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 .
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 1-3, 5-10, 12-15, and 17 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 for converting an artificial intelligence model, which is directed to a process, one of the statutory categories.
Step 2A Prong One Analysis: The limitations:
“determining… a second framework on which a second artificial intelligence model converted from the first artificial intelligence model is to be based, wherein the second framework includes TensorFlow, Keras, PyTorch, Caffe, or ONNX and is different from the first framework”
“determining… an optimal path from among a plurality of paths that leads from a first node representing the first framework to a second node representing the second framework based on the prestored conversion graph”
“converting… the first artificial intelligence model that is based on the first framework into the second artificial intelligence model that is based on the second framework, according to the optimal path”
“identifying… a plurality of paths leading from the first node representing the first framework to the second node representing the second framework in the prestored conversion graph”
“determining… with respect to each of the plurality of paths, a cost indicating a degree to which conversion of the first artificial intelligence model by each path is appropriate”
“determining… the optimal path based on the cost with respect to each of the plurality of paths, wherein the cost for each path among the plurality of paths is determined based on a sum of the weight values of values of the edge information of each path”
“converting …the artificial intelligence model to a different artificial intelligence model in one or more containers corresponding to one or more edges, respectively, defining the optimal path”
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
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 (See MPEP 2106.05(f)), or insignificant extra-solution activity (See MPEP 2106.05(g)).
The limitations:
“A method performed by an electronic device”
“by the electronic device”
“wherein each container of the one or more containers defining the optimal path is a virtual environment in which a respective conversion tool is installed and executed”
As drafted, are additional elements that amount to no more than mere instructions to apply. See MPEP 2106.05(f).
The limitations:
“obtaining, by the electronic device, a first artificial intelligence model that is based on a first framework, wherein the first framework includes TensorFlow, Keras, PyTorch, Caffe, or Open Neural Network eXchange (ONNX)”
“obtaining, by the electronic device, a prestored conversion graph comprising a plurality of nodes representing a plurality of frameworks, respectively, and a plurality of edges each representing that one framework is converted into another framework, wherein the prestored conversion graph is generated in advance by the electronic device based on at least one conversion tool available in the electronic device, wherein edge information is allocated to each edge and includes information related to an operation of converting an artificial intelligence model by a conversion tool corresponding to an edge, the information related to the operation of converting the artificial intelligence model including weight values applied to values indicating an accuracy of the artificial intelligence model converting to a converted artificial intelligence model, an amount of time for converting to the converted artificial intelligence model, an amount of computation for converting to the converted artificial intelligence model, and a failure probability for converting to the converted artificial intelligence model”
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” or “insignificant extra-solution activity”. Specifically, the obtaining limitations recite the well-understood, routine, and conventional activity of storing and retrieving information in memory. MPEP 2106.05(d)(II); Versata Dev. Group, Inc. v. SAP Am., Inc., 793 F.3d 1306, 1334, 115 USPQ2d 1681, 1701 (Fed. Cir. 2015). Mere instructions to apply and insignificant extra-solution activity 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 for converting an artificial intelligence model, which is directed to a process, one of the statutory categories.
Step 2A Prong One Analysis: See corresponding analysis of clam 1.
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 framework is determined based on performance information of an external device by which the second artificial intelligence model is to be executed”
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 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 for converting an artificial intelligence model, which is directed to a process, one of the statutory categories.
Step 2A Prong One Analysis: The limitations:
“wherein the first artificial intelligence model that is based on the first framework is converted into the second artificial intelligence model that is based on the second framework by sequentially converting the first artificial intelligence model into artificial intelligence models based on different frameworks according to an order of at least one edge included in the optimal path”
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
mental processes, e.g., evaluation and judgement with assistance of pen and paper.
Step 2A Prong Two Analysis: See corresponding analysis of claim 1.
Step 2B Analysis: See corresponding analysis of claim 1.
Regarding Claim 5,
Claim 5 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 5 is directed to a method for converting an artificial intelligence model, which is directed to a process, one of the statutory categories.
Step 2A Prong One Analysis: See corresponding analysis of claim 1.
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 cost is further determined based on the edge information regarding at least one edge included in at least one path”
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 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 for converting an artificial intelligence model, which is directed to a process, one of the statutory categories.
Step 2A Prong One Analysis: The limitations:
“wherein the cost is further determined by applying, to the edge information, the weight values determined based on at least one of characteristics of the second artificial intelligence model, performance of the electronic device, or performance of an external device”
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
mental processes, e.g., evaluation and judgement with assistance of pen and paper.
Step 2A Prong Two Analysis: See corresponding analysis of claim 5.
Step 2B Analysis: See corresponding analysis of claim 5.
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 for converting an artificial intelligence model, which is directed to a process, one of the statutory categories.
Step 2A Prong One Analysis: The limitations:
“in response to a failure of conversion of the first artificial intelligence model according to a first edge which is one of at least one edge included in the optimal path, identifying… at least one path that does not include the first edge, from among paths that lead from a node which is a beginning point of the first edge, to the second node representing the second framework”
“determining… to change the optimal path to a redetermined optimal path including one of the identified at least one path”
“obtaining… the second artificial intelligence model based on the second framework by sequentially converting the first artificial intelligence model according to the redetermined optimal path”
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
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 (See MPEP 2106.05(f)).
The limitations:
“by the electronic device”
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 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 an electronic device for converting an artificial intelligence model, which is directed to a machine, one of the statutory categories.
Step 2A Prong One Analysis: The limitations:
“determine a second framework on which a second artificial intelligence model converted from the first artificial intelligence model is to be based, wherein the second framework includes TensorFlow, Keras, PyTorch, Caffe, or ONNX and is different from the first framework”
“determine an optimal path from among a plurality of paths that leads from a first node representing the first framework to a second node representing the second framework based on the prestored conversion graph”
“convert the first artificial intelligence model that is based on the first framework into the second artificial intelligence model that is based on the second framework, according to the optimal path”
“identify a plurality of paths leading from the first node representing the first framework to the second node representing the second framework in the prestored conversion graph”
“determine, with respect to each of the plurality of paths, a cost indicating a degree to which conversion of the first artificial intelligence model by each path is appropriate”
“determine the optimal path based on the cost with respect to each of the plurality of paths, wherein the cost for each path among the plurality of paths is determined based on a sum of the weight values of values of the edge information of each path”
“convert the artificial intelligence model to a different artificial intelligence model in one or more containers corresponding to one or more edges, respectively, defining the optimal path”
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
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 (See MPEP 2106.05(f)), or insignificant extra-solution activity (See MPEP 2106.05(g)).
The limitations:
“An electronic device comprising: a memory storing one or more computer programs and a first artificial intelligence model that is based on a first framework, wherein the first framework includes TensorFlow, Keras, PyTorch, Caffe, or Open Neural Network eXchange (ONNX)”
“one or more processors communicatively coupled to the memory, wherein the one or more computer programs include computer-executable instructions that, when executed by the one or more processors individually or collectively, cause the electronic device to:”
“wherein, to determine the optimal path, the one or more computer programs further include computer-executable instructions that, when executed by the one or more processors individually or collectively, cause the electronic device to…”
“wherein, to convert the first artificial intelligence model that is based on the first framework into the second artificial intelligence model that is based on the second framework, the one or more computer programs further include computer-executable instructions that, when executed by the one or more processors individually or collectively, cause the electronic device to…”
“wherein each container of the one or more containers defining the optimal path is a virtual environment in which a respective conversion tool is installed and executed”
As drafted, are additional elements that amount to no more than mere instructions to apply. See MPEP 2106.05(f).
The limitations:
“obtain a prestored conversion graph comprising a plurality of nodes representing a plurality of frameworks, respectively, and a plurality of edges each representing that one framework is converted into another framework, wherein the prestored conversion graph is generated in advance by the electronic device based on at least one conversion tool available in the electronic device, wherein edge information is allocated to each edge and includes information related to an operation of converting an artificial intelligence model by a conversion tool corresponding to an edge, the information related to the operation of converting the artificial intelligence model including weight values applied to values indicating an accuracy of the artificial intelligence model converting to a converted artificial intelligence model, an amount of time for converting to the converted artificial intelligence model, an amount of computation for converting to the converted artificial intelligence model, and a failure probability for converting to the converted artificial intelligence model”
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” or “insignificant extra-solution activity”. Specifically, the obtaining limitations recite the well-understood, routine, and conventional activity of storing and retrieving information in memory. MPEP 2106.05(d)(II); Versata Dev. Group, Inc. v. SAP Am., Inc., 793 F.3d 1306, 1334, 115 USPQ2d 1681, 1701 (Fed. Cir. 2015). Mere instructions to apply, and insignificant extra-solution activity 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 an electronic device for converting an artificial intelligence model, which is directed to a machine, one of the statutory categories.
Step 2A Prong One Analysis: See corresponding analysis of claim 8.
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 framework is determined based on performance information of an external device on which the second artificial intelligence model is to be executed”
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 10,
Claim 10 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 10 is directed to an electronic device for converting an artificial intelligence model, which is directed to a machine, one of the statutory categories.
Step 2A Prong One Analysis: The limitations:
“wherein the first artificial intelligence model that is based on the first framework is converted into the second artificial intelligence model that is based on the second framework by sequentially converting the first artificial intelligence model into artificial intelligence models based on different frameworks according to an order of at least one edge included in the optimal path”
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
mental processes, e.g., evaluation and judgement with assistance of pen and paper.
Step 2A Prong Two Analysis: See corresponding analysis of claim 8.
Step 2B Analysis: See corresponding analysis of claim 8.
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 an electronic device for converting an artificial intelligence model, which is directed to a machine, one of the statutory categories.
Step 2A Prong One Analysis: See corresponding analysis of claim 8.
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 cost is further determined based on the edge information regarding at least one edge included in at least one path”
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 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 an electronic device for converting an artificial intelligence model, which is directed to a machine, one of the statutory categories.
Step 2A Prong One Analysis: The limitations:
“wherein the cost is further determined by applying, to the edge information, the weight values determined based on at least one of characteristics of the second artificial intelligence model, performance of the electronic device, or performance of an external device”
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
mental processes, e.g., evaluation and judgement with assistance of pen and paper.
Step 2A Prong Two Analysis: See corresponding analysis of claim 12.
Step 2B Analysis: See corresponding analysis of claim 12.
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 an electronic device for converting an artificial intelligence model, which is directed to a machine, one of the statutory categories.
Step 2A Prong One Analysis: The limitations:
“in response to a failure of conversion of the first artificial intelligence model according to a first edge which is one of at least one edge included in the optimal path, identify at least one path that does not include the first edge, from among paths that lead from a node which is a beginning point of the first edge, to the second node representing the second framework”
“determine to change the optimal path to a redetermined optimal path including one of the identified at least one path”
“obtain the second artificial intelligence model based on the second framework by sequentially converting the first artificial intelligence model according to the redetermined optimal path”
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
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 (See MPEP 2106.05(f)).
The limitations:
“wherein the one or more computer programs further include computer- executable instructions that, when executed by the one or more processors individually or collectively, cause the electronic device to”
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 non-transitory computer-readable recording medium having an executable program recorded thereon, which is directed to a machine, one of the statutory categories.
Step 2A Prong One Analysis: The limitations:
“determining… a second framework on which a second artificial intelligence model converted from the first artificial intelligence model based on the first framework is to be based, wherein the second framework includes TensorFlow, Keras, PyTorch, Caffe, or ONNX and is different from the first framework”
“determining… an optimal path that leads from a node representing the first framework to a node representing the second framework based on the prestored conversion graph”
“converting… the first artificial intelligence model based on the first framework into the second artificial intelligence model based on the second framework, according to the determined optimal path”
“identifying… a plurality of paths leading from the first node representing the first framework to the second node representing the second framework in the prestored conversion graph”
“determining… with respect to each of the plurality of paths, a cost indicating a degree to which conversion of the first artificial intelligence model by each path is appropriate”
“determining… the optimal path based on the cost with respect to each of the plurality of paths, and wherein the cost for each path among the plurality of paths is determined based on a sum of the weight values of values of the edge information of each path”
“converting …the artificial intelligence model to a different artificial intelligence model in one or more containers corresponding to one or more edges, respectively, defining the optimal path”
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
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 (See MPEP 2106.05(f)), or insignificant extra-solution activity (See MPEP 2106.05(g)).
The limitations:
“One or more non-transitory computer-readable storage media storing one or more computer programs including computer-executable instructions that, when executed by one or more processors of an electronic device individually or collectively cause the electronic device to perform operations”
“by the electronic device”
“wherein each container of the one or more containers defining the optimal path is a virtual environment in which a respective conversion tool is installed and executed”
As drafted, are additional elements that amount to no more than mere instructions to apply. See MPEP 2106.05(f).
The limitations:
“obtaining, by the electronic device, a first artificial intelligence model based on a first framework, wherein the first framework includes TensorFlow, Keras, PyTorch, Caffe, or Open Neural Network eXchange (ONNX)”
“obtaining, by the electronic device, a prestored conversion graph comprising a plurality of nodes representing a plurality of frameworks, respectively, and a plurality of edges each representing that one framework is converted into another framework, wherein the prestored conversion graph is generated in advance by the electronic device based on at least one conversion tool available in the electronic device, wherein edge information is allocated to each edge and includes information related to an operation of converting an artificial intelligence model by a conversion tool corresponding to an edge, the information related to the operation of converting the artificial intelligence model including weight values applied to values indicating an accuracy of the artificial intelligence model converting to a converted artificial intelligence model, an amount of time for converting to the converted artificial intelligence model, an amount of computation for converting to the converted artificial intelligence model, and a failure probability for converting to the converted artificial intelligence model”
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” or “insignificant extra-solution activity”. Specifically, the obtaining limitations recite the well-understood, routine, and conventional activity of storing and retrieving information in memory. MPEP 2106.05(d)(II); Versata Dev. Group, Inc. v. SAP Am., Inc., 793 F.3d 1306, 1334, 115 USPQ2d 1681, 1701 (Fed. Cir. 2015). Mere instructions to apply, and insignificant extra-solution activity 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 converting an artificial intelligence model, which is directed to a process, one of the statutory categories.
Step 2A Prong One Analysis: The limitations:
“determining of the cost indicating a degree to which conversion of the first artificial intelligence model by each path is appropriate includes identifying an optimal combination of conversion tools among a plurality of conversion tools for converting from a first framework on which the first artificial intelligence model is based into a second framework on which the second artificial intelligence model is based”
“convert one artificial intelligence model that is based on one framework into another artificial intelligence model that is based on another framework”
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
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 (See MPEP 2106.05(f)).
The limitations:
“generating, by the electronic device, the first artificial intelligence model by training at least one artificial intelligence model based on any one of various frameworks and a learning algorithm that utilizes training data”
“wherein each conversion tool of the plurality of conversion tools is configured to…”
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. 112(b) in the previous office action, Applicant’s amendments overcome the rejection.
Regarding the rejection applied under 35 U.S.C. 101, Applicant firstly asserts that the amended claims do not recite abstract ideas, but even if they were deemed to recite abstract ideas, the claimed limitations recite substantially more than an abstract idea (“Remarks”, Page 11).
Applicant further asserts that the limitation of converting an artificial intelligence model to be operable on a framework different from it’s original framework such that the converting is performed according to an optimal path is not mentally performable. Applicant further asserts that the human mind is not equipped for converting an artificial intelligence model along an optimal path in one or more containers corresponding to one or more edges in a virtual environment (“Remarks”, Page 12). Applicant further asserts that the converting is performed in one or more virtual environments, and further, the human mind is not capable of training an artificial intelligence model based on the multiple frameworks, such as TensorFlow, Keras, PyTorch, Caffe, or ONNX (“Remarks”, Page 12).
However, the limitations are mentally performable. For example, the human mind, with the assistance of pen and paper, could draw a graph based structure comprising nodes and edges and accordingly use each node as a representation of an artificial intelligence model, with each edge being assigned a weighted value based on a plurality of metrics. Accordingly, the human mind would be able to trace paths between nodes, which are displayed on paper, and determine the least expensive, or optimal path. Further, a “conversion”, under the broadest reasonable interpretation, may be performed mentally by, for example, translating a programming syntax or format. The recitation that it may be “performed in one or more virtual environments” or “in one or more containers” amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply an exception for the abstract ideas, consistent with MPEP 2106.05(f). Further, the training limitation in claim 17 describes a generic training step, and also corresponds to mere instructions to apply an exception for the abstract ideas, consistent with MPEP 2106.05(f).
Applicant further asserts that claims are integrated into a practical application, by providing a more efficient method of conversion to save time, computing resources, and power consumption, and therefore the claims are integrated into a practical application (“Remarks”, Pages 12-13).
However, as discussed in MPEP 2106.05(f), "claiming the improved speed or efficiency inherent with applying the abstract idea on a computer" does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide an inventive concept.
Applicant further asserts that claims recite a structure combining a “AI model transformation graph” with a “container-based execution pipeline”, which prevents dependency conflicts among transformation tools and enables multi-state framework conversion that cannot be achieved by convention model transformation techniques (“Remarks”, Page 13).
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). Therefore, even if the claims did recite an improvement, it would be in the abstract idea of converting the artificial intelligence model to a different artificial intelligence model. Therefore, as written, the claims remain rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101.
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 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
Prosecution Insights