DETAILED ACTION
This action is in response to the claims filed 03/02/2026 for Application number 17/564,240. Claims 1, 2, 4, 6, 9-11, 13-16, 19-20, 22-23, and 25 have been amended and claims 3, 5, and 24 have been canceled. Thus, claims 1-2, 4, 6, 9-11, 13-16, 19-20, 22-23 and 25 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 .
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 03/02/2026 has been entered.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1-2, 4, 6, 9-11, 13-16, 19-20, 22-23 and 25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Regarding claim 1,
Step 1 Analysis: Claim 1 is directed to a process, which falls within one of the four statutory categories.
Step 2A Prong 1 Analysis: Claim 1 recites, in part,
The limitations of:
generating a first loss of a first task in a first domain and a second loss of a second task in a second domain according to the first plurality of parameters
determining a first weight according to the first loss and the second loss
determining a gradient of a first cross-domain loss according to the first loss, the second loss, and the first weight
generating a fifth loss of a third task in the first domain and a sixth loss of a fourth task in a third domain according to a plurality of temporary parameters, wherein the fifth loss and the sixth loss are used to determine a second weight, and the second weight represents a ratio of the fifth loss to a sum of the sixth loss and the fifth loss
These limitations as drafted, are processes that, under broadest reasonable interpretation, covers the recitation of mathematical relationships which falls within the “Mathematical concepts” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
Step 2A Prong 2 Analysis: This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim only recites the additional elements – “a learning circuit” and “a training circuit”. Thus, the elements in the claim are recited at a high level of generality (i.e. as a generic processor performing a generic computer function of generating an index) such that it amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Please see MPEP 2106.05(f). 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.
Additionally, the claim recites:
receiving a first plurality of parameters from a training circuit and receiving a second plurality of parameters from the training circuit, wherein the second plurality of parameters are generated by the training circuit according to the first loss and the second loss. These limitations are insignificant extra-solution activities.
Step 2B Analysis: The claims do 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, the additional elements of utilizing a learning circuit and a training circuit 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.
Additionally, the limitation of receiving a first plurality of parameters from a training module and receiving a second plurality of parameters from the training circuit, wherein the second plurality of parameters are generated by the training circuit according to the first loss and the second loss are well-understood, routine, and conventional step as evidenced by MPEP §2106.05(d)(II)(I), “receiving or transmitting data over a network”.
This limitation therefore remains insignificant extra-solution activity even upon reconsideration, and does not amount to significantly more. Even when considered in combination, these additional elements amount to mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components and insignificant extra-solution activity, which cannot provide an inventive concept. The claim is not patent eligible.
Regarding claim 2, the rejection of claim 1 is further incorporated, and further, the claim recites: wherein the first domain and the second domain are generated according to a plurality of source domains. This limitation amounts to more specifics of the judicial exception identified in the rejection of claim 1 above.
The claim does not include any additional elements that amount to an integration of the judicial exception into a practical application, nor to significantly more than the judicial exception. The claim is not patent eligible.
Regarding claim 4, the rejection of claim 1 is further incorporated, and further, the claim recites: [a feature extractor circuit], for extracting a first plurality of features from the first task and a second plurality of features from the second task according to the first plurality of parameters; This limitation amounts to additional mental steps in addition to the judicial exception identified in the rejection of claim 1 above.
and
[a metric function circuit, coupled to the feature extractor circuit], for generating the first loss and the second loss according to the first plurality of features and the second plurality of features. This limitation amounts to additional mathematical calculations in addition to the judicial exception identified in the rejection of claim 1 above.
The claim does not include any additional elements that amount to an integration of the judicial exception into a practical application, nor to significantly more than the judicial exception. The claim is not patent eligible.
The claim does recite the additional elements of “a feature extractor circuit” and “a metric function circuit, coupled to the feature extractor circuit”, however it does not amount to an integration of the judicial exception into a practical application, nor to significantly more than the judicial exception, for the reasons set forth in connection with the rejection of claim 1 above. The claim is not patent eligible.
Regarding claim 6, the rejection of claim 5 is further incorporated, and further, the claim recites: wherein the plurality of temporary parameters are determined according to the first plurality of parameters and the gradient of the first cross-domain loss. This limitation amounts to additional mathematical calculations in addition to the judicial exception identified in the rejection of claim 1 above.
The claim does not include any additional elements that amount to an integration of the judicial exception into a practical application, nor to significantly more than the judicial exception. The claim is not patent eligible.
Regarding claim 9, the rejection of claim 1 is further incorporated, and further, the claim recites: wherein the first loss and the second loss is related to difficulties of the first task and the second task. This limitation amounts to more specifics of the judicial exception identified in the rejection of claim 1 above.
The claim does not include any additional elements that amount to an integration of the judicial exception into a practical application, nor to significantly more than the judicial exception. The claim is not patent eligible.
Regarding claim 10, the rejection of claim 5 is further incorporated, and further, the claim recites: wherein the second plurality of parameters are determined according to the first plurality of parameters and the gradient of a second cross-domain loss. This limitation amounts to additional mathematical calculations in addition to the judicial exception identified in the rejection of claim 1 above.
The claim does not include any additional elements that amount to an integration of the judicial exception into a practical application, nor to significantly more than the judicial exception. The claim is not patent eligible.
Regarding claim 11, the rejection of claim 10 is further incorporated, and further, the claim recites: wherein the gradient of the second cross-domain loss is determined according to the fifth loss, the sixth loss and the second weight. This limitation amounts to additional mathematical calculations in addition to the judicial exception identified in the rejection of claim 1 above.
The claim does not include any additional elements that amount to an integration of the judicial exception into a practical application, nor to significantly more than the judicial exception. The claim is not patent eligible.
Regarding claim 13, the rejection of claim 5 is further incorporated, and further, the claim recites: wherein the fifth loss and the sixth loss is related to difficulties of the third task and the fourth task. This limitation amounts to more specifics of the judicial exception identified in the rejection of claim 1 above.
The claim does not include any additional elements that amount to an integration of the judicial exception into a practical application, nor to significantly more than the judicial exception. The claim is not patent eligible.
Regarding claim 14, the rejection of claim 5 is further incorporated, and further, the claim recites: wherein the first domain and the third domain are generated according to a plurality of source domains. This limitation amounts to more specifics of the judicial exception identified in the rejection of claim 1 above.
The claim does not include any additional elements that amount to an integration of the judicial exception into a practical application, nor to significantly more than the judicial exception. The claim is not patent eligible.
Regarding Claim 15, it recites features similar to claim 1 and is rejected for at least the same reasons therein. The claim additionally recites: updating the plurality of parameters to a second plurality of parameters according to the gradient of the first cross-domain loss. This limitation is a mathematical calculation thus falls under the “Mathematical Concepts” grouping of abstract ideas. The claim recites an abstract idea.
Regarding Claim 16, it recites features similar to claim 6 and is rejected for at least the same reasons therein.
Regarding Claim 19, it recites features similar to claim 9 and is rejected for at least the same reasons therein.
Regarding claim 20, the rejection of claim 16 is further incorporated, and further, the claim recites: receiving the third loss of the third task in the first domain and the fourth loss of the fourth task in a third domain from the learning circuit; This limitation is an insignificant extra-solution activity
and
updating the first plurality of parameters to the second plurality of parameters according to the first plurality of parameters and the gradient of a second cross-domain loss. This limitation amounts to additional mathematical calculations in addition to the judicial exception identified in the rejection of claim 16 above.
The claim does not include any additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. The limitation of “receiving the third loss of the third task in the first domain and the fourth loss of the fourth task in a third domain from the learning circuit” is just a nominal or tangential addition to the claim, and is also well-understood, routine and conventional as evidenced by MPEP §2106.05(d)(II)(I), “transmitting data over a network”. This limitation therefore remains insignificant extra-solution activity even upon reconsideration, and does not amount to significantly more. Even when considered in combination, this additional element represents an insignificant extra-solution activity which cannot provide an inventive concept. The claim is not patent eligible.
Regarding Claim 22, it recites features similar to claim 2 and is rejected for at least the same reasons therein.
Regarding claim 23, the rejection of claim 20 is further incorporated, and further, the claim recites: wherein the gradient of the second cross-domain loss is determined according to the third loss, the fourth loss and the second weight. This limitation amounts to additional mathematical calculations in addition to the judicial exception identified in the rejection of claim 16 above.
The claim does not include any additional elements that amount to an integration of the judicial exception into a practical application, nor to significantly more than the judicial exception. The claim is not patent eligible.
Regarding claim 25, the rejection of claim 15 is further incorporated, and further, the claim recites: wherein the third loss and the fourth loss is related to difficulties of the third task and the fourth task. This limitation amounts to more specifics of the judicial exception identified in the rejection of claim 16 above.
The claim does not include any additional elements that amount to an integration of the judicial exception into a practical application, nor to significantly more than the judicial exception. The claim is not patent eligible.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 03/02/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Regarding the 35 U.S.C. §103 Rejection:
As noted in the last office action, the claims have been searched however prior art rendering the claims anticipated or obvious has been uncovered. Therefore, the claims would be allowable if all outstanding rejections were withdrawn.
Regarding the 35 U.S.C. §101 Rejection:
Applicant appears to assert that the claims are directed towards improvements to functioning of a computer or other technology. Specifically, citing ¶0003 of the instant specification for highlighting the technical contribution of the invention. Examiner respectfully disagrees. The claims never explicitly even recite any specific machine learning model rather the claims merely recite a “training circuit” which is a much broader and more generic computer component. Furthermore, the claims do not explicitly recite any details of the actual training process of the model or how the model operates differently from conventional machine learning model training. Therefore, the examiner asserts that the claimed invention does not reflect any technological improvements to a computer.
Applicant appears to assert that the amended claims are considered to be a practical application of a specific computational process to solve a longstanding technical problem inherent to computer technology. (i.e. the performance degradation of machine learning models due to “domain shift”). Examiner respectfully disagrees. As noted above the claims recite steps of (generating a loss…, determining a weight…, determining a gradient…) which can be considered to be mathematical calculations. There are no details in the claim that positively reflect any improvement in the functioning of a computer, hardware processor, or actual training process of a machine learning model. While the process recited in the claims may be an improvement towards an abstract idea, improvements to an abstract are still considered to be an abstract idea. Therefore, applicant’s arguments are not persuasive.
Applicant further asserts the claimed invention leads to important technical effects such as being able to jointly observe data of the two different domains and identify common transferable knowledge between them, taking advantage of particular technical properties of processing units, and by combining the losses, it creates a dynamic self-adjusting cross-domain loss. Examiner respectfully disagrees. The claims as currently recited do not reflect these “important technical effects”. The claims never specify any details regarding observing data between two different domains and identifying transferable knowledge between them. Also, the claims fail to reflect how any technical properties of processing units are used or applied rather the claims merely use a learning circuit or training circuit as tools to perform the abstract idea. Finally, the concept of combining losses under BRI can be considered to be an abstract idea and as noted above, the claims fail to recite any additional elements that would integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Applicant asserts the claimed invention constitutes significant solution activity and the significant solution is unknown. Examiner respectfully disagrees. As noted above, the additional elements recited in the claims amount to mere instructions to apply the judicial exception using a generic computer component (Please see MPEP 2106.05(f)) and insignificant extra-solution activity (Please see MPEP 2106.05(g)). The specific features that applicant argues to be significant solution activity (i.e. combining the first and second losses and using the “cross-domain loss” to update the first plurality of parameters) is not even clearly recited in the claims. Additionally, even if this step was recited in the claims, it would be interpreted under BRI as an additional mathematical calculation. Therefore, the consideration under Step 2B for well-understood, routine, and conventional activities in the field would not be applicable as this particular step appears to recite an abstract idea.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MICHAEL H HOANG whose telephone number is (571)272-8491. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 8:30AM-4:30PM.
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.
/MICHAEL H HOANG/PRIMARY EXAMINER, Art Unit 2122