Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
1. The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
DETAILED ACTION
2. This Office Action is sent in response to Applicant’s Communication received on 03/04/2025 for application number 17/539,184.
Response to Amendments
3. The Amendment filed 03/04/2025 has been entered. Claims 1, 11, and 15 have been amended. Claims 1-20 remain pending in the application.
Response to Arguments
Applicant argues that the Office Action mischaracterizes the claimed subject matter as merely reciting mathematical calculations without significantly more. The claims provide a specific technical improvement in recurrent neural networks (RNNs) through a structured Laguerre-based memory filtering mechanism.
The examiner respectfully maintains that claim 1 is directed to a judicial exception, a mathematical concept, as the core of the claimed subject matter involves manipulating data structures using linear combinations, matrix operations, and orthogonal basis functions. While Applicant asserts that the claim presents a technical improvement, such an assertion must be supported by specific claim language that imposes meaningful limitations beyond implementing abstract mathematical operations within a generic neural network structure.
Applicant argues that under Step 2A, Prong 2, the claims are not abstract because they apply a structured Laguerre-based filtering mechanism in Al memory optimization, which improves efficiency and reduces computational complexity. The use of Laguerre polynomials ensures efficient memory retention in RNNs, distinguishing it from generic Al models. The structured filtering dynamically adjusts memory states, optimizing long-sequence predictive accuracy. These improvements are not fundamental mathematical principles but rather a concrete, technical enhancement in AI-driven time-series forecasting. In view of the foregoing, claim 1 is directed to a practical application (Step 2A; Prong 2: YES). The claim is subject matter eligible for this additional reason.
The examiner respectfully disagrees that claim 1 integrates the recited mathematical operations into a practical application. While the Applicant argues that the use of Laguerre polynomials improves memory efficiency and predictive accuracy in AI models, these purported improvements are described at a high level of abstraction and are not reflected in the claim language. Instead, the claim broadly recites the mathematical operations. These steps merely mathematical concepts, including the use of orthogonal polynomials and coordinate transformations in the context of neural network design. Accordingly, The Examiner maintains that the claim is not integrated into a practical application.
Applicant argues that Step 2B - The Claims Recite a Combination of Features Which Amounts to Significantly More than an Abstract Idea Even assuming, arguendo, that the claims are directed to an abstract idea and not integrated into a practical application, which Applicants have disputed above, claim 1 still recites patent-eligible subject matter because it recites a combination of features that, when viewed as a whole, amount to "significantly more" than the alleged abstract idea, at least because: (i) the claim includes improvements to another technology or technical field, (ii) the claimed solution is necessarily rooted in computer technology to overcome a problem arising in the realm of computationally efficient Recurrent Neural Networks (RNNs), and (iii) the claim adds at least one specific limitation beyond what is well-understood, routine, and conventional.
The Examiner has carefully considered the Applicant’s assertions under Step 2B but respectfully maintains that the claim does not recite an inventive concept that amounts to “significantly more” than the recited abstract idea. While Applicant contends that the claim includes technical improvements and is rooted in computer technology, these contentions are not adequately supported by the claim language itself. Step 2B ask whether there is any additional element or combination of elements that goes beyond the judicial exception and amount to an inventive concept, that is, whether the claim recites features that are not well-understood, routine, and conventional in the field.
The Examiner has fully considered the Applicant’s assertions regarding alleged improvements in RNN performance, memory retention, parameter efficiency, and application to asset failure prediction. However, these arguments are not persuasive, as claim 1 does not recite any additional elements that transform the judicial exception into significantly more. The improvement alleged by the Applicant, such as optimizing memory retention, reducing parameter count, or improving sequence prediction, are expressed only as desired results. The claim, however, does not provide specific technical means for achieving those results beyond applying mathematical models, specifically, Laguerre-based transformations with conventional RNN architecture.
Accordingly, the 35 USC § 101 rejection is maintained.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
4. 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 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to the abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1, the claims are directed to the statutory categories of a method.
Step 2A Prong 1, Claims 1, 11, and 15 recite, in part, computing an updated state flow by a linear combination of the external input and the memory flow constrained by a first matrix and a second matrix, wherein the first matrix and the second matrix correspond to a Laguerre orthogonal basis; computing, from the updated state flow using a coordinate matrix, an updated memory flow, wherein the updated memory flow is dynamically optimized based on a Laguerre-based filtering mechanism to reduce a long-term dependency error in the RNN; and applying an activation function on the hidden output flow to produce an updated hidden output flow and an output flow from a weighted sum of the hidden output flow, the updated state flow, and the updated memory flow. These steps merely mathematical concepts, including the use of linear combination of matrices, filtering mechanisms based on Laguerre orthogonal basis, and weighted sums and matric transformations. Thus, these steps are directed to “Mathematical Concept” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claims recite an abstract idea.
Step 2A Prong 2, this judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claims recite the additional elements of “computer device”. The computer components in the claim are recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as a generic processor performing a generic computer function) such that it amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Accordingly, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. Please see MPEP §2106.04.(a)(2).III.C. The claims also recite the additional element of “a recurrent of neural network”, “memory flow”, “state flow”, “external input”, and “hidden output flow”. These limitations are recited at a high level of generality and provide no details on how this process is performed. The additional elements in the claims merely used as a tool to implement the abstract idea.
Step 2B, the claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception, either alone or in combination. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements of a “computer device”, “a recurrent of neural network”, “memory flow”, “state flow”, “external input”, and “hidden output flow” to perform the steps of the claims amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. Please see MPEP §2106.05(b) and (g). The claim is not patent eligible.
Claims 2-10, 12-14, and 16-20 provide further limitations to the abstract idea as rejected above, however, they do not disclose any additional elements that would amount to a practical application or significantly more than an abstract idea.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claims contain subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for pre-AIA the inventors, at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
The newly added recitation of “wherein the updated memory flow is dynamically optimized based on a Laguerre-based filtering mechanism to reduce a long-term dependency error in the RNN” within claims 1, 11, and 15 appear to constitute new matter. In particular, the specification does not clearly describe how the updated memory flow is dynamically optimized or how the Laguerre-based filtering mechanism is specifically applied to reduce dependency error in the RNN. As such, Applicant is respectfully requested to clarify the above issues and to specifically point out support for the newly added limitations in the originally filed specification and claims.
Claims 2-10, 12-14, and 16-20 incorporate the deficiencies of independent claims 1, 11, and 15 through dependency, and are also rejected.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any extension fee pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the date of this final action.
It is noted that any citation to specific pages, columns, lines, or figures in the prior art references and any interpretation of the references should not be considered to be limiting in any way. A reference is relevant for all it contains and may be relied upon for all that it would have reasonably suggested to one having ordinary skill in the art. In re Heck, 699 F.2d 1331, 1332-33, 216 U.S.P.Q. 1038, 1039 (Fed. Cir. 1983) (quoting In re Lemelson, 397 F.2d 1006, 1009, 158 U.S.P.Q. 275, 277 (C.C.P.A. 1968)).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to TAN TRAN whose telephone number is (303)297-4266. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday - Thursday - 8:00 am - 5:00 pm MT.
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, Kieu Vu can be reached on 571-272-4057. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/TAN H TRAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2141