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 12/31/2025
Claims 1-11 are pending in this case. Claims 1 and 8-9 are independent claims. Claims 1 and 8-9 have been currently amended.
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 12/31/2025 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.
Claim(s) 1-11 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 itis 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 1-7 and 10-11 are drawn to a method, claim 8 is drawn to a system, claim 9 is drawn to a non-transitory computer-readable, 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, 11-14 are non-verbatim but similar in claim construction, hence share the same rationale that the claimed inventions are directed to non-statutory subject matter as follows:
As to claim 1:
Claim 1 recites: A method comprising using at least one hardware processor to, over one or more iterations:
generate a training batch comprising a plurality of pairs of elements from source data, wherein each pair of elements in at least a subset of the plurality of pairs of elements comprises two elements of different classes in a plurality of classes, and wherein generating the training batch comprises
generating a vector of distances between pairs of elements of potentially different classes in the source data,
storing, in memory, the generated vector of distances,
sorting the vector of distances,
splitting the vector of distances into a plurality of blocks,
assigning a coefficient to each of the plurality of blocks,
selecting pairs from the plurality of blocks based on the assigned coefficients, and
adding the selected pairs to the training batch; and
train a metric neural network using the training batch,
wherein, after performing forward propagation, an output vector of distances dout is compiled and then merged with the stored vector of distances dold to produce a new vector of distance dnew according:
PNG
media_image1.png
123
573
media_image1.png
Greyscale
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 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). As well as a mathematical concepts – mathematical relationships, mathematical formulas or equations, mathematical calculations (see MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)).
Independent claim 1 recites in part:
“generate a training batch comprising a plurality of pairs of elements from source data, wherein each pair of elements in at least a subset of the plurality of pairs of elements comprises two elements of different classes in a plurality of classes”
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, with pen and paper one can create a training batch of image pairs. Some pairs will consist of images from the same class (e.g., two cat images), and others will consist of images from different classes (e.g., a cat image and a dog image).
wherein generating the training batch comprises
generating a vector of distances between pairs of elements of potentially different classes in the source data
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, with the use of a physical aid such as pen and paper one can generate a vector of distances between pairs of elements of different classes, using the example of cats and dogs.
sorting the vector of distances
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, with the use of a physical aid such as pen and paper, one can sort the list of distances.
splitting the vector of distances into a plurality of blocks
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, with the use of a physical aid such as pen and paper, one can divide the distance vector into several blocks.
assigning a coefficient to each of the plurality of blocks
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). As well as a mathematical concepts – mathematical relationships, mathematical formulas or equations, mathematical calculations (see MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)). For example, with the use of a physical aid such as pen and paper, one can assign a number to each of the many blocks.
selecting pairs from the plurality of blocks based on the assigned coefficients
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). As well as a mathematical concepts – mathematical relationships, mathematical formulas or equations, mathematical calculations (see MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)). For example, with the use of a physical aid such as pen and paper, one can choose pairs from many blocks using the given numbers.
wherein, after performing forward propagation, an output vector of distances dout is compiled and then merged with the stored vector of distances dold to produce a new vector of distance dnew according:
PNG
media_image1.png
123
573
media_image1.png
Greyscale
The limitation above is broadly and reasonably interpreted as a mathematical concepts – mathematical relationships, mathematical formulas or equations, mathematical calculations (see MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)).
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 comprising using at least one hardware processor to, over one or more iterations”, as drafted, amount to additional elements that amounts to adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, such generic computing components recited at a high level of generality (i.e., as a generic processor performing data gathering and mathematical calculations) MPEP §§ 2106.04(d), 2106.05(f)(2).
“storing, in memory, the generated vector of distances”, as drafted, amount to 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.
“adding the selected pairs to the training batch”, as drafted, amount to additional element that amounts to adding insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception. See MPEP §§ 2106.04(d), 2106.05(g).
“train a metric neural network using the training batch”, as drafted, amount to additional element that amounts 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 “Neural Network” 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).
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 when considered as an ordered combination and as a whole.
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 comprising using at least one hardware processor to, over one or more iterations”, as drafted, amount to additional elements that amounts to adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, such generic computing components recited at a high level of generality (i.e., as a generic processor performing data gathering and mathematical calculations) MPEP §§ 2106.04(d), 2106.05(f)(2).
“storing, in memory, the generated vector of distances”, as drafted, amount to 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.
“adding the selected pairs to the training batch”, as drafted, amount to additional element that amounts to adding insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception. See MPEP §§ 2106.04(d), 2106.05(g).
“train a metric neural network using the training batch”, as drafted, amount to additional element that amounts 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 “Neural Network” 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).
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”.
As to claim 8:
Claim 8 recites: A system comprising: at least one hardware processor; and
one or more software modules that are configured to, when executed by the at least one hardware processor,
generate a training batch comprising a plurality of pairs of elements from source data, wherein each pair of elements in at least a subset of the plurality of pairs of elements comprises two elements of different classes in a plurality of classes, and wherein generating the training batch comprises
generating a vector of distances between pairs of elements of potentially different classes in the source data,
storing, in memory, the generated vector of distances,
sorting the vector of distances,
splitting the vector of distances into a plurality of blocks,
assigning a coefficient to each of the plurality of blocks,
selecting pairs from the plurality of blocks based on the assigned coefficients, and
adding the selected pairs to the training batch; and
train a metric neural network using the training batch,
wherein, after performing forward propagation, an output vector of distances dout is compiled and then merged with the stored vector of distances dold to produce a new vector of distance dnew according:
PNG
media_image1.png
123
573
media_image1.png
Greyscale
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 8 is directed to an abstract idea, specifically, 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). As well as a mathematical concepts – mathematical relationships, mathematical formulas or equations, mathematical calculations (see MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)).
Independent claim 8 recites in part:
“generate a training batch comprising a plurality of pairs of elements from source data, wherein each pair of elements in at least a subset of the plurality of pairs of elements comprises two elements of different classes in a plurality of classes”
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, with pen and paper one can create a training batch of image pairs. Some pairs will consist of images from the same class (e.g., two cat images), and others will consist of images from different classes (e.g., a cat image and a dog image).
wherein generating the training batch comprises
generating a vector of distances between pairs of elements of potentially different classes in the source data
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, with the use of a physical aid such as pen and paper one can generate a vector of distances between pairs of elements of different classes, using the example of cats and dogs.
sorting the vector of distances
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, with the use of a physical aid such as pen and paper, one can sort the list of distances.
splitting the vector of distances into a plurality of blocks
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, with the use of a physical aid such as pen and paper, one can divide the distance vector into several blocks.
assigning a coefficient to each of the plurality of blocks
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). As well as a mathematical concepts – mathematical relationships, mathematical formulas or equations, mathematical calculations (see MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)). For example, with the use of a physical aid such as pen and paper, one can assign a number to each of the many blocks.
selecting pairs from the plurality of blocks based on the assigned coefficients
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). As well as a mathematical concepts – mathematical relationships, mathematical formulas or equations, mathematical calculations (see MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)). For example, with the use of a physical aid such as pen and paper, one can choose pairs from many blocks using the given numbers.
wherein, after performing forward propagation, an output vector of distances dout is compiled and then merged with the stored vector of distances dold to produce a new vector of distance dnew according:
PNG
media_image1.png
123
573
media_image1.png
Greyscale
The limitation above is broadly and reasonably interpreted as a mathematical concepts – mathematical relationships, mathematical formulas or equations, mathematical calculations (see MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)).
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 8 recites in part:
“A system comprising: at least one hardware processor; and
one or more software modules that are configured to, when executed by the at least one hardware processor”, as drafted, amount to additional elements that amounts to adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, such generic computing components recited at a high level of generality (i.e., as a generic processor performing data gathering and mathematical calculations) MPEP §§ 2106.04(d), 2106.05(f)(2).
“storing, in memory, the generated vector of distances”, as drafted, amount to 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.
“adding the selected pairs to the training batch”, as drafted, amount to additional element that amounts to adding insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception. See MPEP §§ 2106.04(d), 2106.05(g).
“train a metric neural network using the training batch”, as drafted, amount to additional element that amounts 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 “Neural Network” 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).
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 when considered as an ordered combination and as a whole.
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 8 recites in part:
“A system comprising: at least one hardware processor; and
one or more software modules that are configured to, when executed by the at least one hardware processor”, as drafted, amount to additional elements that amounts to adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, such generic computing components recited at a high level of generality (i.e., as a generic processor performing data gathering and mathematical calculations) MPEP §§ 2106.04(d), 2106.05(f)(2).
“storing, in memory, the generated vector of distances”, as drafted, amount to 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.
“adding the selected pairs to the training batch”, as drafted, amount to additional element that amounts to adding insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception. See MPEP §§ 2106.04(d), 2106.05(g).
“train a metric neural network using the training batch”, as drafted, amount to additional element that amounts 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 “Neural Network” 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).
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”.
As to claim 9:
Claim 9 recites: A non-transitory computer-readable medium having instructions stored thereon, wherein the instructions, when executed by a processor, cause the processor to:
generate a training batch comprising a plurality of pairs of elements from source data, wherein each pair of elements in at least a subset of the plurality of pairs of elements comprises two elements of different classes in a plurality of classes, and wherein generating the training batch comprises
generating a vector of distances between pairs of elements of potentially different classes in the source data,
storing, in memory, the generated vector of distances,
sorting the vector of distances,
splitting the vector of distances into a plurality of blocks,
assigning a coefficient to each of the plurality of blocks,
selecting pairs from the plurality of blocks based on the assigned coefficients, and
adding the selected pairs to the training batch; and
train a metric neural network using the training batch,
wherein, after performing forward propagation, an output vector of distances dout is compiled and then merged with the stored vector of distances dold to produce a new vector of distance dnew according:
PNG
media_image1.png
123
573
media_image1.png
Greyscale
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 9 is directed to an abstract idea, specifically, 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). As well as a mathematical concepts – mathematical relationships, mathematical formulas or equations, mathematical calculations (see MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)).
“generate a training batch comprising a plurality of pairs of elements from source data, wherein each pair of elements in at least a subset of the plurality of pairs of elements comprises two elements of different classes in a plurality of classes”
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, with pen and paper one can create a training batch of image pairs. Some pairs will consist of images from the same class (e.g., two cat images), and others will consist of images from different classes (e.g., a cat image and a dog image).
wherein generating the training batch comprises
generating a vector of distances between pairs of elements of potentially different classes in the source data
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, with the use of a physical aid such as pen and paper one can generate a vector of distances between pairs of elements of different classes, using the example of cats and dogs.
sorting the vector of distances
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, with the use of a physical aid such as pen and paper, one can sort the list of distances.
splitting the vector of distances into a plurality of blocks
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, with the use of a physical aid such as pen and paper, one can divide the distance vector into several blocks.
assigning a coefficient to each of the plurality of blocks
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). As well as a mathematical concepts – mathematical relationships, mathematical formulas or equations, mathematical calculations (see MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)). For example, with the use of a physical aid such as pen and paper, one can assign a number to each of the many blocks.
selecting pairs from the plurality of blocks based on the assigned coefficients
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). As well as a mathematical concepts – mathematical relationships, mathematical formulas or equations, mathematical calculations (see MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)). For example, with the use of a physical aid such as pen and paper, one can choose pairs from many blocks using the given numbers.
wherein, after performing forward propagation, an output vector of distances dout is compiled and then merged with the stored vector of distances dold to produce a new vector of distance dnew according:
PNG
media_image1.png
123
573
media_image1.png
Greyscale
The limitation above is broadly and reasonably interpreted as a mathematical concepts – mathematical relationships, mathematical formulas or equations, mathematical calculations (see MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)).
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 9 recites in part:
A non-transitory computer-readable medium having instructions stored thereon, wherein the instructions, when executed by a processor, cause the processor to: as drafted, amount to additional elements that amounts to adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, such generic computing components recited at a high level of generality (i.e., as a generic processor performing data gathering and mathematical calculations) MPEP §§ 2106.04(d), 2106.05(f)(2).
“storing, in memory, the generated vector of distances”, as drafted, amount to 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.
“adding the selected pairs to the training batch”, as drafted, amount to additional element that amounts to adding insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception. See MPEP §§ 2106.04(d), 2106.05(g).
“train a metric neural network using the training batch”, as drafted, amount to additional element that amounts 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 “Neural Network” 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).
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 when considered as an ordered combination and as a whole.
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 9 recites in part:
A non-transitory computer-readable medium having instructions stored thereon, wherein the instructions, when executed by a processor, cause the processor to: as drafted, amount to additional elements that amounts to adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, such generic computing components recited at a high level of generality (i.e., as a generic processor performing data gathering and mathematical calculations) MPEP §§ 2106.04(d), 2106.05(f)(2).
“storing, in memory, the generated vector of distances”, as drafted, amount to 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.
“adding the selected pairs to the training batch”, as drafted, amount to additional element that amounts 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 2-6 which are dependent on claim 1, claims 8 12 which are dependent on claim 7, and claims 14-18 which are dependent on claim 3, 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:
Claim 2 is dependent on claim 1, and silently defines a piecewise function C(k) based on the relationship between k and m, therefore interpreted as a mathematical concept.
Claim 3 is dependent on claim 2, and include a mathematical concept – mathematical relationships, mathematical formulas or equations, mathematical calculations (see MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2). Using a SoftMax function is considered as mathematical formula.
Claim 4 is dependent on claim 3, and include a mathematical concept – mathematical relationships, mathematical formulas or equations, mathematical calculations (see MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2). Multiplying each coefficient C by a number of pairs set is considered a mathematical calculation.
Claim 5 is dependent on claim 4, and include 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 pairs from many blocks using the given numbers.
Claim 6 is dependent on claim 1, and include additional element that amounts to adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or merely uses a computer in its ordinary capacity as a tool to perform an existing process. See MPEP §§ 2106.04(d), 2106.05(f)(2)
Claim 7 is dependent on claim 6, and include additional element that amounts to adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or merely uses a computer in its ordinary capacity as a tool to perform an existing process. See MPEP §§ 2106.04(d), 2106.05(f)(2).
Claim 10 is dependent on claim 1, and include additional element that amounts to adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or merely uses a computer in its ordinary capacity as a tool to perform an existing process. See MPEP §§ 2106.04(d), 2106.05(f)(2).
Claim 11 is dependent on claim 10, and include additional element that amounts to adding insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception. See MPEP §§ 2106.04(d), 2106.05(g).
Allowable Subject Matter
The following is an examiner’s statement of reasons for allowable subject matter under 103:
Regarding the applicants' remarks directed to the rejection of claims under 35 USC 103, the
argument have been fully considered and are persuasive. The presented art and search art of record doesn’t adequately teach or suggest elements found in the independent claims, such as “performing forward propagation, an output vector of distances …”. It is mathematically specific, requiring iterative updating tied to metric learning.
Presented art, Asia is silent when it comes to “assigning a coefficient to each of the plurality of blocks." However, Asia alone, or in combination with prior art, fails to disclose numerical values associated with a block that affects subsequent processing of the block or elements within the block.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 12/31/2025 have been fully considered, but in part are not persuasive.
Pertaining to rejection under 101
The examiner respectfully remains convinced amended claims still do not overcome rejection under 35 U.S.C. 101. Claim 1 is interpreted as a mathematical concepts – mathematical relationships, mathematical formulas or equations, mathematical calculations (see MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)). Under step 2A, Prong 1, claim 1 recites “generating a vector of distances…”, “sorting the vector of distances”, etc. These limitation constitute mathematical relationships, calculations, and manipulation of numerical data. As well 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 observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion). Furthermore, the final limitation explicitly recites a formula, a mathematical relationship/calculation. Therefore, it is an abstract idea.
Under step 2A, Prong 2, claim 1 does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application because the additional element merely uses a generic processor to collect data and perform mathematical calculations during the neural-network training. The claim does not improve computer functionality, another technology or a technical field, nor does it effect a transformation or control a particular machine. See MPEP § 2106.05(f) and § 2106.04(d).
Also, on page 9 of the applicant's remarks, the applicant believes the steps of amended claim 1 define a particular training architecture with stateful data handling that improves the functioning of the training system. However, according to MPEP 2106.05(a) the judicial exception alone cannot provide the improvement, and the stated improvements to the technology are recited as part of the abstract idea.
Pertaining to Rejection under 103
Claims 1-11 include allowable subject matter for the reasons discussed above.
Conclusion
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