding DNN model based on performance thereof, wherein the evaluated one or more new individuals with updated DNN model establish a pool of evaluated individuals;
selecting a third set of individuals from the pool of evaluated individuals in accordance with updated fitness value; and
iteratively performing steps ii through v. for multiple generations until fitness of an optimum individual for performing the predetermined task converges, wherein fitness value is used to select a first set of individuals in every generation and novelty is used with fitness value to select a first set of individuals only in every other generation
Step 2A Prong One Analysis: Does the claim recite an abstract idea, law of nature, or natural phenomenon? See MPEP § 2106.04(II)(A)(1).
Claim 17 is directed to an abstract idea, specifically, a mathematical concept, when the claim recites," a mathematical calculation is a mathematical operation (such as multiplication) or an act of calculating using mathematical methods to determine a variable or number." See MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)(I)(C). As well as a mental process—concepts that can practically be performed in the human mind, with or without the use of a physical aid such as pen and paper (including observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion). See MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)(III).
Independent claim 17 recites in part:
initializing a random initial population of individuals having a corresponding DNN model having multiple hidden layers, wherein the individuals include multiple hyperparameters, greater than 100K model weights and individual fitness values, and further wherein one of the hyperparameters is a Taylor GLO loss function
The limitation above is broadly and reasonably interpreted as a mathematical concept, when the claim recites," a mathematical calculation is a mathematical operation (such as multiplication) or an act of calculating using mathematical methods to determine a variable or number." See MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)(I)(C). Taylor GLO loss function is a mathematical method used to quantify the difference or "error," between a model's predicted output and the actual target value (ground truth). Also, “initializing a random initial population…” is linked to several mathematical concepts.
selecting a first set of individuals from the initial population of a generation, wherein the selecting is based on a combination of fitness value and novelty;
The limitation above is broadly and reasonably interpreted as a mental process that can practically be performed in the human mind, with or without the use of a physical aid such as pen and paper (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion). See MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)(III). For example, one can choose a first group of data based on their values and novelty.
selecting a third set of individuals from the pool of evaluated individuals in accordance with updated fitness value
The limitation above is broadly and reasonably interpreted as a mental process that can practically be performed in the human mind, with or without the use of a physical aid such as pen and paper (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion). See MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)(III). For example, one can choose from a third group of data based on a new set of values.
Step 2A Prong Two Analysis: Does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application? See MPEP § 2106.04(d).
Independent claim 17 recites in part:
“A system for regularizing deep neural networks (DNNs) during DNN model evolution and improved DNN model training to discover optimal DNN model architectures for performing a predetermined task, comprising:” as drafted, amount to adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception and reciting only the idea of a solution or outcome, i.e., the claim fails to recite details of how a solution to a problem is accomplished because it is unclear how the “DNN” is used nor the specification makes it clear how these actions are performed. Thus, these additional elements are recited in a manner that represent no more than mere instructions to apply the judicial exceptions on a computer. See MPEP § 2106.05(f) and §2106.04(d).
“a processing arrangement” as drafted, amount to generic computing components recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as a generic processor performing data gathering and mathematical calculations) such that they amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components. Accordingly, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to an abstract idea.
“a computer-readable medium which includes thereon a set of instructions, wherein the set of instructions is configured to effectuate the processing arrangement to perform procedures comprising” as drafted, amount to generic computing components recited at a high- level of generality (i.e., as a generic processor performing data gathering and mathematical calculations) such that they amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components. Accordingly, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to an abstract idea.
“generating a second set of individuals from the first set of individuals, wherein the second set consists of one or more new individuals each having a corresponding DNN model, including inherited model weights and fitness, and updated hyperparameters associated therewith” as drafted, amount to adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception and reciting only the idea of a solution or outcome, i.e., the claim fails to recite details of how a solution to a problem is accomplished because it is unclear how the “DNN” is used nor the specification makes it clear how these actions are performed. Thus, these additional elements are recited in a manner that represent no more than mere instructions to apply the judicial exceptions on a computer. See MPEP § 2106.05(f) and §2106.04(d).
“evaluating the one or more new individuals by training the corresponding DNN model to perform the predetermined task and determining an updated fitness value for the corresponding DNN model based on performance thereof, wherein the evaluated one or more new individuals with updated DNN model establish a pool of evaluated individuals” as drafted, amount to adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception and reciting only the idea of a solution or outcome, i.e., the claim fails to recite details of how a solution to a problem is accomplished because it is unclear how the “DNN” is used nor the specification makes it clear how these actions are performed. Thus, these additional elements are recited in a manner that represent no more than mere instructions to apply the judicial exceptions on a computer. See MPEP § 2106.05(f) and §2106.04(d).
“iteratively performing steps ii through v. for multiple generations until fitness of an optimum individual for performing the predetermined task converges, wherein fitness value is used to select a first set of individuals in every generation and novelty is used with fitness value to select a first set of individuals only in every other generation” as drafted, amount to adding insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception. See MPEP §§ 2106.04(d), 2106.05(g).
Step 2B Analysis: Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception? See MPEP § 2106.05.\
First, the additional elements directed to generally linking the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use are deemed insufficient to transform the judicial exception to a patentable invention because the claimed limitations generally link the judicial exception to the technology environment, see MPEP 2106.05(h). However, they are included below for the sake of completeness.
Second, the additional elements mere application of the abstract idea or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer are deemed insufficient to transform the judicial exception to a patentable invention because the limitations generally apply the use of a generic computer and/or process with the judicial exception. See MPEP 2106.05(f). However, they are included below for the sake of completeness.
“A system for regularizing deep neural networks (DNNs) during DNN model evolution and improved DNN model training to discover optimal DNN model architectures for performing a predetermined task, comprising:” as drafted, amount to adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception and reciting only the idea of a solution or outcome, i.e., the claim fails to recite details of how a solution to a problem is accomplished because it is unclear how the “DNN” is used nor the specification makes it clear how these actions are performed. Thus, these additional elements are recited in a manner that represent no more than mere instructions to apply the judicial exceptions on a computer. See MPEP § 2106.05(f) and §2106.04(d).
“a processing arrangement” as drafted, amount to generic computing components recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as a generic processor performing data gathering and mathematical calculations) such that they amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components. Accordingly, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to an abstract idea.
“a computer-readable medium which includes thereon a set of instructions, wherein the set of instructions is configured to effectuate the processing arrangement to perform procedures comprising” as drafted, amount to generic computing components recited at a high- level of generality (i.e., as a generic processor performing data gathering and mathematical calculations) such that they amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components. Accordingly, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to an abstract idea.
“generating a second set of individuals from the first set of individuals, wherein the second set consists of one or more new individuals each having a corresponding DNN model, including inherited model weights and fitness, and updated hyperparameters associated therewith” as drafted, amount to adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception and reciting only the idea of a solution or outcome, i.e., the claim fails to recite details of how a solution to a problem is accomplished because it is unclear how the “DNN” is used nor the specification makes it clear how these actions are performed. Thus, these additional elements are recited in a manner that represent no more than mere instructions to apply the judicial exceptions on a computer. See MPEP § 2106.05(f) and §2106.04(d).
“evaluating the one or more new individuals by training the corresponding DNN model to perform the predetermined task and determining an updated fitness value for the corresponding DNN model based on performance thereof, wherein the evaluated one or more new individuals with updated DNN model establish a pool of evaluated individuals” as drafted, amount to adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception and reciting only the idea of a solution or outcome, i.e., the claim fails to recite details of how a solution to a problem is accomplished because it is unclear how the “DNN” is used nor the specification makes it clear how these actions are performed. Thus, these additional elements are recited in a manner that represent no more than mere instructions to apply the judicial exceptions on a computer. See MPEP § 2106.05(f) and §2106.04(d).
“iteratively performing steps ii through v. for multiple generations until fitness of an optimum individual for performing the predetermined task converges, wherein fitness value is used to select a first set of individuals in every generation and novelty is used with fitness value to select a first set of individuals only in every other generation” as drafted, amount to adding insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception. See MPEP §§ 2106.04(d), 2106.05(g).
Regarding claim 33:
Claim 33 recites: A method for regularizing deep neural networks (DNNs) during DNN model evolution and improved DNN model training to discover optimal DNN model architectures for performing a classification task, comprising:
initializing a random initial population of individuals having a corresponding DNN model selected from the group consisting of a residual network (ResNet) or Wide ResNet (WRN) model architecture having multiple hidden layers, wherein the individuals include multiple hyperparameters, greater than 100K model weights and individual fitness values, and further wherein one of the hyperparameters is a TaylorGLO loss function;
selecting a first set of individuals from the initial population of a generation, wherein the selecting is based on a combination of fitness value and novelty;
generating a second set of individuals from the first set of individuals, wherein the second set consists of one or more new individuals each having a corresponding DNN model, including inherited model weights and fitness, and updated hyperparameters associated therewith;
evaluating the one or more new individuals by training the corresponding DNN model to perform the classification task and determining an updated fitness value for the corresponding DNN model based on performance thereof, wherein the evaluated one or more new individuals with updated DNN model establish a pool of evaluated individuals;
selecting a third set of individuals from the pool of evaluated individuals in accordance with updated fitness value; and
iteratively performing steps ii through v. for multiple generations until fitness of an optimum individual for performing the classification task converges, wherein fitness value is used to select a first set of individuals in every generation and novelty is used with fitness value to select a first set of individuals only in every other generation
Step 2A Prong One Analysis: Does the claim recite an abstract idea, law of nature, or natural phenomenon? See MPEP § 2106.04(II)(A)(1).
Claim 33 is directed to an abstract idea, specifically, a mathematical concept, when the claim recites," a mathematical calculation is a mathematical operation (such as multiplication) or an act of calculating using mathematical methods to determine a variable or number." See MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)(I)(C). As well as a mental process—concepts that can practically be performed in the human mind, with or without the use of a physical aid such as pen and paper (including observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion). See MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)(III).
Independent claim 33 recites in part:
initializing a random initial population of individuals having a corresponding DNN model selected from the group consisting of a residual network (ResNet) or Wide ResNet (WRN) model architecture having multiple hidden layers, wherein the individuals include multiple hyperparameters, greater than 100K model weights and individual fitness values, and further wherein one of the hyperparameters is a TaylorGLO loss function
The limitation above is broadly and reasonably interpreted as a mathematical concept, when the claim recites," a mathematical calculation is a mathematical operation (such as multiplication) or an act of calculating using mathematical methods to determine a variable or number." See MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)(I)(C). Taylor GLO loss function is a mathematical method used to quantify the difference or "error," between a model's predicted output and the actual target value (ground truth). Also, “initializing a random initial population…” is linked to several mathematical concepts.
selecting a first set of individuals from the initial population of a generation, wherein the selecting is based on a combination of fitness value and novelty
The limitation above is broadly and reasonably interpreted as a mental process that can practically be performed in the human mind, with or without the use of a physical aid such as pen and paper (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion). See MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)(III). For example, one can choose a first group of data based on their values and novelty.
selecting a third set of individuals from the pool of evaluated individuals in accordance with updated fitness value
The limitation above is broadly and reasonably interpreted as a mental process that can practically be performed in the human mind, with or without the use of a physical aid such as pen and paper (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion). See MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)(III). For example, one can choose from a third group of data based on a new set of values.
Step 2A Prong Two Analysis: Does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application? See MPEP § 2106.04(d).
Independent claim 33 recites in part:
“A method for regularizing deep neural networks (DNNs) during DNN model evolution and improved DNN model training to discover optimal DNN model architectures for performing a classification task, comprising” as drafted, amount to adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception and reciting only the idea of a solution or outcome, i.e., the claim fails to recite details of how a solution to a problem is accomplished because it is unclear how the “DNN” is used nor the specification makes it clear how these actions are performed. Thus, these additional elements are recited in a manner that represent no more than mere instructions to apply the judicial exceptions on a computer. See MPEP § 2106.05(f) and §2106.04(d).
“generating a second set of individuals from the first set of individuals, wherein the second set consists of one or more new individuals each having a corresponding DNN model, including inherited model weights and fitness, and updated hyperparameters associated therewith” as drafted, amount to adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception and reciting only the idea of a solution or outcome, i.e., the claim fails to recite details of how a solution to a problem is accomplished because it is unclear how the “DNN” is used nor the specification makes it clear how these actions are performed. Thus, these additional elements are recited in a manner that represent no more than mere instructions to apply the judicial exceptions on a computer. See MPEP § 2106.05(f) and §2106.04(d).
“evaluating the one or more new individuals by training the corresponding DNN model to perform the classification task and determining an updated fitness value for the corresponding DNN model based on performance thereof, wherein the evaluated one or more new individuals with updated DNN model establish a pool of evaluated individuals” as drafted, amount to adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception and reciting only the idea of a solution or outcome, i.e., the claim fails to recite details of how a solution to a problem is accomplished because it is unclear how the “DNN” is used nor the specification makes it clear how these actions are performed. Thus, these additional elements are recited in a manner that represent no more than mere instructions to apply the judicial exceptions on a computer. See MPEP § 2106.05(f) and §2106.04(d).
“iteratively performing steps ii through v. for multiple generations until fitness of an optimum individual for performing the classification task converges, wherein fitness value is used to select a first set of individuals in every generation and novelty is used with fitness value to select a first set of individuals only in every other generation” as drafted, amount to adding insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception. See MPEP §§ 2106.04(d), 2106.05(g).
Step 2B Analysis: Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception? See MPEP § 2106.05.
First, the additional elements directed to generally linking the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use are deemed insufficient to transform the judicial exception to a patentable invention because the claimed limitations generally link the judicial exception to the technology environment, see MPEP 2106.05(h). However, they are included below for the sake of completeness.
Second, the additional elements mere application of the abstract idea or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer are deemed insufficient to transform the judicial exception to a patentable invention because the limitations generally apply the use of a generic computer and/or process with the judicial exception. See MPEP 2106.05(f). However, they are included below for the sake of completeness.
“A method for regularizing deep neural networks (DNNs) during DNN model evolution and improved DNN model training to discover optimal DNN model architectures for performing a classification task, comprising” as drafted, amount to adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception and reciting only the idea of a solution or outcome, i.e., the claim fails to recite details of how a solution to a problem is accomplished because it is unclear how the “DNN” is used nor the specification makes it clear how these actions are performed. Thus, these additional elements are recited in a manner that represent no more than mere instructions to apply the judicial exceptions on a computer. See MPEP § 2106.05(f) and §2106.04(d).
“generating a second set of individuals from the first set of individuals, wherein the second set consists of one or more new individuals each having a corresponding DNN model, including inherited model weights and fitness, and updated hyperparameters associated therewith” as drafted, amount to adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception and reciting only the idea of a solution or outcome, i.e., the claim fails to recite details of how a solution to a problem is accomplished because it is unclear how the “DNN” is used nor the specification makes it clear how these actions are performed. Thus, these additional elements are recited in a manner that represent no more than mere instructions to apply the judicial exceptions on a computer. See MPEP § 2106.05(f) and §2106.04(d).
“evaluating the one or more new individuals by training the corresponding DNN model to perform the classification task and determining an updated fitness value for the corresponding DNN model based on performance thereof, wherein the evaluated one or more new individuals with updated DNN model establish a pool of evaluated individuals” as drafted, amount to adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception and reciting only the idea of a solution or outcome, i.e., the claim fails to recite details of how a solution to a problem is accomplished because it is unclear how the “DNN” is used nor the specification makes it clear how these actions are performed. Thus, these additional elements are recited in a manner that represent no more than mere instructions to apply the judicial exceptions on a computer. See MPEP § 2106.05(f) and §2106.04(d).
“iteratively performing steps ii through v. for multiple generations until fitness of an optimum individual for performing the classification task converges, wherein fitness value is used to select a first set of individuals in every generation and novelty is used with fitness value to select a first set of individuals only in every other generation” as drafted, amount to adding insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception. See MPEP §§ 2106.04(d), 2106.05(g).
Thus, considering the additional elements individually and in combination and the claims as a whole, the additional elements do not provide significantly more than the abstract idea. The claims are not eligible subject matter.
Therefore, in examining elements as recited by the limitations individually and as an ordered combination, as a whole the independent claim limitations do not recite what have the courts have identified as “significantly more”.
Furthermore, regarding dependent claims 5-8, 10-16 which are dependent on claim 1, claims 21 24 and 26-32 which is dependent on claim 17, the claims are directed to a judicial exception without significantly more as highlighted below in the claim limitations by evaluating the claim limitations under Step 2A and 2B:
Claims 5 and 21 incorporates the rejection of independent claim 1 and 17 respectively, and additional limitation recited in dependent claims 1 and 17 does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. See MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)(I)(C).
Claims 6 and 22 incorporates the rejection of independent claim 1 and 17 respectively, and additional limitation recited in dependent claims 1 and 17 does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Claims 7 and 23 incorporates the rejection of independent claim 1 and 17 respectively, and additional limitation recited in dependent claims 1 and 17 does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Claims 8 and 24 are dependent on claims 1 and 17 respectively, merely reciting the words "apply it" (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or merely including instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely using a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea.
Claim 10 and 26 are dependent on claims 1 and 20, and include a mathematical calculation is a mathematical operation (such as multiplication) or an act of calculating using mathematical methods to determine a variable or number”. See MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)(I)(C).
Claims 11 and 27 are dependent on claims 1 and 20, and include unclear how the “DNN” is used nor the specification makes it clear how these actions are performed. Thus, these additional elements are recited in a manner that represent no more than mere instructions to apply the judicial exceptions on a computer. See MPEP § 2106.05(f) and § 2106.04(d).
Claim 12 and 28 are dependent on claims 11 and 27, and include unclear how the “DNN” is used nor the specification makes it clear how these actions are performed. Thus, these additional elements are recited in a manner that represent no more than mere instructions to apply the judicial exceptions on a computer. See MPEP § 2106.05(f) and § 2106.04(d).
Claims 13 and 29 are dependent on claim 12, and additional limitation recited in claim 12 and not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Claim 14 and 30 are dependent on claims 1 and 17, and include unclear how the “DNN” is used nor the specification makes it clear how these actions are performed. Thus, these additional elements are recited in a manner that represent no more than mere instructions to apply the judicial exceptions on a computer. See MPEP § 2106.05(f) and § 2106.04(d).
Claims 15 and 31 are dependent on claims 1 and 17, and additional limitation recited in claims 1 and 17 do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Claims 16 and 32 are dependent on claims 1 and 17, and additional limitation recited in claims 1 and 17 do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed on 03/10/2026 have been fully considered, and in part are persuasive
Pertaining to Rejection under 101
On page 9, applicant argues the additional elements clearly reflect an improvement in the functioning of a computer, or an improvement to other technology or technical field. However, the examiner strongly disagrees with the applicant's position; Nothing in the claims says how the DNN or the computer itself operates, and no technological improvement to computer operation is recited. The functioning of the DNA model is merely mathematical processes of finding a better DNN. Examiner does not believe the claim recites an improvement to the functioning of a computer or another technology/technical field under the framework of MPEP 2106.05(a).
Additionally, as of now the examiner believes every limitation is identified as part of the judicial exception (e.g., an abstract idea), then there is nothing left in the claim that can represent the technological improvement needed to integrate the exception into a practical application. See MPEP 2106.05(a).
A full 101 analysis is set forth above.
Pertaining to Rejection under 103
The 35 USC 103 rejection for Claims 1, 5-8, 10-17, 21-24 and 26-33 are withdrawn.
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 EVEL HONORE whose telephone number is (703)756-1179. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8 a.m. -5:30 p.m.
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, Mariela D Reyes can be reached at (571) 270-1006. 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.
EVEL HONORE
Examiner
Art Unit 2142
/Mariela Reyes/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2142
Prosecution Insights