Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 21 July 2025 has been entered.
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 14-25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
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 method for an automated creation of a neural network, which is directed to a process, one of the statutory categories.
Step 2A Prong One Analysis: The limitations:
“providing respectively a resolution of input variables and output variables of the encoder and of the decoder”
“providing different cell types, each cell type of the cell types including a plurality of nodes connected according to a predefinable sequence starting at at least one input node and ending at an output node, each node of the plurality of nodes being connected to all its preceding nodes using directed edges, each edge of the edges being assigned a plurality of parameterizable operations and all operations being assigned one first variable each”
“concatenating a plurality of cells of the different cell types, so that provided resolutions are achieved, the input nodes of the cells each being connected to the output nodes of an immediately preceding cell”
“alternatingly adapting the first variables and a parameterization of the parameterized operations, the adaptation taking place in such a way that a difference between output variables which are ascertained using a propagation of the training input variables along the concatenated cells and the training output variables is optimized”
“selecting in each case one of the operations of the edges as a function of the adapted first variables”
“creating the neural network as a function of the concatenated cells and of the selected operations”
“creating the encoder by alternatingly arranging cells of a normal cell type and cells of a reduction cell type corresponding to the first cell type”
“creating the decoder on the basis of a plurality of cells of an upsampling cell type corresponding to the second cell type, wherein: each of the cells of the normal cell type maintain the resolution of its input variable”
As drafted, under their broadest reasonable interpretations, cover mental processes, i.e., concepts performed in the human mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgement, opinion). The above limitations in the context of this claim correspond to a mental processes, e.g., evaluation and judgement with assistance of pen and paper.
Step 2A Prong Two Analysis: The judicial exceptions are not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim recited additional elements that are mere instructions to apply an exception (See MPEP 2106.05(f)).
The limitations:
“A method for an automated creation of a neural network which includes an encoder that is connected to a decoder, wherein the created neural network is used for a technical system, wherein the technical system comprises a camera connected to the neural network, said camera providing the neural network with a camera image as an input variable”
“the edges being configured to process an intermediate variable of a preceding node in each case using each of the operations assigned to it and as a function of the first variable assigned to the respective operation, to add together in a weighted manner and provide to a following connected node as the intermediate variable thereof”
“a first cell type of the cell types being configured to reduce the resolution of its output variable relative to the resolution of its input variable, a second cell type of the cell types being configured to increase the resolution of its output variable relative to the resolution of its input variable”
“providing training data, which include the training input variables in the form of camera images and training output variables assigned in each case to the training input variables for controlling an actuator of the technical system”
“wherein the actuator of the technical system is controlled depending on a determined output variable of the neural network”
As drafted, are additional elements that amount to no more than mere instructions to apply. See MPEP 2106.05(f).
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 the integration of the abstract ideas into a practical application, all of the additional elements are “mere instructions to apply”. Mere instructions to apply 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 method for an automated creation of a neural network, which is directed to a process, one of the statutory categories.
Step 2A Prong One Analysis: The limitations:
“wherein the second cell type is further configured to interpolate the input variable of the input node using a parameterizable operation”
As drafted, under their broadest reasonable interpretations, cover mathematical concepts, i.e., mathematical relationships, mathematical formulas or equations, and mathematical calculations. The above limitations in the context of this claim correspond to a mathematical relationship and/or a mathematical calculation.
Step 2A Prong Two Analysis: See corresponding analysis of claim 14.
Step 2B Analysis: See corresponding analysis of claim 14.
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 method for an automated creation of a neural network, which is directed to a process, one of the statutory categories.
Step 2A Prong One Analysis: The limitations:
“the second cell type further being configured to interpolate an input variable of the second input node using of a parameterizable operation”
As drafted, under their broadest reasonable interpretations, cover mathematical concepts, i.e., mathematical relationships, mathematical formulas or equations, and mathematical calculations. The above limitations in the context of this claim correspond to a mathematical relationship and/or a mathematical calculation.
Step 2A Prong Two Analysis: The judicial exceptions are not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim recited additional elements that do not apply the exception in a meaningful way (See MPEP 2106.05(e)).
The limitations:
“wherein the second cell type additionally includes a second input node”
“wherein during concatenation of the plurality of cells, the second input nodes of the cells of the second cell type being connected to an output of a preceding cell of the second cell type”
As drafted, are additional elements that do not apply the exception in a meaningful way. See MPEP 2106.05(e).
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 the integration of the abstract ideas into a practical application, all of the additional elements do not apply the exception in a meaningful. Additional elements that do not apply the exception in a meaningful 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 method for an automated creation of a neural network, which is directed to a process, one of the statutory categories.
Step 2A Prong One Analysis: The limitations:
“the second cell type further being configured to interpolate an input variable of the third input node using a parameterizable operation”
As drafted, under their broadest reasonable interpretations, cover mathematical concepts, i.e., mathematical relationships, mathematical formulas or equations, and mathematical calculations. The above limitations in the context of this claim correspond to a mathematical relationship and/or a mathematical calculation.
Step 2A Prong Two Analysis: The judicial exceptions are not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim recited additional elements that do not apply the exception in a meaningful way (See MPEP 2106.05(e)).
The limitations:
“wherein the neural network includes at least one skip connection, which forwards an intermediate variable of the encoder to the decoder”
“the second cell type also including a third input node”
“during concatenation of the plurality of cells, the third input node being connected to the output node of one of the cells of the first type”
As drafted, are additional elements that do not apply the exception in a meaningful way. See MPEP 2106.05(e).
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 the integration of the abstract ideas into a practical application, all of the additional elements do not apply the exception in a meaningful. Additional details that do not apply the exception in a meaningful way 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 method for an automated creation of a neural network, which is directed to a process, one of the statutory categories.
Step 2A Prong One Analysis: See corresponding analysis of claim 14.
Step 2A Prong Two Analysis: The judicial exceptions are not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim recited additional elements that do not apply the exception in a meaningful way (See MPEP 2106.05(e)) or are mere instructions to apply an exception (See MPEP 2106.05(f)).
The limitations:
“wherein during concatenation of the plurality of cells, a cell of the third cell type being inserted at least between one of the cells of the first cell type or of the second cell type”
As drafted, are additional elements that do not apply the exception in a meaningful way. See MPEP 2106.05(e).
The limitations:
“wherein a third cell type of the cell types is configured to process its input variable in such a way that a resolution of its input variable corresponds to a resolution of its output variable”
As drafted, are additional elements that amount to no more than mere instructions to apply. See MPEP 2106.05(f).
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 the integration of the abstract ideas into a practical application, all of the additional elements do not apply the exception in a meaningful or are mere instructions to apply. Additional details that do not apply the exception in a meaningful way or mere instructions to apply cannot provide an inventive concept. The claim is not patent eligible.
Regarding Claim 19,
Claim 19 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 19 is directed to a method for an automated creation of a neural network, which is directed to a process, one of the statutory categories.
Step 2A Prong One Analysis: The limitations:
“wherein the training data are divided into a first set of training data and into a second set of training data, the parameterization being optimized via the first set of the training data and the first variables being optimized via the second set of the training data”
As drafted, under their broadest reasonable interpretations, cover mental processes, i.e., concepts performed in the human mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgement, opinion). The above limitations in the context of this claim correspond to a mental processes, e.g., evaluation and judgement with assistance of pen and paper.
Step 2A Prong Two Analysis: See corresponding analysis of claim 14.
Step 2B Analysis: See corresponding analysis of claim 14.
Regarding Claim 20,
Claim 20 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 20 is directed to a method for an automated creation of a neural network, which is directed to a process, one of the statutory categories.
Step 2A Prong One Analysis: See corresponding analysis of claim 14.
Step 2A Prong Two Analysis: The judicial exceptions are not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim recited additional elements that do not apply the exception in a meaningful way (See MPEP 2106.05(e)).
The limitations:
“wherein each of the first variables is a function of a further first variable of a further operation of the respective edge, and is relaxed with the aid of a softmax function”
“wherein during selection of the operations, the operations of the edges to which a largest first variable is assigned being selected in each case”
As drafted, are additional elements that do not apply the exception in a meaningful way. See MPEP 2106.05(e).
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 the integration of the abstract ideas into a practical application, all of the additional elements do not apply the exception in a meaningful way. 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 for an automated creation of a neural network, which is directed to a process, one of the statutory categories.
Step 2A Prong One Analysis: See corresponding analysis of claim 20.
Step 2A Prong Two Analysis: The judicial exceptions are not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim recited additional elements that are mere instructions to apply an exception (See MPEP 2106.05(f)).
The limitations:
“wherein during adaptation of the first variables and of the parameterization, the difference is optimized using a gradient descent method and the parameterization is optimized using the gradient descent method, a learning rate of the gradient descent method for optimizing the parameterization is ascertained using a probabilistic optimization, when the neural network has been created, the parameterization then being newly adapted.”
As drafted, are additional elements that amount to no more than mere instructions to apply. See MPEP 2106.05(f).
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 the integration of the abstract ideas into a practical application, all of the additional elements are “mere instructions to apply”. Mere instructions to apply 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 for an automated creation of a neural network, which is directed to a process, one of the statutory categories.
Step 2A Prong One Analysis: See corresponding analysis of claim 14.
Step 2A Prong Two Analysis: The judicial exceptions are not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim recited additional elements that do not apply the exception in a meaningful way (See MPEP 2106.05(e)).
The limitations:
“wherein a first factor is predefined for the first cell type, which characterizes by how much the resolution of its output variable is reduced, and a second factor being predefined for the second cell type, which characterizes by how much the resolution of its output variable is increased”
As drafted, are additional elements that do not apply the exception in a meaningful way. See MPEP 2106.05(e).
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 the integration of the abstract ideas into a practical application, all of the additional elements do not apply the exception in a meaningful way. 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 for an automated creation of a neural network, which is directed to a process, one of the statutory categories.
Step 2A Prong One Analysis: See corresponding analysis of claim 14.
Step 2A Prong Two Analysis: The judicial exceptions are not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim recited additional elements that are mere instructions to apply an exception (See MPEP 2106.05(f)) and insignificant extra-solution activity (See MPEP 2106.05(g)).
The limitations:
“the neural network is configured to ascertain as a function of the stereo images a depth estimation of mapped objects of the images”
“the stereo images being processed by the neural network using a further encoder, followed by a correlation layer, and only then being processed using the encoder and the decoder”
As drafted, are additional elements that amount to no more than mere instructions to apply an exception for the abstract ideas. See MPEP 2106.05(f).
The limitations:
“wherein the neural network receives two stereo images of two cameras”
As drafted, are additional elements that amount to no more than insignificant extra-solution activity. 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 the integration of the abstract ideas into a practical application, all of the additional elements are “mere instructions to apply” and “insignificant extra-solution activity”. Additionally, the receiving limitation recites the well-understood, routine, and conventional activity of receiving or transmitting data over a network. MPEP 2106.05(d)(II); OIP Techs., Inc., v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363, 115 USPQ2d 1090, 1093 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (sending messages over a network). Mere instructions to apply an exception and insignificant extra-solution activity 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 non-transitory machine-readable memory element on which is stored a computer program for an automated creation of a neural network, which is directed to a machine, one of the statutory categories.
Step 2A Prong One Analysis: The limitations:
“providing respectively a resolution of input variables and output variables of the encoder and of the decoder”
“providing different cell types, each cell type of the cell types including a plurality of nodes connected according to a predefinable sequence starting at at least one input node and ending at an output node, each node of the plurality of nodes being connected to all its preceding nodes using directed edges, each edge of the edges being assigned a plurality of parameterizable operations and all operations being assigned one first variable each”
“concatenating a plurality of cells of the different cell types, so that provided resolutions are achieved, the input nodes of the cells each being connected to the output nodes of an immediately preceding cell”
“alternatingly adapting the first variables and a parameterization of the parameterized operations, the adaptation taking place in such a way that a difference between output variables which are ascertained using a propagation of the training input variables along the concatenated cells and the training output variables is optimized”
“selecting in each case one of the operations of the edges as a function of the adapted first variables”
“creating the neural network as a function of the concatenated cells and of the selected operations”
“creating the encoder by alternatingly arranging cells of a normal cell type and cells of a reduction cell type corresponding to the first cell type”
“creating the decoder on the basis of a plurality of cells of an upsampling cell type corresponding to the second cell type, wherein: each of the cells of the normal cell type maintain the resolution of its input variable”
As drafted, under their broadest reasonable interpretations, cover mental processes, i.e., concepts performed in the human mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgement, opinion). The above limitations in the context of this claim correspond to a mental processes, e.g., evaluation and judgement with assistance of pen and paper.
Step 2A Prong Two Analysis: The judicial exceptions are not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim recited additional elements that are mere instructions to apply an exception (See MPEP 2106.05(f)).
The limitations:
“A non-transitory machine-readable memory element on which is stored a computer program for an automated creation of a neural network which includes an encoder that is connected to a decoder, wherein the created neural network is used for a technical system, wherein the technical system comprises a camera connected to the neural network, said camera providing the neural network with a camera image as an input variable, the computer program, when executed by a computer, causing the computer to perform the following steps”
“the edges being configured to process an intermediate variable of a preceding node in each case using each of the operations assigned to it and as a function of the first variable assigned to the respective operation, to add together in a weighted manner and provide to a following connected node as the intermediate variable thereof”
“a first cell type of the cell types being configured to reduce the resolution of its output variable relative to the resolution of its input variable, a second cell type of the cell types being configured to increase the resolution of its output variable relative to the resolution of its input variable”
“providing training data, which include the training input variables in the form of camera images and training output variables assigned in each case to the training input variables for controlling an actuator of the technical system”
“wherein the actuator of the technical system is controlled depending on a determined output variable of the neural network”
As drafted, are additional elements that amount to no more than mere instructions to apply. See MPEP 2106.05(f).
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 the integration of the abstract ideas into a practical application, all of the additional elements are “mere instructions to apply”. Mere instructions to apply cannot provide an inventive concept. The claim is not patent eligible.
Regarding Claim 25,
Claim 25 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 25 is directed to a device configured for an automated creation of a neural network, which is directed to a machine, one of the statutory categories.
Step 2A Prong One Analysis: The limitations:
“provide respectively a resolution of input variables and output variables of the encoder and of the decoder”
“provide different cell types, each cell type of the cell types including a plurality of nodes connected according to a predefinable sequence starting at at least one input node and ending at an output node, each node of the plurality of nodes being connected to all its preceding nodes using directed edges, each edge of the edges being assigned a plurality of parameterizable operations and all operations being assigned one first variable each”
“concatenate a plurality of cells of the different cell types, so that provided resolutions are achieved, the input nodes of the cells each being connected to the output nodes of an immediately preceding cell”
“alternatingly adapt the first variables and a parameterization of the parameterized operations, the adaptation taking place in such a way that a difference between output variables which are ascertained using a propagation of the training input variables along the concatenated cells and the training output variables is optimized”
“select in each case one of the operations of the edges as a function of the adapted first variables”
“create the neural network as a function of the concatenated cells and of the selected operations”
“creating the encoder by alternatingly arranging cells of a normal cell type and cells of a reduction cell type corresponding to the first cell type”
“creating the decoder on the basis of a plurality of cells of an upsampling cell type corresponding to the second cell type, wherein: each of the cells of the normal cell type maintain the resolution of its input variable”
As drafted, under their broadest reasonable interpretations, cover mental processes, i.e., concepts performed in the human mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgement, opinion). The above limitations in the context of this claim correspond to a mental processes, e.g., evaluation and judgement with assistance of pen and paper.
Step 2A Prong Two Analysis: The judicial exceptions are not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim recited additional elements that are mere instructions to apply an exception (See MPEP 2106.05(f)).
The limitations:
“A device configured for an automated creation of a neural network which includes an encoder that is connected to a decoder, wherein the created neural network is used for a technical system, wherein the technical system comprises a camera connected to the neural network, said camera providing the neural network with a camera image as an input variable”
“the edges being configured to process an intermediate variable of a preceding node in each case using each of the operations assigned to it and as a function of the first variable assigned to the respective operation, to add together in a weighted manner and provide to a following connected node as the intermediate variable thereof”
“a first cell type of the cell types being configured to reduce the resolution of its output variable relative to the resolution of its input variable, a second cell type of the cell types being configured to increase the resolution of its output variable relative to the resolution of its input variable”
“providing training data, which include the training input variables in the form of camera images and training output variables assigned in each case to the training input variables for controlling an actuator of the technical system”
“wherein the actuator of the technical system is controlled depending on a determined output variable of the neural network”
As drafted, are additional elements that amount to no more than mere instructions to apply. See MPEP 2106.05(f).
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 the integration of the abstract ideas into a practical application, all of the additional elements are “mere instructions to apply”. Mere instructions to apply cannot provide an inventive concept. The claim is not patent eligible.
Response to Arguments
Regarding the rejection applied under 35 U.S.C. 101, Applicant firstly asserts that the limitations “creating the neural network as a function of the concatenated cells and of the selected operations”, “creating the encoder by alternatingly arranging cells of a normal cell type and cells of a reduction cell type corresponding to the first cell type”, and “creating the decoder on the basis of a plurality of cells of an upsampling cell type corresponding to the second cell type” are not mental processes (“Remarks”, Page 10).
However, “creating the neural network as a function of the concatenated cells and of the selected operations”, under the broadest reasonable interpretation, is a mental process. For example, the concatenation of cells, which forms the basis for the neural network creation, as noted in the limitation, is a mental process with the assistance of pen and paper, because one could mentally conceive of and draw “cells” on paper in such a way that they are concatenated, because the “cells” are a “directed non-cyclical graph, which includes a plurality of N different nodes”, as noted in the specification. In its simplest form, a “directed non-cyclical graph, which includes a plurality of N different nodes” can be conceived in the human mind and portrayed on paper, which can be accomplished by conceiving of and drawing a plurality of nodes and edges on paper with various shapes and labels, such that they conform to the constraints of a directed acyclic graph. Further, regarding the ”selecting” operation, the human mind is capable of making a selection, and specifically, a selection for “one of the operations of the edges as a function of the adapted first variables”, which are also components of the mentally conceivable graph. Therefore, since the ”concatenating…”, and the “selecting…” limitations are both mentally performable, and the creation of the neural network depends therefrom, the “creation” of the neural network, as written in the claims, is also mentally performable. Therefore, as noted above in the 35 U.S.C. 101 rejection of claim 1 above, the argued limitations are mental processes.
Applicant further asserts that the “creating” limitations refer to the creation of a neural network, which cannot be performed mentally (“Remarks”, Page 11). Applicant further asserts that the “creating” limitations should be analyzed under Prong two as an additional element that integrates into a practical application (“Remarks ” Pages 11-12).
However, as discussed above, the “creating” limitations are mentally performable, and are therefore being analyzed under Prong One.
Applicant further asserts that the claimed use of the second cell type in the creation of the neural network represents a technological advance in the field of neural network generation (“Remarks”, Page 14).
However, even if the claims did recite an improvement resulting from a second cell included in the graph, it would be an improvement in the abstract idea of creating a neural network. The MPEP notes that it is important to keep in mind that an improvement in the abstract idea itself is not an improvement in technology. MPEP 2106.05(a)(II).
Applicant further asserts that the recitations of the control of an actuator based on the output of the optimized neural network that contains both an encoder and a decoder provides a technological improvement over technical systems in which their actuators are not controlled by the optimized neural network (“Remarks”, Page 16).
However, the control of an actuator recited in the claims is described at a high level, and there are no additional details about how the actuator is controlled. Therefore, in accordance with MPEP 2106.05(f), the recitation of an actuator controlled by the output of a neural network is at a high level of generality, and, as written, corresponds to mere instructions to apply (See MPEP 2106.05(f)). Therefore, the claims remain rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101.
Regarding the rejection applied under 35 U.S.C. 103, Applicant’s amendments to the claims overcome the rejection.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KURT NICHOLAS PRESSLY whose telephone number is (703)756-4639. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8-4.
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.
/KURT NICHOLAS PRESSLY/Examiner, Art Unit 2125
/KAMRAN AFSHAR/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2125