DETAILED ACTION
This action is in response to the claims filed 05/25/2026 for Application number 17/564,240. Claims 1, 9, 13, 15, 19, and 25 have been amended. 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 .
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.
Additionally, the limitation of:
[wherein the learning circuit is configured to] output a classification prediction for an unseen domain based on the second plurality of parameters can be considered to be an evaluation in the human mind.
These limitations as drafted, are processes that, under broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the human mind which falls within the “Mental Processes” 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). Additionally, the claim recites the additional elements – “wherein the first domain is a seen domain” and “wherein the second domain is a pseudo-unseen domain”. These additional elements are merely generally linked to the judicial exception. Please see MPEP 2106.05(h). 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.
Furthermore, the additional elements of “wherein the first domain is a seen domain” and “wherein the second domain is a pseudo-unseen domain” are generally linked to the judicial exception.
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, generally linking the additional elements to the judicial exception 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 are 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 are 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 are 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 05/25/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Regarding the 35 U.S.C. §101 Rejection:
Applicant appears to assert that the amended claims when considered as a whole integrate a judicial exception into a practical application, specifically the specification of the instant application identifies improvements as to how the machine learning model itself operates. Applicant further cites para [0027] as support for this assertion. Examiner respectfully disagrees. The claims as currently recited do not sufficiently recite and reflect the improvement noted in the instant application’s specification. There are no details in the claim to reflect the “simultaneous” learning of the parameters from the seen domain task and the pseudo-unseen domain task. The claim as currently recited only broadly provides a “label” (i.e. seen/pseudo-unseen) to the first/second domains, but do not have any further details therefore these labels carry little to no patentable weight. Thus, the examiner suggests further details to reflect the “simultaneous” learning of the parameters would be helpful in overcoming the 101 rejection.
Applicant further asserts the claims address performance degradation caused by “domain shift” in CD-FSL tasks by preventing the model from being distracted by single-domain bias. Examiner respectfully disagrees. The newly amended limitation of “outputting a classification prediction for an unseen domain based on the second plurality of parameters” under broadest reasonable interpretation can be considered to be an evaluation in the human mind. The claim is recited in a broad and generic manner of merely outputting a prediction. Furthermore, as noted above in the 101 rejection, the use of the learning circuit to perform this step amounts to mere instructions to apply the judicial exception using a generic computer component. Please see MPEP 2106.05(f). Examiner further notes that claim 1 does not explicitly recite “updating the first plurality of parameters to a second plurality parameters according to the gradient of the first cross-domain loss” as recited in claim 15. Therefore, claim 1 does not currently reflect the assertion that the first and second losses of different domains influence the update of the first plurality of parameters. Additionally, this updating step as currently recited in claim 15 appears to be directed towards mathematical calculations thus the claim as a whole is still directed to an abstract idea.
Applicant further asserts that calculating a loss is an actual training process. Examiner respectfully disagrees. The claim as currently recited fails to recite any specific training step or steps that occur within a training stage. As noted above, the limitations of generating a first/second loss, determining a weight…, determining a gradient when analyzed amount to mathematical calculations. Additionally, applicant argues that these steps do not amount to WURC activities in the field of machine learning. Examiner respectfully disagrees. The 101 analysis above does not consider these particular steps to be WURC activities rather they are directed towards mathematical calculations which is an abstract idea. Therefore, applicant’s arguments are not persuasive. Examiner suggests adding additional details to the claim to provide explicit training steps (i.e. specifying what operations/steps occur at each particular training stage) such as “In the meta-training stage… performs the following operations…” [¶0017 of the instant specification] then “In the meta-testing stage…” [¶0018]. By specifying what operations/steps occurs at each particular stage of training and testing, the examiner believes the claims will be closer to patent eligibility.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new grounds 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 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
Prosecution Insights