DETAILED ACTION
This action is responsive to the amendment filed on 06/24/2026. Claims 1-4, 6-13 and 15-20 are pending in the case. Claims 1, 10, and 18 are independent claims. Claims 1-2, 8, 10-11 and 17-18 are amended while claims 5 and 14 are cancelled.
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 .
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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) 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.
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 1-4, 6-13 and 15-20 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claims are directed to an abstract idea or mental process
Regarding claim 1:
Subject Matter Eligibility Analysis Step 2A Prong 1:
The claim recites determining, for each respective input data, kernel adaptation weights corresponding to weight matrices in a category set represented by a plurality of predetermined discrete values which, under the broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind with or without a physical aid. The limitations encompass a user choosing kernel weights. See 2106.04.(a)(2).III.C.
The claim recites determining a unified kernel by selecting two or more of the weight matrices of which the kernel adaptation weights are determined to be “1” which, under the broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind with or without a physical aid. The limitations encompass a user making a choice and selecting matrices using judgement based on kernel weights.
The claim recites summing the selected weight matrices which is an abstract idea (Mathematical Calculations (see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(I)(C))).
The claim recites performing a dynamic convolution operation by applying the unified kernel that is a result of the summing of the selected weight matrices which, under the broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind with or without a physical aid. The limitations encompass a user judging and making evaluations of weight matrices. See 2106.04.(a)(2).III.C. Alternatively the broadest reasonable interpretation of the limitation can be understood to be Mathematical Calculations (see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(I)(C)).
The claim recites wherein the determining of the discrete valued kernel adaptation weights comprises determining the kernel adaptation weights corresponding to the weight matrices in a category set represented by powers of "2" which, under the broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind with or without a physical aid. The limitations encompass a user judging and choosing weights using a representation based on powers of 2/binary encoding . See 2106.04.(a)(2).III.C.
The claim recites wherein the determining of the unified kernel comprises applying a shift operation to each of the selected weight matrices based on the corresponding kernel adaptation weight represented by a power of "2" and summing results of the shift operations which, under the broadest reasonable interpretation, the broadest reasonable interpretation of the limitation can be understood to be Mathematical Calculations using an arithmetic shift and summing results(see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(I)(C)).
Subject Matter Eligibility Analysis Step 2A Prong 2:
The claim does not contain elements that would warrant a Step 2A Prong 2 analysis.
Subject Matter Eligibility Analysis Step 2B:
The claim does not include any additional element, when considered separately and in combination, that amount to an integration of the judicial exception into a practical application, nor to significantly more than the judicial exception. The claim is not patent eligible.
Regarding claim 2:
The rejection of claim 1 is incorporated and further claim recites further additional elements/limitations:
Subject Matter Eligibility Analysis Step 2A Prong 1:
The claim recites generating a plurality of kernel relevance scores corresponding to the respective input data which, under the broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind with or without a physical aid. The limitations encompass a user judging a set of data and creating scores. See 2106.04.(a)(2).III.C.
The claim recites and determining the kernel adaptation weights based on the kernel relevance scores which, under the broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind with or without a physical aid. The limitations encompass a user choosing values based on a set of data. See 2106.04.(a)(2).III.C.
Subject Matter Eligibility Analysis Step 2A Prong 2:
The claim does not contain elements that would warrant a Step 2A Prong 2 analysis.
Subject Matter Eligibility Analysis Step 2B:
The claim does not include any additional element, when considered separately and in combination, that amount to an integration of the judicial exception into a practical application, nor to significantly more than the judicial exception. The claim is not patent eligible.
Regarding claim 3:
The rejection of claim 2 is incorporated and further claim recites further additional elements/limitations:
Subject Matter Eligibility Analysis Step 2A Prong 1:
The claim recites wherein the determining of the kernel adaptation weights based on the kernel relevance scores comprises determining the kernel adaptation weights by performing Gumbel softmax sampling on the kernel relevance scores which is an abstract idea (Mathematical Calculations (see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(I)(C))).
Subject Matter Eligibility Analysis Step 2A Prong 2:
The claim does not contain elements that would warrant a Step 2A Prong 2 analysis.
Subject Matter Eligibility Analysis Step 2B:
The claim does not include any additional element, when considered separately and in combination, that amount to an integration of the judicial exception into a practical application, nor to significantly more than the judicial exception. The claim is not patent eligible.
Regarding claim 4:
The rejection of claim 1 is incorporated and further claim recites further additional elements/limitations:
Subject Matter Eligibility Analysis Step 2A Prong 1:
The claim recites wherein the determining of the kernel adaptation weights comprises determining the kernel adaptation weights corresponding to the weight matrices in a category set represented by "0" and "1" which, under the broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind with or without a physical aid. The limitations encompass a user judging and choosing weights using a representation based on 0 and 1. See 2106.04.(a)(2).III.C.
Subject Matter Eligibility Analysis Step 2A Prong 2:
The claim does not contain elements that would warrant a Step 2A Prong 2 analysis.
Subject Matter Eligibility Analysis Step 2B:
The claim does not include any additional element, when considered separately and in combination, that amount to an integration of the judicial exception into a practical application, nor to significantly more than the judicial exception. The claim is not patent eligible.
Regarding claim 5:
The rejection of claim 4 is incorporated and further claim recites further additional elements/limitations:
Subject Matter Eligibility Analysis Step 2A Prong 1:
The claim recites wherein the determining of the unified kernel comprises determining the unified kernel by summing weight matrices of which the kernel adaptation weights are determined to be "1" which is an abstract idea (Mathematical Calculations (see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(I)(C))).
Subject Matter Eligibility Analysis Step 2A Prong 2:
The claim does not contain elements that would warrant a Step 2A Prong 2 analysis.
Subject Matter Eligibility Analysis Step 2B:
The claim does not include any additional element, when considered separately and in combination, that amount to an integration of the judicial exception into a practical application, nor to significantly more than the judicial exception. The claim is not patent eligible.
Regarding claim 6:
The rejection of claim 1 is incorporated and further claim recites further additional elements/limitations:
Subject Matter Eligibility Analysis Step 2A Prong 1:
The claim recites wherein the determining of the kernel adaptation weights comprises, in a category set represented by "0" and "1 ", determining kernel adaptation weights that correspond to one of a plurality of weight matrices to be "1" which, under the broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind with or without a physical aid. The limitations encompass a user judging and choosing weights using a representation based on 0 and 1 and choosing 1’s. See 2106.04.(a)(2).III.C.
Subject Matter Eligibility Analysis Step 2A Prong 2:
The claim does not contain elements that would warrant a Step 2A Prong 2 analysis.
Subject Matter Eligibility Analysis Step 2B:
The claim does not include any additional element, when considered separately and in combination, that amount to an integration of the judicial exception into a practical application, nor to significantly more than the judicial exception. The claim is not patent eligible.
Regarding claim 7:
The rejection of claim 6 is incorporated and further claim recites further additional elements/limitations:
Subject Matter Eligibility Analysis Step 2A Prong 1:
The claim recites the determining of the unified kernel comprises determining a weight matrix as the unified kernel which, under the broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind with or without a physical aid. The limitations encompass a user choosing an option. See 2106.04.(a)(2).III.C.
Subject Matter Eligibility Analysis Step 2A Prong 2:
The claim does not contain elements that would warrant a Step 2A Prong 2 analysis.
Subject Matter Eligibility Analysis Step 2B:
The claim does not include any additional element, when considered separately and in combination, that amount to an integration of the judicial exception into a practical application, nor to significantly more than the judicial exception. The claim is not patent eligible.
Regarding claim 8:
The rejection of claim 1 is incorporated and further claim recites further additional elements/limitations:
Subject Matter Eligibility Analysis Step 2A Prong 1:
The claim recites determining a unified bias based on biases and the kernel adaptation weights, wherein the performing of the convolution operation comprises performing the convolution operation based on input data, the unified kernel, and the unified bias which is an abstract idea (Mathematical Calculations (see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(I)(C))).
Subject Matter Eligibility Analysis Step 2A Prong 2:
The claim does not contain elements that would warrant a Step 2A Prong 2 analysis.
Subject Matter Eligibility Analysis Step 2B:
The claim does not include any additional element, when considered separately and in combination, that amount to an integration of the judicial exception into a practical application, nor to significantly more than the judicial exception. The claim is not patent eligible.
Regarding claim 9:
The rejection of claim 1 is incorporated and further claim recites further additional elements/limitations:
Subject Matter Eligibility Analysis Step 2A Prong 1:
The claim does not contain elements that would warrant a Step 2A Prong 1 analysis.
Subject Matter Eligibility Analysis Step 2A Prong 2:
A non-transitory computer-readable storage medium storing instructions that, when executed by one or more processors, configure the one or more processors(merely recites a generic computer on which to perform the abstract idea, e.g. "apply it on a computer" (see MPEP 2106.05(f)))
Subject Matter Eligibility Analysis Step 2B:
Additional elements (a) do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application nor do the additional limitation provide significantly more than the abstract idea because the limitation amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Please see MPEP §2106.05(f).
The additional element(s) (a) in claim 9 do/does not include any additional elements , when considered separately and in combination, that amount to an integration of the judicial exception into a practical application, nor significantly more than the judicial exception for the reasons set forth in step 2A prong 2 analysis above. The claim is not patent eligible.
Regarding claim 10:
Subject Matter Eligibility Analysis Step 2A Prong 1:
The claim recites determine, for each respective input data, kernel adaptation weights corresponding to weight matrices in a category set represented by a plurality of predetermined discrete values which, under the broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind with or without a physical aid. The limitations encompass a user choosing kernel weights. See 2106.04.(a)(2).III.C.
The claim recites determine a unified kernel by selecting two or more of the weight matrices of which the kernel adaptation weights are determined to be “1” which, under the broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind with or without a physical aid. The limitations encompass a user making a choice and selecting matrices using judgement based on kernel weights.
The claim recites summing the selected weight matrices which is an abstract idea (Mathematical Calculations (see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(I)(C))).
The claim recites perform a dynamic convolution operation by applying the unified kernel that is a result of the summing of the selected weight matrices which, under the broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind with or without a physical aid. The limitations encompass a user judging and making evaluations of weight matrices. See 2106.04.(a)(2).III.C. Alternatively the broadest reasonable interpretation of the limitation can be understood to be Mathematical Calculations (see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(I)(C)).
The claim recites wherein the determining of the discrete valued kernel adaptation weights comprises determining the kernel adaptation weights corresponding to the weight matrices in a category set represented by powers of "2" which, under the broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind with or without a physical aid. The limitations encompass a user judging and choosing weights using a representation based on powers of 2/binary encoding . See 2106.04.(a)(2).III.C.
The claim recites wherein the determining of the unified kernel comprises applying a shift operation to each of the selected weight matrices based on the corresponding kernel adaptation weight represented by a power of "2" and summing results of the shift operations which, under the broadest reasonable interpretation, the broadest reasonable interpretation of the limitation can be understood to be Mathematical Calculations using an arithmetic shift and summing results(see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(I)(C)).
Subject Matter Eligibility Analysis Step 2A Prong 2:
one or more processors(merely recites a generic computer on which to perform the abstract idea, e.g. "apply it on a computer" (see MPEP 2106.05(f)))
Subject Matter Eligibility Analysis Step 2B:
Additional elements (a) do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application nor do the additional limitation provide significantly more than the abstract idea because the limitation amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Please see MPEP §2106.05(f).
The additional element(s) (a) in claim 10 do/does not include any additional elements , when considered separately and in combination, that amount to an integration of the judicial exception into a practical application, nor significantly more than the judicial exception for the reasons set forth in step 2A prong 2 analysis above. The claim is not patent eligible.
Regarding claim 11-17:
Claims 11-17 are rejected under that same 101 claim analysis due to the substantially similarity of the limitations and additional elements of claims 2-8 found in claims 11-17 respectively.
Regarding claim 18:
Subject Matter Eligibility Analysis Step 2A Prong 1:
The claim recites determining, for each respective input data, discrete valued kernel adaptation weights for weight matrices based on the respective input data which, under the broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind with or without a physical aid. The limitations encompass a user choosing kernel weights. See 2106.04.(a)(2).III.C.
The claim recites determining a unified kernel by selecting two or more of the weight matrices of which the kernel adaptation weights are determined to be “1” which, under the broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind with or without a physical aid. The limitations encompass a user making a choice and selecting matrices using judgement based on kernel weights.
The claim recites summing the selected weight matrices which is an abstract idea (Mathematical Calculations (see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(I)(C))).
The claim recites generating an output by performing dynamic convolution between the respective input data and the unified kernel that is a result of the summing of the selected weight matrices which, under the broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind with or without a physical aid. The limitations encompass a user judging and making evaluations of weight matrices. See 2106.04.(a)(2).III.C. Alternatively the broadest reasonable interpretation of the limitation can be understood to be Mathematical Calculations (see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(I)(C)).
The claim recites wherein the determining of the discrete valued kernel adaptation weights comprises determining the kernel adaptation weights corresponding to the weight matrices in a category set represented by powers of "2" which, under the broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind with or without a physical aid. The limitations encompass a user judging and choosing weights using a representation based on powers of 2/binary encoding . See 2106.04.(a)(2).III.C.
The claim recites wherein the determining of the unified kernel comprises applying a shift operation to each of the selected weight matrices based on the corresponding kernel adaptation weight represented by a power of "2" and summing results of the shift operations which, under the broadest reasonable interpretation, the broadest reasonable interpretation of the limitation can be understood to be Mathematical Calculations using an arithmetic shift and summing results(see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(I)(C)).
Subject Matter Eligibility Analysis Step 2A Prong 2:
The claim does not contain elements that would warrant a Step 2A Prong 2 analysis.
Subject Matter Eligibility Analysis Step 2B:
The claim does not include any additional element, when considered separately and in combination, that amount to an integration of the judicial exception into a practical application, nor to significantly more than the judicial exception. The claim is not patent eligible.
Regarding claim 19:
The rejection of claim 18 is incorporated and further claim recites further additional elements/limitations:
Subject Matter Eligibility Analysis Step 2A Prong 1:
The claim recites determining of the unified kernel comprises selecting one of the weight matrices as the unified kernel which, under the broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind with or without a physical aid. The limitations encompass a user choosing an option. See 2106.04.(a)(2).III.C.
Subject Matter Eligibility Analysis Step 2A Prong 2:
The claim does not contain elements that would warrant a Step 2A Prong 2 analysis.
Subject Matter Eligibility Analysis Step 2B:
The claim does not include any additional element, when considered separately and in combination, that amount to an integration of the judicial exception into a practical application, nor to significantly more than the judicial exception. The claim is not patent eligible.
Regarding claim 20:
The rejection of claim 19 is incorporated and further claim recites further additional elements/limitations:
Subject Matter Eligibility Analysis Step 2A Prong 1:
The claim recites wherein the selecting of the one of the weight matrices comprises selecting one of the weight matrices corresponding to a predetermined weight among the kernel adaptation weights which, under the broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind with or without a physical aid. The limitations encompass a user choosing an option. See 2106.04.(a)(2).III.C.
Subject Matter Eligibility Analysis Step 2A Prong 2:
The claim does not contain elements that would warrant a Step 2A Prong 2 analysis.
Subject Matter Eligibility Analysis Step 2B:
The claim does not include any additional element, when considered separately and in combination, that amount to an integration of the judicial exception into a practical application, nor to significantly more than the judicial exception. The claim is not patent eligible.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 06/24/2026 have been fully considered and found them partially persuasive. A breakdown for the arguments can be found below:
103:
Examiner finds Applicants arguments alongside the amended claims to be persuasive in overcome the prior art rejection and subsequently the prior art rejection has been withdrawn. Specifically, claim language of performing a dynamic convolution operation by applying the unified kernel that is a result of the summing of the selected weight matrices where further limitations that the unified kernel being described as determining of the unified kernel comprises applying a shift operation to each of the selected weight matrices based on the corresponding kernel adaptation weight represented by a power of "2" and summing results of the shift operations alongside the limitation of determining a unified kernel by selecting two or more of the weight matrices of which the kernel adaptation weights are determined to be “1” and summing the selected weight matrices was found to overcome prior art.
101:
Applicant appears to argue on pages 9-10 that the claims do not recite a mathematical concept(mathematical relationships or calculations) while citing to example 38 and 41 while reiterating the examples analysis while asserting the claims are analogous to Example 38 and 41. Additionally, Applicant cites to October 2019 Guidance to support that claims do not recite a mathematical concept.
Examiner respectfully disagrees as each application must be viewed on their own merits. While applicant asserts that the there are similarities between the claims and Example 38/41 Applicant does not specifically point to a limitation that the highlighted examples would apply to nor does the Applicant explain how or why the claims are similar to the examples. Examiner fails to clearly see the parallels between the claims and Example 38 or Example 41. Additionally, the amended claim language no longer recites a possible mathematically relationship, however, claims recite mathematical calculations such as summing the selected weight matrices and performing a dynamic convolution operation as the limitations perform mathematical/arithmetic operations that lack details to integrate into a practical application or language to provide significantly more than the abstract idea.
Applicant appears to argue on pages 11 that the limitations cannot be practically performed in the human mind as operations are too complex to be performed mentally by a human and cites an example of the shift operation recited in the new wherein clause is a specific hardware- level computational mechanism - a bit-shift operation - that cannot be performed mentally by a human.
Examiner respectfully disagrees as the Applicant does not specify how determining kernel adaption weights, determining a unified kernel by selecting weight matrices, determining category sets or applying a shift operation and summing the results of the shift operation cannot performed mentally. Further, although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993). Applicant appears to be interpreting a narrower claim as the current claims do not positively recite a technological information of a bit-shift operation. Additionally, MPEP 2106.05(f)(2) states "claiming the improved speed or efficiency inherent with applying the abstract idea on a computer" does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide an inventive concept
Applicant appears to argue on pages 11-16 that the claims integrate into a practical application and provide an improvement to technology. Specifically, on page 13 Applicant states the claims provide an improvement on the technical fields of neural network processing, convolution and dynamic convolution. Applicant cites to the specification for support of a technological improvement and discusses specifically "determining, for each respective input data, kernel adaptation weights corresponding to weight matrices in a category set represented by a plurality of predetermined discrete values; determining a unified kernel by selecting two or more of the weight matrices of which the kernel adaptation weights are determined to be "1" and summing the selected weight matrices; and performing a dynamic convolution operation by applying the unified kernel that is a result of the summing of the selected weight matrices, wherein the determining of the kernel adaptation weights comprises determining the kernel adaptation weights corresponding to weight matrices in a category set represented by powers of "2"
Examiner respectfully disagrees as, although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993). Applicant appears to be interpreting a narrower claim as the current claims do not positively recite providing a technological improvement concerning the increasing operational quantity or a network accuracy being improved. Performing a convolution operation after summing/aggregating into a single kernel does not amount to an improvement as claims lack a specific step or limitation of the summing/aggregating that reflects the optimization or improvement.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHARLES JEFFREY JONES JR whose telephone number is (703)756-1414. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8:00 - 5:00 EST.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Kakali Chaki can be reached at 571-272-3719. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/C.J.J./Examiner, Art Unit 2122
/MICHAEL H HOANG/PRIMARY EXAMINER, Art Unit 2122
Prosecution Insights