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 .
The Office Action is in response to amendment filed on October 14, 2025
Claims 1 and 7 have been amended.
The rejections from the prior corresponds that are not restated here are withdrawn.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the rejection of the claims 35 U.S.C. 101 have been fully considered but they are no persuasive:
Applicant argues:
Respect to 101:
Applicant first argues that the claims as amended are allegedly eligible under 35 U.S.C. 101 because 1) the claims do not recite an abstract idea, as stated on page 15 – 16 of the remarks, and 2) the amended claims allegedly provide an improvement to the technological field of machine learning, as stated on page 17 – 19 of the remarks.
Examiner’s answer:
The examiner respectfully disagrees. 1) The Examiner disagrees so the statement that “the claims do not include subject matter related to mathematical concepts.”, a loss function is well known in the art and is recited at a high level of generality, thereby being analyzed as a mathematical process. The Applicant also states that the claims could not be mentally performed with the large amount of batch policies but the claims do not recite any specific size number of batches of policies may be interpreted to be small thus mentally performable or achievable on pen and paper, and retaining the abstract ideas. 2) As for the “outputting a neural network”, this is also well known in the art as transmitting data as discussed in MPEP § 2106.05(d)(II)(i). The Applicant states on page 18 of the remarks that the application would fall under Example 39 of the USPTO Subject Matter Eligibility Examples, however the Examiner disagrees because the Applicant’s application recite judicial exceptions unlike the examples in the USPTO Subject Matter Eligibility Examples. As for the claims as a whole being directed to an improvement in neural network training, as seen on pages 18 – 19, the specification does not describe the invention in sufficient detail that an ordinary artisan would recognize the claimed invention as providing an improvement. Thus, cannot be considered a practical application.
The Examiner has found the arguments with respect to 102 persuasive and the rejection has been withdrawn.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 – 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The following sections follow the 2019 PEG guidelines for analyzing subject matter eligibility.
The analysis below of the claims’ subject matter eligibility follows the 2019 Revised
Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. 50-57 (January 7, 2019) (“2019 PEG”)
and the 2024 Guidance Update on Patent Subject Matter Eligibility, Including on Artificial
Intelligence, 89 Fed. Reg. 58128-58138 (July 17, 2024) (“2024 AI SME Update”).
When considering subject matter eligibility under 35 U.S.C. 101, it must be determined
whether the claim is directed to one of the four statutory categories of invention, i.e., process,
machine, manufacture, or composition of matter (Step 1). If the claim does fall within one of the
statutory categories, the second step in the analysis is to determine whether the claim is directed
to a judicial exception (Step 2A). The Step 2A analysis is broken into two prongs. In the first
prong (Step 2A, Prong 1), it is determined whether or not the claims recite a judicial exception
(e.g., mathematical concepts, mental processes, certain methods of organizing human activity). If
it is determined in Step 2A, Prong 1 that the claims recite a judicial exception, the analysis proceeds to the second prong (Step 2A, Prong 2), where it is determined whether or not the
claims integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. If it is determined at step 2A,
Prong 2 that the claims do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application, the
analysis proceeds to determining whether the claim is a patent-eligible application of the
exception (Step 2B). If an abstract idea is present in the claim, any element or combination of
elements in the claim must be sufficient to ensure that the claim integrates the judicial exception
into a practical application, or else amounts to significantly more than the abstract idea itself.
Claim 1
Step 1: The claim recites a method, which is one of the four statutory categories of eligible matter.
Step 2A Prong 1:
generating an ith batch of policies according to an (i-1)th group of loss values, wherein the (i-1) the group of loss values are values output by a loss function (Mathematical Concepts: are defined as mathematical relationships, mathematical formulas or equations, or mathematical calculations.
performing data augmentation on an original training set of the target neural network according to the ith batch of policies, to obtain an ith batch of augmentation training sets (Mental Processes: Can be performed in the human mind, or by a human using a pen and paper, making observations, evaluations and judgments as claimed)
wherein the ith batch of policies comprises Q-i policies; (Mental Processes: Can be performed in the human mind, or by a human using a pen and paper, making observations, evaluations and judgments as claimed)
wherein the ith batch of augmentation training sets comprises Q-i augmentation training sets, and the Qth augmentation training set of the ith batch of augmentation training sets is obtained by performing data augmentation on the original training set of the target neural network according to the qth policy of the ith batch of policies where q= 1, ..., Q-i; (Mental Processes: Can be performed in the human mind, or by a human using a pen and paper, making observations, evaluations and judgments as claimed)
Step 2A Prong 2: The judicial exceptions are not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim recites these additional elements:
training the target neural network according to the ith batch of augmentation training sets, to obtain an ith group of loss values (Mere instructions to apply an exception as it recites only the idea of a solution or outcome as discussed in MPEP § 2106.05(f))
outputting a neural network obtained by training the target neural network according to an Nth batch of augmentation training sets. (Mere data gathering, Insignificant extra solution activity in MPEP § 2106.05(g))
wherein the ith group of loss values comprises Q-i loss values, and the qth loss value is obtained by training the target neural network according to the qth augmentation training set of the ith batch of augmentation training sets for q = 1, ..., Q; and wherein Q-i > 1 for at least one integer i in 2 to N-1. (Mere instructions to apply an exception as it recites only the idea of a solution or outcome as discussed in MPEP § 2106.05(f))
Step 2B: The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to
significantly more than the judicial exception.
training the target neural network according to the ith batch of augmentation training sets, to obtain an ith group of loss values (Mere instructions to apply an exception as it recites only the idea of a solution or outcome as discussed in MPEP § 2106.05(f))
outputting a neural network obtained by training the target neural network according to an Nth batch of augmentation training sets. (receiving or transmitting data, using components and functions claimed at a high level of generality have been determined by the courts as being well-understood, routine, and conventional activities in the field of computer functions (See MPEP § 2106.05(d)(II)(i))
wherein the ith group of loss values comprises Q-i loss values, and the qth loss value is obtained by training the target neural network according to the qth augmentation training set of the ith batch of augmentation training sets for q = 1, ..., Q; and wherein Q-i > 1 for at least one integer i in 2 to N-1. (Mere instructions to apply an exception as it recites only the idea of a solution or outcome as discussed in MPEP § 2106.05(f))
The courts have found that adding the words "apply it" (or an equivalent) with the
judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer does not
qualify as “significantly more”. (See MPEP § 2106.05(I)(A)) As an ordered whole, the claim is directed to method of augmenting training sets for a target neural network, this is nothing more than using a loss function to modify the training data. Nothing in the claim provides significantly more than this. As such, the claim is not patent eligible.
Claim 2 incorporates the rejection of claim 1.
Step 1: The claim recites a method, corresponding to a process, which is one of the four statutory categories of eligible matter.
Step 2A Prong 1: The judicial exceptions of claim 1 are incorporated.
wherein the generating the ith batch of policies according to the (i−1)th group of loss values comprises (Mental Processes: Can be performed in the human mind, or by a human using a pen and paper, making observations, evaluations and judgments as claimed)
generating the ith batch of policies according to an augmentation policy neural network and the (i−1)th group of loss values, wherein the (i−1)th group of loss values indicate the augmentation policy neural network (Mental Processes: Can be performed in the human mind, or by a human using a pen and paper, making observations, evaluations and judgments as claimed)
generating, by a normalization module of the augmentation policy neural network, a probability distribution of M pieces of operation information in the information set according to the M-dimensional vector output (Mental Processes: Can be performed in the human mind, or by a human using a pen and paper, making observations, evaluations and judgments as claimed)
Step 2A Prong 2: The judicial exceptions are not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim recites these additional elements:
to update a parameter according to a machine learning method, and the augmentation policy neural network performs operations comprising: (Mere instructions to apply an exception as it recites only the idea of a solution or outcome as discussed in MPEP § 2106.05(f))
obtaining, by a long short-term memory unit of the augmentation policy neural network, an M-dimensional vector through mapping according to operation information output by a sampling module in a previous time step, wherein M is a length of an information set to which operation information output by the sampling module in a current time step belongs, (Mere instructions to apply an exception as it recites only the idea of a solution or outcome as discussed in MPEP § 2106.05(f))
by the long short-term memory unit, wherein the information set is an operation type set, an operation probability set, or an operation magnitude set, and (Mere instructions to apply an exception as it recites only the idea of a solution or outcome as discussed in MPEP § 2106.05(f))
outputting, by the sampling module, one of the M pieces of operation information through sampling according to the probability distribution. (Mere data gathering, Insignificant extra solution activity in MPEP § 2106.05(g))
Step 2B: The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to
significantly more than the judicial exception.
to update a parameter according to a machine learning method, and the augmentation policy neural network performs operations comprising: (Mere instructions to apply an exception as it recites only the idea of a solution or outcome as discussed in MPEP § 2106.05(f))
obtaining, by a long short-term memory unit of the augmentation policy neural network, an M-dimensional vector through mapping according to operation information output by a sampling module in a previous time step, wherein M is a length of an information set to which operation information output by the sampling module in a current time step belongs, (Mere instructions to apply an exception as it recites only the idea of a solution or outcome as discussed in MPEP § 2106.05(f))
by the long short-term memory unit, wherein the information set is an operation type set, an operation probability set, or an operation magnitude set, and (Mere instructions to apply an exception as it recites only the idea of a solution or outcome as discussed in MPEP § 2106.05(f))
outputting, by the sampling module, one of the M pieces of operation information through sampling according to the probability distribution. (receiving or transmitting data, using components and functions claimed at a high level of generality have been determined by the courts as being well-understood, routine, and conventional activities in the field of computer functions (See MPEP § 2106.05(d)(II)(i))
The courts have found that adding the words "apply it" (or an equivalent) with the
judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer does not
qualify as “significantly more”. (See MPEP § 2106.05(I)(A))
Claim 3 incorporates the rejection of claim 2.
Step 1: The claim recites a method, corresponding to a process, which is one of the four statutory categories of eligible matter.
Step 2A Prong 1: The judicial exceptions of claim 2 are incorporated.
mapping, by a word vector embedding module of the augmentation policy neural network, to a vector in a real number field, the one-hot vector of the operation information output by the sampling module in the previous time step; and (Mental Processes: Can be performed in the human mind, or by a human using a pen and paper, making observations, evaluations and judgments as claimed)
Step 2A Prong 2: The judicial exceptions are not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim recites these additional elements:
outputting, by the sampling module, a one-hot vector of the operation information in the previous time step; (Mere data gathering, Insignificant extra solution activity in MPEP § 2106.05(g))
obtaining, by the long short-term memory unit, the M-dimensional vector through mapping according to the vector output by the word vector embedding module. (Mere instructions to apply an exception as it recites only the idea of a solution or outcome as discussed in MPEP § 2106.05(f))
Step 2B: The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to
significantly more than the judicial exception.
outputting, by the sampling module, a one-hot vector of the operation information in the previous time step; (receiving or transmitting data, using components and functions claimed at a high level of generality have been determined by the courts as being well-understood, routine, and conventional activities in the field of computer functions (See MPEP § 2106.05(d)(II)(i))
obtaining, by the long short-term memory unit, the M-dimensional vector through mapping according to the vector output by the word vector embedding module. (Mere instructions to apply an exception as it recites only the idea of a solution or outcome as discussed in MPEP § 2106.05(f))
The courts have found that adding the words "apply it" (or an equivalent) with the
judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer does not
qualify as “significantly more”. (See MPEP § 2106.05(I)(A))
Claim 4 incorporates the rejection of claim 1.
Step 1: The claim recites a method, corresponding to a process, which is one of the four statutory categories of eligible matter.
Step 2A Prong 1: The judicial exceptions of claim 1 are incorporated.
performing inference on the original training set by using the target neural network trained according to the (i−1)th batch of augmentation training sets, to obtain an ith batch of features of data in the original training set in the target neural network; and (Mental Processes: Can be performed in the human mind, or by a human using a pen and paper, making observations, evaluations and judgments as claimed)
the generating the ith batch of policies according to the (i−1)th group of loss values comprises: (Mental Processes: Can be performed in the human mind, or by a human using a pen and paper, making observations, evaluations and judgments as claimed)
generating the ith batch of policies according to the (i−1)th group of loss values and the ith batch of features. (Mental Processes: Can be performed in the human mind, or by a human using a pen and paper, making observations, evaluations and judgments as claimed)
Step 2A Prong 2: The judicial exceptions are not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim recites these additional elements:
The claim does not recite any additional limitations. Therefore, there are no additional elements to integrate the abstract ideas into a practical application. Merely asserting that a judicial exception is to be carried out on a generic computer (i.e., “A neural network training method: method comprising computer instruction” of base claim 1) cannot meaningfully integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. See MPEP § 2106.05(f).
Step 2B: The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to
significantly more than the judicial exception.
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. Mere instructions to apply an exception (i.e., with the recited information neural network training comprising: method of base claim 1) cannot provide an inventive concept. The claim is not patent eligible.
Claim 5 incorporates the rejection of claim 4.
Step 1: The claim recites a method, corresponding to a process, which is one of the four statutory categories of eligible matter.
Step 2A Prong 1: The judicial exceptions of claim 4 are incorporated.
The method according to claim 4, wherein the generating the ith batch of policies according to the (i−1)th group of loss values and the ith batch of features comprises: (Mental Processes: Can be performed in the human mind, or by a human using a pen and paper, making observations, evaluations and judgments as claimed)
generating the ith batch of policies according to an augmentation policy neural network, the ith batch of features, and the (i−1)th group of loss values, wherein the (i−1)th group of loss values and the ith batch of features indicate the augmentation policy neural network to update a parameter according to a machine learning method, and the augmentation policy neural network performs operations comprising: (Mental Processes: Can be performed in the human mind, or by a human using a pen and paper, making observations, evaluations and judgments as claimed)
splicing, by a splicing module of the augmentation policy neural network, into a vector, the ith batch of features and operation information output by a sampling module, of the augmentation policy neural network, in a previous time step, (Mental Processes: Can be performed in the human mind, or by a human using a pen and paper, making observations, evaluations and judgments as claimed)
generating, by a normalization module of the augmentation policy neural network, a probability distribution of M pieces of operation information in the information set according to the M-dimensional vector output by the long short-term memory unit, wherein the information set is an operation type set, an operation probability set, or an operation magnitude set, and (Mental Processes: Can be performed in the human mind, or by a human using a pen and paper, making observations, evaluations and judgments as claimed)
Step 2A Prong 2: The judicial exceptions are not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim recites these additional elements:
obtaining, by a long short-term memory unit of the augmentation policy neural network, an M-dimensional vector through mapping according to the vector output by the splicing module, wherein M is a length of an information set to which operation information output by the sampling module in a current time step belongs, (Mere instructions to apply an exception as it recites only the idea of a solution or outcome as discussed in MPEP § 2106.05(f))
outputting, by the sampling module, one of the M pieces of operation information through sampling according to the probability distribution. (Mere data gathering, Insignificant extra solution activity in MPEP § 2106.05(g))
Step 2B: The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to
significantly more than the judicial exception.
obtaining, by a long short-term memory unit of the augmentation policy neural network, an M-dimensional vector through mapping according to the vector output by the splicing module, wherein M is a length of an information set to which operation information output by the sampling module in a current time step belongs, (Mere instructions to apply an exception as it recites only the idea of a solution or outcome as discussed in MPEP § 2106.05(f))
outputting, by the sampling module, one of the M pieces of operation information through sampling according to the probability distribution. (receiving or transmitting data, using components and functions claimed at a high level of generality have been determined by the courts as being well-understood, routine, and conventional activities in the field of computer functions (See MPEP § 2106.05(d)(II)(i))
Claim 6 incorporates the rejection of claim 5.
Step 1: The claim recites a method, corresponding to a process, which is one of the four statutory categories of eligible matter.
Step 2A Prong 1: The judicial exceptions of claim 5 are incorporated.
mapping, by a word vector embedding module of the augmentation policy neural network, to a vector in a real number field, the one-hot vector of the operation information output by the sampling module in the previous time step; and (Mental Processes: Can be performed in the human mind, or by a human using a pen and paper, making observations, evaluations and judgments as claimed)
mapping, by the long short-term memory unit, to the M-dimensional vector, the vector output by the word vector embedding module. (Mental Processes: Can be performed in the human mind, or by a human using a pen and paper, making observations, evaluations and judgments as claimed)
Step 2A Prong 2: The judicial exceptions are not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim recites these additional elements:
outputting, by the sampling module, a one-hot vector of the operation information in the previous time step; (Mere data gathering, Insignificant extra solution activity in MPEP § 2106.05(g))
Step 2B: The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to
significantly more than the judicial exception.
outputting, by the sampling module, a one-hot vector of the operation information in the previous time step; (receiving or transmitting data, using components and functions claimed at a high level of generality have been determined by the courts as being well-understood, routine, and conventional activities in the field of computer functions (See MPEP § 2106.05(d)(II)(i))
Claim 7
Step 1: The claim recites a method, corresponding to a process, which is one of the four statutory categories of eligible matter.
Step 2A Prong 1:
the ith batch of policies are policies generated according to an (i−1)th group of loss values;… i is sequentially taken from 2 to N, is a preset positive integer, the ith batch of policies comprises Q-i policies the ith batch of augmentation training sets comprises Q-i augmentation training sets the qth augmentation training set of the ith batch of augmentation training sets is obtained by performing data augmentation on the original training set of the target neural network according to the qth policy of the ith batch of policies where q= 1, ..., Q-i; (Mental Processes: Can be performed in the human mind, or by a human using a pen and paper, making observations, evaluations and judgments as claimed)
Step 2A Prong 2: The judicial exceptions are not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim recites these additional elements:
processing the to-be-processed data according to a target neural network, wherein the target neural network is obtained through N times of training; during ith training of the N times of training, the target neural network is trained by using an ith batch of augmentation training sets; the ith batch of augmentation training sets are training sets obtained by augmenting an original training set according to an ith batch of policies; (Mere instructions to apply an exception as it recites only the idea of a solution or outcome as discussed in MPEP § 2106.05(f))
obtaining to-be-processed data; and (Mere data gathering, Insignificant extra solution activity in MPEP § 2106.05(g))
the ith group of loss values comprises Q-i loss values the qth loss value is obtained by training the target neural network according to the Qth augmentation training set of the ith batch of augmentation training sets for q = 1, ..., Q-i; (Mere instructions to apply an exception as it recites only the idea of a solution or outcome as discussed in MPEP § 2106.05(f))
and Q-i > 1 for at least one integer i in 2 to N-1. (Field of use and technological environment, it does no more than generally link a judicial exception to a particular technological environment. MPEP § 2106.05(h))
Step 2B: The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to
significantly more than the judicial exception.
processing the to-be-processed data according to a target neural network, wherein the target neural network is obtained through N times of training; during ith training of the N times of training, the target neural network is trained by using an ith batch of augmentation training sets; the ith batch of augmentation training sets are training sets obtained by augmenting an original training set according to an ith batch of policies; (Mere instructions to apply an exception as it recites only the idea of a solution or outcome as discussed in MPEP § 2106.05(f))
obtaining to-be-processed data; and (receiving or transmitting data, using components and functions claimed at a high level of generality have been determined by the courts as being well-understood, routine, and conventional activities in the field of computer functions (See MPEP § 2106.05(d)(II)(i))
the ith group of loss values comprises Q-i loss values the qth loss value is obtained by training the target neural network according to the qth augmentation training set of the ith batch of augmentation training sets for q = 1, ..., Q-i; (Mere instructions to apply an exception as it recites only the idea of a solution or outcome as discussed in MPEP § 2106.05(f))
and Q-i > 1 for at least one integer i in 2 to N-1. (Field of use and technological environment, it does no more than generally link a judicial exception to a particular technological environment. MPEP § 2106.05(h))
The courts have found that adding the words "apply it" (or an equivalent) with the
judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer does not
qualify as “significantly more”. (See MPEP § 2106.05(I)(A))
The courts have found that generally linking the use of the judicial exceptions to a
particular technological environment or field of use does not qualify as “significantly more”.
(See MPEP § 2106.05(I)(A))
As an ordered whole, the claim is directed to method of augmenting training sets for a target neural network, this is nothing more than using a loss function to modify the training data. Nothing in the claim provides significantly more than this. As such, the claim is not patent eligible.
Claim 8 incorporates the rejection of claim 7.
Step 1: The claim recites a method, corresponding to a process, which is one of the four statutory categories of eligible matter.
Step 2A Prong 1: The judicial exceptions of claim 7 are incorporated.
wherein the ith batch of policies are generated according to an augmentation policy neural network and the (i−1)th group of loss values, wherein the (i−1)th group of loss values indicate the augmentation policy neural network to update a parameter according to a machine learning method, and the augmentation policy neural network performs operations comprising: (Mental Processes: Can be performed in the human mind, or by a human using a pen and paper, making observations, evaluations and judgments as claimed)
mapping, by a long short-term memory unit of the augmentation policy neural network, operation information output by a sampling module, of the augmentation policy neural network, in a previous time step to an M-dimensional vector, wherein M is a length of an information set to which operation information output by the sampling module in a current time step belongs, (Mental Processes: Can be performed in the human mind, or by a human using a pen and paper, making observations, evaluations and judgments as claimed)
generating, by a normalization module of the augmentation policy neural network, probability distribution of M pieces of operation information in the information set according to the M-dimensional vector output by the long short-term memory unit, wherein the information set is an operation type set, an operation probability set, or an operation magnitude set, and (Mental Processes: Can be performed in the human mind, or by a human using a pen and paper, making observations, evaluations and judgments as claimed)
Step 2A Prong 2: The judicial exceptions are not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim recites these additional elements:
outputting, by the sampling module, one of the M pieces of operation information through sampling according to the probability distribution. (Mere data gathering, Insignificant extra solution activity in MPEP § 2106.05(g))
Step 2B: The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to
significantly more than the judicial exception.
outputting, by the sampling module, one of the M pieces of operation information through sampling according to the probability distribution. (receiving or transmitting data, using components and functions claimed at a high level of generality have been determined by the courts as being well-understood, routine, and conventional activities in the field of computer functions (See MPEP § 2106.05(d)(II)(i))
Claim 9 incorporates the rejection of claim 8.
Step 1: The claim recites a method, corresponding to a process, which is one of the four statutory categories of eligible matter.
Step 2A Prong 1: The judicial exceptions of claim 8 are incorporated.
mapping, by a word vector embedding module of the augmentation policy neural network, to a vector in a real number field, the one-hot vector of the operation information output by the sampling module in the previous time step; and (Mental Processes: Can be performed in the human mind, or by a human using a pen and paper, making observations, evaluations and judgments as claimed)
mapping, by the long short-term memory unit, to the M-dimensional vector, the vector output by the word vector embedding module. (Mental Processes: Can be performed in the human mind, or by a human using a pen and paper, making observations, evaluations and judgments as claimed)
Step 2A Prong 2: The judicial exceptions are not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim recites these additional elements:
outputting, by the sampling module, a one-hot vector of the operation information in the previous time step; (Mere data gathering, Insignificant extra solution activity in MPEP § 2106.05(g))
Step 2B: The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to
significantly more than the judicial exception.
outputting, by the sampling module, a one-hot vector of the operation information in the previous time step; (receiving or transmitting data, using components and functions claimed at a high level of generality have been determined by the courts as being well-understood, routine, and conventional activities in the field of computer functions (See MPEP § 2106.05(d)(II)(i))
Claim 10 incorporates the rejection of claim 7.
Step 1: The claim recites a method, corresponding to a process, which is one of the four statutory categories of eligible matter.
Step 2A Prong 1: The judicial exceptions of claim 7 are incorporated.
wherein the ith batch of policies are generated according to the (i−1)th group of loss values and the ith batch of features, and the ith batch of features are obtained by performing inference on the original training set by using the target neural network trained according to the (i−1)th batch of augmentation training sets. (Mental Processes: Can be performed in the human mind, or by a human using a pen and paper, making observations, evaluations and judgments as claimed)
Step 2A Prong 2: The judicial exceptions are not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim recites these additional elements:
The claim does not recite any additional limitations. Therefore, there are no additional elements to integrate the abstract ideas into a practical application. Merely asserting that a judicial exception is to be carried out on a generic computer (i.e., “A neural network training method: method comprising computer instruction” of base claim 7) cannot meaningfully integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. See MPEP § 2106.05(f).
Step 2B: The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to
significantly more than the judicial exception.
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. Mere instructions to apply an exception (i.e., with the recited information neural network training comprising: method of base claim 7) cannot provide an inventive concept. The claim is not patent eligible.
Claim 11 incorporates the rejection of claim 10.
Step 1: The claim recites a method, corresponding to a process, which is one of the four statutory categories of eligible matter.
Step 2A Prong 1: The judicial exceptions of claim 10 are incorporated.
wherein the ith batch of policies are generated according to an augmentation policy neural network, the ith batch of features, and the (i−1)th group of loss values, wherein the (i−1)th group of loss values and the ith batch of features are used to indicate the augmentation policy neural network to update a parameter according to a machine learning method, and the augmentation policy neural network performs operations comprising: (Mental Processes: Can be performed in the human mind, or by a human using a pen and paper, making observations, evaluations and judgments as claimed)
splicing, by a splicing module of the augmentation policy neural network, into a vector, the ith batch of features and operation information output by a sampling module, of the augmentation policy neural network, in a previous time step, (Mental Processes: Can be performed in the human mind, or by a human using a pen and paper, making observations, evaluations and judgments as claimed)
generating, by a normalization module of the augmentation policy neural network, a probability distribution of M pieces of operation information in the information set according to the M-dimensional vector output by the long short-term memory unit, wherein the information set is an operation type set, an operation probability set, or an operation magnitude set; and (Mental Processes: Can be performed in the human mind, or by a human using a pen and paper, making observations, evaluations and judgments as claimed)
Step 2A Prong 2: The judicial exceptions are not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim recites these additional elements:
obtaining, by a long short-term memory unit of the augmentation policy neural network, an M-dimensional vector through mapping according to the vector output by the splicing module, wherein M is a length of an information set to which operation information output by the sampling module in a current time step belongs; (Mere data gathering, Insignificant extra solution activity in MPEP § 2106.05(g))
outputting, by the sampling module, one of the M pieces of operation information through sampling according to the probability distribution. (Mere data gathering, Insignificant extra solution activity in MPEP § 2106.05(g))
Step 2B: The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to
significantly more than the judicial exception.
obtaining, by a long short-term memory unit of the augmentation policy neural network, an M-dimensional vector through mapping according to the vector output by the splicing module, wherein M is a length of an information set to which operation information output by the sampling module in a current time step belongs; (receiving or transmitting data, using components and functions claimed at a high level of generality have been determined by the courts as being well-understood, routine, and conventional activities in the field of computer functions (See MPEP § 2106.05(d)(II)(i))
outputting, by the sampling module, one of the M pieces of operation information through sampling according to the probability distribution. (receiving or transmitting data, using components and functions claimed at a high level of generality have been determined by the courts as being well-understood, routine, and conventional activities in the field of computer functions (See MPEP § 2106.05(d)(II)(i))
Claim 12 incorporates the rejection of claim 11.
Step 1: The claim recites a method, corresponding to a process, which is one of the four statutory categories of eligible matter.
Step 2A Prong 1: The judicial exceptions of claim 11 are incorporated.
mapping, by a word vector embedding module of the augmentation policy neural network, to a vector in a real number field, the one-hot vector of the operation information output by the sampling module in the previous time step; and (Mental Processes: Can be performed in the human mind, or by a human using a pen and paper, making observations, evaluations and judgments as claimed)
mapping, by the long short-term memory unit, to the M-dimensional vector, the vector output by the word vector embedding module. (Mental Processes: Can be performed in the human mind, or by a human using a pen and paper, making observations, evaluations and judgments as claimed)
Step 2A Prong 2: The judicial exceptions are not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim recites these additional elements:
outputting, by the sampling module, a one-hot vector of the operation information in the previous time step; (Mere data gathering, Insignificant extra solution activity in MPEP § 2106.05(g))
Step 2B: The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to
significantly more than the judicial exception.
outputting, by the sampling module, a one-hot vector of the operation information in the previous time step; (receiving or transmitting data, using components and functions claimed at a high level of generality have been determined by the courts as being well-understood, routine, and conventional activities in the field of computer functions (See MPEP § 2106.05(d)(II)(i))
Claim 13 incorporates the rejection of claim 1.
Step 1: The claim recites an apparatus for implementing the method of claim 1, thus the analysis for patent eligibility of claim 1 is incorporated herein.
Step 2A Prong 1: The judicial exceptions of claim 1 are incorporated. The processor is configured to perform the method according to claim 1. Please see the analysis of claim 1 above. The limitation of claim 13’s preamble is only an additional element to the abstract ideas of claim 1. Regarding the method steps recited in claim 1, these steps cover mental processes based on mathematical relationships, mathematical formulas/equations, or mathematical calculations.
Therefore, claim 13 is directed to an abstract idea – mental processes (i.e., observation and evaluation/judgement/opinion) based on mathematical concepts.
Step 2A Prong 2: The judicial exceptions are not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim recites these additional elements:
a memory, configured to store a program; and (Field of use and technological environment, it does no more than generally link a judicial exception to a particular technological environment. MPEP § 2106.05(h))
a processor, configured to execute the program stored in the memory, wherein when the program stored in the memory is executed, the processor is configured to perform the method according to claim 1. (Mere instructions to apply an exception as it recites only the idea of a solution or outcome as discussed in MPEP § 2106.05(f))
Step 2B: The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to
significantly more than the judicial exception.
a memory, configured to store a program; and (Field of use and technological environment, it does no more than generally link a judicial exception to a particular technological environment. MPEP § 2106.05(h))
a processor, configured to execute the program stored in the memory, wherein when the program stored in the memory is executed, the processor is configured to perform the method according to claim 1. (Mere instructions to apply an exception as it recites only the idea of a solution or outcome as discussed in MPEP § 2106.05(f))
The courts have found that generally linking the use of the judicial exceptions to a
particular technological environment or field of use does not qualify as “significantly more”.
(See MPEP § 2106.05(I)(A))
The courts have found that adding the words "apply it" (or an equivalent) with the
judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer does not
qualify as “significantly more”. (See MPEP § 2106.05(I)(A))
Claim 14 incorporates the rejection of claim 7
Step 1: The claim recites an apparatus for implementing the method of claim 7, thus the analysis for patent eligibility of claim 7 is incorporated herein.
Step 2A Prong 1: The judicial exceptions of claim 7 are incorporated. The processor is configured to perform the method according to claim 7. Please see the analysis of claim 7 above. The limitation of claim 14’s preamble is only an additional element to the abstract ideas of claim 7. Regarding the method steps recited in claim 7, these steps cover mental processes based on mathematical relationships, mathematical formulas/equations, or mathematical calculations.
Therefore, claim 14 is directed to an abstract idea – mental processes (i.e., observation and evaluation/judgement/opinion) based on mathematical concepts.
Step 2A Prong 2: The judicial exceptions are not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim recites these additional elements:
a memory, configured to store a program; and (Field of use and technological environment, it does no more than generally link a judicial exception to a particular technological environment. MPEP § 2106.05(h))
a processor, configured to execute the program stored in the memory, wherein when the program stored in the memory is executed, the processor is configured to perform the method according to claim 7. (Mere instructions to apply an exception as it recites only the idea of a solution or outcome as discussed in MPEP § 2106.05(f))
Step 2B: The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to
significantly more than the judicial exception.
a memory, configured to store a program; and (Field of use and technological environment, it does no more than generally link a judicial exception to a particular technological environment. MPEP § 2106.05(h))
a processor, configured to execute the program stored in the memory, wherein when the program stored in the memory is executed, the processor is configured to perform the method according to claim 7. (Mere instructions to apply an exception as it recites only the idea of a solution or outcome as discussed in MPEP § 2106.05(f))
The courts have found that generally linking the use of the judicial exceptions to a
particular technological environment or field of use does not qualify as “significantly more”.
(See MPEP § 2106.05(I)(A))
The courts have found that adding the words "apply it" (or an equivalent) with the
judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer does not
qualify as “significantly more”. (See MPEP § 2106.05(I)(A))
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 KYLE ALLMAN THOMPSON whose telephone number is (571)272-3671. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Thursday, 6 a.m. - 3 p.m. ET..
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, Kamran Afshar can be reached at (571) 272-7796. 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.
/K.A.T./Examiner, Art Unit 2125
/KAMRAN AFSHAR/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2125
Prosecution Insights