DETAILED ACTION
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 01/16/2026 has been entered.
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
This action is in response to amendments and remarks filed on 01/16/2026. In the current amendments, claims 1, 10, 16, and 22 are amended. Claims 1-27 are pending and have been examined.
In response to amendments and remarks filed on 01/16/2026, the 35 U.S.C. 103 prior art rejections made in the previous office action are withdrawn.
Claim Objections
Claims 1-27 are objected to because of the following informalities:
In claim 1, line 11, “use at compile time the determined one or more dimensional constraints” should read “use, at compile time, the determined one or more dimensional constraints”
In claim 10, line 11, “use at compile time the determined one or more dimensional constraints” should read “use, at compile time, the determined one or more dimensional constraints”
In claim 16, line 9, “determining at compile time one or more values” should read “determining, at compile time, one or more values”
In claim 22, line 11, “use at compile time the determined one or more dimensional constraints” should read “use, at compile time, the determined one or more dimensional constraints”
Dependent claims 2-9 are objected based on being directly or indirectly dependent on objected claim 1.
Dependent claims 11-15 are objected based on being directly or indirectly dependent on objected claim 10.
Dependent claims 17-21 are objected based on being directly or indirectly dependent on objected claim 16.
Dependent claims 23-27 are objected based on being directly or indirectly dependent on objected claim 22.
Appropriate correction is required.
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 1-27 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 processor, which is directed to a machine, one of the statutory categories.
Step 2A Prong One Analysis: The limitations:
“determine one or more dimensional constraints for unspecified dimensions of one or more sets of data to be processed according to dimensions of the data, wherein the one or more dimensional constraints are determined based, at least in part, on one or more specified dimensions and one or more operations specified in a program to process the one or more sets of data, wherein at least some unspecified dimensions are indicated in the program using different symbolic representations for different dimensions”
“use at compile time the determined one or more dimensional constraints for the one or more sets of data … to determine one or more values for one or more of the at least some unspecified dimensions, wherein at least one value of the at least some unspecified dimensions is not determined at compile time of the program”
As drafted, under their broadest reasonable interpretations, cover mental processes (concepts performed in the human mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgement, opinion)) but for the recitation of mere instructions to apply language (See MPEP 2106.05(f)) and insignificant extra-solution activity (See MPEP 2106.05(g)). The above limitations in the context of this claim encompass determining dimensional constraints for unspecified dimensions of data according to dimensions of the data based on specified dimensions and operations in a program to process the data, some of the unspecified dimensions being represented by symbolic representations in the program (corresponds to evaluation and judgement; in particular, a human, with the assistance of pen and paper, can, based on specified dimensions and operations in a program to process data, determine dimensional constraints of unspecified dimensions of the data according to dimensions of the data); and using the determined dimensional constraints for the data at compile time to determine values for one or more of the unspecified dimensions of the data, at least one value of the unspecified dimensions not being determined at compile time (corresponds to evaluation and judgement; in particular, a human, with the assistance of pen and paper, can determine values for one or more unspecified dimensions of the data at compile time that are not specified in the program by using the determined dimensional constraints for the data).
Step 2A Prong Two Analysis: The judicial exceptions are not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim recites additional elements that are mere instructions to apply (See MPEP 2106.05(f)) or insignificant extra-solution activity (See MPEP 2106.05(g)). The limitations:
“a processor”
“one or more circuits”
“with a constraint based solver”
As drafted, are additional elements that amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception for the abstract ideas. See MPEP 2106.05(f). The limitation:
“compile a representation of the program using the determined one or more values such that the at least one value not determined at compile time is to be determined at runtime”
As drafted, is an additional element that corresponds to 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 integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, all of the additional elements are “mere instructions to apply an exception” (I.e. the additional elements describe a generic processor, constraint based solver, and circuits for applying the abstract ideas) or insignificant extra-solution activity. Furthermore, the “compile a representation of the program …” limitation is insignificant extra-solution activity that is well-understood, routine, and conventional according to MPEP 2106.05(d) as shown by Holt (US 2021/0004209 A1) in specification paragraph [0291]: “the conventional compiler converts the framework program using the specity variables to selectively arrange and execute the code of the desired segment subroutines”. Mere instructions to apply an exception cannot provide an inventive concept. The claim is not patent eligible.
Regarding Claim 2,
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1 Analysis: Claim 2 is directed to a processor, which is directed to a machine, one of the statutory categories.
Step 2A Prong One Analysis: The limitations:
“wherein the one or more sets of data are one or more tensors in a representation of a neural network”
As drafted, is part of the abstract idea of claim 1 of determining dimensional constraints for sets of data. The limitation of claim 2 further limits the limitation of claim 1 by further defining the sets of data. The above limitation in the context of this claim encompasses determining dimensional constraints for unspecified dimensions of data according to dimensions of the data based on specified dimensions and operations in a program to process the data, the data being tensors in a representation of a neural network (corresponds to evaluation and judgement; in particular, a human, with the assistance of pen and paper, can, based on specified dimensions and operations in a program to process data being tensors in representation of a neural network, determine dimensional constraints of unspecified dimensions of the data according to dimensions of the data).
Step 2A Prong Two Analysis: The judicial exceptions are not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim recites additional elements that are mere instructions to apply (See MPEP 2106.05(f)) or insignificant extra-solution activity (See MPEP 2106.05(g)). The recitation of additional elements in claim 1 of a generic processor, constraint based solver, and circuits, as drafted, are reciting mere instructions to apply language such that it amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exceptions. Furthermore, the “compile …” limitation of claim 1 is an additional element that corresponds to insignificant extra-solution activity. Therefore, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract ideas into a practical application.
Step 2B Analysis: The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, all of the additional elements are “mere instructions to apply an exception” (I.e. the additional elements describe a generic processor, constraint based solver, and circuits for applying the abstract ideas) or insignificant extra-solution activity. Furthermore, the “compile a representation of the program …” limitation is insignificant extra-solution activity that is well-understood, routine, and conventional according to MPEP 2106.05(d) as shown by Holt (US 2021/0004209 A1) in specification paragraph [0291]: “the conventional compiler converts the framework program using the specity variables to selectively arrange and execute the code of the desired segment subroutines”. Mere instructions to apply an exception cannot provide an inventive concept. The claim is not patent eligible.
Regarding Claim 3,
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1 Analysis: Claim 3 is directed to a processor, which is directed to a machine, one of the statutory categories.
Step 2A Prong One Analysis: The limitation:
“wherein the one or more dimensions are one or more dimensions of an input to a neural network graph of the program”
As drafted, is part of the abstract idea of claim 1 of determining dimensional constraints for sets of data. The limitation of claim 3 further limits the limitation of claim 1 by further defining the dimensions of the data. The above limitation in the context of this claim encompasses determining dimensional constraints for unspecified dimensions of data according to dimensions of the data based on specified dimensions and operations in a program to process the data, the dimensions being dimensions of an input to a neural network graph of the program (corresponds to evaluation and judgement; in particular, a human, with the assistance of pen and paper, can, based on specified dimensions and operations in a program to process data, determine dimensional constraints of unspecified dimensions of the data according to dimensions of an input to a neural network graph of the program). The limitation:
“determine the one or more dimensions based, at least in part, on the one or more dimensional constraints and one or more known dimension values”
As drafted, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers mental processes (concepts performed in the human mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgement, opinion)) but for the recitation of mere instructions to apply language (See MPEP 2106.05(f)) and insignificant extra-solution activity (See MPEP 2106.05(g)). The above limitation in the context of this claim encompasses determining the dimensions based on the dimensional constraints and known dimension values (corresponds to evaluation and judgement; in particular, a human, with the assistance of pen and paper, can, using the dimensional constraints and known dimension values, determine one or more dimensions of the data).
Step 2A Prong Two Analysis: The judicial exceptions are not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim recites additional elements that are mere instructions to apply (See MPEP 2106.05(f)) or insignificant extra-solution activity (See MPEP 2106.05(g)). The limitations:
“the one or more circuits”
As drafted, are additional elements that amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception for the abstract ideas. See MPEP 2106.05(f). In addition, the recitation of additional elements in claim 1 of a generic processor, constraint based solver, and circuits, as drafted, are reciting mere instructions to apply language such that it amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exceptions. Furthermore, the “compile …” limitation of claim 1 is an additional element that corresponds to insignificant extra-solution activity. Therefore, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract ideas into a practical application.
Step 2B Analysis: The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, all of the additional elements are “mere instructions to apply an exception” (I.e. the additional elements describe a generic processor, constraint based solver, and circuits for applying the abstract ideas) or insignificant extra-solution activity. Furthermore, the “compile a representation of the program …” limitation is insignificant extra-solution activity that is well-understood, routine, and conventional according to MPEP 2106.05(d) as shown by Holt (US 2021/0004209 A1) in specification paragraph [0291]: “the conventional compiler converts the framework program using the specity variables to selectively arrange and execute the code of the desired segment subroutines”. Mere instructions to apply an exception cannot provide an inventive concept. The claim is not patent eligible.
Regarding Claim 4,
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1 Analysis: Claim 4 is directed to a processor, which is directed to a machine, one of the statutory categories.
Step 2A Prong One Analysis: The limitation:
“wherein the one or more sets of data are one or more tensors in a first representation of a neural network”
As drafted, is part of the abstract idea of claim 1 of determining dimensional constraints for sets of data. The limitation of claim 4 further limits the limitation of claim 1 by further defining the sets of data. The above limitation in the context of this claim encompasses determining dimensional constraints for unspecified dimensions of data according to dimensions of the data based on specified dimensions and operations in a program to process the data, the data being tensors in a representation of a neural network (corresponds to evaluation and judgement; in particular, a human, with the assistance of pen and paper, can, based on specified dimensions and operations in a program to process data being representation of a neural network, determine dimensional constraints of unspecified dimensions of the data according to dimensions of the data).
Step 2A Prong Two Analysis: The judicial exceptions are not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim recites additional elements that are mere instructions to apply (See MPEP 2106.05(f)) or insignificant extra-solution activity (See MPEP 2106.05(g)). The limitations:
“the one or more circuits”
As drafted, are additional elements that amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception for the abstract ideas. See MPEP 2106.05(f). The limitations:
“store a second representation of the neural network that includes the determined one or more dimensions”
As drafted, are additional elements that correspond to insignificant extra-solution activity. In particular, the additional elements are merely directed towards mere data gathering. See MPEP 2106.05(g). In addition, the recitation of additional elements in claim 1 of a generic processor, constraint based solver, and circuits, as drafted, are reciting mere instructions to apply language such that it amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exceptions. Furthermore, the “compile …” limitation of claim 1 is an additional element that corresponds to insignificant extra-solution activity. Therefore, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract ideas into a practical application.
Step 2B Analysis: The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, all of the additional elements are “mere instructions to apply an exception” (I.e. the additional elements describe a generic processor, constraint based solver, and circuits for applying the abstract ideas) or insignificant extra-solution activity (i.e. storing data). Furthermore, the “store …” limitation is insignificant extra-solution activity that is well-understood, routine, and conventional according to MPEP 2106.05(d) (“The courts have recognized the following computer functions as well‐understood, routine, and conventional functions when they are claimed in a merely generic manner (e.g., at a high level of generality) or as insignificant extra-solution activity… iv. Storing and retrieving information in memory). Additionally, the “compile a representation of the program …” limitation is insignificant extra-solution activity that is well-understood, routine, and conventional according to MPEP 2106.05(d) as shown by Holt (US 2021/0004209 A1) in specification paragraph [0291]: “the conventional compiler converts the framework program using the specity variables to selectively arrange and execute the code of the desired segment subroutines”. Mere instructions to apply an exception cannot provide an inventive concept. The claim is not patent eligible.
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 processor, which is directed to a machine, one of the statutory categories.
Step 2A Prong One Analysis: The limitations:
“wherein the one or more sets of data are one or more tensors in a representation of a neural network”
As drafted, is part of the abstract idea of claim 1 of determining dimensional constraints for sets of data. The limitation of claim 5 further limits the limitation of claim 1 by further defining the sets of data. The above limitation in the context of this claim encompasses determining dimensional constraints for unspecified dimensions of data according to dimensions of the data based on specified dimensions and operations in a program to process the data, the data being tensors in a representation of a neural network (corresponds to evaluation and judgement; in particular, a human, with the assistance of pen and paper, can, based on specified dimensions and operations in a program to process data being representation of a neural network, determine dimensional constraints of unspecified dimensions of the data according to dimensions of the data). The limitation:
“use the one or more dimensional constraints to determine one or more ranks of the one or more tensors”
As drafted, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers mental processes (concepts performed in the human mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgement, opinion)) but for the recitation of mere instructions to apply language (See MPEP 2106.05(f)) and insignificant extra-solution activity (See MPEP 2106.05(g)). The above limitation in the context of this claim encompasses determining ranks of the tensors using the dimensional constraints (corresponds to evaluation and judgement; in particular, a human, with the assistance of pen and paper, can, using the dimensional constraints, determine ranks of the tensors).
Step 2A Prong Two Analysis: The judicial exceptions are not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim recites additional elements that are mere instructions to apply (See MPEP 2106.05(f)) or insignificant extra-solution activity (See MPEP 2106.05(g)). The limitations:
“the one or more circuits”
As drafted, are additional elements that amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception for the abstract ideas. See MPEP 2106.05(f). In addition, the recitation of additional elements in claim 1 of a generic processor, constraint based solver, and circuits, as drafted, are reciting mere instructions to apply language such that it amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exceptions. Furthermore, the “compile …” limitation of claim 1 is an additional element that corresponds to insignificant extra-solution activity. Therefore, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract ideas into a practical application.
Step 2B Analysis: The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, all of the additional elements are “mere instructions to apply an exception” (I.e. the additional elements describe a generic processor, constraint based solver, and circuits for applying the abstract ideas) or insignificant extra-solution activity. Furthermore, the “compile a representation of the program …” limitation is insignificant extra-solution activity that is well-understood, routine, and conventional according to MPEP 2106.05(d) as shown by Holt (US 2021/0004209 A1) in specification paragraph [0291]: “the conventional compiler converts the framework program using the specity variables to selectively arrange and execute the code of the desired segment subroutines”. Mere instructions to apply an exception cannot provide an inventive concept. The claim is not patent eligible.
Regarding Claim 6,
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1 Analysis: Claim 6 is directed to a processor, which is directed to a machine, one of the statutory categories.
Step 2A Prong One Analysis: The limitations:
“identify the one or more dimensional constraints based, at least in part, on one or more types of operations represented by a graph that uses the one or more sets of data”
As drafted, under their broadest reasonable interpretations, cover mental processes (concepts performed in the human mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgement, opinion)) but for the recitation of mere instructions to apply language (See MPEP 2106.05(f)) and insignificant extra-solution activity (See MPEP 2106.05(g)). The above limitations in the context of this claim encompass identifying dimensional constraints based on types of operations represented by a graph that uses the sets of data (corresponds to evaluation and judgement; in particular, a human, with the assistance of pen and paper, can identify dimensional constraints based on operation types represented by a graph that uses the data).
Step 2A Prong Two Analysis: The judicial exceptions are not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim recites additional elements that are mere instructions to apply (See MPEP 2106.05(f)) or insignificant extra-solution activity (See MPEP 2106.05(g)). The limitations:
“the one or more circuits”
As drafted, are additional elements that amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception for the abstract ideas. See MPEP 2106.05(f). In addition, the recitation of additional elements in claim 1 of a generic processor, constraint based solver, and circuits, as drafted, are reciting mere instructions to apply language such that it amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exceptions. Furthermore, the “compile …” limitation of claim 1 is an additional element that corresponds to insignificant extra-solution activity. Therefore, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract ideas into a practical application.
Step 2B Analysis: The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, all of the additional elements are “mere instructions to apply an exception” (I.e. the additional elements describe a generic processor, constraint based solver, and circuits for applying the abstract ideas) or insignificant extra-solution activity. Furthermore, the “compile a representation of the program …” limitation is insignificant extra-solution activity that is well-understood, routine, and conventional according to MPEP 2106.05(d) as shown by Holt (US 2021/0004209 A1) in specification paragraph [0291]: “the conventional compiler converts the framework program using the specity variables to selectively arrange and execute the code of the desired segment subroutines”. Mere instructions to apply an exception cannot provide an inventive concept. The claim is not patent eligible.
Regarding Claim 7,
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1 Analysis: Claim 7 is directed to a processor, which is directed to a machine, one of the statutory categories.
Step 2A Prong One Analysis: The limitation:
“wherein the one or more sets of data are one or more tensors that are one or more inputs to a neural network graph”
As drafted, is part of the abstract idea of claim 1 of determining dimensional constraints for sets of data. The limitation of claim 7 further limits the limitation of claim 1 by further defining the sets of data. The above limitation in the context of this claim encompasses determining dimensional constraints for unspecified dimensions of data according to dimensions of the data based on specified dimensions and operations in a program to process the data, the data being tensors that are inputs to a neural network graph (corresponds to evaluation and judgement; in particular, a human, with the assistance of pen and paper, can, based on specified dimensions and operations in a program to process data being input tensors to a neural network graph, determine dimensional constraints of unspecified dimensions of the data according to dimensions of the data). The limitation:
“determine the one or more dimensions based, at least in part, on a value of a dimension of a tensor that is an output in the neural network graph”
As drafted under their broadest reasonable interpretations, cover mental processes (concepts performed in the human mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgement, opinion)) but for the recitation of mere instructions to apply language (See MPEP 2106.05(f)) and insignificant extra-solution activity (See MPEP 2106.05(g)). The above limitations in the context of this claim encompass determining dimensions of the data based on a dimension of a tensor output in the neural network graph (corresponds to evaluation and judgement; in particular, a human, with the assistance of pen and paper, can, based on a dimension of a tensor output of a neural network graph, determine the dimension of the data).
Step 2A Prong Two Analysis: The judicial exceptions are not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim recites additional elements that are mere instructions to apply (See MPEP 2106.05(f)) or insignificant extra-solution activity (See MPEP 2106.05(g)). The limitations:
“the one or more circuits”
As drafted, are additional elements that amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception for the abstract ideas. See MPEP 2106.05(f). In addition, the recitation of additional elements in claim 1 of a generic processor, constraint based solver, and circuits, as drafted, are reciting mere instructions to apply language such that it amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exceptions. Furthermore, the “compile …” limitation of claim 1 is an additional element that corresponds to insignificant extra-solution activity. Therefore, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract ideas into a practical application.
Step 2B Analysis: The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, all of the additional elements are “mere instructions to apply an exception” (I.e. the additional elements describe a generic processor, constraint based solver, and circuits for applying the abstract ideas) or insignificant extra-solution activity. Furthermore, the “compile a representation of the program …” limitation is insignificant extra-solution activity that is well-understood, routine, and conventional according to MPEP 2106.05(d) as shown by Holt (US 2021/0004209 A1) in specification paragraph [0291]: “the conventional compiler converts the framework program using the specity variables to selectively arrange and execute the code of the desired segment subroutines”. Mere instructions to apply an exception cannot provide an inventive concept. The claim is not patent eligible.
Regarding Claim 8,
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1 Analysis: Claim 8 is directed to a processor, which is directed to a machine, one of the statutory categories.
Step 2A Prong One Analysis: The limitations:
“wherein the one or more sets of data are tensors in a graph”
“the one or more dimensional constraints are based, at least in part, on one or more rules associated with one or more of a concatenation operation, a matrix multiplication operation, and a convolution operation represented by the graph”
As drafted, are part of the abstract idea of claim 1 of determining dimensional constraints for sets of data. The limitations of claim 8 further limit the limitation of claim 1 by further defining the sets of data and the dimensional constraints. The above limitations in the context of this claim encompass determining dimensional constraints for unspecified dimensions of data according to dimensions of the data based on specified dimensions and operations in a program to process the data, the data being tensors in a graph (corresponds to evaluation and judgement; in particular, a human, with the assistance of pen and paper, can, based on specified dimensions and operations in a program to process data being tensors in a graph, determine dimensional constraints of unspecified dimensions of the data according to dimensions of the data); and determining dimensional constraints for unspecified dimensions of data according to dimensions of the data based on specified dimensions and operations in a program to process the data, the dimensional constraints being based on rules associated with operations represented by the graph (corresponds to evaluation and judgement; in particular, a human, with the assistance of pen and paper, can, based on rules associated with operations represented by the graph in a program to process data, determine dimensional constraints of unspecified dimensions of the data according to dimensions of the data).
Step 2A Prong Two Analysis: The judicial exceptions are not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim recites additional elements that are mere instructions to apply (See MPEP 2106.05(f)) or insignificant extra-solution activity (See MPEP 2106.05(g)). The recitation of additional elements in claim 1 of a generic processor, constraint based solver, and circuits, as drafted, are reciting mere instructions to apply language such that it amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exceptions. Furthermore, the “compile …” limitation of claim 1 is an additional element that corresponds to insignificant extra-solution activity. Therefore, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract ideas into a practical application.
Step 2B Analysis: The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, all of the additional elements are “mere instructions to apply an exception” (I.e. the additional elements describe a generic processor, constraint based solver, and circuits for applying the abstract ideas) or insignificant extra-solution activity. Furthermore, the “compile a representation of the program …” limitation is insignificant extra-solution activity that is well-understood, routine, and conventional according to MPEP 2106.05(d) as shown by Holt (US 2021/0004209 A1) in specification paragraph [0291]: “the conventional compiler converts the framework program using the specity variables to selectively arrange and execute the code of the desired segment subroutines”. Mere instructions to apply an exception cannot provide an inventive concept. The claim is not patent eligible.
Regarding Claim 9,
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1 Analysis: Claim 9 is directed to a processor, which is directed to a machine, one of the statutory categories.
Step 2A Prong One Analysis: The limitation:
“wherein the one or more sets of data are one or more tensors in a representation of a neural network”
As drafted, is part of the abstract idea of claim 1 of determining dimensional constraints for sets of data. The limitation of claim 9 further limits the limitation of claim 1 by further defining the sets of data. The above limitation in the context of this claim encompasses determining dimensional constraints for unspecified dimensions of data according to dimensions of the data based on specified dimensions and operations in a program to process the data, the data being tensors in a representation of a neural network (corresponds to evaluation and judgement; in particular, a human, with the assistance of pen and paper, can, based on specified dimensions and operations in a program to process data being representation of a neural network, determine dimensional constraints of unspecified dimensions of the data according to dimensions of the data).
Step 2A Prong Two Analysis: The judicial exceptions are not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim recites additional elements that are mere instructions to apply (See MPEP 2106.05(f)) or insignificant extra-solution activity (See MPEP 2106.05(g)). The limitations:
“to perform a task in an autonomous vehicle”
As drafted, is an additional element that amounts to generally linking the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use, namely the autonomous vehicle filed of use. See MPEP 2106.05(h). In addition, the recitation of additional elements in claim 1 of a generic processor, constraint based solver, and circuits, as drafted, are reciting mere instructions to apply language such that it amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exceptions. Furthermore, the “compile …” limitation of claim 1 is an additional element that corresponds to insignificant extra-solution activity. Therefore, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract ideas into a practical application.
Step 2B Analysis: The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, all of the additional elements are generally linking the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use, namely the autonomous vehicle filed of use, “mere instructions to apply an exception” (I.e. the additional elements describe a generic processor, constraint based solver, and circuits for applying the abstract ideas), or insignificant extra-solution activity. Furthermore, the “compile a representation of the program …” limitation is insignificant extra-solution activity that is well-understood, routine, and conventional according to MPEP 2106.05(d) as shown by Holt (US 2021/0004209 A1) in specification paragraph [0291]: “the conventional compiler converts the framework program using the specity variables to selectively arrange and execute the code of the desired segment subroutines”. Mere instructions to apply an exception cannot provide an inventive concept. 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 a system, which is directed to a machine, one of the statutory categories.
Step 2A Prong One Analysis: The limitations:
“determine one or more dimensional constraints for unspecified dimensions of one or more sets of data to be processed according to dimensions of the data, wherein the one or more dimensional constraints are determined based, at least in part, on one or more specified dimensions and one or more operations specified in a program to process the one or more sets of data, wherein at least some unspecified dimensions are indicated in the program using different symbolic representations for different dimensions”
“use at compile time the determined one or more dimensional constraints for the one or more sets of data … to determine one or more values for one or more of the at least some unspecified dimensions, wherein at least one value of the at least some unspecified dimensions is not determined at compile time of the program”
As drafted, under their broadest reasonable interpretations, cover mental processes (concepts performed in the human mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgement, opinion)) but for the recitation of mere instructions to apply language (See MPEP 2106.05(f)) and insignificant extra-solution activity (See MPEP 2106.05(g)). The above limitations in the context of this claim encompass determining dimensional constraints for unspecified dimensions of data according to dimensions of the data based on specified dimensions and operations in a program to process the data, some of the unspecified dimensions being represented by symbolic representations in the program (corresponds to evaluation and judgement; in particular, a human, with the assistance of pen and paper, can, based on specified dimensions and operations in a program to process data, determine dimensional constraints of unspecified dimensions of the data according to dimensions of the data); and using the determined dimensional constraints for the data at compile time to determine values for one or more of the unspecified dimensions of the data, at least one value of the unspecified dimensions not being determined at compile time (corresponds to evaluation and judgement; in particular, a human, with the assistance of pen and paper, can determine values for one or more unspecified dimensions of the data at compile time that are not specified in the program by using the determined dimensional constraints for the data).
Step 2A Prong Two Analysis: The judicial exceptions are not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim recites additional elements that are mere instructions to apply (See MPEP 2106.05(f)) or insignificant extra-solution activity (See MPEP 2106.05(g)). The limitations:
“one or more processors”
“with a constraint based solver”
“one or more memories”
As drafted, are additional elements that amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception for the abstract ideas. See MPEP 2106.05(f). The limitations:
“compile a representation of the program using the determined one or more values such that the at least one value not determined at compile time is to be determined at runtime”
“store the representation of the program”
As drafted, are additional elements that correspond to insignificant extra-solution activity. In particular, the additional elements are merely directed towards mere data gathering. See MPEP 2106.05(g). Therefore, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract ideas into a practical application.
Step 2B Analysis: The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, all of the additional elements are “mere instructions to apply an exception” (I.e. the additional elements describe generic processors, constraint based solver, and memory for applying the abstract ideas) or insignificant extra-solution activity (i.e. storing data). Furthermore, the “store …” limitation is insignificant extra-solution activity that is well-understood, routine, and conventional according to MPEP 2106.05(d) (“The courts have recognized the following computer functions as well‐understood, routine, and conventional functions when they are claimed in a merely generic manner (e.g., at a high level of generality) or as insignificant extra-solution activity… iv. Storing and retrieving information in memory). Additionally, the “compile a representation of the program …” limitation is insignificant extra-solution activity that is well-understood, routine, and conventional according to MPEP 2106.05(d) as shown by Holt (US 2021/0004209 A1) in specification paragraph [0291]: “the conventional compiler converts the framework program using the specity variables to selectively arrange and execute the code of the desired segment subroutines”. Mere instructions to apply an exception cannot provide an inventive concept. The claim is not patent eligible.
Regarding Claim 11,
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1 Analysis: Claim 11 is directed to a system, which is directed to a machine, one of the statutory categories.
Step 2A Prong One Analysis: The limitation:
“wherein the one or more sets of data include one or more tensors”
As drafted, is part of the abstract idea of claim 10 of determining dimensional constraints for sets of data. The limitation of claim 11 further limits the limitation of claim 10 by further defining the sets of data. The above limitation in the context of this claim encompasses determining dimensional constraints for unspecified dimensions of data according to dimensions of the data based on specified dimensions and operations in a program to process the data, the data including tensors (corresponds to evaluation and judgement; in particular, a human, with the assistance of pen and paper, can, based on specified dimensions and operations in a program to process data including tensors, determine dimensional constraints of unspecified dimensions of the data according to dimensions of the data).
The limitation:
“identify the one or more dimensional constraints based, at least in part, on one or more types of operations in a graph that includes the one or more tensors”
As drafted, under their broadest reasonable interpretations, cover mental processes (concepts performed in the human mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgement, opinion)) but for the recitation of mere instructions to apply language (See MPEP 2106.05(f)) and insignificant extra-solution activity (See MPEP 2106.05(g)). The above limitations in the context of this claim encompass identifying dimensional constraints based on types of operations represented by a graph that includes the tensors (corresponds to evaluation and judgement; in particular, a human, with the assistance of pen and paper, can identify dimensional constraints based on operation types represented by a graph that includes the tensors).
Step 2A Prong Two Analysis: The judicial exceptions are not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim recites additional elements that are mere instructions to apply (See MPEP 2106.05(f)) or insignificant extra-solution activity (See MPEP 2106.05(g)). The limitations:
“the one or more processors”
As drafted, are additional elements that amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception for the abstract ideas. See MPEP 2106.05(f). In addition, the recitation of additional elements in claim 10 of generic processors, constraint based solver, and memory, as drafted, are reciting mere instructions to apply language such that it amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exceptions. Furthermore, the “store …” and “compile …” limitations of claim 10 are additional elements that correspond to insignificant extra-solution activity as mere data gathering. Therefore, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract ideas into a practical application.
Step 2B Analysis: The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, all of the additional elements are “mere instructions to apply an exception” (I.e. the additional elements describe generic processors, constraint based solver, and memory for applying the abstract ideas) or insignificant extra-solution activity (i.e. storing data). Furthermore, the “store …” limitation is insignificant extra-solution activity that is well-understood, routine, and conventional according to MPEP 2106.05(d) (“The courts have recognized the following computer functions as well‐understood, routine, and conventional functions when they are claimed in a merely generic manner (e.g., at a high level of generality) or as insignificant extra-solution activity… iv. Storing and retrieving information in memory). Additionally, the “compile a representation of the program …” limitation is insignificant extra-solution activity that is well-understood, routine, and conventional according to MPEP 2106.05(d) as shown by Holt (US 2021/0004209 A1) in specification paragraph [0291]: “the conventional compiler converts the framework program using the specity variables to selectively arrange and execute the code of the desired segment subroutines”. Mere instructions to apply an exception cannot provide an inventive concept. The claim is not patent eligible.
Regarding Claim 12,
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1 Analysis: Claim 12 is directed to a system, which is directed to a machine, one of the statutory categories.
Step 2A Prong One Analysis: The limitations:
“wherein the one or more sets of data are in a neural network”
“the one or more dimensions are one or more dimensions of one or more tensor shapes”
As drafted, are part of the abstract idea of claim 10 of determining dimensional constraints for sets of data. The limitations of claim 12 further limit the limitation of claim 10 by further defining the sets of data and the dimensions. The above limitations in the context of this claim encompass determining dimensional constraints for unspecified dimensions of data according to dimensions of the data based on specified dimensions and operations in a program to process the data, the data being in a neural network (corresponds to evaluation and judgement; in particular, a human, with the assistance of pen and paper, can, based on operations in a program to process data in a neural network, determine dimensional constraints of unspecified dimensions of the data according to dimensions of the data); and determining dimensional constraints for unspecified dimensions of data according to dimensions of the data based on specified dimensions and operations in a program to process the data, the dimensions being dimension of tensor shapes (corresponds to evaluation and judgement; in particular, a human, with the assistance of pen and paper, can, based on operations in a program to process data, determine dimensional constraints of unspecified dimensions of the data according to dimensions of tensor shapes for the data).
Step 2A Prong Two Analysis: The judicial exceptions are not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim recites additional elements that are mere instructions to apply (See MPEP 2106.05(f)) or insignificant extra-solution activity (See MPEP 2106.05(g)). The recitation of additional elements in claim 10 of generic processors, constraint based solver, and memory, as drafted, are reciting mere instructions to apply language such that it amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exceptions. Furthermore, the “store …” and “compile …” limitations of claim 10 are additional elements that correspond to insignificant extra-solution activity as mere data gathering. Therefore, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract ideas into a practical application.
Step 2B Analysis: The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, all of the additional elements are “mere instructions to apply an exception” (I.e. the additional elements describe generic processors, constraint based solver, and memory for applying the abstract ideas) or insignificant extra-solution activity (i.e. storing data). Furthermore, the “store …” limitation is insignificant extra-solution activity that is well-understood, routine, and conventional according to MPEP 2106.05(d) (“The courts have recognized the following computer functions as well‐understood, routine, and conventional functions when they are claimed in a merely generic manner (e.g., at a high level of generality) or as insignificant extra-solution activity… iv. Storing and retrieving information in memory). Additionally, the “compile a representation of the program …” limitation is insignificant extra-solution activity that is well-understood, routine, and conventional according to MPEP 2106.05(d) as shown by Holt (US 2021/0004209 A1) in specification paragraph [0291]: “the conventional compiler converts the framework program using the specity variables to selectively arrange and execute the code of the desired segment subroutines”. Mere instructions to apply an exception cannot provide an inventive concept. The claim is not patent eligible.
Regarding Claim 13,
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1 Analysis: Claim 13 is directed to a system, which is directed to a machine, one of the statutory categories.
Step 2A Prong One Analysis: The limitation:
“wherein the one or more sets of data are in a neural network graph”
As drafted, is part of the abstract idea of claim 10 of determining dimensional constraints for sets of data. The limitation of claim 11 further limits the limitation of claim 10 by further defining the sets of data. The above limitation in the context of this claim encompasses determining dimensional constraints for unspecified dimensions of data according to dimensions of the data based on specified dimensions and operations in a program to process the data, the data being in a neural network graph (corresponds to evaluation and judgement; in particular, a human, with the assistance of pen and paper, can, based on operations in a program to process data in a neural network graph, determine dimensional constraints of unspecified dimensions of the data according to dimensions of the data). The limitation:
“reduce a number of symbolic representations of dimensions of one or more tensor shapes in the neural network graph”
As drafted, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers mental processes (concepts performed in the human mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgement, opinion)) but for the recitation of mere instructions to apply language (See MPEP 2106.05(f)) and insignificant extra-solution activity (See MPEP 2106.05(g)). The above limitation in the context of this claim encompasses reducing symbolic representations of dimensions of tensor shapes in the neural network graph (corresponds to evaluation and judgement; in particular, a human, with the assistance of pen and paper, can, in the neural network graph, reduce a number of symbolic representations of dimensions of tensor shapes).
Step 2A Prong Two Analysis: The judicial exceptions are not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim recites additional elements that are mere instructions to apply (See MPEP 2106.05(f)) or insignificant extra-solution activity (See MPEP 2106.05(g)). The limitations:
“the one or more processors”
As drafted, are additional elements that amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception for the abstract ideas. See MPEP 2106.05(f). In addition, the recitation of additional elements in claim 10 of generic processors, constraint based solver, and memory, as drafted, are reciting mere instructions to apply language such that it amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exceptions. Furthermore, the “store …” and “compile …” limitations of claim 10 are additional elements that correspond to insignificant extra-solution activity as mere data gathering. Therefore, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract ideas into a practical application.
Step 2B Analysis: The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, all of the additional elements are “mere instructions to apply an exception” (I.e. the additional elements describe generic processors, constraint based solver, and memory for applying the abstract ideas) or insignificant extra-solution activity (i.e. storing data). Furthermore, the “store …” limitation is insignificant extra-solution activity that is well-understood, routine, and conventional according to MPEP 2106.05(d) (“The courts have recognized the following computer functions as well‐understood, routine, and conventional functions when they are claimed in a merely generic manner (e.g., at a high level of generality) or as insignificant extra-solution activity… iv. Storing and retrieving information in memory). Additionally, the “compile a representation of the program …” limitation is insignificant extra-solution activity that is well-understood, routine, and conventional according to MPEP 2106.05(d) as shown by Holt (US 2021/0004209 A1) in specification paragraph [0291]: “the conventional compiler converts the framework program using the specity variables to selectively arrange and execute the code of the desired segment subroutines”. Mere instructions to apply an exception cannot provide an inventive concept. The claim is not patent eligible.
Regarding Claim 14,
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1 Analysis: Claim 14 is directed to a system, which is directed to a machine, one of the statutory categories.
Step 2A Prong One Analysis: The limitations:
“generate a kernel for execution on a parallel processing unit based, at least in part, on the determined one or more dimensions”
As drafted, under their broadest reasonable interpretations, cover mental processes (concepts performed in the human mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgement, opinion)) but for the recitation of mere instructions to apply language (See MPEP 2106.05(f)) and insignificant extra-solution activity (See MPEP 2106.05(g)). The above limitations in the context of this claim encompass generating a kernel based on the determined dimensions (corresponds to evaluation and judgement; in particular, a human, with the assistance of pen and paper, can, based on the determined dimensions, generate a kernel).
Step 2A Prong Two Analysis: The judicial exceptions are not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim recites additional elements that are mere instructions to apply (See MPEP 2106.05(f)) or insignificant extra-solution activity (See MPEP 2106.05(g)). The limitations:
“the one or more processors”
“a parallel processing unit”
As drafted, are additional elements that amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception for the abstract ideas. See MPEP 2106.05(f). In addition, the recitation of additional elements in claim 10 of generic processors, constraint based solver, and memory, as drafted, are reciting mere instructions to apply language such that it amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exceptions. Furthermore, the “store …” and “compile …” limitations of claim 10 are additional elements that correspond to insignificant extra-solution activity as mere data gathering. Therefore, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract ideas into a practical application.
Step 2B Analysis: The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, all of the additional elements are “mere instructions to apply an exception” (I.e. the additional elements describe generic processors, constraint based solver, memory, and a parallel processing unit for applying the abstract ideas) or insignificant extra-solution activity (i.e. storing data). Furthermore, the “store …” limitation is insignificant extra-solution activity that is well-understood, routine, and conventional according to MPEP 2106.05(d) (“The courts have recognized the following computer functions as well‐understood, routine, and conventional functions when they are claimed in a merely generic manner (e.g., at a high level of generality) or as insignificant extra-solution activity… iv. Storing and retrieving information in memory). Additionally, the “compile a representation of the program …” limitation is insignificant extra-solution activity that is well-understood, routine, and conventional according to MPEP 2106.05(d) as shown by Holt (US 2021/0004209 A1) in specification paragraph [0291]: “the conventional compiler converts the framework program using the specity variables to selectively arrange and execute the code of the desired segment subroutines”. Mere instructions to apply an exception cannot provide an inventive concept. The claim is not patent eligible.
Regarding Claim 15,
Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1 Analysis: Claim 15 is directed to a system, which is directed to a machine, one of the statutory categories.
Step 2A Prong One Analysis: Please see the analysis of claim 10. The limitations of claim 15 are only additional elements to the abstract ideas of claim 10.
Step 2A Prong Two Analysis: The judicial exceptions are not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim recites additional elements that are mere instructions to apply (See MPEP 2106.05(f)) or insignificant extra-solution activity (See MPEP 2106.05(g)). The limitations:
“the one or more processors”
“the one more memories”
As drafted, are additional elements that amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception for the abstract ideas. See MPEP 2106.05(f). The limitations:
“store a neural network graph that includes the determined one or more dimensions using the one more memories”
As drafted, are additional elements that correspond to insignificant extra-solution activity. In particular, the additional elements are merely directed towards mere data gathering. See MPEP 2106.05(g). In addition, the recitation of additional elements in claim 10 of generic processors, constraint based solver, and memory, as drafted, are reciting mere instructions to apply language such that it amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exceptions. Furthermore, the “store …” and “compile …” limitations of claim 10 are additional elements that correspond to insignificant extra-solution activity as mere data gathering. Therefore, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract ideas into a practical application.
Step 2B Analysis: The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, all of the additional elements are “mere instructions to apply an exception” (I.e. the additional elements describe generic processors, constraint based solver, and memory for applying the abstract ideas) or insignificant extra-solution activity (i.e. storing data). Furthermore, the “store …” limitations are insignificant extra-solution activity that is well-understood, routine, and conventional according to MPEP 2106.05(d) (“The courts have recognized the following computer functions as well‐understood, routine, and conventional functions when they are claimed in a merely generic manner (e.g., at a high level of generality) or as insignificant extra-solution activity… iv. Storing and retrieving information in memory). Additionally, the “compile a representation of the program …” limitation is insignificant extra-solution activity that is well-understood, routine, and conventional according to MPEP 2106.05(d) as shown by Holt (US 2021/0004209 A1) in specification paragraph [0291]: “the conventional compiler converts the framework program using the specity variables to selectively arrange and execute the code of the desired segment subroutines”. Mere instructions to apply an exception cannot provide an inventive concept. The claim is not patent eligible.
Regarding Claim 16,
Claim 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1 Analysis: Claim 16 is directed to a method, which is directed to a process, one of the statutory categories.
Step 2A Prong One Analysis: The limitations:
“determining one or more constraints for unspecified dimensions of one or more sets of data to be processed according to dimensions of the data, wherein the one or more constraints are determined based, at least in part, on one or more specified dimensions and one or more operations specified in a program to process the one or more sets of data, wherein at least some unspecified dimensions are indicated in the program using different symbolic representations for different dimensions”
“determining at compile time one or more values for one or more of the at least some unspecified dimensions using the determined one or more constraints …, wherein at least one value of the at least some unspecified dimensions is not determined at compile time of the program”
As drafted, under their broadest reasonable interpretations, cover mental processes (concepts performed in the human mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgement, opinion)) but for the recitation of mere instructions to apply language (See MPEP 2106.05(f)) and insignificant extra-solution activity (See MPEP 2106.05(g)). The above limitations in the context of this claim encompass determining dimensional constraints for unspecified dimensions of data according to dimensions of the data based on specified dimensions and operations in a program to process the data, some of the unspecified dimensions being represented by symbolic representations in the program (corresponds to evaluation and judgement; in particular, a human, with the assistance of pen and paper, can, based on specified dimensions and operations in a program to process data, determine dimensional constraints of unspecified dimensions of the data according to dimensions of the data); and using the determined dimensional constraints for the data at compile time to determine values for one or more of the unspecified dimensions of the data, at least one value of the unspecified dimensions not being determined at compile time (corresponds to evaluation and judgement; in particular, a human, with the assistance of pen and paper, can determine values for one or more unspecified dimensions of the data at compile time that are not specified in the program by using the determined dimensional constraints for the data).
Step 2A Prong Two Analysis: The judicial exceptions are not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim recites additional elements that are mere instructions to apply (See MPEP 2106.05(f)) or insignificant extra-solution activity (See MPEP 2106.05(g)). The limitation:
“with a constraint based solver”
As drafted, is an additional element that amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception for the abstract ideas. See MPEP 2106.05(f). The limitation:
“compiling a representation of the program using the determined one or more values such that the at least one value not determined at compile time is to be determined at runtime”
As drafted, is an additional element that corresponds to 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 integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, all of the additional elements are “mere instructions to apply an exception” (I.e. the additional elements describe a generic constraint based solver for applying the abstract ideas) or insignificant extra-solution activity. Furthermore, the “compiling a representation of the program …” limitation is insignificant extra-solution activity that is well-understood, routine, and conventional according to MPEP 2106.05(d) as shown by Holt (US 2021/0004209 A1) in specification paragraph [0291]: “the conventional compiler converts the framework program using the specity variables to selectively arrange and execute the code of the desired segment subroutines”. Mere instructions to apply an exception cannot provide an inventive concept. The claim is not patent eligible.
Regarding Claim 17,
Claim 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1 Analysis: Claim 17 is directed to a method, which is directed to a process, one of the statutory categories.
Step 2A Prong One Analysis: The limitations:
“identifying the one or more constraints based, at least in part, on operations in a graph”
As drafted, under their broadest reasonable interpretations, cover mental processes (concepts performed in the human mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgement, opinion)) but for the recitation of mere instructions to apply language (See MPEP 2106.05(f)) and insignificant extra-solution activity (See MPEP 2106.05(g)). The above limitations in the context of this claim encompass identifying constraints based on operations in a graph (corresponds to evaluation and judgement; in particular, a human, with the assistance of pen and paper, can identify constraints based on operations in a graph).
Step 2A Prong Two Analysis: The judicial exceptions are not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim recites additional elements that are mere instructions to apply (See MPEP 2106.05(f)) or insignificant extra-solution activity (See MPEP 2106.05(g)). The recitation of additional elements in claim 16 of a constraint based solver, as drafted, are reciting mere instructions to apply language such that it amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exceptions. Furthermore, the “compiling …” limitation of claim 16 is an additional element that corresponds to insignificant extra-solution activity. Therefore, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract ideas into a practical application.
Step 2B Analysis: The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, all of the additional elements are “mere instructions to apply an exception” (I.e. the additional elements describe a generic constraint based solver for applying the abstract ideas) or insignificant extra-solution activity. Furthermore, the “compiling a representation of the program …” limitation is insignificant extra-solution activity that is well-understood, routine, and conventional according to MPEP 2106.05(d) as shown by Holt (US 2021/0004209 A1) in specification paragraph [0291]: “the conventional compiler converts the framework program using the specity variables to selectively arrange and execute the code of the desired segment subroutines”. Mere instructions to apply an exception cannot provide an inventive concept. The claim is not patent eligible.
Regarding Claim 18,
Claim 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1 Analysis: Claim 18 is directed to a method, which is directed to a process, one of the statutory categories.
Step 2A Prong One Analysis: The limitations:
“identifying the one or more constraints based, at least in part, on operations in a neural network model”
“solving the one or more constraints to determine the one or more dimensions”
As drafted, under their broadest reasonable interpretations, cover mental processes (concepts performed in the human mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgement, opinion)) but for the recitation of mere instructions to apply language (See MPEP 2106.05(f)) and insignificant extra-solution activity (See MPEP 2106.05(g)). The above limitations in the context of this claim encompass identifying constraints based on operations in a neural network model (corresponds to evaluation and judgement; in particular, a human, with the assistance of pen and paper, can identify constraints based on operations in a neural network model); and solving the constraints to determine the dimensions (corresponds to evaluation and judgement; in particular, a human, with the assistance of pen and paper, can determine the dimensions by solving the constraints).
Step 2A Prong Two Analysis: The judicial exceptions are not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim recites additional elements that are mere instructions to apply (See MPEP 2106.05(f)) or insignificant extra-solution activity (See MPEP 2106.05(g)). The recitation of additional elements in claim 16 of a constraint based solver, as drafted, are reciting mere instructions to apply language such that it amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exceptions. Furthermore, the “compiling …” limitation of claim 16 is an additional element that corresponds to insignificant extra-solution activity. Therefore, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract ideas into a practical application.
Step 2B Analysis: The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, all of the additional elements are “mere instructions to apply an exception” (I.e. the additional elements describe a generic constraint based solver for applying the abstract ideas) or insignificant extra-solution activity. Furthermore, the “compiling a representation of the program …” limitation is insignificant extra-solution activity that is well-understood, routine, and conventional according to MPEP 2106.05(d) as shown by Holt (US 2021/0004209 A1) in specification paragraph [0291]: “the conventional compiler converts the framework program using the specity variables to selectively arrange and execute the code of the desired segment subroutines”. Mere instructions to apply an exception 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, which is directed to a process, one of the statutory categories.
Step 2A Prong One Analysis: The limitations:
“wherein the one or more sets of data are one or more tensors of a neural network graph”
As drafted, is part of the abstract idea of claim 16 of determining dimensional constraints for sets of data. The limitation of claim 19 further limits the limitation of claim 16 by further defining the sets of data. The above limitation in the context of this claim encompasses determining dimensional constraints for unspecified dimensions of data according to dimensions of the data based on specified dimensions and operations in a program to process the data, the data being tensors of a neural network graph (corresponds to evaluation and judgement; in particular, a human, with the assistance of pen and paper, can, based on operations in a program to process data being tensors of a neural network graph, determine dimensional constraints of unspecified dimensions of the data according to dimensions of the data). The limitation:
“reducing a number of symbolic representations of dimensions of the one or more tensors”
As drafted, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers mental processes (concepts performed in the human mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgement, opinion)) but for the recitation of mere instructions to apply language (See MPEP 2106.05(f)) and insignificant extra-solution activity (See MPEP 2106.05(g)). The above limitation in the context of this claim encompasses reducing symbolic representations of dimensions of tensors (corresponds to evaluation and judgement; in particular, a human, with the assistance of pen and paper, can, in the neural network graph, reduce a number of symbolic representations of dimensions of tensors).
Step 2A Prong Two Analysis: The judicial exceptions are not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim recites additional elements that are mere instructions to apply (See MPEP 2106.05(f)) or insignificant extra-solution activity (See MPEP 2106.05(g)). The recitation of additional elements in claim 16 of a constraint based solver, as drafted, are reciting mere instructions to apply language such that it amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exceptions. Furthermore, the “compiling …” limitation of claim 16 is an additional element that corresponds to insignificant extra-solution activity. Therefore, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract ideas into a practical application.
Step 2B Analysis: The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, all of the additional elements are “mere instructions to apply an exception” (I.e. the additional elements describe a generic constraint based solver for applying the abstract ideas) or insignificant extra-solution activity. Furthermore, the “compiling a representation of the program …” limitation is insignificant extra-solution activity that is well-understood, routine, and conventional according to MPEP 2106.05(d) as shown by Holt (US 2021/0004209 A1) in specification paragraph [0291]: “the conventional compiler converts the framework program using the specity variables to selectively arrange and execute the code of the desired segment subroutines”. Mere instructions to apply an exception cannot provide an inventive concept. The claim is not patent eligible.
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, which is directed to a process, one of the statutory categories.
Step 2A Prong One Analysis: The limitations:
“generating a kernel based, at least in part, on the determined one or more dimensions”
As drafted, under their broadest reasonable interpretations, cover mental processes (concepts performed in the human mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgement, opinion)) but for the recitation of mere instructions to apply language (See MPEP 2106.05(f)) and insignificant extra-solution activity (See MPEP 2106.05(g)). The above limitations in the context of this claim encompass generating a kernel based on the determined dimensions (corresponds to evaluation and judgement; in particular, a human, with the assistance of pen and paper, can, based on the determined dimensions, generate a kernel).
Step 2A Prong Two Analysis: The judicial exceptions are not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim recites additional elements that are mere instructions to apply (See MPEP 2106.05(f)) or insignificant extra-solution activity (See MPEP 2106.05(g)). The recitation of additional elements in claim 16 of a constraint based solver, as drafted, are reciting mere instructions to apply language such that it amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exceptions. Furthermore, the “compiling …” limitation of claim 16 is an additional element that corresponds to insignificant extra-solution activity. Therefore, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract ideas into a practical application.
Step 2B Analysis: The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, all of the additional elements are “mere instructions to apply an exception” (I.e. the additional elements describe a generic constraint based solver for applying the abstract ideas) or insignificant extra-solution activity. Furthermore, the “compiling a representation of the program …” limitation is insignificant extra-solution activity that is well-understood, routine, and conventional according to MPEP 2106.05(d) as shown by Holt (US 2021/0004209 A1) in specification paragraph [0291]: “the conventional compiler converts the framework program using the specity variables to selectively arrange and execute the code of the desired segment subroutines”. Mere instructions to apply an exception cannot provide an inventive concept. The claim is not patent eligible.
Regarding Claim 21,
Claim 21 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1 Analysis: Claim 21 is directed to a method, which is directed to a process, one of the statutory categories.
Step 2A Prong One Analysis: The limitations:
“wherein determining the one or more dimensions includes determining one or more specific tensor shape values for a graph”
As drafted, under their broadest reasonable interpretations, cover mental processes (concepts performed in the human mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgement, opinion)) but for the recitation of mere instructions to apply language (See MPEP 2106.05(f)) and insignificant extra-solution activity (See MPEP 2106.05(g)). The above limitations in the context of this claim encompass determining dimensions by determining specific tensor shape values for a graph (corresponds to evaluation and judgement; in particular, a human, with the assistance of pen and paper, can determine tensor shape values for a graph to determine dimensions).
Step 2A Prong Two Analysis: The judicial exceptions are not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim recites additional elements that are mere instructions to apply (See MPEP 2106.05(f)) or insignificant extra-solution activity (See MPEP 2106.05(g)). The recitation of additional elements in claim 16 of a constraint based solver, as drafted, are reciting mere instructions to apply language such that it amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exceptions. Furthermore, the “compiling …” limitation of claim 16 is an additional element that corresponds to insignificant extra-solution activity. Therefore, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract ideas into a practical application.
Step 2B Analysis: The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, all of the additional elements are “mere instructions to apply an exception” (I.e. the additional elements describe a generic constraint based solver for applying the abstract ideas) or insignificant extra-solution activity. Furthermore, the “compiling a representation of the program …” limitation is insignificant extra-solution activity that is well-understood, routine, and conventional according to MPEP 2106.05(d) as shown by Holt (US 2021/0004209 A1) in specification paragraph [0291]: “the conventional compiler converts the framework program using the specity variables to selectively arrange and execute the code of the desired segment subroutines”. Mere instructions to apply an exception cannot provide an inventive concept. The claim is not patent eligible.
Regarding Claim 22,
Claim 22 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1 Analysis: Claim 22 is directed to a non-transitory machine-readable medium, which is directed to an article of manufacture, one of the statutory categories.
Step 2A Prong One Analysis: The limitations:
“determine one or more dimensional constraints for unspecified dimensions of one or more sets of data to be processed according to dimensions of the data, wherein the one or more dimensional constraints are determined based, at least in part, on one or more specified dimensions and one or more operations specified in a program to process the one or more sets of data, wherein at least some unspecified dimensions are indicated in the program using different symbolic representations for different dimensions”
“use at compile time the determined one or more dimensional constraints for the one or more sets of data … to determine one or more values for one or more of the at least some unspecified dimensions, wherein at least one value of the at least some unspecified dimensions is not determined at compile time of the program”
As drafted, under their broadest reasonable interpretations, cover mental processes (concepts performed in the human mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgement, opinion)) but for the recitation of mere instructions to apply language (See MPEP 2106.05(f)) and insignificant extra-solution activity (See MPEP 2106.05(g)). The above limitations in the context of this claim encompass determining dimensional constraints for unspecified dimensions of data according to dimensions of the data based on specified dimensions and operations in a program to process the data, some of the unspecified dimensions being represented by symbolic representations in the program (corresponds to evaluation and judgement; in particular, a human, with the assistance of pen and paper, can, based on specified dimensions and operations in a program to process data, determine dimensional constraints of unspecified dimensions of the data according to dimensions of the data); and using the determined dimensional constraints for the data at compile time to determine values for one or more of the unspecified dimensions of the data, at least one value of the unspecified dimensions not being determined at compile time (corresponds to evaluation and judgement; in particular, a human, with the assistance of pen and paper, can determine values for one or more unspecified dimensions of the data at compile time that are not specified in the program by using the determined dimensional constraints for the data).
Step 2A Prong Two Analysis: The judicial exceptions are not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim recites additional elements that are mere instructions to apply (See MPEP 2106.05(f)) or insignificant extra-solution activity (See MPEP 2106.05(g)). The limitations:
“one or more processors”
“with a constraint based solver”
As drafted, are additional elements that amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception for the abstract ideas. See MPEP 2106.05(f). The limitation:
“compile a representation of the program using the determined one or more values such that the at least one value not determined at compile time is to be determined at runtime”
As drafted, is an additional element that corresponds to 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 integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, all of the additional elements are “mere instructions to apply an exception” (I.e. the additional elements describe generic processors and constraint based solver for applying the abstract ideas) or insignificant extra-solution activity. Furthermore, the “compile a representation of the program …” limitation is insignificant extra-solution activity that is well-understood, routine, and conventional according to MPEP 2106.05(d) as shown by Holt (US 2021/0004209 A1) in specification paragraph [0291]: “the conventional compiler converts the framework program using the specity variables to selectively arrange and execute the code of the desired segment subroutines”. Mere instructions to apply an exception cannot provide an inventive concept. The claim is not patent eligible.
Regarding Claim 23,
Claim 23 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1 Analysis: Claim 23 is directed to a non-transitory machine-readable medium, which is directed to an article of manufacture, one of the statutory categories.
Step 2A Prong One Analysis: The limitations:
“wherein the one or more sets of data are one or more tensors in a neural network graph”
“the one or more dimensions are one or more dimensions of one or more tensor shapes”
As drafted, are part of the abstract idea of claim 22 of determining dimensional constraints for sets of data. The limitations of claim 23 further limit the limitation of claim 22 by further defining the sets of data and the dimensions. The above limitations in the context of this claim encompass determining dimensional constraints for unspecified dimensions of data according to dimensions of the data based on specified dimensions and operations in a program to process the data, the data being tensors in a neural network graph (corresponds to evaluation and judgement; in particular, a human, with the assistance of pen and paper, can, based on operations in a program to process data tensors in a neural network graph, determine dimensional constraints of unspecified dimensions of the data according to dimensions of the data); and determining dimensional constraints for unspecified dimensions of data according to dimensions of the data based on specified dimensions and operations in a program to process the data, the dimensions being dimension of tensor shapes (corresponds to evaluation and judgement; in particular, a human, with the assistance of pen and paper, can, based on operations in a program to process data, determine dimensional constraints of unspecified dimensions of the data according to dimensions of tensor shapes for the data).
Step 2A Prong Two Analysis: The judicial exceptions are not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim recites additional elements that are mere instructions to apply (See MPEP 2106.05(f)) or insignificant extra-solution activity (See MPEP 2106.05(g)). The recitation of additional elements in claim 22 of generic processors and constraint based solver, as drafted, are reciting mere instructions to apply language such that it amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exceptions. Furthermore, the “compile …” limitation of claim 22 is an additional element that corresponds to insignificant extra-solution activity. Therefore, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract ideas into a practical application.
Step 2B Analysis: The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, all of the additional elements are “mere instructions to apply an exception” (I.e. the additional elements describe generic processors and constraint based solver for applying the abstract ideas) or insignificant extra-solution activity. Furthermore, the “compile a representation of the program …” limitation is insignificant extra-solution activity that is well-understood, routine, and conventional according to MPEP 2106.05(d) as shown by Holt (US 2021/0004209 A1) in specification paragraph [0291]: “the conventional compiler converts the framework program using the specity variables to selectively arrange and execute the code of the desired segment subroutines”. Mere instructions to apply an exception cannot provide an inventive concept. The claim is not patent eligible.
Regarding Claim 24,
Claim 24 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1 Analysis: Claim 24 is directed to a non-transitory machine-readable medium, which is directed to an article of manufacture, one of the statutory categories.
Step 2A Prong One Analysis: The limitations:
“wherein the one or more sets of data are tensors used by operations of a graph”
As drafted, is part of the abstract idea of claim 22 of determining dimensional constraints for sets of data. The limitation of claim 24 further limits the limitation of claim 22 by further defining the sets of data. The above limitation in the context of this claim encompasses determining dimensional constraints for unspecified dimensions of data according to dimensions of the data based on specified dimensions and operations in a program to process the data, the data being tensors used by operations of a graph (corresponds to evaluation and judgement; in particular, a human, with the assistance of pen and paper, can, based on operations in a program to process data tensors used by operations of a graph, determine dimensional constraints of unspecified dimensions of the data according to dimensions of the data). The limitation:
“replace all symbolically represented dimensions of the one or more tensors with specific values”
As drafted, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers mental processes (concepts performed in the human mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgement, opinion)) but for the recitation of mere instructions to apply language (See MPEP 2106.05(f)) and insignificant extra-solution activity (See MPEP 2106.05(g)). The above limitation in the context of this claim encompasses replacing all symbolically represented dimensions of the tensors with specific values (corresponds to evaluation and judgement; in particular, a human, with the assistance of pen and paper, can replace symbolically represented dimensions of the tensors with specific values).
Step 2A Prong Two Analysis: The judicial exceptions are not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim recites additional elements that are mere instructions to apply (See MPEP 2106.05(f)) or insignificant extra-solution activity (See MPEP 2106.05(g)). The limitations:
“the one or more processors”
As drafted, are additional elements that amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception for the abstract ideas. See MPEP 2106.05(f). In addition, the recitation of additional elements in claim 22 of generic processors and constraint based solver, as drafted, are reciting mere instructions to apply language such that it amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exceptions. Furthermore, the “compile …” limitation of claim 22 is an additional element that corresponds to insignificant extra-solution activity. Therefore, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract ideas into a practical application.
Step 2B Analysis: The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, all of the additional elements are “mere instructions to apply an exception” (I.e. the additional elements describe generic processors and constraint based solver for applying the abstract ideas) or insignificant extra-solution activity. Furthermore, the “compile a representation of the program …” limitation is insignificant extra-solution activity that is well-understood, routine, and conventional according to MPEP 2106.05(d) as shown by Holt (US 2021/0004209 A1) in specification paragraph [0291]: “the conventional compiler converts the framework program using the specity variables to selectively arrange and execute the code of the desired segment subroutines”. Mere instructions to apply an exception 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 non-transitory machine-readable medium, which is directed to an article of manufacture, one of the statutory categories.
Step 2A Prong One Analysis: The limitations:
“identify the one or more dimensional constraints based, at least in part, on one or more rules associated with one or more types of operations of a graph that uses the one or more sets of data”
As drafted, under their broadest reasonable interpretations, cover mental processes (concepts performed in the human mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgement, opinion)) but for the recitation of mere instructions to apply language (See MPEP 2106.05(f)) and insignificant extra-solution activity (See MPEP 2106.05(g)). The above limitations in the context of this claim encompass identifying dimensional constraints based on rules associated with types of operations of a graph that uses the sets of data (corresponds to evaluation and judgement; in particular, a human, with the assistance of pen and paper, can identify dimensional constraints based on rules associated with operation types of a graph that uses the data).
Step 2A Prong Two Analysis: The judicial exceptions are not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim recites additional elements that are mere instructions to apply (See MPEP 2106.05(f)) or insignificant extra-solution activity (See MPEP 2106.05(g)). The limitations:
“the one or more processors”
As drafted, are additional elements that amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception for the abstract ideas. See MPEP 2106.05(f). In addition, the recitation of additional elements in claim 22 of generic processors and constraint based solver, as drafted, are reciting mere instructions to apply language such that it amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exceptions. Furthermore, the “compile …” limitation of claim 22 is an additional element that corresponds to insignificant extra-solution activity. Therefore, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract ideas into a practical application.
Step 2B Analysis: The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, all of the additional elements are “mere instructions to apply an exception” (I.e. the additional elements describe generic processors and constraint based solver for applying the abstract ideas) or insignificant extra-solution activity. Furthermore, the “compile a representation of the program …” limitation is insignificant extra-solution activity that is well-understood, routine, and conventional according to MPEP 2106.05(d) as shown by Holt (US 2021/0004209 A1) in specification paragraph [0291]: “the conventional compiler converts the framework program using the specity variables to selectively arrange and execute the code of the desired segment subroutines”. Mere instructions to apply an exception cannot provide an inventive concept. The claim is not patent eligible.
Regarding Claim 26,
Claim 26 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 26 is directed to a non-transitory machine-readable medium, which is directed to an article of manufacture, one of the statutory categories.
Step 2A Prong One Analysis: The limitations:
“identify the one or more dimensional constraints based, at least in part, on one or more rules associated with one or more of a concatenation operation, a matrix multiplication operation, and a convolution operation used in a graph”
As drafted, under their broadest reasonable interpretations, cover mental processes (concepts performed in the human mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgement, opinion)) but for the recitation of mere instructions to apply language (See MPEP 2106.05(f)) and insignificant extra-solution activity (See MPEP 2106.05(g)). The above limitations in the context of this claim encompass identifying dimensional constraints based on rules associated with operations used in a graph, the operations being at least one of a concatenation operation, a matrix multiplication operation, and a convolution operation (corresponds to evaluation and judgement; in particular, a human, with the assistance of pen and paper, can identify dimensional constraints based on rules associated with operations used in a graph, the operations being one or more of a concatenation operation, a matrix multiplication operation, and a convolution operation).
Step 2A Prong Two Analysis: The judicial exceptions are not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim recites additional elements that are mere instructions to apply (See MPEP 2106.05(f)) or insignificant extra-solution activity (See MPEP 2106.05(g)). The limitations:
“the one or more processors”
As drafted, are additional elements that amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception for the abstract ideas. See MPEP 2106.05(f). In addition, the recitation of additional elements in claim 22 of generic processors and constraint based solver, as drafted, are reciting mere instructions to apply language such that it amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exceptions. Furthermore, the “compile …” limitation of claim 22 is an additional element that corresponds to insignificant extra-solution activity. Therefore, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract ideas into a practical application.
Step 2B Analysis: The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, all of the additional elements are “mere instructions to apply an exception” (I.e. the additional elements describe generic processors and constraint based solver for applying the abstract ideas) or insignificant extra-solution activity. Furthermore, the “compile a representation of the program …” limitation is insignificant extra-solution activity that is well-understood, routine, and conventional according to MPEP 2106.05(d) as shown by Holt (US 2021/0004209 A1) in specification paragraph [0291]: “the conventional compiler converts the framework program using the specity variables to selectively arrange and execute the code of the desired segment subroutines”. Mere instructions to apply an exception cannot provide an inventive concept. The claim is not patent eligible.
Regarding Claim 27,
Claim 27 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 27 is directed to a non-transitory machine-readable medium, which is directed to an article of manufacture, one of the statutory categories.
Step 2A Prong One Analysis: The limitations:
“determine a first dimension of a first tensor shape”
“determine a second dimension of a second tensor shape based, at least in part, on the determined first dimension”
As drafted, under their broadest reasonable interpretations, cover mental processes (concepts performed in the human mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgement, opinion)) but for the recitation of mere instructions to apply language (See MPEP 2106.05(f)) and insignificant extra-solution activity (See MPEP 2106.05(g)). The above limitations in the context of this claim encompass determining a first dimension of a first tensor shape (corresponds to evaluation and judgement; in particular, a human, with the assistance of pen and paper, can determine a first dimension of a first tensor shape); and determining a second dimension of a second tensor shape based on the determined first dimension (corresponds to evaluation and judgement; in particular, a human, with the assistance of pen and paper, can, based on the determined first dimension, determine a second dimension of a second tensor shape).
Step 2A Prong Two Analysis: The judicial exceptions are not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim recites additional elements that are mere instructions to apply (See MPEP 2106.05(f)) or insignificant extra-solution activity (See MPEP 2106.05(g)). The limitations:
“the one or more processors”
As drafted, are additional elements that amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception for the abstract ideas. See MPEP 2106.05(f). In addition, the recitation of additional elements in claim 22 of generic processors and constraint based solver, as drafted, are reciting mere instructions to apply language such that it amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exceptions. Furthermore, the “compile …” limitation of claim 22 is an additional element that corresponds to insignificant extra-solution activity. Therefore, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract ideas into a practical application.
Step 2B Analysis: The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, all of the additional elements are “mere instructions to apply an exception” (I.e. the additional elements describe generic processors and constraint based solver for applying the abstract ideas) or insignificant extra-solution activity. Furthermore, the “compile a representation of the program …” limitation is insignificant extra-solution activity that is well-understood, routine, and conventional according to MPEP 2106.05(d) as shown by Holt (US 2021/0004209 A1) in specification paragraph [0291]: “the conventional compiler converts the framework program using the specity variables to selectively arrange and execute the code of the desired segment subroutines”. Mere instructions to apply an exception cannot provide an inventive concept. The claim is not patent eligible.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, filed 01/16/2026, with respect to the claim rejections under 35 U.S.C. 103 have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the 35 U.S.C. 103 prior art rejections have been withdrawn.
Applicant's arguments, filed 01/16/2026, with respect to the 35 U.S.C. 101 abstract idea rejections to the claims have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant asserts “The Office Action rejected claims 1-27 under 35 U.S.C. § 101 as allegedly directed to a judicial exception. While Applicant disagrees with this rejection, in the interest of compact prosecution Applicant has amended the independent claims to further clarify eligibility. Determining dimensional constraints for unspecified dimensions of data sets to, where dimensional constraints are determined based on one or more specified dimensions and one or more operations specified in a program to process the one or more sets of data, and where at least some unspecified dimensions are indicated in the program using different symbolic representations for different dimensions, is very specific to computer technology and not abstract. Furthermore, this concept is combined with use at compile time of a constraint based solver to determine values for one or more of the at least some unspecified dimensions, where at least one value of the at least some unspecified dimensions is not determined at compile time of the program, and then compiling a representation of the program using the determined one or more values such that the at least one value not determined at compile time is to be determined at runtime, which recites a specific ordered combination that is "significantly more" than an abstract concept, and improves computer technology, as described in the specification. Moreover, such the recited technique is specific to a practical application for compiling a program in a specific, non-abstract way. Accordingly, Applicant's claims are patent eligible for numerous reasons.” (Remarks Page 11).
Examiner’s Response:
The examiner respectfully disagrees. Applicant has made general assertions that claim 1 recites claim elements that are not directed to an abstract idea and that even if the claim elements are directed to an abstract idea, the judicial exceptions are integrated into a practical application because the claims recite elements that cannot reasonably be characterized as covering mental processes or reflect an improvement to a technology or technical field. Regarding the “compile a representation of the program using the determined one or more values such that the at least one value not determined at compile time is to be determined at runtime” limitation of claim 1, this limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, is an additional element that corresponds to insignificant extra-solution activity that is well-understood, routine, and conventional according to MPEP 2106.05(d) as shown by Holt (US 2021/0004209 A1) in specification paragraph [0291]: “the conventional compiler converts the framework program using the specity variables to selectively arrange and execute the code of the desired segment subroutines”. Additionally, regarding the “determine one or more dimensional constraints for unspecified dimensions of one or more sets of data to be processed according to dimensions of the data, wherein the one or more dimensional constraints are determined based, at least in part, on one or more specified dimensions and one or more operations specified in a program to process the one or more sets of data, wherein at least some unspecified dimensions are indicated in the program using different symbolic representations for different dimensions” limitation of claim 1, this limitation, under it broadest reasonable interpretation, is considered an abstract idea encompassing determining dimensional constraints for unspecified dimensions of data according to dimensions of the data based on specified dimensions and operations in a program to process the data, some of the unspecified dimensions being represented by symbolic representations in the program (corresponds to evaluation and judgement; in particular, a human, with the assistance of pen and paper, can, based on specified dimensions and operations in a program to process data, determine dimensional constraints of unspecified dimensions of the data according to dimensions of the data). In addition, regarding the “use at compile time the determined one or more dimensional constraints for the one or more sets of data with a constraint based solver to determine one or more values for one or more of the at least some unspecified dimensions, wherein at least one value of the at least some unspecified dimensions is not determined at compile time of the program” limitation of claim 1, this limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, corresponds to evaluation and judgement with the assistance of pen and paper (the “use at compile time the determined one or more dimensional constraints for the one or more sets of data … to determine one or more values for one or more of the at least some unspecified dimensions, wherein at least one value of the at least some unspecified dimensions is not determined at compile time of the program” limitation is a mental process performable by the human mind; a human, with the assistance of pen and paper, can use the determined dimensional constraints for the data to determine values for one or more unspecified dimensions of the data), and mere instructions to apply language using a generic computer (the “with a constraint based solver” limitation is mere instructions to apply language for the abstract idea of determining values of the unspecified dimensions of the data). The “with a constraint based solver” limitation is a high level recitation of applying a generic constraint based solver to a data set and determined constraints such that it amounts to no more than merely using a computer as a tool to perform generic computer functions. See MPEP 2106.05(f). Furthermore, since the “determine one or more dimensional constraints …” and “use at compile time the determined one or more dimensional constraints …” limitations are directed to a judicial exception, they cannot provide any alleged solution or improvement. See MPEP 2106.05(a): “It is important to note, the judicial exception alone cannot provide the improvement. The improvement can be provided by one or more additional elements. See the discussion of Diamond v. Diehr, 450 U.S. 175, 187 and 191-92, 209 USPQ 1, 10 (1981)) in subsection II, below.”
Thus, it is the additional elements that are analyzed to determine whether the judicial exception is integrated into a practical application, not the judicial exception itself. The additional elements in claim 1 of “a processor”, “with a constraint based solver”, and “one or more circuits” as drafted, under their broadest reasonable interpretations, are high level recitations of applying a processor, generic constraint based solver, and one or more circuits to implement the abstract ideas such that it amounts to no more than merely using a computer as a tool to perform generic computer functions. As such, the recitation that the abstract ideas are to be performed with such circuitry is a mere instruction to apply the judicial exception using a generic computer component. See MPEP 2106.05(f): “Another consideration when determining whether a claim integrates a judicial exception into a practical application in Step 2A Prong Two or recites significantly more than a judicial exception in Step 2B is whether the additional elements amount to more than a recitation of the words "apply it" (or an equivalent) or are more than mere instructions to implement an abstract idea or other exception on a computer. … Thus, for example, claims that amount to nothing more than an instruction to apply the abstract idea using a generic computer do not render an abstract idea eligible.” Moreover, the recitation of “compile a representation of the program …”, as drafted, amounts to insignificant extra-solution activity. See MPEP 2106.05(g). Accordingly, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract ideas into a practical application.
Furthermore, the claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, all of the additional elements are “mere instructions to apply an exception” (I.e. the additional elements describe a generic processor, constraint based solver, and circuits for applying the abstract ideas) or insignificant extra-solution activity. Furthermore, the “compile a representation of the program …” limitation is insignificant extra-solution activity that is well-understood, routine, and conventional according to MPEP 2106.05(d) as shown by Holt (US 2021/0004209 A1) in specification paragraph [0291]: “the conventional compiler converts the framework program using the specity variables to selectively arrange and execute the code of the desired segment subroutines”. Mere instructions to apply an exception cannot provide an inventive concept. The claim is not patent eligible.
In other words, the limitations of “determine one or more dimensional constraints for unspecified dimensions of one or more sets of data to be processed according to dimensions of the data, wherein the one or more dimensional constraints are determined based, at least in part, on one or more specified dimensions and one or more operations specified in a program to process the one or more sets of data, wherein at least some unspecified dimensions are indicated in the program using different symbolic representations for different dimensions” and “use at compile time the determined one or more dimensional constraints for the one or more sets of data with a constraint based solver to determine one or more values for one or more of the at least some unspecified dimensions, wherein at least one value of the at least some unspecified dimensions is not determined at compile time of the program” are abstract ideas that are directed to a judicial exception, so they cannot provide any alleged solution or improvement. Additionally, the limitation “compile a representation of the program using the determined one or more values such that the at least one value not determined at compile time is to be determined at runtime” is an additional element that corresponds to insignificant extra-solution activity that is well-understood, routine, and conventional. Furthermore, the other additional elements recited in claim 1 are directed to mere instructions to apply an abstract idea. Therefore, claim 1 does not recite additional element(s) that can provide any alleged solution, improvement, or inventive concept.
Applicant relies on the arguments above regarding independent claims 10, 16, and 22 and dependent claims 2-9, 11-15, 17-21, and 23-27 therefore the response above is applicable to those claims.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BRIAN J HALES whose telephone number is (571)272-0878. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9:00am - 5:00pm.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Kamran Afshar can be reached at (571) 272-7796. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/BRIAN J HALES/Examiner, Art Unit 2125
/KAMRAN AFSHAR/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2125