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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s remarks filed 26 September 2025 have been fully considered. The rejections under section 112 are withdrawn in light of amendment.
Applicant argues that it is not practically performable in the human mind to “instruct a device among the plurality of devices to modify a parameter of an Artificial Intelligence (AI) model executed by the device based, at least in part, upon the context or telemetry data, wherein the parameter comprises a neural network weight or bias.” Examiner respectfully disagrees.
Applicant’s argument is belied by its own specification. An “Information Technology Decision Maker (ITDM)” as claimed is a person under a broadest reasonable interpretation. As disclosed, a person may define a policy that “identif[ies] at least one of: the context or telemetry data, the subset of the plurality of devices, the device, the model, the parameter, or the modification of the parameter” where “[t]he policy may also include one or more rules, where each rule associates at least one of: (a) the parameter, or (b) the modification of the parameter with predetermined context or telemetry data.” Specification [0011]-[0012]. Therefore, instructing the device is simply forming a judgment as to what the policy dictates, and any possible improvement as an ordered combination comes solely in the decisions being made by the ITDM, and such decisions cannot form the basis for an improvement to technology. See Genetic Techs. Ltd. v. Merial LLC, 818 F.3d 1369, 1376, 118 USPQ2d 1541, 1546 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (eligibility “cannot be furnished by the unpatentable law of nature (or natural phenomenon or abstract idea) itself.”).
As Applicant explains, “Adjusting weights or biases may change the structure of the neural network, which in turn modifies an AI model's performance, power consumption, inference accuracy, and/or speed of execution.” Specification [00166]. What Applicant is trying to argue is that it is not practically performable in the human mind to determine what the weights and biases should be in order to achieve this performance, consumption, accuracy, and/or speed. Were it not performable in the human mind to determine the policy, it would be impossible to receive the policy from the human decision maker as claimed. As applicant has argued that receiving the policy from a human is enabled, a human must be able to practically perform determining the contents of the policy, and as the instructing is merely determining what the policy says to do, instructing is also practically performable.
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 1-8 and 11-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
As per claim 1:
The claim(s) recites an abstract idea.
The limitation, “instruct a device among the plurality of devices to modify a parameter of an Artificial Intelligence (AI) model executed by the device based, at least in part, upon the context or telemetry data, wherein the parameter comprises a neural network weight or bias” as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers following rules or instructions, and/or performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components. For example, in the context of this limitation, “instructing” encompasses a person forming a judgment as to what parameters to apply for the AI model according to a policy. This limitation therefore falls within the “Certain Method of Organizing Human Activity” and/or “Mental Processes” groupings of abstract ideas. MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)(II), (III).
Accordingly, the claim(s) recites an abstract idea. MPEP § 2106.04(a).
The abstract idea of instructing a device to modify a parameter of an AI model executed by the device based on telemetry data is not integrated into a practical application.
The additional element, “a heterogeneous computing platform comprising a plurality of devices,” is mere field of use, limiting the idea of instructing a device to modify a parameter of an AI model executed by the device based on telemetry data to the technical environment of a heterogeneous computing platform. MPEP § 2106.05(h).
The additional element, “a memory coupled to the heterogeneous computing platform, wherein the memory comprises a plurality of sets of firmware instructions, wherein each of the sets of firmware instructions, upon execution by a respective device among the plurality of devices, enables the respective device to provide a corresponding firmware service,” is generic computer hardware. MPEP § 2106.05(b).
The additional element, “receive a policy from an Information Technology Decision Maker (ITDM) or Original Equipment Manufacturer (OEM),” “wherein the policy identifies at least one of the context or telemetry data, the subset of the plurality of devices, the device, the model, the parameter, or the modification of the parameter,” is insignificant extra-solution activity as mere data gathering. MPEP § 2106.05(g).
The additional element, “receive context or telemetry data from at least a subset of the plurality of devices,” is insignificant extra-solution activity as mere data gathering. MPEP § 2106.05(g).
As an ordered combination, the invention is mere automation of the manual process of instructing a device to modify a parameter of an AI model executed by the device based on telemetry data and mere automation of the manual process of following a policy. MPEP § 2106.05(a).
As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the conclusions for the additional elements being generic computer components and mere instructions to apply on a computer, insignificant extra-solution activity, and/or mere field of use limitations are carried over and these additional elements do not provide significantly more than the abstract idea. MPEP § 2106.05(II). In re-evaluating the limitations that are insignificant extra-solution activity, the following limitations represent elements that have been recognized as well-understood, routine, conventional activity within the field of computer functions:
The additional element, “receive a policy from an Information Technology Decision Maker (ITDM) or Original Equipment Manufacturer (OEM),” “wherein the policy identifies at least one of the context or telemetry data, the subset of the plurality of devices, the device, the model, the parameter, or the modification of the parameter,” is well-understood, routine, and conventional activity because it is receiving and transmitting data in a manner that is recited at a high level of generality similar to the activity of receiving or transmitting data over a network. MPEP §§ 2106.07(a)(III)(B), 2106.05(d)(II); see OIP Techs., Inc., v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363 (Fed. Cir. 2015).
The additional element, “receive context or telemetry data from at least a subset of the plurality of devices,” is well-understood, routine, and conventional activity because it is receiving and transmitting data in a manner that is recited at a high level of generality similar to the activity of receiving or transmitting data over a network. MPEP §§ 2106.07(a)(III)(B), 2106.05(d)(II); see OIP Techs., Inc., v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363 (Fed. Cir. 2015).
As an ordered combination, the claim simply appends well-understood, routine, conventional activities previously known to the industry, specified at a high level of generality, to the abstract idea of instructing a device to modify a parameter of an AI model executed by the device based on telemetry data because the claim as a whole amounts to nothing more than generic computer functions merely used to implement the abstract idea. MPEP §§ 2106.07(a)(III)(B), 2106.05(d)(II); see BASCOM Global Internet Servs. v. AT&T Mobility LLC, 827 F.3d 1341, 1349 (Fed. Cir. 2016).
Accordingly, the claim(s) does not recite additional elements, either individually or in combination, that amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. MPEP § 2106.05. Therefore, as the claim(s) is directed to an abstract idea and does not recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the abstract idea, the claim(s) is not patentable. MPEP § 2106.
As per claim 2:
The abstract idea of instructing a device to modify a parameter of an AI model executed by the device based on telemetry data is not integrated into a practical application.
The additional element, “wherein the heterogeneous computing platform comprises: a System-On-Chip (SoC), a Field-Programmable Gate Array (FPGA), or an Application-Specific Integrated Circuit (ASIC),” is directed to generic computer hardware. MPEP § 2106.05(g).
As an ordered combination, the invention is mere field of use, merely linking the abstract idea to a particular technological environment. MPEP § 2106.05(h).
As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the conclusions for the additional elements being generic computer components and mere instructions to apply on a computer, insignificant extra-solution activity, and/or mere field of use limitations are carried over and these additional elements do not provide significantly more than the abstract idea. MPEP § 2106.05(II).
As an ordered combination, the claim simply appends well-understood, routine, conventional activities previously known to the industry, specified at a high level of generality, to the abstract idea of instructing a device to modify a parameter of an AI model executed by the device based on telemetry data because the claim as a whole amounts to nothing more than generic computer functions merely used to implement the abstract idea. MPEP §§ 2106.07(a)(III)(B), 2106.05(d)(II); see BASCOM Global Internet Servs. v. AT&T Mobility LLC, 827 F.3d 1341, 1349 (Fed. Cir. 2016).
Accordingly, the claim(s) does not recite additional elements, either individually or in combination, that amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. MPEP § 2106.05. Therefore, as the claim(s) is directed to an abstract idea and does not recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the abstract idea, the claim(s) is not patentable. MPEP § 2106.
As per claim 3:
The abstract idea of instructing a device to modify a parameter of an AI model executed by the device based on telemetry data is not integrated into a practical application.
The additional element, “wherein the orchestrator comprises at least one of: a sensing hub, an Embedded Controller (EC), or a Baseboard Management Controller (BMC),” is directed to generic computer hardware. MPEP § 2106.05(g).
As an ordered combination, the invention is mere field of use, merely linking the abstract idea to a particular technological environment. MPEP § 2106.05(h).
As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the conclusions for the additional elements being generic computer components and mere instructions to apply on a computer, insignificant extra-solution activity, and/or mere field of use limitations are carried over and these additional elements do not provide significantly more than the abstract idea. MPEP § 2106.05(II).
As an ordered combination, the claim simply appends well-understood, routine, conventional activities previously known to the industry, specified at a high level of generality, to the abstract idea of instructing a device to modify a parameter of an AI model executed by the device based on telemetry data because the claim as a whole amounts to nothing more than generic computer functions merely used to implement the abstract idea. MPEP §§ 2106.07(a)(III)(B), 2106.05(d)(II); see BASCOM Global Internet Servs. v. AT&T Mobility LLC, 827 F.3d 1341, 1349 (Fed. Cir. 2016).
Accordingly, the claim(s) does not recite additional elements, either individually or in combination, that amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. MPEP § 2106.05. Therefore, as the claim(s) is directed to an abstract idea and does not recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the abstract idea, the claim(s) is not patentable. MPEP § 2106.
As per claim 4:
The abstract idea of instructing a device to modify a parameter of an AI model executed by the device based on telemetry data is not integrated into a practical application.
The additional element, “wherein the context or telemetry data comprises a metric indicative of at least one of: a core utilization, a memory utilization, a network utilization, a battery utilization, or a peripheral device utilization,” is insignificant extra-solution activity as selecting a particular type of data to be manipulated. MPEP § 2106.05(g).
As an ordered combination, the invention is mere automation of the manual process of instructing a device to modify a parameter of an AI model executed by the device based on telemetry data. MPEP § 2106.05(a).
As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the conclusions for the additional elements being generic computer components and mere instructions to apply on a computer, insignificant extra-solution activity, and/or mere field of use limitations are carried over and these additional elements do not provide significantly more than the abstract idea. MPEP § 2106.05(II). In re-evaluating the limitations that are insignificant extra-solution activity, the following limitations represent elements that have been recognized as well-understood, routine, conventional activity within the field of computer functions:
The additional element, “wherein the context or telemetry data comprises a metric indicative of at least one of: a core utilization, a memory utilization, a network utilization, a battery utilization, or a peripheral device utilization,” is well-understood, routine, and conventional activity because it is receiving and transmitting data in a manner that is recited at a high level of generality similar to the activity of receiving or transmitting data over a network. MPEP §§ 2106.07(a)(III)(B), 2106.05(d)(II); see OIP Techs., Inc., v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363 (Fed. Cir. 2015).
As an ordered combination, the claim simply appends well-understood, routine, conventional activities previously known to the industry, specified at a high level of generality, to the abstract idea of instructing a device to modify a parameter of an AI model executed by the device based on telemetry data because the claim as a whole amounts to nothing more than generic computer functions merely used to implement the abstract idea. MPEP §§ 2106.07(a)(III)(B), 2106.05(d)(II); see BASCOM Global Internet Servs. v. AT&T Mobility LLC, 827 F.3d 1341, 1349 (Fed. Cir. 2016).
Accordingly, the claim(s) does not recite additional elements, either individually or in combination, that amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. MPEP § 2106.05. Therefore, as the claim(s) is directed to an abstract idea and does not recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the abstract idea, the claim(s) is not patentable. MPEP § 2106.
As per claim 5:
The abstract idea of instructing a device to modify a parameter of an AI model executed by the device based on telemetry data is not integrated into a practical application.
The additional element, “wherein the context or telemetry data comprises a metric indicative of at least one of: a user's presence, a user's engagement, an IHS location, an IHS posture, or an application in execution by the IHS,” is insignificant extra-solution activity as selecting a particular type of data to be manipulated. MPEP § 2106.05(g).
As an ordered combination, the invention is mere automation of the manual process of instructing a device to modify a parameter of an AI model executed by the device based on telemetry data. MPEP § 2106.05(a).
As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the conclusions for the additional elements being generic computer components and mere instructions to apply on a computer, insignificant extra-solution activity, and/or mere field of use limitations are carried over and these additional elements do not provide significantly more than the abstract idea. MPEP § 2106.05(II). In re-evaluating the limitations that are insignificant extra-solution activity, the following limitations represent elements that have been recognized as well-understood, routine, conventional activity within the field of computer functions:
The additional element, “wherein the context or telemetry data comprises a metric indicative of at least one of: a user's presence, a user's engagement, an IHS location, an IHS posture, or an application in execution by the IHS,” is well-understood, routine, and conventional activity because it is receiving and transmitting data in a manner that is recited at a high level of generality similar to the activity of receiving or transmitting data over a network. MPEP §§ 2106.07(a)(III)(B), 2106.05(d)(II); see OIP Techs., Inc., v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363 (Fed. Cir. 2015).
As an ordered combination, the claim simply appends well-understood, routine, conventional activities previously known to the industry, specified at a high level of generality, to the abstract idea of instructing a device to modify a parameter of an AI model executed by the device based on telemetry data because the claim as a whole amounts to nothing more than generic computer functions merely used to implement the abstract idea. MPEP §§ 2106.07(a)(III)(B), 2106.05(d)(II); see BASCOM Global Internet Servs. v. AT&T Mobility LLC, 827 F.3d 1341, 1349 (Fed. Cir. 2016).
Accordingly, the claim(s) does not recite additional elements, either individually or in combination, that amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. MPEP § 2106.05. Therefore, as the claim(s) is directed to an abstract idea and does not recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the abstract idea, the claim(s) is not patentable. MPEP § 2106.
As per claim 6:
The abstract idea of instructing a device to modify a parameter of an AI model executed by the device based on telemetry data is not integrated into a practical application.
The additional element, “wherein to receive the context or telemetry data, the orchestrator is configured to send a message to one or more firmware services executed by the subset of the plurality of devices via one or more Application Programming Interfaces (APIs) without any involvement by any host Operating System (OS) to collect the context or telemetry data,” is insignificant extra-solution activity as mere data gathering. MPEP § 2106.05(g).
As an ordered combination, the invention is mere automation of the manual process of instructing a device to modify a parameter of an AI model executed by the device based on telemetry data. MPEP § 2106.05(a).
As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the conclusions for the additional elements being generic computer components and mere instructions to apply on a computer, insignificant extra-solution activity, and/or mere field of use limitations are carried over and these additional elements do not provide significantly more than the abstract idea. MPEP § 2106.05(II). In re-evaluating the limitations that are insignificant extra-solution activity, the following limitations represent elements that have been recognized as well-understood, routine, conventional activity within the field of computer functions:
The additional element, “wherein to receive the context or telemetry data, the orchestrator is configured to send a message to one or more firmware services executed by the subset of the plurality of devices via one or more Application Programming Interfaces (APIs) without any involvement by any host Operating System (OS) to collect the context or telemetry data,” ,” is well-understood, routine, and conventional activity because it is receiving and transmitting data in a manner that is recited at a high level of generality similar to the activity of receiving or transmitting data over a network. MPEP §§ 2106.07(a)(III)(B), 2106.05(d)(II); see OIP Techs., Inc., v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363 (Fed. Cir. 2015).
As an ordered combination, the claim simply appends well-understood, routine, conventional activities previously known to the industry, specified at a high level of generality, to the abstract idea of instructing a device to modify a parameter of an AI model executed by the device based on telemetry data because the claim as a whole amounts to nothing more than generic computer functions merely used to implement the abstract idea. MPEP §§ 2106.07(a)(III)(B), 2106.05(d)(II); see BASCOM Global Internet Servs. v. AT&T Mobility LLC, 827 F.3d 1341, 1349 (Fed. Cir. 2016).
Accordingly, the claim(s) does not recite additional elements, either individually or in combination, that amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. MPEP § 2106.05. Therefore, as the claim(s) is directed to an abstract idea and does not recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the abstract idea, the claim(s) is not patentable. MPEP § 2106.
As per claim 7:
The claim(s) recites an abstract idea.
The limitation, “wherein the parameter comprises a neural network bias,” as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers following rules or instructions, and/or performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components. For example, in the context of this limitation, “instructing” encompasses a person forming a judgment as to what neural network bias to apply for the AI model. This limitation therefore falls within the “Certain Method of Organizing Human Activity” and/or “Mental Processes” groupings of abstract ideas. MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)(II), (III).
Accordingly, the claim(s) recites an abstract idea. MPEP § 2106.04(a).
As the claim(s) recites no additional elements, the abstract idea is not integrated into a practical application, the claim is directed to the abstract idea, and the claim(s) does not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. MPEP § 2106.07. Therefore, as the claim(s) is directed to an abstract idea and does not recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the abstract idea, the claim(s) is not patentable. MPEP § 2106.
As per claim 8:
The claim(s) recites an abstract idea.
The limitation, “wherein the parameter comprises a neural network weight,” as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers following rules or instructions, and/or performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components. For example, in the context of this limitation, “instructing” encompasses a person forming a judgment as to what neural network weight to apply for the AI model. This limitation therefore falls within the “Certain Method of Organizing Human Activity” and/or “Mental Processes” groupings of abstract ideas. MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)(II), (III).
Accordingly, the claim(s) recites an abstract idea. MPEP § 2106.04(a).
As the claim(s) recites no additional elements, the abstract idea is not integrated into a practical application, the claim is directed to the abstract idea, and the claim(s) does not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. MPEP § 2106.07. Therefore, as the claim(s) is directed to an abstract idea and does not recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the abstract idea, the claim(s) is not patentable. MPEP § 2106.
As per claim 11:
The claim(s) recites an abstract idea.
The limitation, “the orchestrator is further configured to enforce the one or more rules based, at least in part, upon a comparison between current context or telemetry data and the predetermined context or telemetry data,” as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers following rules or instructions, and/or performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components. For example, in the context of this limitation, “enforcing” and “comparing” encompasses a person forming a judgment whether the rule specifies a given action due to the context. This limitation therefore falls within the “Certain Method of Organizing Human Activity” and/or “Mental Processes” groupings of abstract ideas. MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)(II), (III).
Accordingly, the claim(s) recites an abstract idea. MPEP § 2106.04(a).
The abstract idea of enforcing one or more rules based, at least in part, upon a comparison between current context or telemetry data and predetermined context or telemetry data is not integrated into a practical application.
The additional element, “the policy comprises one or more rules, wherein each rule associates at least one of: (a) the parameter, or (b) the modification of the parameter with predetermined context or telemetry data,” is insignificant extra-solution activity as mere data gathering. MPEP § 2106.05(g).
As an ordered combination, the invention is mere automation of the manual process of instructing a device to modify a parameter of an AI model executed by the device based on telemetry data. MPEP § 2106.05(a).
As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the conclusions for the additional elements being generic computer components and mere instructions to apply on a computer, insignificant extra-solution activity, and/or mere field of use limitations are carried over and these additional elements do not provide significantly more than the abstract idea. MPEP § 2106.05(II). In re-evaluating the limitations that are insignificant extra-solution activity, the following limitations represent elements that have been recognized as well-understood, routine, conventional activity within the field of computer functions:
The additional element, “the policy comprises one or more rules, wherein each rule associates at least one of: (a) the parameter, or (b) the modification of the parameter with predetermined context or telemetry data,” is well-understood, routine, and conventional activity because it is receiving and transmitting data in a manner that is recited at a high level of generality similar to the activity of receiving or transmitting data over a network. MPEP §§ 2106.07(a)(III)(B), 2106.05(d)(II); see OIP Techs., Inc., v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363 (Fed. Cir. 2015).
As an ordered combination, the claim simply appends well-understood, routine, conventional activities previously known to the industry, specified at a high level of generality, to the abstract idea of instructing a device to modify a parameter of an AI model executed by the device based on telemetry data because the claim as a whole amounts to nothing more than generic computer functions merely used to implement the abstract idea. MPEP §§ 2106.07(a)(III)(B), 2106.05(d)(II); see BASCOM Global Internet Servs. v. AT&T Mobility LLC, 827 F.3d 1341, 1349 (Fed. Cir. 2016).
Accordingly, the claim(s) does not recite additional elements, either individually or in combination, that amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. MPEP § 2106.05. Therefore, as the claim(s) is directed to an abstract idea and does not recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the abstract idea, the claim(s) is not patentable. MPEP § 2106.
As per claim 12:
The claim(s) recite an abstract idea.
The limitation, “wherein the orchestrator is configured to select at least one of: (a) another parameter, or (b) another modification of the other parameter based, at least in part, upon a change in the current context or telemetry data,” as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components. For example, in the context of this limitation, “selecting” encompasses a person forming a judgment as to the modification to be made to a parameter based on the context according to the policy. This limitation therefore falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)(III).
Accordingly, the claim(s) recites an abstract idea. MPEP § 2106.04(a).
As the claim(s) recites no additional elements, the abstract idea is not integrated into a practical application, the claim is directed to the abstract idea, and the claim(s) does not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. MPEP § 2106.07. Therefore, as the claim(s) is directed to an abstract idea and does not recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the abstract idea, the claim(s) is not patentable. MPEP § 2106.
As per claim 13:
The claim(s) recite an abstract idea.
The limitation, “wherein the orchestrator is further configured to trigger a migration of the AI model to another device among the plurality of devices,” as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components. For example, in the context of this limitation, “triggering” encompasses a person forming a judgment that the model should be migrated. This limitation therefore falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)(III).
Accordingly, the claim(s) recites an abstract idea. MPEP § 2106.04(a).
As the claim(s) recites no additional elements, the abstract idea is not integrated into a practical application, the claim is directed to the abstract idea, and the claim(s) does not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. MPEP § 2106.07. Therefore, as the claim(s) is directed to an abstract idea and does not recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the abstract idea, the claim(s) is not patentable. MPEP § 2106.
As per claim 14:
The claim(s) recite an abstract idea.
The limitation, “wherein the device comprises a Central Processing Unit (CPU) and wherein the other device comprises a Graphical Processing Unit (GPU),” as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components. For example, in the context of this limitation, “triggering” encompasses a person forming a judgment that the model should be migrated from a CPU to a GPU. This limitation therefore falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)(III).
Accordingly, the claim(s) recites an abstract idea. MPEP § 2106.04(a).
As the claim(s) recites no additional elements, the abstract idea is not integrated into a practical application, the claim is directed to the abstract idea, and the claim(s) does not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. MPEP § 2106.07. Therefore, as the claim(s) is directed to an abstract idea and does not recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the abstract idea, the claim(s) is not patentable. MPEP § 2106.
As per claim 15:
The claim(s) recite an abstract idea.
The limitation, “wherein the device comprises a Central Processing Unit (CPU) and wherein the other device comprises a Video Processing Unit (VPU),” as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components. For example, in the context of this limitation, “triggering” encompasses a person forming a judgment that the model should be migrated from a CPU to a VPU. This limitation therefore falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)(III).
Accordingly, the claim(s) recites an abstract idea. MPEP § 2106.04(a).
As the claim(s) recites no additional elements, the abstract idea is not integrated into a practical application, the claim is directed to the abstract idea, and the claim(s) does not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. MPEP § 2106.07. Therefore, as the claim(s) is directed to an abstract idea and does not recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the abstract idea, the claim(s) is not patentable. MPEP § 2106.
As per claim 16:
The claim(s) recite an abstract idea.
The limitation, “wherein the device comprises a Central Processing Unit (CPU) and wherein the other device comprises a Neural Processing Unit (NPU), Tensor Processing Unit (TSU), Neural Network Processor (NNP), or Intelligence Processing Unit (IPU),” as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components. For example, in the context of this limitation, “triggering” encompasses a person forming a judgment that the model should be migrated from a CPU to a NPU, TSU, NNP, or IPU. This limitation therefore falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)(III).
Accordingly, the claim(s) recites an abstract idea. MPEP § 2106.04(a).
As the claim(s) recites no additional elements, the abstract idea is not integrated into a practical application, the claim is directed to the abstract idea, and the claim(s) does not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. MPEP § 2106.07. Therefore, as the claim(s) is directed to an abstract idea and does not recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the abstract idea, the claim(s) is not patentable. MPEP § 2106.
As per claim 17:
The abstract idea of instructing a device to modify a parameter of an AI model executed by the device based on telemetry data is not integrated into a practical application.
The additional element, “the orchestrator is configured to send a message to one or more firmware services executed by the device via an Application Programming Interface (API) without any involvement by any host Operating System (OS) to execute the AI model,” is insignificant extra-solution activity as mere data gathering. MPEP § 2106.05(g).
As an ordered combination, the invention is mere automation of the manual process of instructing a device to modify a parameter of an AI model executed by the device based on telemetry data. MPEP § 2106.05(a).
As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the conclusions for the additional elements being generic computer components and mere instructions to apply on a computer, insignificant extra-solution activity, and/or mere field of use limitations are carried over and these additional elements do not provide significantly more than the abstract idea. MPEP § 2106.05(II). In re-evaluating the limitations that are insignificant extra-solution activity, the following limitations represent elements that have been recognized as well-understood, routine, conventional activity within the field of computer functions:
The additional element, “the orchestrator is configured to send a message to one or more firmware services executed by the device via an Application Programming Interface (API) without any involvement by any host Operating System (OS) to execute the AI model,” is well-understood, routine, and conventional activity because it is receiving and transmitting data in a manner that is recited at a high level of generality similar to the activity of receiving or transmitting data over a network. MPEP §§ 2106.07(a)(III)(B), 2106.05(d)(II); see OIP Techs., Inc., v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363 (Fed. Cir. 2015).
As an ordered combination, the claim simply appends well-understood, routine, conventional activities previously known to the industry, specified at a high level of generality, to the abstract idea of instructing a device to modify a parameter of an AI model executed by the device based on telemetry data because the claim as a whole amounts to nothing more than generic computer functions merely used to implement the abstract idea. MPEP §§ 2106.07(a)(III)(B), 2106.05(d)(II); see BASCOM Global Internet Servs. v. AT&T Mobility LLC, 827 F.3d 1341, 1349 (Fed. Cir. 2016).
Accordingly, the claim(s) does not recite additional elements, either individually or in combination, that amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. MPEP § 2106.05. Therefore, as the claim(s) is directed to an abstract idea and does not recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the abstract idea, the claim(s) is not patentable. MPEP § 2106.
As per claim 18:
The abstract idea of instructing a device to modify a parameter of an AI model executed by the device based on telemetry data is not integrated into a practical application.
The additional element, “wherein the orchestrator is further configured to notify at least one of: a host Operating System (OS) executed by the heterogeneous computing platform, an application instantiated by the host OS, or a user of the IHS of the modification,” is insignificant extra-solution activity as mere data gathering. MPEP § 2106.05(g).
As an ordered combination, the invention is mere automation of the manual process of instructing a device to modify a parameter of an AI model executed by the device based on telemetry data. MPEP § 2106.05(a).
As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the conclusions for the additional elements being generic computer components and mere instructions to apply on a computer, insignificant extra-solution activity, and/or mere field of use limitations are carried over and these additional elements do not provide significantly more than the abstract idea. MPEP § 2106.05(II). In re-evaluating the limitations that are insignificant extra-solution activity, the following limitations represent elements that have been recognized as well-understood, routine, conventional activity within the field of computer functions:
The additional element, “wherein the orchestrator is further configured to notify at least one of: a host Operating System (OS) executed by the heterogeneous computing platform, an application instantiated by the host OS, or a user of the IHS of the modification,” is well-understood, routine, and conventional activity because it is presenting information in a manner that is recited at a high level of generality similar to the activity of presenting information. MPEP §§ 2106.07(a)(III)(B), 2106.05(d)(II); see OIP Techs., Inc., v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363-64 (Fed. Cir. 2015).
As an ordered combination, the claim simply appends well-understood, routine, conventional activities previously known to the industry, specified at a high level of generality, to the abstract idea of instructing a device to modify a parameter of an AI model executed by the device based on telemetry data because the claim as a whole amounts to nothing more than generic computer functions merely used to implement the abstract idea. MPEP §§ 2106.07(a)(III)(B), 2106.05(d)(II); see BASCOM Global Internet Servs. v. AT&T Mobility LLC, 827 F.3d 1341, 1349 (Fed. Cir. 2016).
Accordingly, the claim(s) does not recite additional elements, either individually or in combination, that amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. MPEP § 2106.05. Therefore, as the claim(s) is directed to an abstract idea and does not recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the abstract idea, the claim(s) is not patentable. MPEP § 2106.
As per claim 19:
The claim(s) recites an abstract idea.
The limitation, “instruct a device among the plurality of devices to execute an Artificial Intelligence (AI) model executed by the device based, at least in part, upon context or telemetry data received from a subset of the plurality of devices and identified by the policy” as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers following rules or instructions, and/or performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components. For example, in the context of this limitation, “instructing” encompasses a person forming a judgment as to what parameters to apply for the AI model according to a policy. This limitation therefore falls within the “Certain Method of Organizing Human Activity” and/or “Mental Processes” groupings of abstract ideas. MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)(II), (III).
The additional element, “modify one or more neural network weights or biases of the AI model during execution of the AI model, based, at least in part, in response to a change to the context or telemetry data,” as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers following rules or instructions, and/or performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components. For example, in the context of this limitation, “modifying” encompasses a person forming a judgment as to what parameters to apply for the AI model according to a policy. This limitation therefore falls within the “Certain Method of Organizing Human Activity” and/or “Mental Processes” groupings of abstract ideas. MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)(II), (III).
Accordingly, the claim(s) recites abstract ideas. MPEP § 2106.04(a). These abstract ideas can be considered together as a single abstract idea, namely instructing a device to modify a parameter of an AI model executed by the device based on telemetry data is not integrated into a practical application. MPEP § 2106.04(II)(B). This falls within the “Certain Method of Organizing Human Activity” and/or “Mental Processes” groupings of abstract ideas. MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)(II), (III).
The abstract idea of instructing a device to modify a parameter of an AI model executed by the device based on telemetry data is not integrated into a practical application.
The additional element, “a heterogeneous computing platform comprising a plurality of devices,” is mere field of use, limiting the idea of instructing a device to modify a parameter of an AI model executed by the device based on telemetry data to the technical environment of a heterogeneous computing platform. MPEP § 2106.05(h).
The additional element, “a memory coupled to the heterogeneous computing platform, wherein the memory comprises a plurality of sets of firmware instructions, wherein each of the sets of firmware instructions, upon execution by a respective device among the plurality of devices, enables the respective device to provide a corresponding firmware service without any involvement by any host Operating System (IS),” is generic computer hardware. MPEP § 2106.05(b).
The additional element, “receive a policy from an Information Technology Decision Maker (ITDM) or Original Equipment Manufacturer (OEM),” is insignificant extra-solution activity as mere data gathering. MPEP § 2106.05(g).
As an ordered combination, the invention is mere automation of the manual process of instructing a device to modify a parameter of an AI model executed by the device based on telemetry data and mere automation of the manual process of following a policy. MPEP § 2106.05(a).
As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the conclusions for the additional elements being generic computer components and mere instructions to apply on a computer, insignificant extra-solution activity, and/or mere field of use limitations are carried over and these additional elements do not provide significantly more than the abstract idea. MPEP § 2106.05(II). In re-evaluating the limitations that are insignificant extra-solution activity, the following limitations represent elements that have been recognized as well-understood, routine, conventional activity within the field of computer functions:
The additional element, “receive a policy from an Information Technology Decision Maker (ITDM) or Original Equipment Manufacturer (OEM),” is well-understood, routine, and conventional activity because it is receiving and transmitting data in a manner that is recited at a high level of generality similar to the activity of receiving or transmitting data over a network. MPEP §§ 2106.07(a)(III)(B), 2106.05(d)(II); see OIP Techs., Inc., v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363 (Fed. Cir. 2015).
As an ordered combination, the claim simply appends well-understood, routine, conventional activities previously known to the industry, specified at a high level of generality, to the abstract idea of instructing a device to modify a parameter of an AI model executed by the device based on telemetry data because the claim as a whole amounts to nothing more than generic computer functions merely used to implement the abstract idea. MPEP §§ 2106.07(a)(III)(B), 2106.05(d)(II); see BASCOM Global Internet Servs. v. AT&T Mobility LLC, 827 F.3d 1341, 1349 (Fed. Cir. 2016).
Accordingly, the claim(s) does not recite additional elements, either individually or in combination, that amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. MPEP § 2106.05. Therefore, as the claim(s) is directed to an abstract idea and does not recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the abstract idea, the claim(s) is not patentable. MPEP § 2106.
As per claim 20:
The claim(s) recites an abstract idea.
The limitation, “selecting a policy,” “wherein the policy identifies at least one of: the context or telemetry data received from a subset of the plurality of devices, the subset of the plurality of devices, the device, the model, the parameter, or the modification of the parameter,” as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers following rules or instructions, and/or performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components. For example, in the context of this limitation, “selecting” encompasses a person forming a judgment as to which policy of a plurality of policies to use. This limitation therefore falls within the “Mental Processes” groupings of abstract ideas. MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)(III).
The limitation, “instruct a device among a plurality of devices within an Information Handling System (HIS) to execute one or more Artificial Intelligence (AI) models based, at least in part, upon the policy” as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers following rules or instructions, and/or performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components. For example, in the context of this limitation, “instructing” encompasses a person forming a judgment as to what parameters to apply for the AI model by following the policy. This limitation therefore falls within the “Certain Method of Organizing Human Activity” and/or “Mental Processes” groupings of abstract ideas. MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)(II), (III).
The additional element, “modify one or more neural network weights or biases of the AI model during execution of the AI model, wherein the one or more parameters comprises a neural network or bias,” as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers following rules or instructions, and/or performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components. For example, in the context of this limitation, “modifying” encompasses a person forming a judgment as to what parameters to apply for the AI model according to a policy. This limitation therefore falls within the “Certain Method of Organizing Human Activity” and/or “Mental Processes” groupings of abstract ideas. MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)(II), (III).
Accordingly, the claim(s) recites abstract ideas. MPEP § 2106.04(a). These abstract ideas can be considered together as a single abstract idea, namely instructing a device to modify a parameter of an AI model executed by the device based on telemetry data is not integrated into a practical application. MPEP § 2106.04(II)(B). This falls within the “Certain Method of Organizing Human Activity” and/or “Mental Processes” groupings of abstract ideas. MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)(II), (III).
The abstract idea of instructing a device to modify a parameter of an AI model executed by the device based on telemetry data is not integrated into a practical application.
The additional element, “transmitting a policy from an Information Technology Decision Maker (ITDM) or Original Equipment Manufacturer (OEM) to an Information Handling System (HIS) over a network,” is insignificant extra-solution activity as mere data gathering. MPEP § 2106.05(g).
The additional element, “a heterogeneous computing platform comprising a plurality of devices,” is mere field of use, limiting the idea of instructing a device to modify a parameter of an AI model executed by the device based on telemetry data to the technical environment of a heterogeneous computing platform. MPEP § 2106.05(h).
As an ordered combination, the invention is mere automation of the manual process of instructing a device to modify a parameter of an AI model executed by the device based on telemetry data and mere automation of the manual process of following a policy. MPEP § 2106.05(a).
As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the conclusions for the additional elements being generic computer components and mere instructions to apply on a computer, insignificant extra-solution activity, and/or mere field of use limitations are carried over and these additional elements do not provide significantly more than the abstract idea. MPEP § 2106.05(II). In re-evaluating the limitations that are insignificant extra-solution activity, the following limitations represent elements that have been recognized as well-understood, routine, conventional activity within the field of computer functions:
The additional element, “transmitting a policy from an Information Technology Decision Maker (ITDM) or Original Equipment Manufacturer (OEM) to an Information Handling System (HIS) over a network,” is well-understood, routine, and conventional activity because it is receiving and transmitting data in a manner that is recited at a high level of generality similar to the activity of receiving or transmitting data over a network. MPEP §§ 2106.07(a)(III)(B), 2106.05(d)(II); see OIP Techs., Inc., v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363 (Fed. Cir. 2015).
As an ordered combination, the claim simply appends well-understood, routine, conventional activities previously known to the industry, specified at a high level of generality, to the abstract idea of instructing a device to modify a parameter of an AI model executed by the device based on telemetry data because the claim as a whole amounts to nothing more than generic computer functions merely used to implement the abstract idea. MPEP §§ 2106.07(a)(III)(B), 2106.05(d)(II); see BASCOM Global Internet Servs. v. AT&T Mobility LLC, 827 F.3d 1341, 1349 (Fed. Cir. 2016).
Accordingly, the claim(s) does not recite additional elements, either individually or in combination, that amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. MPEP § 2106.05. Therefore, as the claim(s) is directed to an abstract idea and does not recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the abstract idea, the claim(s) is not patentable. MPEP § 2106.
Allowable Subject Matter
Although the prior art generally teaches modifying a neural network weight or bias (so-called “pruning”), and that doing so affects “an AI model's performance, power consumption, inference accuracy, and/or speed of execution,” e.g., Molchanov et al., Pruning Convolutional Neural Networks for Resource Efficient Inference, explicitly modifying a parameter of an AI model executed by a device based, at least in part, on context or telemetry data is not known in the prior art.
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 WILLIAM SPIELER whose telephone number is (571)270-3883. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 11-3.
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, Ann Lo can be reached at 571-272-9767. 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.
WILLIAM SPIELER
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2159
/WILLIAM SPIELER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2159
Prosecution Insights