DETAILED ACTION
This action is in response to the Applicant Response filed 20 February 2026 for application 17/900,522 filed 31 August 2022.
Claim(s) 1, 5, 7-10, 13, 15, 17-18 is/are currently amended.
Claim(s) 1-20 is/are pending.
Claim(s) 1-20 is/are rejected.
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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments regarding the objections to the claims have been fully considered and, in light of the amendments to the claims, are persuasive.
Applicant's arguments regarding the 35 U.S.C. 112(b) rejection(s) of claim(s) 1-20 have been fully considered and, in light of the amendments to the claims, are persuasive. The 35 U.S.C. 112(b) rejection(s) of claim(s) 1-20 has/have been withdrawn.
Applicant’s arguments regarding the double patenting rejection have been fully considered and, in light of the terminal disclaimer filed 20 February 2026, the arguments are persuasive. The double patenting rejection has been withdrawn.
Applicant's arguments regarding the 35 U.S.C. 101 rejection of claim 1-20 have been fully considered but are not persuasive.
Applicant first argues that the claims provide a practical application of generating an output in a DNN model which improves that functioning of a computer or technology. Then examiner proceeds to list a plethora of potential technologies. Examiner respectfully disagrees. The MPEP states that pre-emption is what drives the eligibility analysis. MPEP 2106.04. The MPEP further states that 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). An improvement must cover a particular solution as opposed to merely claiming the idea of a solution. MPEP 2106.05(a). Here, generating a model output that can be used in various fields does not provide a particular solution. Further, not only would finding eligibility for generating an output prevent others from using a model in any way, the generic generation of a DNN output provides no meaningful limit on the exception. Additionally, the MPEP states that the judicial exception cannot provide the improvement. Therefore, the weight modification cannot provide an improvement since, as noted below, the weight modification is the judicial exception.
Applicant next argues that the lack of a prior art rejection creates eligibility under step 2B. Examiner respectfully disagrees. Examiner first notes that a lack of prior art rejections under 35 U.S.C. 102 and/or 103 does not automatically demonstrate eligibility under 35 U.S.C. 101. MPEP 2106 describes the analysis for 35 U.S.C. 101 and, as detailed below, the claims do not recite significantly more than the abstract idea.
Applicant next argues that in light of Desjardins, the claim is eligible. Examiner respectfully disagrees. Desjardins includes an improvement related to catastrophic forgetting while the claims in the instant application only recite machine learning at a high level to perform an abstract idea, as detailed below. While Desjardins provides a specific training strategy that allows models to preserve performance on earlier tasks even as it learns new ones, the current claims merely employ generic machine learning at a high level to process data based on simple modifications to weight values.
The remainder of applicant’s arguments regarding are based on the newly amended subject matter. All arguments are addressed in the 35 U.S.C. 101 rejection of the claims below.
Therefore, the 35 U.S.C. 101 rejection of claims 1-20 is maintained.
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 5, 17-20 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 applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 5 recites applies the weight perturbation to the weight while failing to provide a proper antecedent basis for “the weight.” Claim 1, from which claim 5 depends, recites a plurality of weights, and it is unclear to which of the plurality the term refers. It is suggested that the phrase be amended to recite “applies the weight perturbation to a weight.” Correction or clarification is required.
Claim 17 recites applies the weight perturbation to the weight while failing to provide a proper antecedent basis for “the weight.” Claim 1, from which claim 17 depends, recites a plurality of weights, and it is unclear to which of the plurality the term refers. It is suggested that the phrase be amended to recite “applies the weight perturbation to a weight.” Correction or clarification is required.
Claims 18-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) due to their dependence, either directly or indirectly, on claim(s) 5, 17.
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(s) 1-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101, because the claim(s) is/are directed to an abstract idea, and because the claim elements, whether considered individually or in combination, do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea, see Alice Corporation Pty. Ltd. V. CLS Bank International et al., 573 US 208 (2014).
Regarding claim 1, the claim is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1 Analysis: Claim 1 is directed to a process, one of the statutory categories.
Step 2A Prong One Analysis: The claim recites a(n) process of generating an output in a deep neural networks (DNN) model.
The limitation of sample a change of a weight of a plurality of weights that corresponds to the plurality of nodes based on a distribution function, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers a mental process. The limitation is directed to observation, evaluation, judgment and opinion and is a process capable of being performed by a human mentally or using pen and paper.
The limitation of update the weight with the change of the weight multiplied by a mathematical sign of the weight, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers a mental process. The limitation is directed to observation, evaluation, judgment and opinion and is a process capable of being performed by a human mentally or using pen and paper.
The limitation of train the DNN model by iterating steps of sampling the change of the weight and updating the weight to be modified according to a distribution function to obtain a determined rate of sparsity of the plurality of weights, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers a mental process. The limitation is directed to observation, evaluation, judgment and opinion and is a process capable of being performed by a human mentally or using pen and paper.
If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind, then it falls within the "Mental Processes" grouping. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
Step 2A Prong Two Analysis: With respect to the abstract idea, the judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application.
The claim recites additional element(s) – processor. The additional element(s) is/are recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as generic computer components performing generic computer functions of executing instructions on the computers) such that it amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components (MPEP 2106.05(b)).
The claim recites additional element(s) – deep neural networks (DNN) model, layer including a plurality of nodes, connected node for receiving input from the plurality of nodes, distribution function. The additional element(s) is/are recited at a high-level of generality such that it amounts to no more than indicating a field of use or technological environment in which to apply the judicial exception (MPEP 2106.05(h)).
The claim recites processor configured to run a deep neural networks (DNN) model which is simply applying a model recited at a high level of generality and amounts to the recitation of the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) or amounts to no more than mere instructions to implement an abstract idea or other exception on a computer (MPEP 2106.05(f)).
The claim recites connected node for receiving input from the plurality of nodes, which is simply transmitting data recited at a high level of generality. This is nothing more than insignificant extra-solution activity (MPEP 2106.05(g)).
The claim recites the mathematical sign of the weight update is always opposite of the weight, at each iteration, so that a positive weight is decreasingly updated, and a negative weight is increasingly updated, which is simply additional information regarding the weights, and the element(s) do(es) not apply the exception in a meaningful way (MPEP 2106.05(e)).
Accordingly, the additional element(s) do(es) not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because the additional element(s) do(es) not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea, and, therefore, the claim is directed to an abstract idea.
Step 2B Analysis: The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to the integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional element(s) of:
processor amount(s) to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components (MPEP 2106.05(b))
applying a model amount(s) to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception (MPEP 2106.05(f))
transmitting data amount(s) to no more than insignificant extra-solution activity (MPEP 2106.05(g)), wherein the insignificant extra-solution activity is the well-understood routine and conventional activit(y/ies) of receiving or transmitting data over a network and/or storing and retrieving information in memory (MPEP 2016.05(d))
deep neural networks (DNN) model, layer including a plurality of nodes, connected node for receiving input from the plurality of nodes, distribution function amount(s) to no more than indicating a field of use or technological environment in which to apply the judicial exception (MPEP 2106.05(h))
additional information regarding the weights do(es) not apply the exception in a meaningful way (MPEP 2106.05(e))
The additional element(s) do(es) not provide an inventive concept, and, therefore, the claim is not patent eligible.
Regarding claim 2, the claim is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1 Analysis: Claim 2 is directed to a process, one of the statutory categories.
Step 2A Prong One Analysis: The claim recites a(n) process of generating an output in a deep neural networks (DNN) model.
The limitation of wherein each of the inputs is multiplied by each of the corresponding weights, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers a mathematical concept. The limitation encompasses multiplication.
If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of mathematical concepts, then it falls within the "Mathematical Concepts" grouping. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
Step 2A Prong Two Analysis: With respect to the abstract idea, the judicial exception is not integrated
into a practical application. The claim does not recite any additional elements which integrate the
abstract idea into a practical application and, therefore, does not impose any meaningful limits on
practicing the abstract idea. Therefore, the claim is directed to an abstract idea.
Step 2B Analysis: The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to
significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to the integration of the
abstract idea into a practical application, the claim does not recite any additional elements which
provide an inventive concept, and, therefore, the claim is not patent eligible.
Regarding claim 3, the claim is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1 Analysis: Claim 3 is directed to a process, one of the statutory categories.
Step 2A Prong One Analysis: The claim recites a(n) process of generating an output in a deep neural networks (DNN) model.
The limitation of wherein products of the inputs by the weights are added together ..., as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers a mathematical concept. The limitation encompasses addition.
If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of mathematical concepts, then it falls within the "Mathematical Concepts" grouping. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
Step 2A Prong Two Analysis: With respect to the abstract idea, the judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application.
The claim recites additional element(s) – adder, activation logic. The additional element(s) is/are recited at a high-level of generality such that it amounts to no more than indicating a field of use or technological environment in which to apply the judicial exception (MPEP 2106.05(h)).
The claim recites ... using an adder and are fed to an activation logic which is simply applying a model recited at a high level of generality and amounts to the recitation of the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) or amounts to no more than mere instructions to implement an abstract idea or other exception on a computer (MPEP 2106.05(f)).
Accordingly, the additional element(s) do(es) not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because the additional element(s) do(es) not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea, and, therefore, the claim is directed to an abstract idea.
Step 2B Analysis: The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to the integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional element(s) of:
applying a model amount(s) to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception (MPEP 2106.05(f))
adder, activation logic amount(s) to no more than indicating a field of use or technological environment in which to apply the judicial exception (MPEP 2106.05(h))
The additional element(s) do(es) not provide an inventive concept, and, therefore, the claim is not patent eligible.
Regarding claim 4, the claim is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1 Analysis: Claim 4 is directed to a process, one of the statutory categories.
Step 2A Prong One Analysis: The claim recites a(n) process of generating an output in a deep neural networks (DNN) model. The Step 2A Prong One Analysis for claim 3 is applicable here since claim 4 carries out the process of claim 3 but for the recitation of additional element(s) of wherein the activation logic provides an output by determining whether and to what extent a summed data from the adder progresses further to another connected node through the DNN network to affect an ultimate outcome.
Step 2A Prong Two Analysis: With respect to the abstract idea, the judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application.
The claim recites wherein the activation logic provides an output by determining whether and to what extent a summed data from the adder progresses further to another connected node through the DNN network to affect an ultimate outcome which is simply additional information regarding the model, and the element(s) do(es) not apply the exception in a meaningful way (MPEP 2106.05(e)).
The claim recites wherein the activation logic provides an output by determining whether and to what extent a summed data from the adder progresses further to another connected node through the DNN network to affect an ultimate outcome which is simply applying a model recited at a high level of generality and amounts to the recitation of the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) or amounts to no more than mere instructions to implement an abstract idea or other exception on a computer (MPEP 2106.05(f)).
Accordingly, the additional element(s) do(es) not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because the additional element(s) do(es) not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea, and, therefore, the claim is directed to an abstract idea.
Step 2B Analysis: The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to the integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional element(s) of:
applying a model amount(s) to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception (MPEP 2106.05(f))
additional information regarding the model do(es) not apply the exception in a meaningful way (MPEP 2106.05(e))
The additional element(s) do(es) not provide an inventive concept, and, therefore, the claim is not patent eligible.
Regarding claim 5, the claim is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1 Analysis: Claim 5 is directed to a process, one of the statutory categories.
Step 2A Prong One Analysis: The claim recites a(n) process of generating an output in a deep neural networks (DNN) model.
The limitation of ... generates a weight perturbation, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers a mental process. The limitation is directed to observation, evaluation, judgment and opinion and is a process capable of being performed by a human mentally or using pen and paper.
The limitation of ... applies the weight perturbation to the weight, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers a mental process. The limitation is directed to observation, evaluation, judgment and opinion and is a process capable of being performed by a human mentally or using pen and paper.
If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind, then it falls within the "Mental Processes" grouping. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
Step 2A Prong Two Analysis: With respect to the abstract idea, the judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application.
The claim recites additional element(s) – random number generating hardware. The additional element(s) is/are recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as generic computer components performing generic computer functions of executing instructions on the computers) such that it amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components (MPEP 2106.05(b)).
Accordingly, the additional element(s) do(es) not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because the additional element(s) do(es) not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea, and, therefore, the claim is directed to an abstract idea.
Step 2B Analysis: The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to the integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional element(s) of:
random number generating hardware amount(s) to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components (MPEP 2106.05(b))
The additional element(s) do(es) not provide an inventive concept, and, therefore, the claim is not patent eligible.
Regarding claim 6, the claim is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1 Analysis: Claim 6 is directed to a process, one of the statutory categories.
Step 2A Prong One Analysis: The claim recites a(n) process of generating an output in a deep neural networks (DNN) model. The Step 2A Prong One Analysis for claim 1 is applicable here since claim 6 carries out the process of claim 1 but for the recitation of additional element(s) of an image sensor or a camera for receiving an image input.
Step 2A Prong Two Analysis: With respect to the abstract idea, the judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application.
The claim recites additional element(s) – image sensor, camera. The additional element(s) is/are recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as generic computer components performing generic computer functions of executing instructions on the computers) such that it amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components (MPEP 2106.05(b)).
The claim recites an image sensor or a camera for receiving an image input, which is simply transmitting data recited at a high level of generality. This is nothing more than insignificant extra-solution activity (MPEP 2106.05(g)).
Accordingly, the additional element(s) do(es) not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because the additional element(s) do(es) not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea, and, therefore, the claim is directed to an abstract idea.
Step 2B Analysis: The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to the integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional element(s) of:
image sensor, camera amount(s) to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components (MPEP 2106.05(b))
transmitting data amount(s) to no more than insignificant extra-solution activity (MPEP 2106.05(g)), wherein the insignificant extra-solution activity is the well-understood routine and conventional activit(y/ies) of receiving or transmitting data over a network and/or storing and retrieving information in memory (MPEP 2016.05(d))
The additional element(s) do(es) not provide an inventive concept, and, therefore, the claim is not patent eligible.
Regarding claim 7, the claim is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1 Analysis: Claim 7 is directed to a process, one of the statutory categories.
Step 2A Prong One Analysis: The claim recites a(n) process of generating an output in a deep neural networks (DNN) model. The Step 2A Prong One Analysis for claim 6 is applicable here since claim 7 carries out the process of claim 6 but for the recitation of additional element(s) of wherein the processor trains the DNN model using the input image and updates the images stored in an image repository.
Step 2A Prong Two Analysis: With respect to the abstract idea, the judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application.
The claim recites additional element(s) – image repository. The additional element(s) is/are recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as generic computer components performing generic computer functions of executing instructions on the computers) such that it amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components (MPEP 2106.05(b)).
The claim recites wherein the processor trains the DNN model using the input image ... which is simply generic training to perform the abstract idea of data generation and amounts to mere instructions to apply the exception (MPEP 2106.05(f)).
The claim recites ... updates the images stored in an image repository, which is simply storing data recited at a high level of generality. This is nothing more than insignificant extra-solution activity (MPEP 2106.05(g)).
Accordingly, the additional element(s) do(es) not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because the additional element(s) do(es) not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea, and, therefore, the claim is directed to an abstract idea.
Step 2B Analysis: The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to the integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional element(s) of:
image repository amount(s) to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components (MPEP 2106.05(b))
generic training to perform the abstract idea amount(s) to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception (MPEP 2106.05(f))
storing data amount(s) to no more than insignificant extra-solution activity (MPEP 2106.05(g)), wherein the insignificant extra-solution activity is the well-understood routine and conventional activit(y/ies) of receiving or transmitting data over a network and/or storing and retrieving information in memory (MPEP 2016.05(d))
The additional element(s) do(es) not provide an inventive concept, and, therefore, the claim is not patent eligible.
Regarding claim 8, the claim is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1 Analysis: Claim 8 is directed to a process, one of the statutory categories.
Step 2A Prong One Analysis: The claim recites a(n) process of generating an output in a deep neural networks (DNN) model.
The limitation of classify or segment an image, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers a mental process. The limitation is directed to observation, evaluation, judgment and opinion and is a process capable of being performed by a human mentally or using pen and paper.
The limitation of detect an object within an image, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers a mental process. The limitation is directed to observation, evaluation, judgment and opinion and is a process capable of being performed by a human mentally or using pen and paper.
If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind, then it falls within the "Mental Processes" grouping. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
Step 2A Prong Two Analysis: With respect to the abstract idea, the judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application.
The claim recites additional element(s) – image repository. The additional element(s) is/are recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as generic computer components performing generic computer functions of executing instructions on the computers) such that it amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components (MPEP 2106.05(b)).
The claim recites receive an image; update an image repository, which is simply transmitting and storing data recited at a high level of generality. This is nothing more than insignificant extra-solution activity (MPEP 2106.05(g)).
Accordingly, the additional element(s) do(es) not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because the additional element(s) do(es) not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea, and, therefore, the claim is directed to an abstract idea.
Step 2B Analysis: The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to the integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional element(s) of:
image repository amount(s) to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components (MPEP 2106.05(b))
transmitting and storing data amount(s) to no more than insignificant extra-solution activity (MPEP 2106.05(g)), wherein the insignificant extra-solution activity is the well-understood routine and conventional activit(y/ies) of receiving or transmitting data over a network and/or storing and retrieving information in memory (MPEP 2016.05(d))
The additional element(s) do(es) not provide an inventive concept, and, therefore, the claim is not patent eligible.
Regarding claim 9, the claim is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1 Analysis: Claim 9 is directed to a process, one of the statutory categories.
Step 2A Prong One Analysis: The claim recites a(n) process of generating an output in a deep neural networks (DNN) model. The Step 2A Prong One Analysis for claim 1 is applicable here since claim 9 carries out the process of claim 1 but for the recitation of additional element(s) of wherein the DNN is a convolutional neural network (CNN).
Step 2A Prong Two Analysis: With respect to the abstract idea, the judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application.
The claim recites wherein the DNN is a convolutional neural network (CNN) which is simply additional information regarding the DNN, and the element(s) do(es) not apply the exception in a meaningful way (MPEP 2106.05(e)).
The claim recites additional element(s) – convolutional neural network. The additional element(s) is/are recited at a high-level of generality such that it amounts to no more than indicating a field of use or technological environment in which to apply the judicial exception (MPEP 2106.05(h)).
Accordingly, the additional element(s) do(es) not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because the additional element(s) do(es) not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea, and, therefore, the claim is directed to an abstract idea.
Step 2B Analysis: The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to the integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional element(s) of:
convolutional neural network amount(s) to no more than indicating a field of use or technological environment in which to apply the judicial exception (MPEP 2106.05(h))
additional information regarding the DNN do(es) not apply the exception in a meaningful way (MPEP 2106.05(e))
The additional element(s) do(es) not provide an inventive concept, and, therefore, the claim is not patent eligible.
Regarding claim 10, the claim is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1 Analysis: Claim 10 is directed to a process, one of the statutory categories.
Step 2A Prong One Analysis: The claim recites a(n) process of generating an output in a deep neural networks (DNN) model. The Step 2A Prong One Analysis for claim 1 is applicable here since claim 10 carries out the process of claim 1 but for the recitation of additional element(s) of wherein the DNN is a Recurrent Neural Network (RNN).
Step 2A Prong Two Analysis: With respect to the abstract idea, the judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application.
The claim recites wherein the DNN is a Recurrent Neural Network (RNN) which is simply additional information regarding the DNN, and the element(s) do(es) not apply the exception in a meaningful way (MPEP 2106.05(e)).
The claim recites additional element(s) – Recurrent Neural Network. The additional element(s) is/are recited at a high-level of generality such that it amounts to no more than indicating a field of use or technological environment in which to apply the judicial exception (MPEP 2106.05(h)).
Accordingly, the additional element(s) do(es) not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because the additional element(s) do(es) not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea, and, therefore, the claim is directed to an abstract idea.
Step 2B Analysis: The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to the integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional element(s) of:
Recurrent Neural Network amount(s) to no more than indicating a field of use or technological environment in which to apply the judicial exception (MPEP 2106.05(h))
additional information regarding the DNN do(es) not apply the exception in a meaningful way (MPEP 2106.05(e))
The additional element(s) do(es) not provide an inventive concept, and, therefore, the claim is not patent eligible.
Regarding claim 11, the claim is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1 Analysis: Claim 11 is directed to a process, one of the statutory categories.
Step 2A Prong One Analysis: The claim recites a(n) process of generating an output in a deep neural networks (DNN) model. The Step 2A Prong One Analysis for claim 1 is applicable here since claim 11 carries out the process of claim 1 but for the recitation of additional element(s) of wherein the distribution function is an exponential decay function.
Step 2A Prong Two Analysis: With respect to the abstract idea, the judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application.
The claim recites wherein the distribution function is an exponential decay function which is simply additional information regarding the distribution function, and the element(s) do(es) not apply the exception in a meaningful way (MPEP 2106.05(e)).
The claim recites additional element(s) – exponential decay function. The additional element(s) is/are recited at a high-level of generality such that it amounts to no more than indicating a field of use or technological environment in which to apply the judicial exception (MPEP 2106.05(h)).
Accordingly, the additional element(s) do(es) not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because the additional element(s) do(es) not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea, and, therefore, the claim is directed to an abstract idea.
Step 2B Analysis: The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to the integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional element(s) of:
exponential decay function amount(s) to no more than indicating a field of use or technological environment in which to apply the judicial exception (MPEP 2106.05(h))
additional information regarding the distribution function do(es) not apply the exception in a meaningful way (MPEP 2106.05(e))
The additional element(s) do(es) not provide an inventive concept, and, therefore, the claim is not patent eligible.
Regarding claim 12, the claim is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1 Analysis: Claim 12 is directed to a process, one of the statutory categories.
Step 2A Prong One Analysis: The claim recites a(n) process of generating an output in a deep neural networks (DNN) model. The Step 2A Prong One Analysis for claim 1 is applicable here since claim 12 carries out the process of claim 1 but for the recitation of additional element(s) of wherein the weights are updated during training using a stochastic gradient descent (SGD) algorithm.
Step 2A Prong Two Analysis: With respect to the abstract idea, the judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application.
The claim recites wherein the weights are updated during training using a stochastic gradient descent (SGD) algorithm which is simply additional information regarding the weights, and the element(s) do(es) not apply the exception in a meaningful way (MPEP 2106.05(e)).
The claim recites additional element(s) – stochastic gradient descent (SGD) algorithm. The additional element(s) is/are recited at a high-level of generality such that it amounts to no more than indicating a field of use or technological environment in which to apply the judicial exception (MPEP 2106.05(h)).
Accordingly, the additional element(s) do(es) not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because the additional element(s) do(es) not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea, and, therefore, the claim is directed to an abstract idea.
Step 2B Analysis: The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to the integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional element(s) of:
stochastic gradient descent (SGD) algorithm amount(s) to no more than indicating a field of use or technological environment in which to apply the judicial exception (MPEP 2106.05(h))
additional information regarding the weights do(es) not apply the exception in a meaningful way (MPEP 2106.05(e))
The additional element(s) do(es) not provide an inventive concept, and, therefore, the claim is not patent eligible.
Regarding claim 13, the claim is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1 Analysis: Claim 13 is directed to a process, one of the statutory categories.
Step 2A Prong One Analysis: The claim recites a(n) process of generating an output in a deep neural networks (DNN) model. The Step 2A Prong One Analysis for claim 12 is applicable here since claim 13 carries out the process of claim 12 but for the recitation of additional element(s) of wherein updating the weight to be modified according to a distribution function is based on the SGD algorithm.
Step 2A Prong Two Analysis: With respect to the abstract idea, the judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim recites additional information regarding the weights and the element(s) do(es) not apply the exception in a meaningful way (MPEP 2106.05(e)). Accordingly, the additional element(s) do(es) not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because the additional element(s) do(es) not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea, and, therefore, the claim is directed to an abstract idea.
Step 2B Analysis: The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to the integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional element(s) of additional information regarding the weights do(es) not apply the exception in a meaningful way (MPEP 2106.05(e)). Not applying the exception in a meaningful way does not provide an inventive concept, and, therefore, the claim is not patent eligible.
Regarding claim 14, the claim is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1 Analysis: Claim 14 is directed to a process, one of the statutory categories.
Step 2A Prong One Analysis: The claim recites a(n) process of generating an output in a deep neural networks (DNN) model. The Step 2A Prong One Analysis for claim 1 is applicable here since claim 14 carries out the process of claim 1 but for the recitation of additional element(s) of wherein a predetermined number of iterations is performed.
Step 2A Prong Two Analysis: With respect to the abstract idea, the judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim recites additional information regarding the iterations and the element(s) do(es) not apply the exception in a meaningful way (MPEP 2106.05(e)). Accordingly, the additional element(s) do(es) not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because the additional element(s) do(es) not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea, and, therefore, the claim is directed to an abstract idea.
Step 2B Analysis: The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to the integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional element(s) of additional information regarding the iterations do(es) not apply the exception in a meaningful way (MPEP 2106.05(e)). Not applying the exception in a meaningful way does not provide an inventive concept, and, therefore, the claim is not patent eligible.
Regarding claim 15, the claim is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1 Analysis: Claim 15 is directed to a process, one of the statutory categories.
Step 2A Prong One Analysis: The claim recites a(n) process of generating an output in a deep neural networks (DNN) model. The Step 2A Prong One Analysis for claim 1 is applicable here since claim 15 carries out the process of claim 1 but for the recitation of additional element(s) of wherein the iteration continues until the determined rate of sparsity is achieved.
Step 2A Prong Two Analysis: With respect to the abstract idea, the judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim recites additional information regarding the iterations and the element(s) do(es) not apply the exception in a meaningful way (MPEP 2106.05(e)). Accordingly, the additional element(s) do(es) not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because the additional element(s) do(es) not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea, and, therefore, the claim is directed to an abstract idea.
Step 2B Analysis: The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to the integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional element(s) of additional information regarding the iterations do(es) not apply the exception in a meaningful way (MPEP 2106.05(e)). Not applying the exception in a meaningful way does not provide an inventive concept, and, therefore, the claim is not patent eligible.
Regarding claim 16, the claim is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1 Analysis: Claim 16 is directed to a process, one of the statutory categories.
Step 2A Prong One Analysis: The claim recites a(n) process of generating an output in a deep neural networks (DNN) model. The Step 2A Prong One Analysis for claim 1 is applicable here since claim 16 carries out the process of claim 1 but for the recitation of additional element(s) of wherein the DNN model is implemented in a software framework of a computer system.
Step 2A Prong Two Analysis: With respect to the abstract idea, the judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application.
The claim recites wherein the DNN model is implemented in a software framework of a computer system which is simply additional information regarding the DNN, and the element(s) do(es) not apply the exception in a meaningful way (MPEP 2106.05(e)).
The claim recites additional element(s) – software framework, computer system. The additional element(s) is/are recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as generic computer components performing generic computer functions of executing instructions on the computers) such that it amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components (MPEP 2106.05(b)).
Accordingly, the additional element(s) do(es) not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because the additional element(s) do(es) not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea, and, therefore, the claim is directed to an abstract idea.
Step 2B Analysis: The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to the integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional element(s) of:
software framework, computer system amount(s) to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components (MPEP 2106.05(b))
additional information regarding the DNN do(es) not apply the exception in a meaningful way (MPEP 2106.05(e))
The additional element(s) do(es) not provide an inventive concept, and, therefore, the claim is not patent eligible.
Regarding claim 17, the claim is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1 Analysis: Claim 17 is directed to a process, one of the statutory categories.
Step 2A Prong One Analysis: The claim recites a(n) process of generating an output in a deep neural networks (DNN) model.
The limitation of ... generates a weight perturbation, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers a mental process. The limitation is directed to observation, evaluation, judgment and opinion and is a process capable of being performed by a human mentally or using pen and paper.
The limitation of ... applies the weight perturbation to the weight, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers a mental process. The limitation is directed to observation, evaluation, judgment and opinion and is a process capable of being performed by a human mentally or using pen and paper.
If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind, then it falls within the "Mental Processes" grouping. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
Step 2A Prong Two Analysis: With respect to the abstract idea, the judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application.
The claim recites additional element(s) – random number generating hardware. The additional element(s) is/are recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as generic computer components performing generic computer functions of executing instructions on the computers) such that it amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components (MPEP 2106.05(b)).
Accordingly, the additional element(s) do(es) not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because the additional element(s) do(es) not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea, and, therefore, the claim is directed to an abstract idea.
Step 2B Analysis: The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to the integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional element(s) of:
random number generating hardware amount(s) to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components (MPEP 2106.05(b))
The additional element(s) do(es) not provide an inventive concept, and, therefore, the claim is not patent eligible.
Regarding claim 18, the claim is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1 Analysis: Claim 18 is directed to a process, one of the statutory categories.
Step 2A Prong One Analysis: The claim recites a(n) process of generating an output in a deep neural networks (DNN) model. The Step 2A Prong One Analysis for claim 17 is applicable here since claim 18 carries out the process of claim 17 but for the recitation of additional element(s) of wherein a computer system includes an image sensor or a camera for receiving an image input.
Step 2A Prong Two Analysis: With respect to the abstract idea, the judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application.
The claim recites additional element(s) – computer system, image sensor, camera. The additional element(s) is/are recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as generic computer components performing generic computer functions of executing instructions on the computers) such that it amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components (MPEP 2106.05(b)).
The claim recites wherein a computer system includes an image sensor or a camera for receiving an image input, which is simply transmitting data recited at a high level of generality. This is nothing more than insignificant extra-solution activity (MPEP 2106.05(g)).
Accordingly, the additional element(s) do(es) not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because the additional element(s) do(es) not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea, and, therefore, the claim is directed to an abstract idea.
Step 2B Analysis: The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to the integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional element(s) of:
computer system, image sensor, camera amount(s) to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components (MPEP 2106.05(b))
transmitting data amount(s) to no more than insignificant extra-solution activity (MPEP 2106.05(g)), wherein the insignificant extra-solution activity is the well-understood routine and conventional activit(y/ies) of receiving or transmitting data over a network and/or storing and retrieving information in memory (MPEP 2016.05(d))
The additional element(s) do(es) not provide an inventive concept, and, therefore, the claim is not patent eligible.
Regarding claim 19, the claim is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1 Analysis: Claim 19 is directed to a process, one of the statutory categories.
Step 2A Prong One Analysis: The claim recites a(n) process of generating an output in a deep neural networks (DNN) model. The Step 2A Prong One Analysis for claim 18 is applicable here since claim 19 carries out the process of claim 18 but for the recitation of additional element(s) of wherein the DNN model is applied to a computer-vision application including image classification, image segmentation, and object detection.
Step 2A Prong Two Analysis: With respect to the abstract idea, the judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application.
The claim recites wherein the DNN model is applied to a computer-vision application including image classification, image segmentation, and object detection which is simply additional information regarding the DNN, and the element(s) do(es) not apply the exception in a meaningful way (MPEP 2106.05(e)).
The claim recites additional element(s) – computer-vision application, image classification, image segmentation, object detection. The additional element(s) is/are recited at a high-level of generality such that it amounts to no more than indicating a field of use or technological environment in which to apply the judicial exception (MPEP 2106.05(h)).
Accordingly, the additional element(s) do(es) not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because the additional element(s) do(es) not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea, and, therefore, the claim is directed to an abstract idea.
Step 2B Analysis: The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to the integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional element(s) of:
computer-vision application, image classification, image segmentation, object detection amount(s) to no more than indicating a field of use or technological environment in which to apply the judicial exception (MPEP 2106.05(h))
additional information regarding the DNN do(es) not apply the exception in a meaningful way (MPEP 2106.05(e))
The additional element(s) do(es) not provide an inventive concept, and, therefore, the claim is not patent eligible.
Regarding claim 20, the claim is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1 Analysis: Claim 20 is directed to a process, one of the statutory categories.
Step 2A Prong One Analysis: The claim recites a(n) process of generating an output in a deep neural networks (DNN) model. The Step 2A Prong One Analysis for claim 18 is applicable here since claim 20 carries out the process of claim 18 but for the recitation of additional element(s) of wherein the DNN model is applied to autonomous driving, augmented reality (AR), or virtual reality (VR).
Step 2A Prong Two Analysis: With respect to the abstract idea, the judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application.
The claim recites wherein the DNN model is applied to autonomous driving, augmented reality (AR), or virtual reality (VR) which is simply additional information regarding the DNN, and the element(s) do(es) not apply the exception in a meaningful way (MPEP 2106.05(e)).
The claim recites additional element(s) – autonomous driving, augmented reality (AR), virtual reality (VR). The additional element(s) is/are recited at a high-level of generality such that it amounts to no more than indicating a field of use or technological environment in which to apply the judicial exception (MPEP 2106.05(h)).
Accordingly, the additional element(s) do(es) not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because the additional element(s) do(es) not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea, and, therefore, the claim is directed to an abstract idea.
Step 2B Analysis: The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to the integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional element(s) of:
autonomous driving, augmented reality (AR), virtual reality (VR) amount(s) to no more than indicating a field of use or technological environment in which to apply the judicial exception (MPEP 2106.05(h))
additional information regarding the DNN do(es) not apply the exception in a meaningful way (MPEP 2106.05(e))
The additional element(s) do(es) not provide an inventive concept, and, therefore, the claim is not patent eligible.
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 communication from the examiner should be directed to MARSHALL WERNER whose telephone number is (469) 295-9143. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday – Thursday 7:30 AM – 4:30 PM ET.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Kamran Afshar, can be reached at (571) 272-7796. The fax 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.
/MARSHALL L WERNER/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2125