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 .
Detailed Action
The following action is in response to the communication(s) received on 12/29/2025.
As of the claims filed 12/29/2025:
Claims 1, 4, 19, and 20 have been amended.
Claim 21 has been added.
Claim 3 has been canceled.
Claims 1, 2, and 4-21 are now pending.
Claims 1, 19, and 20 are independent claims.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed 12/29/2025 have been fully considered, but are not fully persuasive.
The objections to the claims have been overcome by the amendments and thus have been withdrawn.
With respect to the art rejections under 35 USC § 101:
Applicant asserts that the claims recite a technical solution to a technical problem, since the Specification describes the optimization neural network which solves multiple different optimization problems (p.10, middle ¶). However, as currently recited, the claims do not sufficiently have enough details to reflect the machine learning model being improved upon, but rather an improvement solving optimizing a function, which is an abstract idea.
Applicant further asserts that the claims improve upon the training time of a model (p.10 last ¶). Similarly to above, there is insufficient evidence of a model being improved upon. Thus, the claims remain directed to an abstract idea of optimization, which can be done in the human mind.
Applicant further asserts that the claims and the Specification recite the technical solutions via meta-loss clipping (p.11 ¶2-3). Examiner respectfully submits that the claims must recite the machine learning model that is being improved in order to reflect the improvement to a technology and not the abstract ideas.
With respect to the rejection under 35 USC § 102 and 103, Applicant’s arguments have been considered and are persuasive. Thus, the prior art rejections have been withdrawn.
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 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Claim 1 recites a method, thus a process, one of the four statutory categories of patentable subject matter (Step 1). However, Claim 1 further recites:
processing an optimizer network input generated from current values of the inner parameters to generate an update to the current values of the inner parameters, which is an evaluation or judgement that can be performed in the human mind;
the method comprising repeatedly performing operations comprising: identifying current values of the optimizer network parameters, which is an evaluation or judgement that can be performed in the human mind;
for each optimizer network parameter, randomly sampling a perturbation value, which is an evaluation or judgement that can be performed in the human mind;
generating a plurality of sets of candidate values for the optimizer network parameters, the plurality of sets including: a first set of candidate values for the optimizer network parameters that is equal to the current values of the optimizer network parameters; and one or more additional sets of candidate values for the optimizer network parameters generated by modifying the current values using the sampled perturbation values of the optimizer network parameters;, which is an evaluation or judgement that can be performed in the human mind;
for each set of candidate values of the optimizer network parameters: determining a respective loss value representing a performance of the optimizer neural network in updating one or more sets of inner parameters in accordance with the set of candidate values of the optimizer network parameters, which is an evaluation or judgement that can be performed in the human mind;
and updating the current values of the optimizer network parameters based on the loss values for the plurality of sets of candidate values of the optimizer network parameters, which is an evaluation or judgement that can be performed in the human mind;
generating a respective clipped loss value for each additional set of candidate values for the optimizer network parameters by clipping the respective loss value for the additional set of candidate values for the optimizer network parameters using the respective loss value for the first set of candidate values for the optimizer network parameters; which is an evaluation or judgement that can be performed in the human mind;
and generating an update to the current values of the optimizer network parameters using the respective clipped loss values for each of the one or more additional sets of candidate values for the optimizer network parameters, which is an evaluation or judgement that can be performed in the human mind.
Thus, the claim recites an abstract idea under Step 2A Prong 1.
Under Step 2A Prong 2, the claim does not include any additional elements which integrate the abstract idea into a practical application, since the additional elements consist of:
training an optimizer neural network… wherein the optimizer neural network has a plurality of optimizer network parameters, as the performance of an abstract idea on a computer is not more than instructions to "apply it" on a computer, which by MPEP 2106.05(f) cannot integrate an abstract idea into a practical application.
Thus, the claim is directed towards an abstract idea.
Further, under Step 2B, the additional element does not provide significantly more than the abstract idea itself, because implementation on a computer (MPEP 2106.05(f)) cannot provide significantly more. Thus, the claim is ineligible.
Claim 2, dependent upon Claim 1, further recites
the one or more additional sets of candidate values comprise: a second set of candidate values for the optimizer network parameters generated by adding each sampled perturbation value to the current value of the corresponding optimizer network parameter, which is a mathematical concept;
and a third set of candidate values for the optimizer network parameters generated by subtracting each sampled perturbation value from the current value of the corresponding optimizer network parameter, which is a mathematical concept.
Thus, the claim recites an abstract idea under Step 2A Prong 1.
Under Step 2A Prong 2 and 2B, the claim does not recite any new additional elements which could integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or provide significantly more than the abstract idea itself. Thus, the claim is ineligible.
Claim 4, dependent upon Claim 1, further recites
PNG
media_image1.png
218
569
media_image1.png
Greyscale
, which is a mathematical concept.
Thus, the claim recites an abstract idea under Step 2A Prong 1.
Under Step 2A Prong 2 and 2B, the claim does not recite any new additional elements which could integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or provide significantly more than the abstract idea itself. Thus, the claim is ineligible.
Claim 5, dependent upon Claim 4, further recites
PNG
media_image2.png
49
508
media_image2.png
Greyscale
, which is merely a detail of an abstract idea (computing [delta meta]).
Thus, the claim recites an abstract idea under Step 2A Prong 1.
Under Step 2A Prong 2 and 2B, the claim does not recite any new additional elements which could integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or provide significantly more than the abstract idea itself. Thus, the claim is ineligible.
Claim 6, dependent upon Claim 1, further recites
updating the current values of the optimizer network parameters comprises: updating the current values of the optimizer network parameters to be equal to the set of candidate values that has the lowest corresponding loss value, which is an evaluation or judgement that can be performed in the human mind.
Thus, the claim recites an abstract idea under Step 2A Prong 1.
Under Step 2A Prong 2 and 2B, the claim does not recite any new additional elements which could integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or provide significantly more than the abstract idea itself. Thus, the claim is ineligible.
Claim 7, dependent upon Claim 1, further recites no additional abstract ideas. However:
Under Step 2A Prong 2, the claim does not include any additional elements which integrate the abstract idea into a practical application, since the additional elements consist of:
the inner parameters are network parameters of an inner neural network, which merely specifies the particular field of use or particular technological environment in which the abstract idea is to be performed, which by MPEP 2106.05(h) cannot integrate the abstract idea into a practical application.
Thus, the claim is directed towards an abstract idea.
Further, under Step 2B, the additional element does not provide significantly more than the abstract idea itself, because the particular field of use or particular technological environment (MPEP 2106.05(h)) cannot provide significantly more. Thus, the claim is ineligible.
Claim 8, dependent upon Claim 7, further recites
generating, at each of the plurality of inner time steps, the corresponding optimizer network input, which is an evaluation or judgement that can be performed in the human mind;
comprising: processing a plurality of training examples using the inner neural network to generate respective inner network outputs, which is an evaluation or judgement that can be performed in the human mind;
determining an error of the inner network outputs, which is an evaluation or judgement that can be performed in the human mind;
and generating the optimizer network input using i) the current values of the inner parameters and ii) the error of the inner network outputs, which is an evaluation or judgement that can be performed in the human mind.
Thus, the claim recites an abstract idea under Step 2A Prong 1.
Under Step 2A Prong 2 and 2B, the claim does not recite any new additional elements which could integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or provide significantly more than the abstract idea itself. Thus, the claim is ineligible.
Claim 9, dependent upon Claim 1, further recites
the inner parameters represent, at least in part, respective states of a plurality of particles, which is merely a detail of an abstract idea (updating one or more sets of inner parameters).
Thus, the claim recites an abstract idea under Step 2A Prong 1.
Under Step 2A Prong 2 and 2B, the claim does not recite any new additional elements which could integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or provide significantly more than the abstract idea itself. Thus, the claim is ineligible.
Claim 10, dependent upon Claim 9, further recites
obtaining an initial optimizer network input comprises: determining initial states for the plurality of particles, which is an evaluation or judgement that can be performed in the human mind;
and generating the initial optimizer network input using the initial states, which is an evaluation or judgement that can be performed in the human mind;
and the method further comprises generating, at each of the plurality of inner time steps, which is an evaluation or judgement that can be performed in the human mind;
the corresponding optimizer network input, comprising: determining updated states for the plurality of particles, which is an evaluation or judgement that can be performed in the human mind;
and generating the optimizer network input using the updated states, which is an evaluation or judgement that can be performed in the human mind.
Thus, the claim recites an abstract idea under Step 2A Prong 1.
Under Step 2A Prong 2 and 2B, the claim does not recite any new additional elements which could integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or provide significantly more than the abstract idea itself. Thus, the claim is ineligible.
Claim 11, dependent upon Claim 9, further recites no additional abstract ideas. However:
Under Step 2A Prong 2, the claim does not include any additional elements which integrate the abstract idea into a practical application, since the additional elements consist of:
each optimizer network input comprises one or more radial symmetry features that represent a degree of radial symmetry of the plurality of particles, which merely specifies the particular field of use or particular technological environment in which the abstract idea is to be performed, which by MPEP 2106.05(h) cannot integrate the abstract idea into a practical application.
Thus, the claim is directed towards an abstract idea.
Further, under Step 2B, the additional element does not provide significantly more than the abstract idea itself, because the particular field of use or particular technological environment (MPEP 2106.05(h)) cannot provide significantly more. Thus, the claim is ineligible.
Claim 12, dependent upon Claim 11, further recites
the one or more radial symmetry features comprises a particular radial symmetry feature corresponding to a particular particle i of the plurality of particles, and wherein the particular radial symmetry feature is determined by computing
PNG
media_image3.png
108
285
media_image3.png
Greyscale
wherein each particle j is a particle of the plurality of particles that is not the particular particle i, dij is a distance between particle j and the particular particle i, and c and are hyperparameters, which is a mathematical concept.
Thus, the claim recites an abstract idea under Step 2A Prong 1.
Under Step 2A Prong 2 and 2B, the claim does not recite any new additional elements which could integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or provide significantly more than the abstract idea itself. Thus, the claim is ineligible.
Claim 13, dependent upon Claim 9, further recites
the plurality of inner parameters comprises, for each particle of the plurality of particles, an inner parameter representing a position of the particle, which is merely a detail of an abstract idea (updating one or more sets of inner parameters );
generate an optimizer network output comprising, for each particle of the plurality of particles, a direction d in which to update the position of the particle and a magnitude m by which to update the position of the particle, which is an evaluation or judgement that can be performed in the human mind.
Thus, the claim recites an abstract idea under Step 2A Prong 1.
Under Step 2A Prong 2, the claim does not include any additional elements which integrate the abstract idea into a practical application, since the additional elements consist of:
and the optimizer neural network is configured to..., as the performance of an abstract idea on a computer is not more than instructions to "apply it" on a computer, which by MPEP 2106.05(f) cannot integrate an abstract idea into a practical application.
Thus, the claim is directed towards an abstract idea.
Further, under Step 2B, the additional element does not provide significantly more than the abstract idea itself, because implementation on a computer (MPEP 2106.05(f)) cannot provide significantly more. Thus, the claim is ineligible.
Claim 14, dependent upon Claim 13, further recites
for each particle of the plurality of particles, the update to the inner parameter representing the position of the particle is determined by computing:
PNG
media_image4.png
38
263
media_image4.png
Greyscale
wherein α, β, and γ are each hyperparameters, which is a mathematical concept.
Thus, the claim recites an abstract idea under Step 2A Prong 1.
Under Step 2A Prong 2 and 2B, the claim does not recite any new additional elements which could integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or provide significantly more than the abstract idea itself. Thus, the claim is ineligible.
Claim 15, dependent upon Claim 14, further recites no additional abstract ideas. However:
Under Step 2A Prong 2, the claim does not include any additional elements which integrate the abstract idea into a practical application, since the additional elements consist of:
one or more of α, β, or γ are inner parameters, which merely specifies the particular field of use or particular technological environment in which the abstract idea is to be performed, which by MPEP 2106.05(h) cannot integrate the abstract idea into a practical application.
Thus, the claim is directed towards an abstract idea.
Further, under Step 2B, the additional element does not provide significantly more than the abstract idea itself, because the particular field of use or particular technological environment (MPEP 2106.05(h)) cannot provide significantly more. Thus, the claim is ineligible.
Claim 16, dependent upon Claim 1, further recites
the optimizer network input comprises a respective sub-input for each of the plurality of inner parameters, which is merely a detail of an abstract idea (processing an optimizer network input);
and updating the current values of the inner parameters comprises, for each inner parameter, processing the respective sub-input using the optimizer neural network to generate the update to the current value of the inner parameter, which is an evaluation or judgement that can be performed in the human mind.
Thus, the claim recites an abstract idea under Step 2A Prong 1.
Under Step 2A Prong 2 and 2B, the claim does not recite any new additional elements which could integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or provide significantly more than the abstract idea itself. Thus, the claim is ineligible.
Claim 17, dependent upon Claim 1, further recites
for each set of candidate values of the optimizer network parameters, determining the loss value representing the performance of the inner parameters comprises: at each of the plurality of inner time steps, determining a respective time step loss value representing the performance of the inner parameters at the inner time step, which is an evaluation or judgement that can be performed in the human mind;
and computing a measure of central tendency of the time step loss values, which is a mathematical concept.
Thus, the claim recites an abstract idea under Step 2A Prong 1.
Under Step 2A Prong 2 and 2B, the claim does not recite any new additional elements which could integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or provide significantly more than the abstract idea itself. Thus, the claim is ineligible.
Claim 18, dependent upon Claim 1, further recites
for each set of candidate values of the optimizer network parameters, determining the loss value representing the performance of the inner parameters comprises: at each of the plurality of inner time steps, determining a respective time step loss value representing the performance of the inner parameters at the inner time step, which is an evaluation or judgement that can be performed in the human mind;
and determining the loss value to be equal to the time step loss value corresponding to the final inner time step of the plurality of inner time steps, which is an evaluation or judgement that can be performed in the human mind.
Thus, the claim recites an abstract idea under Step 2A Prong 1.
Under Step 2A Prong 2 and 2B, the claim does not recite any new additional elements which could integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or provide significantly more than the abstract idea itself. Thus, the claim is ineligible.
Claim 19 recites A system, thus a machine, one of the four statutory categories of patentable subject matter. However, Claim 19 recites comprising one or more computers and one or more storage devices storing instructions that when executed by the one or more computers cause the one or more computers to perform operations for precisely the abstract ideas and additional elements of Claim 1. Therefore, Step 2A Prong 1 analysis remains the same. As for Step 2A Prong 2 and Step 2B: performance on a computer cannot integrate an abstract idea into a practical application (Step 2A Prong 2) nor provide significantly more than the abstract idea itself (Step 2B) (MPEP 2106.05(f)), and thus Claim 19 is rejected as subject-matter ineligible for reasons set forth in the rejections of Claim 1.
Claim 20 recites One or more non-transitory computer-readable storage media, thus an article of manufacture, one of the four statutory categories of patentable subject matter However, Claim 20 recites storing instructions that when executed by one or more computers cause the one or more computers to perform operations for precisely the abstract ideas and additional elements of Claim 1. Therefore, Step 2A Prong 1 analysis remains the same. As for Step 2A Prong 2 and Step 2B: performance on a computer cannot integrate an abstract idea into a practical application (Step 2A Prong 2) nor provide significantly more than the abstract idea itself (Step 2B) (MPEP 2106.05(f)), and thus Claim 20 is rejected as subject-matter ineligible for reasons set forth in the rejections of Claim 1.
Claim 21, dependent upon Claim 19, further recites
the one or more additional sets of candidate values comprise: a second set of candidate values for the optimizer network parameters generated by adding each sampled perturbation value to the current value of the corresponding optimizer network parameter; and a third set of candidate values for the optimizer network parameters generated by subtracting each sampled perturbation value from the current value of the corresponding optimizer network parameter, which is merely a detail of an abstract idea (additional sets of candidate values… generated by modifying the current values using the sampled perturbation values of the optimizer network parameters).
Thus, the claim recites an abstract idea under Step 2A Prong 1.
Under Step 2A Prong 2 and 2B, the claim does not recite any new additional elements which could integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or provide significantly more than the abstract idea itself. Thus, the claim is ineligible.
Conclusion
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 JOSEP HAN whose telephone number is (703)756-1346. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 9am-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 on (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.
/J.H./Examiner, Art Unit 2122
/KAKALI CHAKI/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2122