DETAILED ACTION
This action is in response to the filing of 9-23-2025. Claims 15-27 are pending and have been considered below:
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 15-27 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1: Claims 15-27 represent method and system type claims. Therefore claims 15-27 are directed to either a process, machine, manufacture or composition of matter.
Regarding claim 15:
2A Prong 1:
optimizing parameters that characterize a behavior of the ANN with a goal that the ANN maps learning input variable values onto associated learning output variable values as determined by a cost function;
As drafted, under the broadest reasonable interpretation, the claim covers mental processes (concepts performed in the human mind including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion-a user can determine loss in order to modify parameters)
the probability density function being proportional to an exponential function in |x-q| that decreases as |x-q| increases, where q is a freely selectable position parameter and x-q is contained in an argument of an exponential function in powers |x-q|k where k < 1.
As drafted, under the broadest reasonable interpretation, the claim covers mathematical concepts (mathematical relationships, mathematical formulas or equations, or mathematical calculations).
2A Prong 2: This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application.
Additional elements:
multiplying an output of at least one processing unit of the processing units by a random value x and subsequently supplying the multiplied output as input to at least one further processing unit of the processing units, the random value x being drawn from a random variable with a previously defined probability density function,
(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 - see MPEP 2106.05(f)).
2B: The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Additional elements:
multiplying an output of at least one processing unit of the processing units by a random value x and subsequently supplying the multiplied output as input to at least one further processing unit of the processing units, the random value x being drawn from a random variable with a previously defined probability density function,
(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 - see MPEP 2106.05(f)).
Regarding claim 16:
2A Prong 1:
wherein the probability density function is a Laplace distribution function.
As drafted, under the broadest reasonable interpretation, the claim covers mathematical concepts (mathematical relationships, mathematical formulas or equations, or mathematical calculations).
2A Prong 2: This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application.
No Additional elements:
2B: The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
No Additional elements:
Regarding claim 17:
2A Prong 1:
probability density Lb(x) of the Laplace distribution function is given by:
PNG
media_image1.png
72
424
media_image1.png
Greyscale
As drafted, under the broadest reasonable interpretation, the claim covers mathematical concepts (mathematical relationships, mathematical formulas or equations, or mathematical calculations)
2A Prong 2: This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application.
No Additional elements:
2B: The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
No Additional elements:
Regarding claim 18:
2A Prong 1:
No additional abstract ideas
2A Prong 2: This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application.
Additional elements:
wherein the ANN is built from a plurality of layers and, for the processing units in at least one of the layers, the random values x being drawn from the same random variable.
(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 - see MPEP 2106.05(f)).
2B: The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Additional elements:
wherein the ANN is built from a plurality of layers and, for the processing units in at least one of the layers, the random values x being drawn from the same random variable.
(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 - see MPEP 2106.05(f)).
Regarding claim 19:
2A Prong 1:
No additional abstract ideas
2A Prong 2: This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application.
Additional elements:
after the training an accuracy with which the trained ANN maps validation input variable values onto associated validation output variable values is ascertained, the training is repeated multiple times with, in each case, random initialization of the parameters, and a variance over degrees of accuracy, ascertained after each of the trainings, is ascertained as a measure of robustness of the training.
(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 - see MPEP 2106.05(f)).
2B: The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Additional elements:
after the training an accuracy with which the trained ANN maps validation input variable values onto associated validation output variable values is ascertained, the training is repeated multiple times with, in each case, random initialization of the parameters, and a variance over degrees of accuracy, ascertained after each of the trainings, is ascertained as a measure of robustness of the training.
(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 - see MPEP 2106.05(f)).
Regarding claim 20:
2A Prong 1:
No additional abstract ideas
2A Prong 2: This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application.
Additional elements:
wherein the maximum power k of |x-q| in the exponential function or the value of p in the Laplace probability density Lb(x) is optimized with a goal of improving the robustness of the training.
(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 - see MPEP 2106.05(f)).
2B: The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Additional elements:
wherein the maximum power k of |x-q| in the exponential function or the value of p in the Laplace probability density Lb(x) is optimized with a goal of improving the robustness of the training.
(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 - see MPEP 2106.05(f)).
Regarding claim 21:
2A Prong 1:
No additional abstract ideas
2A Prong 2: This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application.
Additional elements:
wherein at least one hyperparameter that characterizes an architecture of the ANN is optimized with a goal of improving the robustness of the training.
(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 - see MPEP 2106.05(f)).
2B: The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Additional elements:
wherein at least one hyperparameter that characterizes an architecture of the ANN is optimized with a goal of improving the robustness of the training.
(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 - see MPEP 2106.05(f)).
Regarding claim 22:
2A Prong 1:
No additional abstract ideas
2A Prong 2: This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application.
Additional elements:
the random value x is held constant during the training steps of the ANN, and being newly drawn from the random variable between the training steps.
(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 - see MPEP 2106.05(f)).
2B: The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Additional elements:
the random value x is held constant during the training steps of the ANN, and being newly drawn from the random variable between the training steps.
(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 - see MPEP 2106.05(f)).
Regarding claim 23:
2A Prong 1:
No additional abstract ideas
2A Prong 2: This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application.
Additional elements:
wherein the ANN is a classifier and/or as a regressor.
(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 - see MPEP 2106.05(f)).
2B: The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Additional elements:
wherein the ANN is a classifier and/or as a regressor.
(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 - see MPEP 2106.05(f)).
Claims 24-27 recite similar limitations as claim 15 and therefore the analysis previously provided applies to the judicial exception.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 15 and 24-27 rejection under 112, has been removed.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 15-27 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 has been withdrawn.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant provides blurbs that describe features that de-risk overfitting. Over-fitting is a common problem when looking to optimize a model. There are many different solutions which address the problem. Therefore, it is understood that performing a method of optimization a model is considered a generic operation. Therefore optimizing parameters based on a cost function is still considered a mental process. This is because the read out of the cost functions could be evaluated and modification of parameters could be implemented to improve a model
Additionally, the claims recite mathematical expressions which are clearly established as an abstract idea.
Regarding the additional elements, applicant argues that the position taken by the examiner states that additional elements were well-understood, routine or conventional.
However, what is stated about the additional elements is that the features are used to apply the abstract idea. These generic features are not seen as significantly more regarding the judicial exception.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to Applicant’s disclosure:
20200302273 A1 [0090]
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any extension fee pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the date of this final action.
Applicant is required under 37 C.F.R. § 1.111(c) to consider these references fully when responding to this action.
It is noted that any citation to specific pages, columns, lines, or figures in the prior art references and any interpretation of the references should not be considered to be limiting in any way. A reference is relevant for all it contains and may be relied upon for all that it would have reasonably suggested to one having ordinary skill in the art. In re Heck, 699 F.2d 1331, 1332-33, 216 U.S.P.Q. 1038, 1039 (Fed. Cir. 1983) (quoting In re Lemelson, 397 F.2d 1006, 1009, 158 U.S.P.Q. 275, 277 (C.C.P.A. 1968)).
In the interests of compact prosecution, Applicant is invited to contact the examiner via electronic media pursuant to USPTO policy outlined MPEP § 502.03. All electronic communication must be authorized in writing. Applicant may wish to file an Internet Communications Authorization Form PTO/SB/439. Applicant may wish to request an interview using the Interview Practice website: http://www.uspto.gov/patent/laws-and-regulations/interview-practice.
Applicant is reminded Internet e-mail may not be used for communication for matters under 35 U.S.C. § 132 or which otherwise require a signature. A reply to an Office action may NOT be communicated by Applicant to the USPTO via Internet e-mail. If such a reply is submitted by Applicant via Internet e-mail, a paper copy will be placed in the appropriate patent application file with an indication that the reply is NOT ENTERED. See MPEP § 502.03(II).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SHERROD KEATON whose telephone number is 571-270-1697. The examiner can normally be reached 9:30am to 5:00pm.
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 MICHELLE BECHTOLD can be reached at 571-431-0762. 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.
/SHERROD L KEATON/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2148
4-15-2025