DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
This final office action is in response to the amendment filed 22 April 2026.
Claims 1-2, 4-9, 11-16, and 18-20 are pending. Claims 1, 8, and 15 are independent claims.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 3 March 2026 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
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 1-2, 4-9, 11-16, and 18-20 remain rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
When considering subject matter eligibility under 35 USC 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; MPEP 2106.03). If the claim falls within one of the statutory categories, the second step in the analysis is to determine whether the claim is directed toward a judicial exception (Step 2A; MPEP 2106.04). This step is broken into two prongs.
The first prong (Step 2A, Prong 1) determines 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 at Step 2A, Prong 1 that the claims recite a judicial exception, the analysis proceeds to the second prong (Step 2A, Prong 2; MPEP 2106.04). The second prong (Step 2A, Prong 2) determines whether the claims integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. If the claims do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application, the analysis proceeds to determine whether the claim is a patent-eligible exception (Step 2B; MPEP 2106.05).
If an abstract idea is present int the claim, in order to recite statutory subject matter, 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 amounts to significantly more than the abstract idea itself (see: 2019 PEG).
Step 1:
According to Step 1 of the two Step analysis, claims 1-2 and 4-6 are directed toward a non-transitory machine-readable medium (manufacture). Claims 8-9 and 11-14 are directed toward a method (process). Claims 15-16 and 18-20 are directed toward a system (machine). Therefore, each of these claims falls within one of the four statutory categories.
Claim 1:
Step 2A, Prong 1:
Following the determination that the claims fall within one of the statutory categories (Step 1), it must be determined if the claims recite a judicial exception (Step 2A, Prong 1). In this instance, the claims are determined to recite a judicial exception (abstract idea; mental process).
With respect to independent claim 1, the claim recites:
using a window to select a first set of elements in a vector of elements (mental process; As drafted and under its broadest reasonable interpretation, this limitation covers performance of the limitation in the mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion) or with the aid of pencil and paper but for the recitation of generic computer components. For example, this limitation encompasses performing an observation to narrow a set of elements in a vector into a smaller subset, those within a “window”)
incrementally sliding the window along the vector by a defined number of elements such that the window sequentially assumes multiple different positions relative to the vector, wherein sets of elements included within the window at each consecutive pair of the multiple different positions share at least one common element (mental process; As drafted and under its broadest reasonable interpretation, this limitation covers performance of the limitation in the mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion) or with the aid of pencil and paper but for the recitation of generic computer components. For example, this limitation encompasses performing an observation to narrow the set of elements in a vector into sequential subsets of elements within the “window.” This includes performing an evaluation on a first subset of elements within the “window” at the initial position and subsequently moving the “window” to include a second subset of elements to be evaluated)
at each of the multiple different positions of the window, selecting an element having a highest absolute value and adding the element to an array of selected elements, wherein a first selected element at a first position of the window is, when included in the at least one common element shared between the first position and the second position of the window, excluded from reselection at the second position of the window (mental process; As drafted and under its broadest reasonable interpretation, this limitation covers performance of the limitation in the mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion) or with the aid of pencil and paper but for the recitation of generic computer components. For example, this limitation encompasses performing an evaluation to determine the element within the “window” having the largest absolute value and recording it in an array)
creating a sparsified vector from the vector by retaining elements in the vector that are included in the array of selected elements and replacing other elements in the vector with a defined value (mental process; As drafted and under its broadest reasonable interpretation, this limitation covers performance of the limitation in the mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion) or with the aid of pencil and paper but for the recitation of generic computer components. For example, this limitation encompasses performing an evaluation for elements across the entirety of the vector using the “window” and recording the elements having the largest absolute values in an array. Each of these values may be recorded with the aid of a pencil and paper while the remaining values are recorded as defined value to create the sparsified vector array)
Step 2A, Prong 2:
Accordingly, after determining that a claim recites a judicial exception in Step 2A Prong One, examiners should evaluate whether the claim as a whole integrates the recited judicial exception into a practical application of the exception in Step 2A Prong Two. A claim that integrates a judicial exception into a practical application will apply, rely on, or use the judicial exception in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on the judicial exception, such that the claim is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the judicial exception (MPEP 2106.04(d)).
The claims disclose the following additional element:
a non-transitory machine-readable medium storing a program executable by at least one processing unit of a device, the program comprising sets of instructions
These elements are recited at a high-level of generality such that it amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component (See MPEP 2106.05(f)).
Further, the claim recites the additional element:
during training operation of a neural network, reducing computational overhead by performing a matrix multiplication operation on the sparsified vector instead of the vector, wherein the matrix multiplication operation entails multiplying the sparsified vector by a set of weights or activation values
In this instance, the training is recited at a high-level of generality with no detail of the training process and amounts to no more than adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea. Accordingly, this additional element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea (See MPEP 2106.05(f))
Accordingly, at Step 2A, prong two, the additional elements individually or in combination do no integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Step 2B:
Based on the determination in Step 2A of the analysis that the claims are directed toward a judicial exception, in must be determined if any claims contain any element or combination of elements sufficient to ensure that the claims amount to significantly more than the judicial exception (Step 2B).
The claims disclose the following additional element:
a non-transitory machine-readable medium storing a program executable by at least one processing unit of a device, the program comprising sets of instructions
These elements are recited at a high-level of generality such that it amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component (See MPEP 2106.05(f)).
Further, the claim recites the additional element:
during training operation of a neural network, reducing computational overhead by performing a matrix multiplication operation on the sparsified vector instead of the vector, wherein the matrix multiplication operation entails multiplying the sparsified vector by a set of weights or activation values
In this instance, the training is recited at a high-level of generality with no detail of the training process and amounts to no more than adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea. Accordingly, this additional element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea (See MPEP 2106.05(f))
In this instance, after considering all claim elements individually and as an ordered combination, it is determined that the claims do not include any additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Claim 2:
With respect to dependent claim 2, the claim depends upon independent claim 1. The analysis of claim 1 is incorporated herein by reference.
Step 2A, Prong 1:
With respect to claim 2, the claim recites:
wherein the sparsified vector includes a first selected element and a second selected element, wherein… multiplying the first and second element in the sparsified vector with corresponding elements in an activation vector or a weight vector (mental process; As drafted and under its broadest reasonable interpretation, this limitation covers performance of the limitation in the mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion) or with the aid of pencil and paper but for the recitation of generic computer components. For example, this limitation encompasses performing evaluation of multiplying elements within the sparsified vector by corresponding elements in an activation vector or a weight vector)
Claim 4:
With respect to dependent claim 4, the claim depends upon dependent claim 2. The analysis of claim 2 is incorporated herein by reference.
Step 2A, Prong 1:
With respect to claim 4, the claim recites:
wherein the first selected element is selected from the window when the window is at a first position of the multiple different positions and the first selected element resides at an index that is also included within the window when the window is at a second position of the multiple different positions, and wherein the first selected element is excluded from selection consideration when selecting the second selected element from the window at the second position (mental process; As drafted and under its broadest reasonable interpretation, this limitation covers performance of the limitation in the mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion) or with the aid of pencil and paper but for the recitation of generic computer components. For example, this limitation encompasses performing an observation that the element selected as the element having the highest absolute value while the window is in a first position remains in the window while it is in the second position. Based upon this observation, when performing the evaluation of the element having the highest absolute value is performed, excluding that element)
Claim 5:
With respect to dependent claim 5, the claim depends upon independent claim 1. The analysis of claim 1 is incorporated herein by reference.
Step 2A, Prong 1:
With respect to claim 5, the claim recites:
after selecting a first element from the first set of elements while the window is at a first position and before selecting the second element from a set of elements while the window is at a second position… modifying a value of the first element in the vector to the defined value (mental process; As drafted and under its broadest reasonable interpretation, this limitation covers performance of the limitation in the mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion) or with the aid of pencil and paper but for the recitation of generic computer components. For example, this limitation encompasses performing an evaluation for elements across the entirety of the vector using the “window” and recording the elements having the largest absolute values in an array. Each of these values may be recorded with the aid of a pencil and paper while the remaining values are recorded as defined value to create the sparsified vector array)
Step 2A, Prong 2:
Accordingly, after determining that a claim recites a judicial exception in Step 2A Prong One, examiners should evaluate whether the claim as a whole integrates the recited judicial exception into a practical application of the exception in Step 2A Prong Two. A claim that integrates a judicial exception into a practical application will apply, rely on, or use the judicial exception in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on the judicial exception, such that the claim is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the judicial exception (MPEP 2106.04(d)).
The claims disclose the following additional element:
storing the first element
These elements are recited at a high-level of generality such that it amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component (See MPEP 2106.05(f)).
Accordingly, at Step 2A, prong two, the additional elements individually or in combination do no integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Step 2B:
Based on the determination in Step 2A of the analysis that the claims are directed toward a judicial exception, in must be determined if any claims contain any element or combination of elements sufficient to ensure that the claims amount to significantly more than the judicial exception (Step 2B).
The claims disclose the following additional element:
storing the first element
These elements are recited at a high-level of generality such that it amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component (See MPEP 2106.05(f)).
In this instance, after considering all claim elements individually and as an ordered combination, it is determined that the claims do not include any additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Claim 6:
With respect to dependent claim 6, the claim depends upon independent claim 1. The analysis of claim 1 is incorporated herein by reference.
Step 2A, Prong 1:
With respect to claim 6, the claim recites:
wherein the window, when positioned at one of multiple different positions, includes a third set of elements from a first end of the vector and a fourth set of elements from a second end of the vector (mental process; As drafted and under its broadest reasonable interpretation, this limitation covers performance of the limitation in the mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion) or with the aid of pencil and paper but for the recitation of generic computer components. For example, this limitation encompasses performing an observation to narrow the set of elements in a vector into sequential subsets of elements within the “window.” This includes performing an evaluation on a first subset of elements within the “window” at the initial position having a third set of element from a first end and a fourth subset of element from a second end of the vector to be evaluated)
Claim 7:
With respect to dependent claim 7, the claim depends upon dependent claim 2. The analysis of claim 2 is incorporated herein by reference.
Step 2A, Prong 1:
With respect to claim 7, the claim recites:
wherein the first selected element and the second selected element are different elements in a vector (mental process; As drafted and under its broadest reasonable interpretation, this limitation covers performance of the limitation in the mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion) or with the aid of pencil and paper but for the recitation of generic computer components. For example, this limitation encompasses performing an observation and evaluation to insure that the first selected element and second selected elements are different elements)
Claims 8-9 and 11-14:
With respect to claims 8-9 and 11-14, the claim recites the elements substantially similar to those in claims 1-2 and 4-7, respectively. Claims 8-9 and 11-14 are rejected under similar rationale.
Claims 15-16 and 18-20:
With respect to claims 15-16 and 18-20, the claim recites the elements substantially similar to those in claims 1-2 and 4-6, respectively. Claims 15-16 and 18-20 are rejected under similar rationale.
Claim 15:
Step 2A, Prong 2:
The claims disclose the following additional element:
a set of processing units
a non-transitory machine-readable medium storing instructions that when executed by at least one processing unit in the set of processing units cause the at least one processing unit
a multiplexer implemented in hardware configured
These elements are recited at a high-level of generality such that it amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component (See MPEP 2106.05(f)).
Accordingly, at Step 2A, prong two, the additional elements individually or in combination do no integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Step 2B:
Based on the determination in Step 2A of the analysis that the claims are directed toward a judicial exception, in must be determined if any claims contain any element or combination of elements sufficient to ensure that the claims amount to significantly more than the judicial exception (Step 2B).
The claims disclose the following additional element:
a set of processing units
a non-transitory machine-readable medium storing instructions that when executed by at least one processing unit in the set of processing units cause the at least one processing unit
a multiplexer implemented in hardware configured
These elements are recited at a high-level of generality such that it amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component (See MPEP 2106.05(f)).
In this instance, after considering all claim elements individually and as an ordered combination, it is determined that the claims do not include any additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the rejection of claims under 35 USC 103 have been fully considered and are persuasive. The rejection has been withdrawn.
Applicant's arguments with respect to the rejection of claims under 35 USC 101 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
The applicant’s initial argument is that claim 15 recites hardware, including a multiplexer implemented in hardware, and thus cannot be implemented in the human mind (pages 7-8). The examiner agrees with the applicant’s assertion that a multiplexer implemented in hardware is a hardware component, but respectfully disagrees that this prevents the claim from reciting an abstract idea under Step 2A, Prong 1.
Specifically, the claimed “multiplexer implemented in hardware” is not considered under Step 2A, Prong 1. Instead, the examiner identifies the multiplexer implemented in hardware as an additional element considered under Step 2A, Prong 2 and Step 2B. For this reason, this argument is not persuasive.
The applicant further argues that the claims are not directed toward a judicial exception because the claims integrate any recited judicial exception into a practical application (page 8). To further support this assertion, the applicant argues that the claimed invention improves the function of a computer or improves another technology or technical field (page 8).
The applicant details the alleged improvement and support for the improvement within the specification (9-12). The August 4, 2025 memorandum titled Reminders on evaluating subject matter eligibility of claims under 35 U.S.C. 101, states, “Another consideration when determining whether a claim integrates a judicial exception into a practical application in Step 2A Prong Two is whether the additional elements amount to more than a recitation of the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea or other exception on a computer (page 4).”
In this particular instance, the improvements identified by the applicant are primarily limitations that are indicated by the examiner as being mental processes. Specifically, the limitations:
using a window to select a first set of elements in a vector of elements (mental process; As drafted and under its broadest reasonable interpretation, this limitation covers performance of the limitation in the mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion) or with the aid of pencil and paper but for the recitation of generic computer components. For example, this limitation encompasses performing an observation to narrow a set of elements in a vector into a smaller subset, those within a “window”)
incrementally sliding the window along the vector by a defined number of elements such that the window sequentially assumes multiple different positions relative to the vector, wherein sets of elements included within the window at each consecutive pair of the multiple different positions share at least one common element (mental process; As drafted and under its broadest reasonable interpretation, this limitation covers performance of the limitation in the mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion) or with the aid of pencil and paper but for the recitation of generic computer components. For example, this limitation encompasses performing an observation to narrow the set of elements in a vector into sequential subsets of elements within the “window.” This includes performing an evaluation on a first subset of elements within the “window” at the initial position and subsequently moving the “window” to include a second subset of elements to be evaluated)
at each of the multiple different positions of the window, selecting an element having a highest absolute value and adding the element to an array of selected elements, wherein a first selected element at a first position of the window is, when included in the at least one common element shared between the first position and the second position of the window, excluded from reselection at the second position of the window (mental process; As drafted and under its broadest reasonable interpretation, this limitation covers performance of the limitation in the mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion) or with the aid of pencil and paper but for the recitation of generic computer components. For example, this limitation encompasses performing an evaluation to determine the element within the “window” having the largest absolute value and recording it in an array)
creating a sparsified vector from the vector by retaining elements in the vector that are included in the array of selected elements and replacing other elements in the vector with a defined value (mental process; As drafted and under its broadest reasonable interpretation, this limitation covers performance of the limitation in the mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion) or with the aid of pencil and paper but for the recitation of generic computer components. For example, this limitation encompasses performing an evaluation for elements across the entirety of the vector using the “window” and recording the elements having the largest absolute values in an array. Each of these values may be recorded with the aid of a pencil and paper while the remaining values are recorded as defined value to create the sparsified vector array)
Further, the applicant’s argument includes the additional element “during training operation of a neural network, reducing computational overhead by performing a matrix multiplication operation on the sparsified vector instead of the vector, wherein the matrix multiplication operation entails multiplying the sparsified vector by a set of weights or activation values (page 11).”
However, as noted by the examiner, the training is recited at a high-level of generality with no detail of the training process and amounts to no more than adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea. Accordingly, this additional element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea (See MPEP 2106.05(f))
Therefore, these limitations do not reflect an improvement to the functioning of a computer or to another technology or technical field, integrating a recited judicial exception into a practical application of the exception.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
Lee et al. (US 2019/0191461): Discloses a sliding window excluding elements from evaluation (paragraph 0249)
Lin et al. (US 2023/0259587): Discloses a sliding window including an overlap that excludes objects based on a “hole” (paragraph 0044)
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 KYLE R STORK whose telephone number is (571)272-4130. The examiner can normally be reached 8am - 2pm; 4pm - 6pm.
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, Omar Fernandez Rivas can be reached at 571/272-2589. 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.
/KYLE R STORK/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2128
Prosecution Insights