DETAILED ACTION
This action is in response to the claims filed 05/12/2026 for Application number 17/941,417. Claims 1, 10, and 18 have been amended and claims 5 and 14 have been canceled. Thus, claims 1-4, 6-13, and 15-20 are currently pending.
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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 05/12/2026 has been entered.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
Claims 6 and 15 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.
Claims 6 and 15 recites the limitation "the accuracies" in line 1. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
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 1-4, 6-13, and 15-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Regarding claim 1,
Step 1 Analysis: Claim 1 is directed to a process, which falls within one of the four statutory categories.
Step 2A Prong 1 Analysis: Claim 1 recites, in part, The limitations of:
generating first pseudo labels based on a first model performing a first task among the two or more neural network tasks using text data and generating second pseudo labels based on a second model performing a second task among the two or more neural network tasks using the text data can be considered to be an evaluation in the human mind,
converting the second pseudo labels to match a format of the first pseudo labels can be considered to be an evaluation in the human mind
concatenating the first pseudo labels to generate a first string and concatenating the converted second pseudo labels to generate a second string can be considered to be an evaluation in the human mind
computing a matching score indicating a cross-task matching between the first pseudo labels and the converted second pseudo labels based on the mapping by obtaining an edit distance between the first and second string can be considered to be an evaluation in the human mind.
generating, [using a softmax layer of the first model], a confidence score corresponding to each of the first pseudo labels can be considered to be an evaluation in the human mind
selecting one or more cross-task pseudo labels from the first pseudo labels and the second pseudo labels based on the matching score and a geometric mean of the confidence scores of the first pseudo labels can be considered to be an evaluation in the human mind
These limitations as drafted, are processes that, under broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind or with the aid of pen and paper which falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
Step 2A Prong 2 Analysis: This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim recites the additional elements – “the method being executed by at least one processor”, “using a softmax layer of the first model” and “training the two or more cross-task neural network models based on the selection of the one or more cross-task pseudo labels.”. Thus, these elements in the claim are recited at a high level of generality such that it amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Please see MPEP 2106.05(f). Accordingly, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
Step 2B Analysis: The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements of utilizing a processor and cross-task neural network models to perform the steps of the claimed process amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. The claim is not patent eligible.
Regarding claim 2, the rejection of claim 1 is further incorporated, and further, the claim recites: wherein the mapping the first pseudo labels indicates a measure of similarity of the first pseudo labels and the converted second pseudo labels to compute the matching score. This limitation is merely a part of the recited abstract idea identified in the rejection of claim 1, thus recites a judicial exception.
The claim does not include any additional elements that amount to an integration of the judicial exception into a practical application, nor to significantly more than the judicial exception. The claim is not patent eligible.
Regarding claim 3, the rejection of claim 1 is further incorporated, and further, the claim recites: wherein the selecting the one or more cross-task pseudo labels is based on a threshold total agreement criteria. This limitation is merely a part of the recited abstract idea identified in the rejection of claim 1, thus recites a judicial exception.
The claim does not include any additional elements that amount to an integration of the judicial exception into a practical application, nor to significantly more than the judicial exception. The claim is not patent eligible.
Regarding claim 4, the rejection of claim 1 is further incorporated, and further, the claim recites: wherein the matching score is a value between zero and one. This limitation is merely a part of the recited abstract idea identified in the rejection of claim 1, thus recites a judicial exception.
The claim does not include any additional elements that amount to an integration of the judicial exception into a practical application, nor to significantly more than the judicial exception. The claim is not patent eligible.
Regarding claim 6, the rejection of claim 1 is further incorporated, and further, the claim recites: wherein the accuracies associated with the first model and the second model comprise:
a first accuracy based on a respective first function of the first pseudo labels associated with the first task; and
a second accuracy based on a respective second function of the second pseudo labels associated with the second task. This limitation is merely a part of the recited abstract idea identified in the rejection of claim 1, thus recites a judicial exception.
The claim does not include any additional elements that amount to an integration of the judicial exception into a practical application, nor to significantly more than the judicial exception. The claim is not patent eligible.
Regarding claim 7, the rejection of claim 1 is further incorporated, and further, the claim recites: wherein the two or more neural network tasks have partially related prediction tasks. This limitation is merely a part of the recited abstract idea identified in the rejection of claim 1, thus recites a judicial exception.
The claim does not include any additional elements that amount to an integration of the judicial exception into a practical application, nor to significantly more than the judicial exception. The claim is not patent eligible.
Regarding claim 8, the rejection of claim 7 is further incorporated, and further, the claim recites: wherein the partially related prediction tasks are partially related through two or more respective translation functions, the two or more respective translation functions comprising a subset of possible sub-predictions of the two or more neural network tasks. This limitation recites a mathematical concept in addition to the abstract idea identified in the rejection of claim 1, thus recites a judicial exception
The claim does not include any additional elements that amount to an integration of the judicial exception into a practical application, nor to significantly more than the judicial exception. The claim is not patent eligible.
Regarding claim 9, the rejection of claim 8 is further incorporated, and further, the claim recites: wherein the two or more respective translation functions are deterministic. This limitation is merely a part of the recited abstract idea identified in the rejection of claim 8, thus recites a judicial exception.
The claim does not include any additional elements that amount to an integration of the judicial exception into a practical application, nor to significantly more than the judicial exception. The claim is not patent eligible.
Claim 10 recites features similar to claim 1 and is rejected for at least the same reasons therein. Claim 10 additionally requires Step 2A Prong 2 Analysis for the additional elements of – “the apparatus comprising: at least one memory configured to store program code; and at least one processor configured to read the program code and operate as instructed by the program code”, “mapping code configured to…”, “computing code configured to…”, selecting code configured to…” and “training code configured to…”. Thus, these elements in the claim are recited at a high level of generality such that it amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Please see MPEP 2106.05(f). Accordingly, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
Step 2B Analysis: The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the utilizing the additional elements noted above to perform the steps of the claimed process amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. The claim is not patent eligible.
Regarding Claims 11-13 and 15-17, they recite features similar to claims 2-4 and 6-8 and are rejected for at least the same reasons therein.
Claim 18 recites features similar to claim 1 and is rejected for at least the same reasons therein. Claim 10 additionally requires Step 2A Prong 2 Analysis for the additional elements of – “A non-transitory computer readable medium”, “at least one processor”. Thus, these elements in the claim are recited at a high level of generality such that it amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Please see MPEP 2106.05(f). Accordingly, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
Step 2B Analysis: The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the utilizing the additional elements noted above to perform the steps of the claimed process amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. The claim is not patent eligible.
Regarding Claims 19-20, they recite features similar to claims 7-8 and are rejected for at least the same reasons therein.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-4, 6-13, and 15-20 are objected to as being allowable over prior art if all outstanding rejections were withdrawn. None of the prior art, either alone or in combination, fairly discloses limitations of claims 1, 10 and 18 in particular:
…concatenating the first pseudo labels to generate a first string and concatenating the converted second pseudo labels to generate a second string;
computing a matching score indicating a cross-task matching between the first pseudo labels and the converted second pseudo labels by obtaining an edit distance between the first string and the second string;
generating, using a softmax layer of the first model, a confidence score corresponding to each of the first pseudo labels;
selecting one or more cross-task pseudo labels from the first pseudo labels and the second pseudo labels based on the matching score and a geometric mean of the confidence scores of the first pseudo labels; and
training the two or more cross-task neural network models based on the selection of the one or more cross-task pseudo labels.
The closest prior art of record is Anderson et al. (“US 20220020142 A1”) which discloses multiple related tasks where information captured in one dataset may be used to increase performance on the other data set and task. However, the reference fails to explicitly disclose using text data and the steps of concatenating the first and converted second pseudo labels, generating a confidence score corresponding to each of the first pseudo labels, selecting one or more cross-task pseudo labels from the first pseudo labels and the second pseudo labels and training the two or more cross-task neural network models…
Haim et al. (“"US 20220027339 A1”) discloses calculating a dataset similarity score for each source-target dataset pair however fails to explicitly teach the steps of concatenating the first and converted second pseudo labels, generating a confidence score corresponding to each of the first pseudo labels, selecting one or more cross-task pseudo labels from the first pseudo labels and the second pseudo labels and training the two or more cross-task neural network models…
Sun et al. (“LAMOL: LANGUAGE MODELING FOR LIFELONG LANGUAGE LEARNING”) discloses generating pseudo labels using text data and converting data samples into a QA and LM format before being fed to the language model. However, the reference fails to explicitly teach the steps of concatenating the first and converted second pseudo labels, generating a confidence score corresponding to each of the first pseudo labels, selecting one or more cross-task pseudo labels from the first pseudo labels and the second pseudo labels and training the two or more cross-task neural network models…
No prior art was uncovered which fairly discloses all of the limitations of claims 1, 10 and 18.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see pgs. 14-16, filed 05/12/2026, with respect to claims 1, 10 and 18 have been fully considered and are persuasive. Given an updated search and in light of the new claim amendments, the 35 U.S.C. 103 rejection has been withdrawn.
Applicant's arguments filed 05/12/2026 regarding the 35 U.S.C. 101 Rejection have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Regarding the 35 U.S.C. §101 Rejection:
Applicant appears to assert that the claimed features cannot be practically performed in the human mind. Examiner respectfully disagrees. The limitations of concatenating pseudo labels into a first/second string, computing a matching score…, and generating, a confidence score under BRI appear to be mental processes. The claims merely claim the use of generic computer components to apply the judicial exception. Applicant further asserts claim 1 is directed to a specific technical improvement in the field of training neural networks. However, examiner respectfully disagrees. Claim 1 is directed towards improvement of an abstract idea rather than any improvement in the training process of a neural network.
Applicant further argues that the claim as a whole integrates the alleged exception into a practical application as evidenced by the instant specification. Further using the Appeals Review Panel decision in Ex Parte Desjardins to show that the claimed invention provides an improvement in the functioning of a computer or an improvement to other technology or technical field such as solving the technical problem of the lack of leveraging shared properties of input across shared tasks to perform self-supervised learning. Examiner respectfully disagrees. The claims as currently recited fail to explicitly and clearly reflect any particular improvement in the functioning of a computer or an improvement to other technology or technical field. The claims instead merely appear to be directed towards an improvement in an abstract idea (i.e. generating pseudo labels, computing matching/confidence scores, selecting pseudo labels) rather than any improvement in the actual training process of the neural network. The claims merely broadly recite “training the two or more cross-task neural networks” without any actual details recited in the claim of how these neural networks are trained in a particular way in connection with the earlier steps of the claim. Therefore, the examiner asserts that claims fail to recite any improvement in the functioning of a computer or an improvement to other technology or technical field. The claim is not patent eligible.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the rejections of the dependent claims have been fully considered but they are not persuasive as they rely upon the allowability of the independent claims
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MICHAEL H HOANG whose telephone number is (571)272-8491. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 8:30AM-4:30PM.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Kakali Chaki can be reached at (571) 272-3719. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/MICHAEL H HOANG/PRIMARY EXAMINER, Art Unit 2122
Prosecution Insights