DETAILED ACTION
This action is responsive to the Application filed on 02/13/2026. Claims 1-5 and 7-18 are pending in the case. Claims 1-5 and 7-18 are pending in the case. Claims 1, 16, and 18 are independent claims. Claim 6 is cancelled and claims 1-4, 7 and 14-18 are amended.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 05/01/2026 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
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.
Claim 1-5 and 7-18 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because they claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Regarding claim 1:
Subject Matter Eligibility Analysis Step 2A Prong 1:
The claim recites defining an efficiency gain function representing changes in resource consumption that occur as a function of both a density level and one or more settings of the first set of settings which, under the broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind. The limitations encompass using judgment to determine a function that mimics the behavior of resource consumption based on variables. See 2106.04.(a)(2).III.C.
The claim recites computing, using the at least one processing unit, a critical density level for the transformer model, wherein computing the critical density level includes taking a derivative of the efficiency gain function with respect to the density level which is an abstract idea (Mathematical Calculations (see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(I)(C))).
The claim recites determining a second set of settings…the second set of settings including the critical density level which, under the broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind. The limitations encompass using judgement to make choose a variable that represents a critical density level. See 2106.04.(a)(2).III.C.
Subject Matter Eligibility Analysis Step 2A Prong 2:
non-transitory machine-readable medium storing a program executable by at least one processing unit of a device… using the at least one processing unit(merely recites a generic computer on which to perform the abstract idea, e.g. "apply it on a computer" (see MPEP 2106.05(f)))
receiving a first set of settings for a transformer model, the first set of settings including one or more model topology parameters and one or more training parameters for the transformer model(recites insignificant extra-solution activity of data gathering (see MPEP 2106.05(g))
the density level corresponding to a proportion of non-zero parameters in the transformer model(merely specifies a particular technological environment in which the abstract idea is to take place, i.e. a field of use (see MPEP 2106.05(h)))
for the transformer mode(merely specifies a particular technological environment in which the abstract idea is to take place, i.e. a field of use (see MPEP 2106.05(h)))
configuring and training the transformer model using the first set of settings, wherein configuring the transformer model includes pruning weight matrices of the transformer model according to the critical density level. (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) and (e) 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).
Additional elements (c) and (d) 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 merely specifies a data gathering step that is limited to a particular data source or a particular type of data, i.e. a field of use (see MPEP 2106.05(h)).
Further, additional element (b) obtaining a network input is well understood, routine, and conventional activity of “transmitting or receiving data over a network" (see MPEP 2106.05(d)(II)(i) using the Internet to gather data, Symantec, 838 F.3d at 1321, 120 USPQ2d at 1362 ).
The additional element(s) (a) (b) (c) (d) and (e) in the claim 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 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 does not contain elements that would warrant a Step 2A Prong 1 analysis.
Subject Matter Eligibility Analysis Step 2A Prong 2:
wherein the one or more model topology parameters include at least one parameter selected from a first group comprising: number of layers and a hidden dimension size, and wherein the one or more training parameters comprises a number of training tokens and batch size (merely specifies a data gathering step that is limited to a particular data source or a particular type of data, i.e. a field of use (see MPEP 2106.05(h)))
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 merely specifies a data gathering step that is limited to a particular data source or a particular type of data, i.e. a field of use (see MPEP 2106.05(h)).
The additional element(s) (a) in the claim 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 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 does not contain elements that would warrant a Step 2A Prong 1 analysis.
Subject Matter Eligibility Analysis Step 2A Prong 2:
wherein the first set of settings comprises a number of layers of the transformer model(merely specifies a data gathering step that is limited to a particular data source or a particular type of data, i.e. a field of use (see MPEP 2106.05(h)))
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 merely specifies a data gathering step that is limited to a particular data source or a particular type of data, i.e. a field of use (see MPEP 2106.05(h)).
The additional element(s) (a) in the claim 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 4:
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 does not contain elements that would warrant a Step 2A Prong 1 analysis.
Subject Matter Eligibility Analysis Step 2A Prong 2:
wherein the first set of settings comprises a size of a hidden dimension of the transformer model(merely specifies a data gathering step that is limited to a particular data source or a particular type of data, i.e. a field of use (see MPEP 2106.05(h)))
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 merely specifies a data gathering step that is limited to a particular data source or a particular type of data, i.e. a field of use (see MPEP 2106.05(h)).
The additional element(s) (a) in the claim 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 5:
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 does not contain elements that would warrant a Step 2A Prong 1 analysis.
Subject Matter Eligibility Analysis Step 2A Prong 2:
wherein the first set of settings further comprises a number of tokens for training the transformer model(merely specifies a data gathering step that is limited to a particular data source or a particular type of data, i.e. a field of use (see MPEP 2106.05(h)))
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 merely specifies a data gathering step that is limited to a particular data source or a particular type of data, i.e. a field of use (see MPEP 2106.05(h)).
The additional element(s) (a) in the claim 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 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 wherein determining the second set of settings further includes determining an adjusted value which, under the broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind. The limitations encompass using judgement to choose or select value. See 2106.04.(a)(2).III.C.
The claim recites solving the efficiency gain function under constraints imposed by the first set of settings and the critical density level which is an abstract idea (Mathematical Calculations (see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(I)(C))).
Subject Matter Eligibility Analysis Step 2A Prong 2:
for at least one model topology parameter(merely specifies a data gathering step that is limited to a particular data source or a particular type of data, i.e. a field of use (see MPEP 2106.05(h)))
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 merely specifies a data gathering step that is limited to a particular data source or a particular type of data, i.e. a field of use (see MPEP 2106.05(h)).
The additional element(s) (a) in the claim 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 8:
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 does not contain elements that would warrant a Step 2A Prong 1 analysis.
Subject Matter Eligibility Analysis Step 2A Prong 2:
wherein the first set of settings further comprises a density value for a plurality of parameters in the transformer model(merely specifies a data gathering step that is limited to a particular data source or a particular type of data, i.e. a field of use (see MPEP 2106.05(h)))
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 merely specifies a data gathering step that is limited to a particular data source or a particular type of data, i.e. a field of use (see MPEP 2106.05(h)).
The additional element(s) (a) in the claim 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 9:
The rejection of claim 8 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:
wherein the second set of settings comprises a number of tokens for training the transformer model(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 the claim 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:
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:
wherein the first set of settings comprises a number of non-zero parameters in the transformer model, a number of tokens for training the transformer model, and a size of a hidden dimension of the transformer model(merely specifies a data gathering step that is limited to a particular data source or a particular type of data, i.e. a field of use (see MPEP 2106.05(h)))
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 merely specifies a data gathering step that is limited to a particular data source or a particular type of data, i.e. a field of use (see MPEP 2106.05(h)).
The additional element(s) (a) in the claim 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:
The rejection of claim 10 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:
wherein the second set of settings further comprises a number of layers of the transformer model(merely specifies a particular technological environment in which the abstract idea is to take place, i.e. a field of use (see MPEP 2106.05(h)))
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 merely specifies a field of use in which the abstract idea is to take place, i.e. a field of use (see MPEP 2106.05(h)).
The additional element(s) (a) in the claim 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 12:
The rejection of claim 10 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:
wherein the second set of settings further comprises a density value for a plurality of parameters in the transformer model(merely specifies a particular technological environment in which the abstract idea is to take place, i.e. a field of use (see MPEP 2106.05(h)))
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 merely specifies a field of use in which the abstract idea is to take place, i.e. a field of use (see MPEP 2106.05(h)).
The additional element(s) (a) in the claim 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 13:
The rejection of claim 12 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:
wherein using the first set of settings and the second set of settings to configure and train the transformer model comprises applying a sparsity technique to the plurality of parameters of the transformer model. (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 the claim 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 14:
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:
wherein the first set of settings comprises a density value for a plurality of parameters in the transformer model, a ratio between a size of a hidden dimension of the transformer model and a number of layers of the transformer model, and a number of tokens for training the transformer model(merely specifies a data gathering step that is limited to a particular data source or a particular type of data, i.e. a field of use (see MPEP 2106.05(h)))
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 merely specifies a data gathering step that is limited to a particular data source or a particular type of data, i.e. a field of use (see MPEP 2106.05(h)).
The additional element(s) (a) in the claim 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 15:
The rejection of claim 14 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:
wherein the second set of settings comprises a number of parameters in the transformer model(merely specifies a particular technological environment in which the abstract idea is to take place, i.e. a field of use (see MPEP 2106.05(h)))
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 merely specifies a data gathering step that is limited to a particular data source or a particular type of data, i.e. a field of use (see MPEP 2106.05(h)).
The additional element(s) (a) in the claim 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 16:
Subject Matter Eligibility Analysis Step 2A Prong 1:
The claim recites defining an efficiency gain function representing changes in resource consumption that occur as a function of both a density level and one or more settings of the first set of settings which, under the broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind. The limitations encompass using judgment to determine a function that mimics the behavior of resource consumption based on variables. See 2106.04.(a)(2).III.C.
The claim recites computing, using the at least one processing unit, a critical density level for the transformer model, wherein computing the critical density level includes taking a derivative of the efficiency gain function with respect to the density level which is an abstract idea (Mathematical Calculations (see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(I)(C))).
The claim recites determining a second set of settings…the second set of settings including the critical density level which, under the broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind. The limitations encompass using judgement to make choose a variable that represents a critical density level. See 2106.04.(a)(2).III.C.
Subject Matter Eligibility Analysis Step 2A Prong 2:
a processing system…by the processing system…with the processing system(merely recites a generic computer on which to perform the abstract idea, e.g. "apply it on a computer" (see MPEP 2106.05(f)))
receiving a first set of settings for a transformer model, the first set of settings including one or more model topology parameters and one or more training parameters for the transformer model(recites insignificant extra-solution activity of data gathering (see MPEP 2106.05(g))
the density level corresponding to a proportion of non-zero parameters in the transformer model(merely specifies a particular technological environment in which the abstract idea is to take place, i.e. a field of use (see MPEP 2106.05(h)))
for the transformer mode(merely specifies a particular technological environment in which the abstract idea is to take place, i.e. a field of use (see MPEP 2106.05(h)))
configuring and training the transformer model using the first set of settings, wherein configuring the transformer model includes pruning weight matrices of the transformer model according to the critical density level. (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) and (e) 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).
Additional elements (c) and (d) 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 merely specifies a data gathering step that is limited to a particular data source or a particular type of data, i.e. a field of use (see MPEP 2106.05(h)).
Further, additional element (b) obtaining a network input is well understood, routine, and conventional activity of “transmitting or receiving data over a network" (see MPEP 2106.05(d)(II)(i) using the Internet to gather data, Symantec, 838 F.3d at 1321, 120 USPQ2d at 1362 ).
The additional element(s) (a) (b) (c) (d) and (e) in the claim 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 17:
The rejection of claim 16 is incorporated and further claim recites further additional
elements/limitations:
Subject Matter Eligibility Analysis Step 2A Prong 1:
The claim recites determine a first loss value for the first transformer model which, under the broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind. The limitations encompass a user making a judgement or determination based on predicted inputs/outputs and ideal/targeted inputs/outputs. See 2106.04.(a)(2).III.C.
The claim recites determine a second loss value for a second transformer model which, under the broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind. The limitations encompass a user making a judgement or determination based on predicted inputs/outputs and ideal/targeted inputs/outputs. See 2106.04.(a)(2).III.C.
The claim recites determining the second set of settings for the transformer model is based on a ratio between the first loss value and the second loss value which, under the broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind. The limitations encompass a user making a choosing a ratio. See 2106.04.(a)(2).III.C.
Subject Matter Eligibility Analysis Step 2A Prong 2:
wherein the transformer model is a first transformer model(merely specifies a data gathering step that is limited to a particular data source or a particular type of data, i.e. a field of use (see MPEP 2106.05(h)))
wherein the instructions further cause the at least one processing unit(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 merely specifies a data gathering step that is limited to a particular data source or a particular type of data, i.e. a field of use (see MPEP 2106.05(h)).
Additional elements (b) 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) and (b) in the claim 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 18:
Subject Matter Eligibility Analysis Step 2A Prong 1:
The claim recites defining an efficiency gain function representing changes in resource consumption that occur as a function of both a density level and one or more settings of the first set of settings which, under the broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind. The limitations encompass using judgment to determine a function that mimics the behavior of resource consumption based on variables. See 2106.04.(a)(2).III.C.
The claim recites computing, using the at least one processing unit, a critical density level for the transformer model, wherein computing the critical density level includes taking a derivative of the efficiency gain function with respect to the density level which is an abstract idea (Mathematical Calculations (see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(I)(C))).
The claim recites determining a second set of settings…the second set of settings including the critical density level which, under the broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind. The limitations encompass using judgement to make choose a variable that represents a critical density level. See 2106.04.(a)(2).III.C.
Subject Matter Eligibility Analysis Step 2A Prong 2:
receiving a first set of settings for a transformer model, the first set of settings including one or more model topology parameters and one or more training parameters for the transformer model(recites insignificant extra-solution activity of data gathering (see MPEP 2106.05(g))
the density level corresponding to a proportion of non-zero parameters in the transformer model(merely specifies a particular technological environment in which the abstract idea is to take place, i.e. a field of use (see MPEP 2106.05(h)))
for the transformer mode(merely specifies a particular technological environment in which the abstract idea is to take place, i.e. a field of use (see MPEP 2106.05(h)))
configuring and training the transformer model using the first set of settings, wherein configuring the transformer model includes pruning weight matrices of the transformer model according to the critical density level. (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 (d) 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).
Additional elements (b) and (c) 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 merely specifies a data gathering step that is limited to a particular data source or a particular type of data, i.e. a field of use (see MPEP 2106.05(h)).
Further, additional element (a) obtaining a network input is well understood, routine, and conventional activity of “transmitting or receiving data over a network" (see MPEP 2106.05(d)(II)(i) using the Internet to gather data, Symantec, 838 F.3d at 1321, 120 USPQ2d at 1362 ).
The additional element(s) (a) (b) (c) (d) and (e) in the claim 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.
Response to arguments:
Applicant’s arguments filed 02/13/2026, with respect to claims have been fully considered and are partially persuasive. The §102 rejection of the claims has been withdrawn as amended language overcomes previous prior art. Amended language also overcomes previous deficiencies and therefor previous §112 has also been withdrawn; however, arguments concerning §101 been fully considered but they are not persuasive and a breakdown of arguments can be found below:
102:
Examiner has found the following amendments defining an efficiency gain function representing changes in resource consumption that occur as a function of both a density level and one or more settings of the first set of settings, the density level corresponding to a proportion of non-zero parameters in the transformer model with the preceding limitation computing, using the at least one processing unit, a critical density level for the transformer model, wherein computing the critical density level includes taking a derivative of the efficiency gain function with respect to the density level to overcome previous prior art.
Closest relevant arts for combination or consideration were:
“A Knee-Guided Evolutionary Algorithm for Compressing Deep Neural Networks” by Zhou et al
“Towards Structured Dynamic Sparse Pre-Training of BERT” by Dietrich
“Block Pruning For Faster Transformer” by Lagunas et al
“Learned Token Pruning for Transformers” by Kim et al
101:
Applicant appears to argue on Page 8-10 that the amended do not simply recite abstract or mathematical concept and integrate that concept into a specific technological process that improves computer functionality by reducing memory and compute requirements for neural network training while maintaining accuracy derived from a mathematical model using an efficiency gain function to quantify changes in the model's resource consumption that occur as a function of both density level and model settings by providing a structured way to evaluate how resource consumption. Applicant asserts the claimed process is tied to a machine (a processing system) and results in a tangible technological benefit: lower memory and compute requirements with preserved accuracy, enabling deployment in resource-constrained environments and cites limitations in claim 1 that collectively correspond to concrete steps for implementing specific, practical application of mathematical modeling and optimized training techniques and solution described in the specification :
1. "Receiving a first set of settings for a transformer model..."
2. "Defining an efficiency gain function representing changes in resource consumption that occur as a function of both a density level and one or more settings of the first set of
settings... "
3. "Computing ... a critical density level for the transformer model [by] taking a derivative of the efficiency gain function with respect to the density level... "
4. "Configuring and training the transformer model, "including by "pruning weight
matrices according to the critical density level. "
Examiner respectfully disagrees as claims do not an positively recite an additional element that provides an improvement in the functioning of a computer/processor/computer technology. Applicants example does not explain how the additional elements reflect this improvement, or how the improvement is affected by any claimed additional elements. At best, applicants example describes in an improvement provided by the claimed abstract idea of determining a function that represents resource consumption and performing to solve. Examiner understands the reduction in memory and computation requirements as the projected outcomes/results and not positively recited in additional elements.
The first limitation highlighted by application is receiving a first set is insignificant extra-solution activity of data gathering (see MPEP 2106.05(g)) and obtaining network input is obtaining a network input is well understood, routine, and conventional activity of “transmitting or receiving data over a network" (see MPEP 2106.05(d)(II)(i) using the Internet to gather data, Symantec, 838 F.3d at 1321, 120 USPQ2d at 1362 ).
Examiner does not clearly see how limitations 2 and 3 that applicant has highlighted provide the improvement as they are considered abstract ideas and improvements must come from the additional elements of the claims.
While limitation 4 states the transformer model will be trained and configured by pruning weight matrices according to the critical density level it does not recite the steps to perform the pruning that results in increased computer functionality by reducing memory and requirement to compute.
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 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
/KAKALI CHAKI/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2122
Prosecution Insights