DETAILED ACTION
This action is made FINAL in response to the amendments filed on 5/22/2026.
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, 5, 6, 11, 13, 16, 17, 20, 21, 26, 28 – 32, and 34 - 37 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
As to claim 1,
Step 2A, Prong One
The claim recites in part:
encode, in a signal, a Low Displacement Rank (LDR) based approximation generated from said at least one second tensor, said LDR based approximation of said at least one second tensor obtained by said reshaping, having a lower dimension than said first tensor
Under the broadest reasonable interpretation, these limitations are process steps that cover a mathematical relationship, mathematical formula, or algorithm, which is identified as an abstract idea. The recited encoding recites a data processing step involving organization and manipulation of data. Specifically a Low Displacement Rank (LDR) based approximation is an algorithmic technique used in numerical analysis, data compression, and scientific computing to efficiently represent large matrices or datasets.
Accordingly, at Step 2A, Prong One, the claim is directed to an abstract idea.
Step 2A, Prong Two
The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim recites the additional elements of:
transmit and/or store the signal, wherein the signal comprises a bitstream
including the LDR based approximation and metadata comprising rank information and tensor dimension information for enabling reconstruction of the first tensor of weights from the LDR based approximation.
which amounts to extra-solution activity of gathering data for use in the claimed process. As described in MPEP 2106.05(g), limitations that amount to merely adding insignificant extra-solution activity to a judicial exception do not amount to significantly more than the exception itself, and cannot integrate a judicial exception into a practical application.
The claim further recites:
reshape a first tensor of weights of a layer of a deep neural network into at least one second tensor
which is recited at a high-level of generality with no detail of the reshaping process and amounts to no more than adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea. Accordingly, this additional element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea (See MPEP 2106.05(f))
The claim further recites a device and at least one processor are recited at a high-level of generality and amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component (See MPEP 2106.05(f)).
In addition, the recitation of tensor, deep neural network, Low Displacement Rank (LDR), and dimension amounts to generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular environment of field of use (See MPEP 2106.05(h)). As such, the claim does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Accordingly, at Step 2A, Prong Two, the additional elements individually or in combination do no integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Step 2B
In accordance with Step 2B, the claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more that the judicial exception. As discussed above, the additional elements of:
transmit and/or store the signal, wherein the signal comprises a bitstream
including the LDR based approximation and metadata comprising rank information and tensor dimension information for enabling reconstruction of the first tensor of weights from the LDR based approximation.
are recited at a high level of generality and amounts to extra-solution activity of receiving data i.e. pre-solution activity of gathering data for use in the claimed process. The courts have found limitations directed to obtaining information electronically, recited at a high level of generality, to be well-understood, routine, and conventional (see MPEP 2106.05(d)(II), “receiving or transmitting data over a network”, "electronic record keeping," and "storing and retrieving information in memory").
In accordance with Step 2B, the claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more that the judicial exception. The limitations:
reshape a first tensor of weights of a layer of a deep neural network into at least one second tensor
which is recited at a high-level of generality with no detail of the reshaping process and amounts to no more than adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea. Accordingly, this additional element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea (See MPEP 2106.05(f))
The device and at least one processor which are recited at a high-level of generality and amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component (See MPEP 2106.05(f)).
The recitation of tensor, deep neural network, Low Displacement Rank (LDR), and dimension amounts to generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular environment of field of use (See MPEP 2106.05(h)).
Accordingly, at Step 2B the additional elements individually or in combination do not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Claim 2 has similar limitations as claim 1. Therefore, the claim is rejected for the same reasons as above.
As to claim 5,
Step 2A, Prong One
The claim does not recite an abstract idea or any other judicial exception and therefore passes Step 2A, Prong of the Alice/Mayo analysis.
Step 2A, Prong Two
The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim recites the additional elements of:
obtain a plurality of 1-D vectors by vectorizing said first tensor and obtain said at least one second tensor by stacking said vectors as rows or columns of said at least one second tensor
which is recited at a high-level of generality with no detail of the training process and amounts to no more than adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea. Accordingly, this additional element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea (See MPEP 2106.05(f))
In addition, the recitation of 1-D vectors amounts to generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular environment of field of use (See MPEP 2106.05(h)). As such, the claim does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Accordingly, at Step 2A, Prong Two, the additional elements individually or in combination do no integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Step 2B
In accordance with Step 2B, the claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more that the judicial exception. As discussed above, the additional elements of:
obtain a plurality of 1-D vectors by vectorizing said first tensor and obtain said at least one second tensor by stacking said vectors as rows or columns of said at least one second tensor
which is recited at a high-level of generality with no detail of the training process and amounts to no more than adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea. Accordingly, this additional element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea (See MPEP 2106.05(f))
The recitation of 1-D vectors amounts to generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular environment of field of use (See MPEP 2106.05(h)).
Accordingly, at Step 2B the additional elements individually or in combination do not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
As to claim 6,
Step 2A, Prong One
The claim recites in part:
further configured to encode in at least one single at least one information representative of:
a size of said first tensor
said at least one second tensor
a number of input channels of said layer
a number of output channels of said layer
a size of at least one filter of said layer
a bias vector of said layer
Under the broadest reasonable interpretation, these limitations are process steps that cover a mathematical relationship, mathematical formula, or algorithm, which is identified as an abstract idea. The recited encoding recites a data processing step involving organization and manipulation of data.
Accordingly, at Step 2A, Prong One, the claim is directed to an abstract idea.
Step 2A, Prong Two
Further the claim does not include additional elements that integrate this abstract idea into a practical application. “Encoding” is performed using generic computer components performing their typical functions and does not provide a meaningful technological improvement.
Accordingly, at Step 2A, Prong Two, the additional elements individually or in combination do no integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Step 2B
Nothing in the claim adds “significantly more” beyond generic computing.
Accordingly, at Step 2B the additional elements individually or in combination do not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
As to claim 11,
Step 2A, Prong One
The claim recites in part:
wherein said 1-D vectors have a size f1f2n1, and said at least one second tensor has a size n2 x f1f2n1 where:
n1 is a number of input channels of said layer
n2 is a number of output channels of said layer
f1 x f2 is the size of at least one filter of said layer
Under the broadest reasonable interpretation, these limitations are process steps that cover a mathematical relationship, mathematical formula, or algorithm, which is identified as an abstract idea.
Accordingly, at Step 2A, Prong One, the claim is directed to an abstract idea.
Step 2A, Prong Two
Further the claim does not include additional elements that integrate this abstract idea into a practical application. The equation performed using generic computer components performing their typical functions and does not provide a meaningful technological improvement.
Accordingly, at Step 2A, Prong Two, the additional elements individually or in combination do no integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Step 2B
Nothing in the claim adds “significantly more” beyond generic computing.
Accordingly, at Step 2B the additional elements individually or in combination do not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
As to claim 13,
Step 2A, Prong One
The claim recites in part:
further configured to encode in at least one signal an information representative of at least one factor rank of said LDR based approximation
Under the broadest reasonable interpretation, these limitations are process steps that cover a mathematical relationship, mathematical formula, or algorithm, which is identified as an abstract idea. The recited encoding recites a data processing step involving organization and manipulation of data.
Accordingly, at Step 2A, Prong One, the claim is directed to an abstract idea.
Step 2A, Prong Two
Further the claim does not include additional elements that integrate this abstract idea into a practical application. “Encoding” is performed using generic computer components performing their typical functions and does not provide a meaningful technological improvement.
Accordingly, at Step 2A, Prong Two, the additional elements individually or in combination do no integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Step 2B
Nothing in the claim adds “significantly more” beyond generic computing.
Accordingly, at Step 2B the additional elements individually or in combination do not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
As to claim 16,
Step 2A, Prong One
The claim recites in part:
decode, from the signal, the Low Displacement Rant (LDR) based approximation and the meta data
Under the broadest reasonable interpretation, these limitations are process steps that cover a mathematical relationship, mathematical formula, or algorithm, which is identified as an abstract idea. The recited decoding recites a data processing step involving organization and manipulation of data. Specifically a Low Displacement Rank (LDR) based approximation is an algorithmic technique used in numerical analysis, data compression, and scientific computing to efficiently represent large matrices or datasets.
Accordingly, at Step 2A, Prong One, the claim is directed to an abstract idea.
Step 2A, Prong Two
The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim recites the additional elements of:
receive and/or retrieve a signal wherein the signal comprises a bitstream
including the LDR based approximation and metadata comprising rank information and tensor dimension information for enabling reconstruction of the first tensor of weights from the LDR based approximation.
which amounts to extra-solution activity of gathering data for use in the claimed process. As described in MPEP 2106.05(g), limitations that amount to merely adding insignificant extra-solution activity to a judicial exception do not amount to significantly more than the exception itself, and cannot integrate a judicial exception into a practical application.
The claim further recites:
reshape said at least one second tensor into said first tensor of weights
reconstruct at least one second tensor from the LDR based approximation using the metadata, said at least one second tensor having a lower dimension than said first tensor;
which is recited at a high-level of generality with no detail of the reshaping process and amounts to no more than adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea. Accordingly, this additional element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea (See MPEP 2106.05(f))
The claim further recites a device and at least one processor are recited at a high-level of generality and amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component (See MPEP 2106.05(f)).
In addition, the recitation of tensor, deep neural network, Low Displacement Rank (LDR), and dimension amounts to generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular environment of field of use (See MPEP 2106.05(h)). As such, the claim does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Accordingly, at Step 2A, Prong Two, the additional elements individually or in combination do no integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Step 2B
In accordance with Step 2B, the claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more that the judicial exception. As discussed above, the additional elements of:
receive and/or retrieve a signal wherein the signal comprises a bitstream
including the LDR based approximation and metadata comprising rank information and tensor dimension information for enabling reconstruction of the first tensor of weights from the LDR based approximation.
are recited at a high level of generality and amounts to extra-solution activity of receiving data i.e. pre-solution activity of gathering data for use in the claimed process. The courts have found limitations directed to obtaining information electronically, recited at a high level of generality, to be well-understood, routine, and conventional (see MPEP 2106.05(d)(II), “receiving or transmitting data over a network”, "electronic record keeping," and "storing and retrieving information in memory").
In accordance with Step 2B, the claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more that the judicial exception. The limitations:
reshape said at least one second tensor into said first tensor of weights
reconstruct at least one second tensor from the LDR based approximation using the metadata, said at least one second tensor having a lower dimension than said first tensor;
which is recited at a high-level of generality with no detail of the reshaping process and amounts to no more than adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea. Accordingly, this additional element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea (See MPEP 2106.05(f))
The device and at least one processor which are recited at a high-level of generality and amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component (See MPEP 2106.05(f)).
The recitation of tensor, deep neural network, Low Displacement Rank (LDR), and dimension amounts to generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular environment of field of use (See MPEP 2106.05(h)).
Accordingly, at Step 2B the additional elements individually or in combination do not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Claim 17 has similar limitations as claim 16. Therefore, the claim is rejected for the same reasons as above.
Claim 20 has similar limitations as claim 5. Therefore, the claim is rejected for the same reasons as above.
Claim 21 has similar limitations as claim 6. Therefore, the claim is rejected for the same reasons as above.
Claim 26 has similar limitations as claim 11. Therefore, the claim is rejected for the same reasons as above.
Claim 28 has similar limitations as claim 13. Therefore, the claim is rejected for the same reasons as above.
As to claim 29, the limitations “wherein at least one of said at least one representative information is decoded at a layer level” amounts to generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular environment of field of use (See MPEP 2106.05(h)).
As to claim 30, the limitations “wherein at least one of said at least one representative information is decoded at a DNN level” amounts to generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular environment of field of use (See MPEP 2106.05(h)).
Claim 31 has similar limitations as claim 1. Therefore, the claim is rejected for the same reasons as above.
Claim 32 has similar limitations as claim 1. Therefore, the claim is rejected for the same reasons as above.
Claim 34 has similar limitations as claim 5. Therefore, the claim is rejected for the same
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 5/22/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The newly added limitations overcome the 103 Rejection and the 103 Rejection has been withdrawn.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
The 101 Rejection still has not been overcome. The claims are abstract and the steps in the claims can be completed with a mental process and/or generic computer components. Additionally, the steps in the claims do not describe an improvement of technology in any way.
The applicant argues:
Applicant does not acquiesce to the propriety of the rejections, but has
amended the claims in order to expedite prosecution. As amended, claim 1 is not
directed merely to tensor reshaping or an LDR approximation.
The amended claim 1 recites not only tensor reshaping and LDR approximation, but also a specific bitstream including the LDR-based approximation and metadata comprising rank information and tensor-dimension information for enabling reconstruction of the first tensor of weights.
The signal element is not insignificant extra-solution activity. The signal provides a compressed neural-network representation generated by the claimed encoder. It includes both the LDR-based approximation and reconstruction metadata.
The claim therefore integrates any mathematical concept into a practical application of a compressed representation and reconstruction of neural-network layer weights.
The specification supports this technical application by describing LDR-based compression of DNN convolutional-layer tensors, quantization and entropy coding into a bitstream, transmission/storage of the bitstream, and decoder-side reconstruction using dequantized LDR parameters and metadata.
Under MPEP §2106, a claim that recites a judicial exception is not directed to that exception when the claim as a whole integrates it into a practical application.
The examiner disagrees. Applicant’s amendments merely recite encoding the LDR-based approximation and associated metadata into a bitstream (signal). The claimed bitstream simply represents the results of the underlying mathematical operations and does not improve signal transmission, encoding technology, or computer functionality. Just putting mathematical results and metadata into a signal constitutes insignificant extra-solution activity and does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 BRANDON S COLE whose telephone number is (571)270-5075. The examiner can normally be reached Mon - Fri 7:30pm - 5pm EST (Alternate Friday's Off).
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, Omar Fernandez can be reached on 571-272-2589. 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.
/BRANDON S COLE/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2128
Prosecution Insights