DETAILED ACTION
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 response to the application filed on April 24, 2026, claims 1-3, 7-17, 20-21 are now pending for examination in the application.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments:
In regards to claim 1 on Pages 12-13, applicant argues “Accordingly, it is respectfully submitted that the Office Action has improperly asserted that the claims are directed to an abstract idea. Applicants respectfully submit that the claims, considered as a whole without overgeneralization, are clearly not directed to an abstract Accordingly, it is respectfully submitted that the Office Action has improperly asserted that the claims are directed to an abstract idea. Applicants respectfully submit that the claims, considered as a whole without overgeneralization, are clearly not directed to an abstract,” as recited in claim 1.
Examiner’s Reply:
Making determinations about the loading of data is a mental process. The claims have been evaluated as a whole and when considered in their entirety they still amount to distributing data in a neural network. Allocating/reallocating data merely uses a computer as a tool to distribute data to processors for training data. The additional model training using multiple processors do not add meaningful limitations beyond the abstract idea.
Applicant’s arguments:
In regards to claim 1 on Pages 14, applicant argues “Further, it is respectfully submitted that the pending claims recite patentable subject matter and that the rejection of claims 1-21 under 35 U.S.C. § 101 should be withdrawn because the pending claims should be considered as integrating an alleged abstract idea into a practical application.' The claimed invention improves the functioning of computers in distributed neural network training by reducing communication overhead and improving processor synchronization. This is not a general-purpose improvement to any field using computers. Rather, it is a specific improvement to distributed computing systems.,” as recited in claim 1.
Examiner’s Reply:
Choosing how to efficiently train a neural network is not a technological improvement. The claims are silent with respect to any new training techniques and the amended claims do not integrate the idea into a practical application. The claims merely determine how and when to distribute data for processing. This determination and division of data files is a computer-implemented abstract mental process.
Applicant’s arguments:
In regards to claim 1 on Pages 16, applicant argues “However, if the Office were to reach Step 2B, the claims would satisfy this inquiry as well. The specific hardware-based limitations, e.g., server-based processor grouping, intra- server communication confinement, size-based distribution patterns, predetermined distribution patterns, achieving uniform distribution are significantly more than any alleged judicial exception. These limitations impose meaningful hardware constraints and achieve specific technical improvements that are not well-understood, routine, or conventional in distributed computing systems.,” as recited in claim 1.
Examiner’s Reply:
Machine learning (eg training a neural network) is well-understood, routine, and conventional. The additional hardware elements merely allow a user to determine the most efficient way to train a neural network given a certain amount of processing resources.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1-3, 7-17, 20-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claims 1 and 15 contain subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. There is no support for “wherein the distributing of the sorted data files results in a more uniform distribution of data file sizes among the multiple processors of the same processor group ...”.
Furthermore, There is no support for “wherein the reallocating is performed using communication between the multiple processors in the same processor group that correspond to processors in the same server without using communication between processors in different servers among the plurality of processors.”
Dependent claims 2-3, 7-14, 16-17, and 20-21 is/are also rejected for inheriting the deficiencies of the independent claims from which they depend on.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor, or for pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
Claim(s) 1 and 15 recite “wherein the distributing of the sorted data files results in a more uniform distribution of data file sizes among the multiple processors of the same processor group …” More is a relative term. Thus making the claims indefinite.
Claim(s) 1 and 15 recite “wherein the distributing of the sorted data files results in a more uniform distribution of data file sizes among the multiple processors of the same processor group …” which are intended results. Thus making the claims indefinite.
Claims 2-3, 7-14, 16-17, and 20-21 are also rejected for incorporating the same indefiniteness of their respective base claims.
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 1-3, 7-17, 20-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Claim 1-3, 7-17, 20-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. The eligibility analysis in support of these findings is provided below, in accordance with the 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance, hereinafter 2019 PEG.
Step 1. in accordance with Step 1 of the eligibility inquiry (as explained in MPEP 2106), it is first noted the claim method (claims 1-3, 7-14), and an apparatus (claims 15-17, 20-21) are directed to one of the eligible categories of subject matter and therefore satisfies Step 1.
Step 2A. In accordance with Step 2A, prong one of the 2019 PEG, it is noted that the independent claims recite an abstract idea falling within the Mental Processes enumerated groupings of abstract ideas set forth in the 2019 PEG. Examiner is of the position that independent claims 1 and 15 are directed towards the Mental Process Grouping of Abstract Ideas.
Independent claim(s) 1, 14, and 15 recites the following limitations directed towards a Mental Processes & Mathematical Concepts:
determining a data file size range corresponding to each of a plurality of subsets of a training data set, based on a distribution of sizes of a plurality of data files included in the training data set (The limitation recites a mental process of observation and/or evaluation capable of being performed by the human mind by using computer as a tool to determining a size range);
dividing the training data set into the plurality of subsets based on the data file size range (The limitation recites a mathematical concept of dividing training data);
determining a number of data files to be extracted from each of the plurality of subsets, based on a corresponding proportion of a total number of the plurality of data files that are in a corresponding subset and a batch size of distributed training (The limitation recites a mental process of observation and/or evaluation capable of being performed by the human mind by using computer as a tool to determining files to be extracted),
extracting, from each of the plurality of subsets, the determined number of data files (The limitation recites a mental process of observation and/or evaluation capable of being performed by the human mind by using computer as a tool to extracting files);
reallocating, based on sizes of the extracted data files loaded to the processors within the same processor group, the extracted data files among processors within the same processor group (The limitation recites a mental process of observation and/or evaluation capable of being performed by the human mind by using computer as a tool to reallocating files),
wherein the reallocating of the loaded extracted data files comprises:
sorting the portion of the data files loaded to the multiple processors of the same processor group in an order of sizes, and
for each of distribution time in which one data file is allocated to each of the multiple processors (The limitation recites a mental process of observation and/or evaluation capable of being performed by the human mind by using computer as a tool to sorting files),
distributing the sorted data files to the multiple processors in the same processor group in a distribution order that alternates between a first order determined in advance and a second order that is a reverse order of the first order, and
wherein the distributing in the first order and the distributing in the second order is repetitively performed with the batch size (The limitation recites a mental process of observation and/or evaluation capable of being performed by the human mind by using computer as a tool to distributing files); and
wherein the distributing of the sorted data files results in a more uniform distribution of data file sizes among the multiple processors of the same processor group (The limitation recites a mental process of observation and/or evaluation capable of being performed by the human mind by using computer as a tool to uniformly distributing files).
Step 2A. In accordance with Step 2A, prong two of the 2019 PEG, the judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because of the recitation in claim(s) 1, 14, and 15:
loading, for each of the plurality of subsets, the extracted data files to processors, within the same processor group among the plural processor groups (recites insignificant extra solution activity that amounts to loading files);
performing the distributed training of the neural network model using a result of the reallocating and the multiple processors within the same processor group corresponding to processors in a same server,
wherein the reallocating is performed using communication between the multiple processors in the same processor group that correspond to processors in the same server without using communication between processors in different servers among the plurality of processors (recites insignificant extra solution activity that amounts to training a neural network).
Step 2B. Similar to the analysis under 2A Prong Two, the claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. Because the additional elements of the independent claims amount to insignificant extra solution activity and/or mere instructions, the additional elements do not add significantly more to the judicial exception such that the independent claims as a whole would be patent eligible.
Therefore, independent claims 1, 14, and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101.
With respect to claim(s) 2 and 16:
Step 2A, prong one of the 2019 PEG:
performing the Separating, based on the data file size range, of the training data set into the plurality of subsets corresponding to predetermined intervals,
wherein, with respect to the separated training data, each of the plurality of subsets includes a respective data file, having a corresponding size, belonging to a corresponding interval among the predetermined intervals, with each of the predetermined intervals having a predetermined size and each of the predetermined intervals corresponding to a respective portion of data file size range corresponding to the training data (The limitation recites a mathematical concept of dividing training data).
Step 2A Prong Two Analysis:
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because there are no
additional elements to provide practical application.
Step 2B Analysis:
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. The claim is not patent eligible.
With respect to claim(s) 3 and 17:
Step 2A, prong one of the 2019 PEG:
performing the separating, based on the sizes of the data files, of the training data set into the plurality of subsets by the training data set into a predetermined number of subsets based on a cumulative distribution function (CDF) for the sizes of the data files such that each of the plurality of subsets comprises a same number of data files (The limitation recites a mathematical concept of dividing training data).
Step 2A Prong Two Analysis:
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because there are no
additional elements to provide practical application.
Step 2B Analysis:
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. The claim is not patent eligible.
With respect to claim(s) 7 and 21:
Step 2A, prong one of the 2019 PEG:
determining a number of data files to be extracted from the subset based on the proportion of the number of data files of the plurality of subsets in the subset and the batch size (The limitation recites a mental process of observation and/or evaluation capable of being performed by the human mind by to determining files to extracted).
Step 2A Prong Two Analysis:
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because there are no
additional elements to provide practical application.
Step 2B Analysis:
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. The claim is not patent eligible.
With respect to claim(s) 8:
Step 2A, prong one of the 2019 PEG:
a number of data files extracted from the first subset among the plurality of data files
loaded to the first processor is equal to a number of data files extracted from the first subset
among data files loaded to the second processor (The limitation recites a mental process of observation and/or evaluation capable of being performed by the human mind by to extracting files.
Step 2A Prong Two Analysis:
the plurality of processors comprises a first processor and a second processor, the plurality of subsets comprises a first subset (i.e., as a generic processor/component performing a generic computer function).
Step 2B Analysis:
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. The claim is not patent eligible.
With respect to claim(s) 9:
Step 2A, prong one of the 2019 PEG:
wherein a number of the plurality of subsets is determined based on any one or any combination of any two or more of a number of the plurality of processors, the batch size, and an input of a user (The limitation recites a mental process of observation and/or evaluation capable of being performed by the human mind by to determining files to extracted).
Step 2A Prong Two Analysis:
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because there are no
additional elements to provide practical application.
Step 2B Analysis:
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. The claim is not patent eligible.
With respect to claim(s) 10:
Step 2A, prong one of the 2019 PEG:
Examiner is of the position the dependent claim is directed toward additional elements.
Step 2A Prong Two Analysis:
wherein the same processor group comprises a set of processors in a same server (i.e., as a generic processor/component performing a generic computer function).
Step 2B Analysis:
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. The claim is not patent eligible.
With respect to claim(s) 11:
Step 2A, prong one of the 2019 PEG:
Examiner is of the position the dependent claim is directed toward additional elements.
Step 2A Prong Two Analysis:
natural language text data for training a natural language processing (NLP) model (recites insignificant extra solution activity that amounts to loading data); and
speech data for training the NLP model (recites insignificant extra solution activity that amounts to loading data).
Step 2B Analysis:
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. The claim is not patent eligible.
With respect to claim(s) 12:
Step 2A, prong one of the 2019 PEG:
Examiner is of the position the dependent claim is directed toward additional elements.
Step 2A Prong Two Analysis:
wherein the multiple processors comprise a graphics processing unit (GPU) (i.e., as a generic processor/component performing a generic computer function).
Step 2B Analysis:
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. The claim is not patent eligible.
With respect to claim(s) 13:
Step 2A, prong one of the 2019 PEG:
Examiner is of the position the dependent claim is directed toward additional elements.
Step 2A Prong Two Analysis:
performing, using the multiple processors of the same processor group, one or more training operations of a deep learning model based on the reallocated data files. (recites insignificant extra solution activity that amounts to training a model).
Step 2B Analysis:
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. The claim is not patent eligible.
With respect to claim(s) 20:
Step 2A, prong one of the 2019 PEG:
20. (Currently amended) The apparatus of claim 1915, wherein the plurality of processors are configured to repetitively perform the distributing in the first order and the distributing in the second order within the batch size (The limitation recites a mental process of observation and/or evaluation capable of being performed by the human mind by to distribute data files).
Step 2A Prong Two Analysis:
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because there are no
additional elements to provide practical application.
Step 2B Analysis:
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. The claim is not patent eligible.
The claims are not rejected over prior art.
Relevant Prior Art
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
US PG-Patent. No. 11157812 is directed to Systems And Methods For Tuning Hyperparameters Of A Model And Advanced Curtailment Of A Training Of The Model: [Column 17 Lines 1-14] It shall be recognized that, while intervals and/or a frequency for implementing a checkpoint evaluation may be set based on epochs (i.e., an epoch-based interval), S230 may function to set a frequency and/or an interval for checkpoint evaluations based on any suitable training timing measure including based on a completion of training a subject model on a predetermined number of batches or the like. In such embodiments, a full training dataset for a training cycle or epoch may be divided into distinct batches of training data (i.e., a subset of the full training dataset) and thus, intervals for checkpoint evaluations may be set according to a completion of training a subject model on a certain number of batches of training data (e.g., 4 out of 8 total batches of training data) of the full training dataset.
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 NICHOLAS E ALLEN whose telephone number is (571)270-3562. The examiner can normally be reached Monday through Thursday 830-630.
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, Boris Gorney can be reached at (571) 270-5626. 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.
/N.E.A/Examiner, Art Unit 2154
/BORIS GORNEY/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2154
Prosecution Insights