CTFR 17/954,011 CTFR 99198 DETAILED ACTION Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status 07-03-aia AIA 15-10-aia The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA. 12-151 AIA 26-51 12-51 Status of Claims The present application is being examined under the claims filed 03/02/2026. Claims 1-20 are pending. Response to Amendment This Office Action is in response to Applicant’s communication filed 03/02/2026 in response to office action mailed 03/02/2026. The Applicant’s remarks and any amendments to the claims or specification have been considered with the results that follow. Response to Arguments In Remarks page 6, Argument 1 (Examiner summarizes Applicant’s arguments) Applicant argues that the claims have been amended to clarify the interpretation of the term “hypersolver”. Examiner’s response to Argument 1 The rejections under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) are withdrawn. In Remarks page 7, Argument 2 (Examiner summarizes Applicant’s arguments) Applicant recites the limitations of the claims and USPTO guidance, and argues that the claim limitations do not recite an abstract idea. Applicant particularly argues that “The claim uses mathematics within a specific technological context; it does not recite a mathematical concept or a mental process as the claim's focus.” Examiner’s response to Argument 2 Consider Example 47 claim 2. The claim recites the following limitation: (c) training, by the computer, the ANN based on the input data and a selected training algorithm to generate a trained ANN, wherein the selected training algorithm includes a backpropagation algorithm and a gradient descent algorithm Page 6 of the July 2024 eligibility examples explains the characterization of this claim limitation as a mathematical calculation: Step (c) recites training an ANN using a selected algorithm. The training algorithm is a backpropagation algorithm and a gradient descent algorithm. When given their broadest reasonable interpretation in light of the background, the backpropagation algorithm and gradient descent algorithm are mathematical calculations. The plain meaning of these terms are optimization algorithms, which compute neural network parameters using a series of mathematical calculations. The fourth paragraph of the background supports the plain meaning by stating the “gradient descent begins by initializing the values of parameters and then applying a gradient descent calculation, which uses mathematical calculations to iteratively adjust the values so they minimize a loss function.” The background also states that “backpropagation is a mathematical calculation for supervised learning of ANNs using gradient descent.” While the claim limitation does exist within the technological context of neural networks, the claimed operation is still fundamentally mathematical in nature. Turning to the instant application, the claim limitations directly recite mathematical details for how machine learning operations are performed. Just as in example 47, the examiner will treat these limitations as mathematical processes. Moreover, other limitations identified by the examiner can be performed as observations, evaluations, judgments, and opinions. These limitations are not merely based on/involving a mental process but directly recite elements that could be performed in the human mind. Applicant’s arguments do not substantially raise challenges as to why these elements could not be performed in the human mind other than that they are performed in an AI environment. Examiner reminds applicant of MPEP 2106.05(h) Another consideration when determining whether a claim integrates the judicial exception into a practical application in Step 2A Prong Two or recites significantly more than a judicial exception in Step 2B is whether the additional elements amount to more than generally linking the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use. Merely performing the mental processes and mathematical calculations claimed in an AI environment is not sufficient to amount to eligibility. In Remarks pages 7-8, Argument 3 (Examiner summarizes Applicants arguments) Applicant argues that the claim is directed to an improvement to technology. Applicant particularly argues that the claim limitations amount to a specific “DEQ/hypersolver architecture and training-inference pipeline—not the use of a generic computer as a mere tool or ancillary “data gathering”” and that the operations improve implicit DEQ models on computers. Examiner’s response to Argument 3 Examiner points to MPEP 2106.05(a) After the examiner has consulted the specification and determined that the disclosed invention improves technology, the claim must be evaluated to ensure the claim itself reflects the disclosed improvement in technology. […] It is important to note, the judicial exception alone cannot provide the improvement. The improvement can be provided by one or more additional elements. On a cursory review, it does not appear to the examiner that the claimed method would provide an improvement to technology, nor does the specification appear to disclose any such improvements. Even when the additional elements as well as the totality of the claim are considered, the additional elements do not provide any improvements. Unlike any recent USPTO guidance, the neural network training (apart from the explicitly recited mental process and mathematics limitations) are highly generic and do not substantially limit the abstract ideas to amount to a technological improvement. Therefore the rejections under 35 U.S.C. 101 for all claims are maintained. In Remarks page 8, Argument 4 (Examiner summarizes Applicant’s arguments) Applicant argues that rejections should not necessarily be made in situations where it is a “close call” whether a rejection under 35 U.S.C. 101, and that the claims at issue are at minimum more likely than not to be eligible. Examiner’s response to Argument 4 Examiner disagrees for the reasons provided in responses to argument above and in the rejections under 35 U.S.C. 101 below. The rejections in this instance is not merely a “close call”, but a clear cut situation of abstract ideas explicitly recited in claims without integrating the judicial exception into a practical application or amounting to significantly more. Mere recitation of AI in a claim is not sufficient to automatically render the claims eligible, as is recognized by the courts and the various subject matter eligibility examples. Regarding 35 U.S.C. 103 In Remarks page 9-10, Argument 5 (Examiner summarizes Applicant’s arguments) Applicant argues that the rejections under 35 U.S.C. 103 are improper. Examiner’s response to Argument 5 The rejections under 35 U.S.C. 103 are withdrawn, thus rendering Applicant’s arguments moot. Allowable Subject Matter Claims 1-20 were found to be non-obvious over the prior art of record. However, Applicant must overcome the rejections under 35 U.S.C. 101 prior to allowance of the application. 13-03-01 AIA The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: Further search revealed the references below. They were considered, but not found to render the claims anticipated nor obvious over the prior art of record: Venkataraman et al. “Neural Fixed-Point Acceleration for Convex Optimization” teaches finding fixed points using a neural network and calculating residuals as a training objective. Heaton et al. “Learn to Predict Equilibria via Fixed Point Networks” teaches finding equilibria using a neural network to find fixed points . Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101 07-04-01 AIA 07-04 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 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 for containing an abstract idea without significantly more. Regarding Claim 1: Step 1 – Is the claim to a process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter? Yes, the claim is to a process. Step 2A – Prong 1 – Does the claim recite an abstract idea, law of nature, or natural phenomenon? Yes, the claim recites the abstract ideas of: providing a first output of the hypersolver after a first iteration of the hypersolver — This limitation is directed to the abstract idea of a mental process (including an observation, evaluation, judgement, opinion) which can be performed by the human mind, or by a human using pen and paper (see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2) III. C.). The limitation is directed to a mental process because it amounts to performing an evaluation of known data to determine an output. based on the first output, begin performing a number of additional iterations of the hypersolver, wherein each additional iteration of the hypersolver is based on an output of a previous iteration of the hypersolver, wherein for each additional iteration: — This limitation is directed to the abstract idea of a mental process (including an observation, evaluation, judgement, opinion) which can be performed by the human mind, or by a human using pen and paper (see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2) III. C.). The limitation is directed to a mental process because it amounts to performing an evaluation of known data to determine an output. a weight parameter and an additional parameter are determined based on the hypersolver, and past residuals from previous iterations of the hypersolver — This limitation is directed to the abstract idea of a mental process (including an observation, evaluation, judgement, opinion) which can be performed by the human mind, or by a human using pen and paper (see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2) III. C.). The limitation is directed to a mental process because it amounts to performing a judgement based on given parameters and algorithms. and one of the past residuals from the previous iterations is updated based on the weight parameter and the additional parameter — This limitation is directed to the abstract idea of a mental process (including an observation, evaluation, judgement, opinion) which can be performed by the human mind, or by a human using pen and paper (see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2) III. C.). The limitation is directed to a mental process because it amounts to performing a judgement . and after the number of additional iterations of the hypersolver are complete, providing an output of the DEQ neural network based on the weight parameter, the additional parameter, and the updated past residuals — This limitation is directed to the abstract idea of a mental process (including an observation, evaluation, judgement, opinion) which can be performed by the human mind, or by a human using pen and paper (see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2) III. C.). The limitation is directed to a mental process because it amounts to performing an evaluation of known data to determine an output. Step 2A – Prong 2 – Does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application? No, the claim does not recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. The additional elements: A computer-implemented method of inferring data in a deep equilibrium (DEQ) neural network, the computer-implemented method comprising: receiving an input from a sensor at the DEQ neural network that is operated by a trained neural network hypersolver stored in memory — This limitation is directed to mere data gathering and outputting which has been recognized by the courts (as per Ultramercial, 772 F.3d at 715, 112 USPQ2d at 1754) as insignificant extra-solution activity (see MPEP 2106.05(g)). Step 2B – Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself? No, the claim does not recite additional elements which amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself. The additional elements as identified in step 2A prong 2: A computer-implemented method of inferring data in a deep equilibrium (DEQ) neural network, the computer-implemented method comprising: receiving an input from a sensor at the DEQ neural network that is operated by a trained neural network hypersolver stored in memory — This limitation is recited at a high level of generality and amounts to mere data gathering of transmitting and receiving data over a network, which is well-understood, routine, and conventional activity (see MPEP 2106.05(d) II.), which cannot amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. Regarding Claim 2 Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claim is dependent on claim 1 which included an abstract idea (see rejection for claim 1). The claim recites the additional limitations: Step 2A Prong 2: wherein the past residuals is a matrix of past residuals — This limitation is directed to merely limiting a judicial exception to a particular field of use (see MPEP 2106.05(h)) as it merely limits the field of the past residuals . Thus, the judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application (see MPEP 2106.04(d) I.), failing step 2A prong 2. Step 2B: The additional elements as identified in step 2A prong 2: wherein the past residuals is a matrix of past residuals —Merely limiting a judicial exception to a particular field of use (see MPEP 2106.05(h)) cannot amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. Thus, the claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception under step 2B. Regarding Claim 3 Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claim is dependent on claim 1 which included an abstract idea (see rejection for claim 1). The claim recites the additional limitations: Step 2A Prong 1: wherein the weight parameter is determined in a greedy manner at each of the additional iterations — This limitation is directed to the abstract idea of a mental process (including an observation, evaluation, judgement, opinion) which can be performed by the human mind, or by a human using pen and paper (see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2) III. C.). The limitation is directed to a mental process because it amounts to performing a judgement of available options to decide the one which provides the most local benefits. Thus, the judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application (see MPEP 2106.04(d) I.), failing step 2A prong 2. The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception under step 2B. Regarding Claim 4 Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claim is dependent on claim 1 which included an abstract idea (see rejection for claim 1). The claim recites the additional limitations: Step 2A Prong 2: wherein the input includes image data — This limitation is directed to merely limiting a judicial exception to a particular field of use (see MPEP 2106.05(h)) as it merely limits the field of the input . Thus, the judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application (see MPEP 2106.04(d) I.), failing step 2A prong 2. Step 2B: The additional elements as identified in step 2A prong 2: wherein the input includes image data — Merely limiting a judicial exception to a particular field of use (see MPEP 2106.05(h)) cannot amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. Thus, the claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception under step 2B. Regarding Claim 5 Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claim is dependent on claim 1 which included an abstract idea (see rejection for claim 1). The claim recites the additional limitations: Step 2A Prong 2: wherein the sensor includes a camera, global positioning system (GPS) sensor, temperature sensor, oxygen sensor, speed sensor, or a vehicle sensor — This limitation is directed to merely limiting a judicial exception to a particular field of use (see MPEP 2106.05(h)) as it merely limits the field of the sensor. Thus, the judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application (see MPEP 2106.04(d) I.), failing step 2A prong 2. Step 2B: The additional elements as identified in step 2A prong 2: wherein the sensor includes a camera, global positioning system (GPS) sensor, temperature sensor, oxygen sensor, speed sensor, or a vehicle sensor — Merely limiting a judicial exception to a particular field of use (see MPEP 2106.05(h)) cannot amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. Thus, the claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception under step 2B. Regarding Claim 6 Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claim is dependent on claim 1 which included an abstract idea (see rejection for claim 1). The claim recites the additional limitations: Step 2A Prong 2: wherein the hypersolver is a fixed hypersolver, fixed throughout the first iteration and the number of additional iterations — This limitation is directed to merely limiting a judicial exception to a particular field of use (see MPEP 2106.05(h)) as it merely limits the field of the hypersolver. Thus, the judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application (see MPEP 2106.04(d) I.), failing step 2A prong 2. Step 2B: The additional elements as identified in step 2A prong 2: wherein the hypersolver is a fixed hypersolver, fixed throughout the first iteration and the number of additional iterations — Merely limiting a judicial exception to a particular field of use (see MPEP 2106.05(h)) cannot amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. Thus, the claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception under step 2B. Regarding Claim 7: Step 1 – Is the claim to a process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter? Yes, the claim is to a process. Step 2A – Prong 1 – Does the claim recite an abstract idea, law of nature, or natural phenomenon? Yes, the claim recites the abstract ideas of: (ii) determining a first fixed point of the DEQ based on the input and a solver — This limitation is directed to the abstract idea of a mental process (including an observation, evaluation, judgement, opinion) which can be performed by the human mind, or by a human using pen and paper (see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2) III. C.). The limitation is directed to a mental process because it amounts to evaluating given data and algorithm to determine an output. (iii) determining a second fixed point of the DEQ based on the input and a neural network hypersolver — This limitation is directed to the abstract idea of a mental process (including an observation, evaluation, judgement, opinion) which can be performed by the human mind, or by a human using pen and paper (see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2) III. C.). The limitation is directed to a mental process because it amounts to evaluating given data and algorithm to determine an output. (iv) deriving a loss for the hypersolver, wherein the loss for the hypersolver includes a fixed-point convergence loss representing a difference between an output of the solver and an output of the hypersolver — This limitation is directed to the abstract idea of a mathematical process, and mathematical calculations in particular (MPEP 2106.04(a)(2) I. C.). The claim describes the mathematical operations of calculating a loss function in words. (v) updating parameters of the hypersolver using loss gradients of the loss for the hypersolver — This limitation is directed to the abstract idea of a mathematical process, and mathematical calculations in particular (MPEP 2106.04(a)(2) I. C.). The claim describes the mathematical operations of calculating gradients in words. (vi) repeating steps (ii)-(v) until convergence of training of the hypersolver — This limitation is directed to the abstract idea of a mental process (including an observation, evaluation, judgement, opinion) which can be performed by the human mind, or by a human using pen and paper (see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2) III. C.). The limitation is directed to a mental process because steps (iii)-(v) are directed to a mental process. Step 2A – Prong 2 – Does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application? No, the claim does not recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. The additional elements: A computer-implemented method for training a neural network hypersolver for inference in a deep equilibrium (DEQ) neural network, the computer-implemented method comprising: (i) receiving an input from a sensor at the DEQ — This limitation is directed to mere data gathering and outputting which has been recognized by the courts (as per Ultramercial, 772 F.3d at 715, 112 USPQ2d at 1754) as insignificant extra-solution activity (see MPEP 2106.05(g)). and (vii) outputting a trained hypersolver for use in inference in the DEQ — This limitation is directed to mere data gathering and outputting which has been recognized by the courts (as per Ultramercial, 772 F.3d at 715, 112 USPQ2d at 1754) as insignificant extra-solution activity (see MPEP 2106.05(g)). Step 2B – Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself? No, the claim does not recite additional elements which amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself. The additional elements as identified in step 2A prong 2: A computer-implemented method for training a neural network hypersolver for inference in a deep equilibrium (DEQ) neural network, the computer-implemented method comprising: (i) receiving an input from a sensor at the DEQ — This limitation is recited at a high level of generality and amounts to mere data gathering of transmitting and receiving data over a network, which is well-understood, routine, and conventional activity (see MPEP 2106.05(d) II.), which cannot amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. and (vii) outputting a trained hypersolver for use in inference in the DEQ — This limitation is recited at a high level of generality and amounts to mere data gathering of transmitting and receiving data over a network, which is well-understood, routine, and conventional activity (see MPEP 2106.05(d) II.), which cannot amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. Regarding Claim 8 Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claim is dependent on claim 7 which included an abstract idea (see rejection for claim 8). The claim recites the additional limitations: Step 2A Prong 2: wherein the loss includes an initializer loss — This limitation is directed to merely limiting a judicial exception to a particular field of use (see MPEP 2106.05(h)) as it merely limits the field of the loss function . Thus, the judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application (see MPEP 2106.04(d) I.), failing step 2A prong 2. Step 2B: The additional elements as identified in step 2A prong 2: wherein the loss includes an initializer loss — Merely limiting a judicial exception to a particular field of use (see MPEP 2106.05(h)) cannot amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. Thus, the claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception under step 2B. Regarding Claim 9 Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claim is dependent on claim 7 which included an abstract idea (see rejection for claim 7). The claim recites the additional limitations: Step 2A Prong 2: wherein the loss includes a loss of a weight parameter — This limitation is directed to merely limiting a judicial exception to a particular field of use (see MPEP 2106.05(h)) as it merely limits the field of the loss function . Thus, the judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application (see MPEP 2106.04(d) I.), failing step 2A prong 2. Step 2B: The additional elements as identified in step 2A prong 2: wherein the loss includes a loss of a weight parameter — Merely limiting a judicial exception to a particular field of use (see MPEP 2106.05(h)) cannot amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. Thus, the claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception under step 2B. Regarding Claim 10 Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claim is dependent on claim 7 which included an abstract idea (see rejection for claim 7). The claim recites the additional limitations: Step 2A Prong 2: further comprising storing the trained hypersolver in memory, and accessing the trained hypersolver for inference in a use of the DEQ neural network — This limitation is directed to mere data gathering and outputting which has been recognized by the courts (as per Ultramercial, 772 F.3d at 715, 112 USPQ2d at 1754) as insignificant extra-solution activity (see MPEP 2106.05(g)). Thus, the judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application (see MPEP 2106.04(d) I.), failing step 2A prong 2. Step 2B: The additional elements as identified in step 2A prong 2: further comprising storing the trained hypersolver in memory, and accessing the trained hypersolver for inference in a use of the DEQ neural network — This limitation is recited at a high level of generality and amounts to mere data gathering of storing and retrieving information in memory, which is well-understood, routine, and conventional activity (see MPEP 2106.05(d) II.), which cannot amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. Thus, the claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception under step 2B. Regarding Claim 11 Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claim is dependent on claim 7 which included an abstract idea (see rejection for claim 7). The claim recites the additional limitations: Step 2A Prong 2: wherein the input includes image data — This limitation is directed to merely limiting a judicial exception to a particular field of use (see MPEP 2106.05(h)) as it merely limits the field of the image data . Thus, the judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application (see MPEP 2106.04(d) I.), failing step 2A prong 2. Step 2B: The additional elements as identified in step 2A prong 2: wherein the input includes image data — Merely limiting a judicial exception to a particular field of use (see MPEP 2106.05(h)) cannot amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. Thus, the claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception under step 2B. Regarding Claim 12 Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claim is dependent on claim 7 which included an abstract idea (see rejection for claim 7). The claim recites the additional limitations: Step 2A Prong 2: wherein the sensor includes a camera, global positioning system (GPS) sensor, temperature sensor, oxygen sensor, speed sensor, or a vehicle sensor — This limitation is directed to merely limiting a judicial exception to a particular field of use (see MPEP 2106.05(h)) as it merely limits the field of the sensor . Thus, the judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application (see MPEP 2106.04(d) I.), failing step 2A prong 2. Step 2B: The additional elements as identified in step 2A prong 2: wherein the sensor includes a camera, global positioning system (GPS) sensor, temperature sensor, oxygen sensor, speed sensor, or a vehicle sensor — Merely limiting a judicial exception to a particular field of use (see MPEP 2106.05(h)) cannot amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. Thus, the claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception under step 2B. Regarding Claim 13 Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claim is dependent on claim 7 which included an abstract idea (see rejection for claim 7). The claim recites the additional limitations: Step 2A Prong 2: wherein the solver is a generic Anderson solver — This limitation is directed to merely limiting a judicial exception to a particular field of use (see MPEP 2106.05(h)) as it merely limits the field of the solver . Thus, the judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application (see MPEP 2106.04(d) I.), failing step 2A prong 2. Step 2B: The additional elements as identified in step 2A prong 2: wherein the solver is a generic Anderson solver — Merely limiting a judicial exception to a particular field of use (see MPEP 2106.05(h)) cannot amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. Thus, the claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception under step 2B. Regarding Claim 14 Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claim is dependent on claim 7 which included an abstract idea (see rejection for claim 7). The claim recites the additional limitations: Step 2A Prong 2: wherein the hypersolver is a fixed hypersolver, fixed throughout steps (ii)-(v) — This limitation is directed to merely limiting a judicial exception to a particular field of use (see MPEP 2106.05(h)) as it merely limits the field of the hypersolver. Thus, the judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application (see MPEP 2106.04(d) I.), failing step 2A prong 2. Step 2B: The additional elements as identified in step 2A prong 2: wherein the hypersolver is a fixed hypersolver, fixed throughout steps (ii)-(v) — Merely limiting a judicial exception to a particular field of use (see MPEP 2106.05(h)) cannot amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. Thus, the claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception under step 2B. Regarding Claim 15 Independent claim 15 is a computer system claim corresponding to method claim 1, which was directed to an abstract idea, therefore the same rejection and rationale applies. The only difference is that claim 15 recites the following additional elements treated under step 2A prong 2 and step 2B: Step 2A Prong 2: A system including a machine-learning network, the system comprising: an input interface configured to receive, at a deep equilibrium (DEQ) neural network operated by a trained neural network hypersolver stored in memory, input data from a sensor; and a processor in communication with the input interface and programmed to : — This limitation is directed to merely applying an abstract idea using a generic computer as a tool (see MPEP 2106.05(f)(2), 2106.04(d)). Thus, the judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application (see MPEP 2106.04(d) I.), failing step 2A prong 2. Step 2B: A system including a machine-learning network, the system comprising: an input interface configured to receive, at a deep equilibrium (DEQ) neural network operated by a trained neural network hypersolver stored in memory, input data from a sensor; and a processor in communication with the input interface and programmed to : — Using a generic computer as a tool (see MPEP 2106.05(f)(2), 2106.05(d)) cannot amount to significantly more than the judicial exception itself. Thus, the claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception under step 2B. Regarding Claim 16 Dependent claim 16 is a computer system claim corresponding to method claim 2, which was directed to an abstract idea, therefore the same rejection and rationale applies. Regarding Claim 17 Dependent claim 17 is a computer system claim corresponding to claim 3, which was directed to an abstract idea, therefore the same rejection and rationale applies. Regarding Claim 18 Claim 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claim is dependent on claim 15 which included an abstract idea (see rejection for claim 15). The claim recites the additional limitations: Step 2A Prong 2: wherein the input includes image data, video data, text- based information, human speech, or time series data — This limitation is directed to merely limiting a judicial exception to a particular field of use (see MPEP 2106.05(h)) as it merely limits the field of input. Thus, the judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application (see MPEP 2106.04(d) I.), failing step 2A prong 2. Step 2B: The additional elements as identified in step 2A prong 2: wherein the input includes image data, video data, text- based information, human speech, or time series data — Merely limiting a judicial exception to a particular field of use (see MPEP 2106.05(h)) cannot amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. Thus, the claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception under step 2B. Regarding Claim 19 Dependent claim 19 is a computer system claim corresponding to method claim 5, which was directed to an abstract idea, therefore the same rejection and rationale applies. Regarding Claim 20 Dependent claim 20 is a computer system claim corresponding to method claim 6, which was directed to an abstract idea, therefore the same rejection and rationale applies. Conclusion 07-40 AIA 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 Ezra J Baker whose telephone number is (703)756-1087. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 10:00 am - 8:00 pm ET. 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, David Yi can be reached at (571) 270-7519. 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. /E.J.B./Examiner, Art Unit 2126 /DAVID YI/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2126 Application/Control Number: 17/954,011 Page 2 Art Unit: 2126 Application/Control Number: 17/954,011 Page 3 Art Unit: 2126 Application/Control Number: 17/954,011 Page 4 Art Unit: 2126 Application/Control Number: 17/954,011 Page 5 Art Unit: 2126 Application/Control Number: 17/954,011 Page 6 Art Unit: 2126 Application/Control Number: 17/954,011 Page 7 Art Unit: 2126 Application/Control Number: 17/954,011 Page 8 Art Unit: 2126 Application/Control Number: 17/954,011 Page 9 Art Unit: 2126 Application/Control Number: 17/954,011 Page 10 Art Unit: 2126 Application/Control Number: 17/954,011 Page 11 Art Unit: 2126 Application/Control Number: 17/954,011 Page 12 Art Unit: 2126 Application/Control Number: 17/954,011 Page 13 Art Unit: 2126 Application/Control Number: 17/954,011 Page 14 Art Unit: 2126 Application/Control Number: 17/954,011 Page 15 Art Unit: 2126 Application/Control Number: 17/954,011 Page 16 Art Unit: 2126 Application/Control Number: 17/954,011 Page 17 Art Unit: 2126 Application/Control Number: 17/954,011 Page 18 Art Unit: 2126 Application/Control Number: 17/954,011 Page 19 Art Unit: 2126 Application/Control Number: 17/954,011 Page 20 Art Unit: 2126 Application/Control Number: 17/954,011 Page 21 Art Unit: 2126 Application/Control Number: 17/954,011 Page 22 Art Unit: 2126 Application/Control Number: 17/954,011 Page 23 Art Unit: 2126 Application/Control Number: 17/954,011 Page 24 Art Unit: 2126 Application/Control Number: 17/954,011 Page 25 Art Unit: 2126 Application/Control Number: 17/954,011 Page 26 Art Unit: 2126 Application/Control Number: 17/954,011 Page 27 Art Unit: 2126
Prosecution Insights