Detailed Action
This action is in response to the amendment filed on 07/01/2026 for application 17/553,239, in which:
Claims 1 and 12 are independent claims.
Claims 1, 6 and 12 are currently amended.
Claim 9 is canceled.
Claims 1-8 and 11-21 are currently pending.
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 .
Regarding the Claim Objections:
Applicant's amendments to Claim 6 overcome the previous objections. The objections have been withdrawn.
Regarding the 35 USC § 103 Rejections:
Applicant's amendments to the independent claim overcomes the previous 35 U.S.C. 103 rejections. More information can be found below within the Examiner Comments section.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 07/01/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Regarding the 35 USC § 101 Rejections:
Applicant's arguments regarding the 35 U.S.C. 101 rejections of the previous office action have been fully considered, but are unpersuasive.
Applicant asserts (Page 8), that the amended claims now add more details to the specifics of the first/second neural network to be able to differentiate and highlight the two separate neural networks and how they work together. The applicant further supports their assertions by reciting the limitation based on at least one classification determined by the second neural network … which makes clear that the adapted at least one layer in the first neural network, the second neural network or both are used to re-encode input information, re-extract particular data vectors of the data vectors of the re-encoded input information, and re-classify the re-extracted particular data vectors.
Examiner respectfully disagrees. 35 U.S.C. § 101 rejections for the amended claims are directed to an abstract idea (Step 2A Prong 1) and do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application (Step 2A Prong 2). The claims recites abstract ideas a-c (encoding … , classifying … ,and … adapting … claims); where the abstract ideas are evaluations/judgements that can be performed in the human mind (or by a human using pen and paper). The independent claim is no more detailed than using a device to encode specific features (mental process) via a specific neural network (additional element), classify data vectors (mental process) via a specific neural network (additional element), and adapting a specific layer to better classify (mental process). The additional elements noted within Step 2A Prong 2 are unable to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception (when evaluated individually and holistically) as they are merely applying the abstract idea on a computer, restricting the abstract idea to a specific technological environment, or repetitive calculations. Thus, the additional elements are not able to integrate the abstract ideas in a practical application as they fall within MPEP 2106.05. The claims are directed towards the improvement of an abstract idea. Therefore, the claims do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. For the reasons given above and in the rejections below, the rejection to all claims (including claim 1, similar independent claims, and all dependent claims) are maintained. More specific details are discussed below within the 35 USC § 101 Rejections.
Applicant notes (Pages 8-9) the Applicant-Requested Interview and the Examiner indication of mental processes; specifically, noting the adapt at least one layer … limitation. The Examiner suggested amending the independent claims to recite that the adapted first neural network, second neural network, or both are used. The Examiner indicated that the Examiner would again consider the Applicant's amended claims under 35 USC 101 once the amendments were made. The Applicant has herein amended the Applicant's independent claims as suggested by the Examiner.
Examiner respectfully disagrees. The addition of the feature of the determination by the second neural network utilized for adaptation is a step in the right direction and adds more clarity but does not overcome the 101 rejection. The claims in the broadest reasonable interpretation is merely a regular neural network with feature extraction layer (n-1 layers) and classification layer (can be interpreted as last layer) for fine-tuning with the use of gradient free training. More details on the specific details of the encoder and classification architecture with the integration of the specific layers would be a step in the right direction to be substantiated as significantly more for overcoming 101.
Applicant asserts (Page 9), that the amended claims include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than any judicial exception alleged by the Examiner because, when considered separately and as an ordered combination, the Applicant's claim limitations add significantly more (also known as an "inventive concept") to any exception alleged by the Examiner. More specifically, the Applicant claims a method and apparatus for providing Al processing on edge devices. The Applicant's claimed invention is directed to solving the problem that existed at the time of the filing of the Applicant's invention that edge devices have limited processing power and as such have to implement Al services as a service from a centralized server, which results in delays in data transfer as well as requires limitations on the type of processing and the usefulness of the results. The Applicant's claimed invention provides a heterogeneous neuromorphic computing architecture to facilitate local use of artificial intelligence computing within an edge device, which includes a first neural network pretrained to identify and extract primary and semantic features using neural network weights used to encode input information into data vectors and extracting particular data vectors representing features within the input information and a second neural network pretrained to match features to exemplars used to classify the particular data vectors. The applicant then re-recites the performance of (1)-(4) (based on classification).
Examiner respectfully disagrees. The additional elements noted within Step 2A Prong 2 are unable to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception (when evaluated individually and holistically) as they are merely applying the abstract idea on a computer or restricting the abstract idea to a specific technological environment. Thus, the additional elements are not able to integrate the abstract ideas in a practical application as they fall within MPEP 2106.05. The claims are directed towards the improvement of an abstract idea. Improvements to an abstract idea are still considered to an abstract idea. The newly amended limitations do indeed contain additional elements, but the additional elements are unable to integrate the judicial exception. The limitations are unable to provide improvement as they are currently being evaluated as either abstract idea(s) or additional elements that fall within MPEP 2106.05. The claim is not patent eligible. Although the Claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the Claims.
MPEP 2106.05(a) recites:
After the examiner has consulted the specification and determined that the disclosed invention improves technology, the claim must be evaluated to ensure the claim itself reflects the disclosed improvement in technology … the claim must include the components or steps of the invention that provide the improvement described in the specification
…
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.
Applicant fails to show how any alleged technical improvement would be provided by anything more than the judicial exception on its own. Additionally, applicant fails to show how the claim includes components or steps that would provide the alleged improvement described in the specification or by the cited case law. By MPEP 2106.05(f)(1), "the claim recites only the idea of a solution or outcome, i.e. the claim fails to recite details of how a solution to a problem is accomplished". Moreover, the examiner maintains that the Claim does not impose any meaningful limits on the judicial exceptions. As noted in the rejection, due to the additional elements falling under MPEP 2106.05, the judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application.
Applicant notes (Pages 9-10) that the independent claims claim that the first neural network and the second neural network work together to improve the functionality of at least one of the first neural network and/or the second neural network in an inventive way. Thus, claims 1-8 and 11-21 fully satisfy the requirements of 35 U.S.C. §101 and are patentable thereunder because amended claims 1-8 and 11-21 are directed to statutory subject matter. The Applicant respectfully requests that the present rejection of such claim be withdrawn.
Examiner respectfully disagrees. Examiner respectfully disagrees. 35 U.S.C. § 101 rejections for the amended claims are directed to an abstract idea (Step 2A Prong 1) and do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application (Step 2A Prong 2). The office action establishes a proper and well-supported prima facie case as the claims are explained to be not patentable via the Patent Subject Matter Eligibility steps within MPEP 2106; thus, the additional elements noted within Step 2A Prong 2 are unable to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception (when evaluated individually and holistically). The limitations are unable to provide the alleged improvement as they are currently being evaluated as either abstract idea(s) or additional elements that fall within MPEP 2106.05. The claims are not a technical solution to a technical problem as the independent claim is merely performing abstract ideas with specific restrictions within a computer. The additional elements noted within Step 2A Prong 2 are unable to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception (when evaluated individually and holistically) as they fall within MPEP 2106.05. Thus, the additional elements are not able to integrate the abstract ideas in a practical application. The claims are directed towards the improvement of an abstract idea. Therefore, the claims do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. Therefore, for the reasons given above and in the updated rejections below, the rejection to all Claims (including claim 1, analogous independent Claims, and all dependent Claims) are maintained and updated as necessitated by Claim amendments. Applicant’s arguments regarding the other independent and dependent claims rely upon the same assertions with respect to claim 1 and are thus likewise unpersuasive. More specific details are discussed below within the 35 USC § 101 Rejections.
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 1-8 and 11-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Regarding Claim 1:
Subject Matter Eligibility Analysis Step 1:
Claim 1 recites an apparatus, thus a machine, one of the four statutory categories of patentable subject matter.
Subject Matter Eligibility Analysis Step 2A Prong 1:
However, claim 1 further recites the apparatus comprising of:
encode … identify and extract primary and semantic features … , input information into data vectors and extracting particular data vectors representing features within the input information (a human being can mentally apply evaluation to encode input information into vectors and extract features from the vectors with the aid of pen and paper by identifying and extracting specific features)
classify … the particular data vectors (a human being can mentally apply evaluation to classify particular data vectors)
based on at least one classification, … , adapt at least one layer in the first neural network, second neural network or both by performing at least one of (1) altering weights, (2) adding layers, (3) deleting layers, (4) reordering layers to better match features to exemplars to improve classification of the particular data vectors (a human being can mentally apply evaluation based on classification (where a human being can make a judgement) to adapt specific neural networks by updating weights/model structures to improve classification)
Claim 1 thus recites an abstract idea (that falls into the “mental processes” group of abstract ideas).
Subject Matter Eligibility Analysis Step 2A Prong 2:
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the additional elements recited consist of:
An apparatus comprising: a processor; and a memory coupled to the processor, the memory having stored therein at least one of programs or instructions executable by the processor to configure the apparatus to: (to perform a mental process and the performance of an abstract idea on a computer is no more than instructions to “apply it” on a computer, by MPEP 2106.05(f))
… using a first neural network pretrained to … using neural network weights … wherein the first neural network comprises at least one encoder layer and at least one adaptor layer (to perform a mental process and the performance of an abstract idea on a computer is no more than instructions to “apply it” on a computer, by MPEP 2106.05(f))
… using a second neural network pretrained to match features to exemplars … (to perform a mental process and the performance of an abstract idea on a computer is no more than instructions to “apply it” on a computer, by MPEP 2106.05(f))
… determined by the second neural network … (to perform a mental process and the performance of an abstract idea on a computer is no more than instructions to “apply it” on a computer, by MPEP 2106.05(f))
re-encode the input information into data vectors, re-extract particular data vectors of the data vectors of the re-encoded input information, and re-classify the re-extracted particular data vectors … (which is an insignificant extra-solution activity, by MPEP 2106.05(g))
wherein the first neural network, the second neural network or both are trained using gradient-free training (which is restricting the abstract idea to a Particular Technological Environment, by MPEP 2106.05(h))
… using the adapted at least one layer in the first neural network, the second neural network or both (to perform a mental process and the performance of an abstract idea on a computer is no more than instructions to “apply it” on a computer, by MPEP 2106.05(f))
Subject Matter Eligibility Analysis Step 2B:
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the additional elements recited, alone or in combination, do not provide significantly more than the abstract idea itself. Additional elements a-d and g are merely applying the abstract idea on a computer (MPEP 2106.05(f)) which cannot provide significantly more. Additional element e falls within MPEP 2106.05(d) as well-understood, routine and conventional activities of performing repetitive calculations (MPEP 2106.05(d)(II)(ii): “Performing repetitive calculations, Flook, 437 U.S. at 594, 198 USPQ2d at 199”). Additional element f is only restricting the abstract idea to a Particular Technological Environment (MPEP 2106.05(h)) which cannot provide significantly more. Thus, the claim is subject-matter ineligible.
Regarding Claim 2:
Subject Matter Eligibility Analysis Step 1:
Dependent Claim 2 recites the apparatus of Claim 1. Claim 1 is an apparatus, thus a machine, one of the four statutory categories of patentable subject matter.
Subject Matter Eligibility Analysis Step 2A Prong 1:
However, claim 2 further recites:
… the particular data vectors are extracted using feature parameters defined by the first neural network (a human being can mentally apply evaluation to extract vectors using feature parameter defined by a neural network)
… the particular data vectors are classified using classification exemplars defined within the second neural network (a human being can mentally apply evaluation to classify vectors using classification exemplars defined by a neural network)
Claim 2 thus recites an abstract idea (that falls into the “mental processes” group of abstract ideas).
Subject Matter Eligibility Analysis Step 2A Prong 2:
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because there are no new additional elements recited.
Subject Matter Eligibility Analysis Step 2B:
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because there are no new additional elements recited. The judicial exception alone does not provide significantly more than the abstract idea itself. Thus, the claim is subject-matter ineligible.
Regarding Claim 3:
Subject Matter Eligibility Analysis Step 1:
Dependent Claim 3 recites the apparatus of Claim 2. Claim 2 is an apparatus, thus a machine, one of the four statutory categories of patentable subject matter.
Subject Matter Eligibility Analysis Step 2A Prong 1:
However, claim 3 does not recite any additional abstract ideas and only inherits the abstract ideas from Claim 2. Claim 3 thus recites an abstract idea.
Subject Matter Eligibility Analysis Step 2A Prong 2:
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the sole additional element consists of the feature parameters are pre-defined parameters, learned parameters, or a combination of predefined parameters and learned parameters and classification exemplars are pre-defined exemplars, learned exemplars, or a combination of predefined exemplars and learned exemplars (which is restricting the abstract idea to a Particular Technological Environment, by MPEP 2106.05(h)).
Subject Matter Eligibility Analysis Step 2B:
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the new sole additional element recited, alone or in combination, does not provide significantly more than the abstract idea itself. The additional element is only restricting the abstract idea to a Particular Technological Environment (MPEP 2106.05(h)) which cannot provide significantly more. Thus, the claim is subject-matter ineligible.
Regarding Claim 4:
Subject Matter Eligibility Analysis Step 1:
Dependent Claim 4 recites the apparatus of Claim 1. Claim 1 is an apparatus, thus a machine, one of the four statutory categories of patentable subject matter.
Subject Matter Eligibility Analysis Step 2A Prong 1:
However, claim 4 does not recite any additional abstract ideas and only inherits the abstract ideas from Claim 1. Claim 4 thus recites an abstract idea.
Subject Matter Eligibility Analysis Step 2A Prong 2:
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the sole additional element consists of the apparatus is further configured to generate hyperdimensional data vectors representing features within the input information (to perform a mental process and the performance of an abstract idea on a computer is no more than instructions to “apply it” on a computer, by MPEP 2106.05(f)).
Subject Matter Eligibility Analysis Step 2B:
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the new sole additional element recited, alone or in combination, does not provide significantly more than the abstract idea itself. The additional element is merely applying the abstract idea on a computer (MPEP 2106.05(f)) which cannot provide significantly more. Thus, the claim is subject-matter ineligible.
Regarding Claim 5:
Subject Matter Eligibility Analysis Step 1:
Dependent Claim 5 recites the apparatus of Claim 1. Claim 1 is an apparatus, thus a machine, one of the four statutory categories of patentable subject matter.
Subject Matter Eligibility Analysis Step 2A Prong 1:
However, claim 5 does not recite any additional abstract ideas and only inherits the abstract ideas from Claim 1. Claim 5 thus recites an abstract idea.
Subject Matter Eligibility Analysis Step 2A Prong 2:
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the sole additional element consists of the first neural network, second neural network or both are capable of being retrained using gradient-free training (which is restricting the abstract idea to a Particular Technological Environment, by MPEP 2106.05(h)).
Subject Matter Eligibility Analysis Step 2B:
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the new sole additional element recited, alone or in combination, does not provide significantly more than the abstract idea itself. The additional element is only restricting the abstract idea to a Particular Technological Environment (MPEP 2106.05(h)) which cannot provide significantly more. Thus, the claim is subject-matter ineligible.
Regarding Claim 6:
Subject Matter Eligibility Analysis Step 1:
Dependent Claim 6 recites the apparatus of Claim 1. Claim 1 is an apparatus, thus a machine, one of the four statutory categories of patentable subject matter.
Subject Matter Eligibility Analysis Step 2A Prong 1:
However, claim 6 does not recite any additional abstract ideas and only inherits the abstract ideas from Claim 1. Claim 6 thus recites an abstract idea.
Subject Matter Eligibility Analysis Step 2A Prong 2:
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the sole additional element consists of the apparatus is further configured to share one or more exemplars or feature parameters with at least one other apparatus to enable the first neural network, second neural network, or both of the other apparatuses to include the one or more shared exemplars or feature parameters (which is restricting the abstract idea to a Particular Technological Environment, by MPEP 2106.05(h)).
Subject Matter Eligibility Analysis Step 2B:
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the new sole additional element recited, alone or in combination, does not provide significantly more than the abstract idea itself. The additional element is only restricting the abstract idea to a Particular Technological Environment (MPEP 2106.05(h)) which cannot provide significantly more. Thus, the claim is subject-matter ineligible.
Regarding Claim 7:
Subject Matter Eligibility Analysis Step 1:
Dependent Claim 7 recites the apparatus of Claim 6. Claim 6 is an apparatus, thus a machine, one of the four statutory categories of patentable subject matter.
Subject Matter Eligibility Analysis Step 2A Prong 1:
However, claim 7 does not recite any additional abstract ideas and only inherits the abstract ideas from Claim 6. Claim 7 thus recites an abstract idea.
Subject Matter Eligibility Analysis Step 2A Prong 2:
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the sole additional element consists of the exemplar or feature parameters sharing occurs to enable the other apparatus to perform at least one of extracting or classifying a new feature (to perform a mental process and the performance of an abstract idea on a computer is no more than instructions to “apply it” on a computer, by MPEP 2106.05(f)).
Subject Matter Eligibility Analysis Step 2B:
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the new sole additional element recited, alone or in combination, does not provide significantly more than the abstract idea itself. The additional element is merely applying the abstract idea on a computer (MPEP 2106.05(f)) which cannot provide significantly more. Thus, the claim is subject-matter ineligible.
Regarding Claim 8:
Subject Matter Eligibility Analysis Step 1:
Dependent Claim 8 recites the apparatus of Claim 1. Claim 1 is an apparatus, thus a machine, one of the four statutory categories of patentable subject matter.
Subject Matter Eligibility Analysis Step 2A Prong 1:
However, claim 8 does not recite any additional abstract ideas and only inherits the abstract ideas from Claim 1. Claim 8 thus recites an abstract idea.
Subject Matter Eligibility Analysis Step 2A Prong 2:
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the sole additional element consists of the first neural network is initially defined using a predefined model (which is restricting the abstract idea to a Particular Technological Environment, by MPEP 2106.05(h)).
Subject Matter Eligibility Analysis Step 2B:
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the new sole additional element recited, alone or in combination, does not provide significantly more than the abstract idea itself. The additional element is only restricting the abstract idea to a Particular Technological Environment (MPEP 2106.05(h)) which cannot provide significantly more. Thus, the claim is subject-matter ineligible.
Regarding Claim 10:
Subject Matter Eligibility Analysis Step 1:
Dependent Claim 10 recites the apparatus of Claim 1. Claim 1 is an apparatus, thus a machine, one of the four statutory categories of patentable subject matter.
Subject Matter Eligibility Analysis Step 2A Prong 1:
However, claim 10 further recites wherein the apparatus is further configured to the apparatus is further configured to adjust the second neural network to create additional exemplars based on changes in classification requirements (a human being can mentally apply evaluation to adjust a neural network to create additional exemplars based on changes in requirements). Claim 10 thus recites an abstract idea (that falls into the “mental processes” group of abstract ideas).
Subject Matter Eligibility Analysis Step 2A Prong 2:
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because there are no new additional elements recited.
Subject Matter Eligibility Analysis Step 2B:
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because there are no new additional elements recited. The judicial exception alone does not provide significantly more than the abstract idea itself. Thus, the claim is subject-matter ineligible.
Regarding Claim 11:
Subject Matter Eligibility Analysis Step 1:
Dependent Claim 11 recites the apparatus of Claim 1. Claim 1 is an apparatus, thus a machine, one of the four statutory categories of patentable subject matter.
Subject Matter Eligibility Analysis Step 2A Prong 1:
However, claim 11 does not recite any additional abstract ideas and only inherits the abstract ideas from Claim 1. Claim 11 thus recites an abstract idea.
Subject Matter Eligibility Analysis Step 2A Prong 2:
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the sole additional element consists of the apparatus is further configured to alter the first neural network when a local environment changes for the apparatus (to perform a mental process and the performance of an abstract idea on a computer is no more than instructions to “apply it” on a computer, by MPEP 2106.05(f)).
Subject Matter Eligibility Analysis Step 2B:
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the new sole additional element recited, alone or in combination, does not provide significantly more than the abstract idea itself. The additional element is merely applying the abstract idea on a computer (MPEP 2106.05(f)) which cannot provide significantly more. Thus, the claim is subject-matter ineligible.
Regarding Claims 12-21:
Claims 12-21 incorporate substantively all the limitations of Claims 1-8 and 10-11 in an method (thus, a process) and further recites a new additional element training a first neural network … training a second neural network … (these claim limitations appear to perform a mental process and the performance of an abstract idea on a computer is no more than instructions to “apply it” on a computer, by MPEP 2106.05(f)) and does not appear to integrate the abstract idea into a particular application; thus, the claim is subject -matter ineligible as it does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the additional elements, alone or in combination, do not provide significantly more than the abstract idea itself); thus, Claims 12-21 are rejected for reasons set forth in the rejections of Claims 1-8 and 10-11, respectively.
Examiner Comments
Claims 1-8 and 11-21 are currently rejected under 35 USC § 101 only. A complete and thorough search was performed for these claims; however no prior art was uncovered that teach or fairly suggest the features recited claims. Specifically, none of the prior art of record, either alone or in combination, fairly discloses the limitations of the independent Claim. In particular, the limitations in:
Independent Claim 1:
…
encode, using a first neural network pretrained to identify and extract primary and semantic features using neural network weights, input information into data vectors and extracting particular data vectors representing features within the input information, wherein the first neural network comprises at least one encoder layer and at least one adaptor layer;
classifying, using a second neural network pretrained to match features to exemplars, the particular data vectors;
based on the at least one classification determined by the second neural network, adapting at least one layer in the first neural network, second neural network or both …
…
… and re-classify the re-extracted particular data vectors using the adapted at least one layer in the first neural network, the second neural network or both;
wherein the first neural network, the second neural network or both are trained using gradient-free training.
The closest prior art of record is Frenkel et al., “A 28-nm Convolutional Neuromorphic Processor Enabling Online Learning with Spike-Based Retinas”, in view of Parhi et al., “Brain-Inspired Computing: Models and Architectures”, in view of Snell et al., “Prototypical Networks for Few-Shot Learning”, in view of Lim et al., “Federated Learning in Mobile Edge Networks: A Comprehensive Survey”, in view of Lee et al., “Neuro.ZERO: A Zero-Energy Neural Network Accelerator for Embedded Sensing and Inference Systems”. The methodology of Frenkel/Parhi/Snell/Lim/Lee teaches Frenkel’s SPOON processor apparatus to implement convolutional feature extraction with event-based image sensors to gather real-time data and utilizing adaptive edge computing neuromorphic designed framework with Parhi’s teachings of spike-vectors, pretraining, retraining and hierarchical feature extraction, with Snell’s teachings of mapping/representing exemplars and specific training with Lim’s teaching of sharing data between edge devices and federated learning method for training with Lee’s adaptations/adjustments to layers/cores via exemplars to increase efficient; however, Frenkel/Parhi/Snell/Lim/Lee do not explicitly disclose the implementation of a framework consisting of two specific pretrained neural networks (extraction/classification, respectively) and then the determination of the second neural network (being pretrained to match exemplars) for the performance of adapting layers. Thus, the combination of these five prior arts do not disclose the expressions defined in Claim 1 and it’s dependent claims in an obvious way.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to IBRAHIM RAHMAN whose telephone number is (703)756-1646. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8am-5pm.
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, Kakali Chaki can be reached at (571) 272-3719. 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.
/I.R./Examiner, Art Unit 2122
/MICHAEL H HOANG/PRIMARY EXAMINER, Art Unit 2122
