DETAILED ACTION
This action is in response the communications filed on 09/09/2026 in which claims 1 and 8 are amended. Claims 1-7 are pending. Claims 8-20 are allowed.
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 .
Claim Interpretation
Claim 1 recites selectively executing the reference artificial neural network or the auxiliary artificial neural network based on comparing the probability to a threshold, wherein the reference artificial neural network is executed to an exclusion of the auxiliary artificial neural network in response to the probability being greater than the threshold, and wherein the auxiliary artificial neural network is executed to an exclusion of the reference artificial neural network in response to the probability being less than the threshold, thereby reducing energy consumption of the microcontroller relative to executing the reference artificial neural network, the auxiliary artificial neural network being a distinct and simplified artificial neural network relative to the reference artificial neural network.
These limitations in claim 1 are contingent limitations. The reference artificial neural network or the auxiliary neural network is executed if the probability of presence of an event or element is “greater” than a threshold and “less than” the threshold. The claim does not state anything about when it is equal to the threshold. Therefore, the “selectively executing…” will not occur when the probability is equal to the threshold. Thus, the BRI of the claim only requires the “determining” step.
Note: A process claim defines actions. The BRI of a process claims reciting actions that are performed only when a condition precedent is met requires only those steps that must be performed and does not include steps that are not required to be performed because the condition precedent is not met. A product/system claim defines physical or tangible things. The BRI of a product claim reciting structure for performing a function, which function only needs to occur if a condition precedent is met, still requires that structure for performing the function whether or not the condition occurs.
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 1-7 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more
Step 1: Claims 1-7 recite a method. Therefore, claims 1-7 are directed to a process.
With respect to claim 1:
2A Prong 1: The claim recites a judicial exception.
determining a probability of a presence of an event or an element in a physical signal at an input of an artificial neural network based on a number of detections in detection results from prior executions of a reference artificial neural network or an auxiliary artificial neural network over a time period; and… wherein the auxiliary artificial neural network requires fewer calculations to generate output data than the reference artificial neural network; (mental process – evaluation or judgement,--- determining a probability)
2A Prong 2: The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application.
wherein the reference artificial neural network and the auxiliary artificial neural network are implemented by a microcontroller supplied with energy by a battery, and (mere instructions to apply an exception, (2) Whether the claim invokes computers - MPEP 2106.05(f); generic computer components)
Since the claim as a whole, looking at the additional elements individually and in combination, does not contain any other additional elements that are indicative of integration into a practical application, the claim is directed to an abstract idea.
2B: The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
wherein the reference artificial neural network and the auxiliary artificial neural network are implemented by a microcontroller supplied with energy by a battery, and (mere instructions to apply an exception, (2) Whether the claim invokes computers - MPEP 2106.05(f); generic computer components)
Considering the additional elements individually and in combination, and the claim as a whole, the additional elements do not provide significantly more than the abstract idea. Therefore, the claim is not patent eligible.
With respect to claim 2:
2A Prong 2: The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application.
further comprising delimiting the event or the element by the reference artificial neural network or the auxiliary artificial neural network (mere instructions to apply an exception – MPEP 2106.05(f), (3) The particularity or generality of the application of the judicial exception; delimiting the event by using reference/auxiliary neural network)
Since the claim as a whole, looking at the additional elements individually and in combination, does not contain any other additional elements that are indicative of integration into a practical application, the claim is directed to an abstract idea.
2B: The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
further comprising delimiting the event or the element by the reference artificial neural network or the auxiliary artificial neural network (mere instructions to apply an exception – MPEP 2106.05(f), (3) The particularity or generality of the application of the judicial exception; delimiting the event by using reference/auxiliary neural network)
Considering the additional elements individually and in combination, and the claim as a whole, the additional elements do not provide significantly more than the abstract idea. Therefore, the claim is not patent eligible.
With respect to claim 3:
2A Prong 2: The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application.
further comprising: delimiting the event or the element by the reference artificial neural network; and (mere instructions to apply an exception – MPEP 2106.05(f), (3) The particularity or generality of the application of the judicial exception; delimiting the event by using reference neural network)
identifying the presence of the event or the element in the physical signal by the auxiliary artificial neural network. (mere instructions to apply an exception – MPEP 2106.05(f), (3) The particularity or generality of the application of the judicial exception; identifying the event by using auxiliary neural network)
Since the claim as a whole, looking at the additional elements individually and in combination, does not contain any other additional elements that are indicative of integration into a practical application, the claim is directed to an abstract idea.
2B: The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
further comprising: delimiting the event or the element by the reference artificial neural network; and (mere instructions to apply an exception – MPEP 2106.05(f), (3) The particularity or generality of the application of the judicial exception; delimiting the event by using reference neural network)
identifying the presence of the event or the element in the physical signal by the auxiliary artificial neural network. (mere instructions to apply an exception – MPEP 2106.05(f), (3) The particularity or generality of the application of the judicial exception; identifying the event by using auxiliary neural network)
Considering the additional elements individually and in combination, and the claim as a whole, the additional elements do not provide significantly more than the abstract idea. Therefore, the claim is not patent eligible.
With respect to claim 4:
2A Prong 1: The claim recites a judicial exception.
wherein the threshold is defined based on a desired sensitivity of the artificial neural network (mental process – evaluation or judgement,--- defining the threshold)
With respect to claim 5:
2A Prong 1: The claim recites a judicial exception.
wherein the threshold is defined based on a desired accuracy of the artificial neural network (mental process – evaluation or judgement,--- defining the threshold)
With respect to claim 6:
2A Prong 2: The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application.
wherein the auxiliary artificial neural network comprises a binary quantized layer. (a particular technological environment or field of use – MPEP 2106.05(h); a specific binary quantized model/neural network)
Since the claim as a whole, looking at the additional elements individually and in combination, does not contain any other additional elements that are indicative of integration into a practical application, the claim is directed to an abstract idea.
2B: The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
wherein the auxiliary artificial neural network comprises a binary quantized layer. (a particular technological environment or field of use – MPEP 2106.05(h); a specific binary quantized model/neural network)
Considering the additional elements individually and in combination, and the claim as a whole, the additional elements do not provide significantly more than the abstract idea. Therefore, the claim is not patent eligible.
With respect to claim 7:
2A Prong 2: The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application.
wherein the physical signal is an image of a scene acquired by a camera, an audio signal delivered by a microphone, or a signal delivered by an accelerometer, a gyroscope, a magnetometer, or a time of flight sensor. (a particular technological environment or field of use – MPEP 2106.05(h); the invention applies to image, audio, or other signal types)
Since the claim as a whole, looking at the additional elements individually and in combination, does not contain any other additional elements that are indicative of integration into a practical application, the claim is directed to an abstract idea.
2B: The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
wherein the physical signal is an image of a scene acquired by a camera, an audio signal delivered by a microphone, or a signal delivered by an accelerometer, a gyroscope, a magnetometer, or a time of flight sensor. (a particular technological environment or field of use – MPEP 2106.05(h); the invention applies to image, audio, or other signal types)
Considering the additional elements individually and in combination, and the claim as a whole, the additional elements do not provide significantly more than the abstract idea. Therefore, the claim is not patent eligible.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 8-20 are allowed.
Independent claims 8 and 15 have been searched with respect to prior art, but no art which anticipates the invention, or no combination of prior art which renders the invention obvious, has been uncovered. Specifically,
determining a probability of a presence of an event or an element in a physical signal at an input of an artificial neural network based on a number of detections in detection results from prior executions of a reference artificial neural network or an auxiliary artificial neural network over a time period; and
selectively executing the reference artificial neural network or the auxiliary artificial neural network based on comparing the probability to a threshold,
wherein the reference artificial neural network is executed to an exclusion of the auxiliary artificial neural network in response to the probability being greater than the threshold, and
wherein the auxiliary artificial neural network is executed to an exclusion of the reference artificial neural network in response to the probability being less than the threshold, the auxiliary artificial neural network being a distinct and simplified artificial neural network relative to the reference artificial neural network.
have not been uncovered.
The closest prior art to the invention is Mocerino ("Fast and Accurate Inference on Microcontrollers With Boosted Cooperative Convolutional Neural Networks (BC-Net)" 20201201).
Mocerino teaches the concept of switches between LM (light mode) and FM (full mode) based on CS (confidence score) comparing to CT (confidence threshold). (Mocerino, p. 5, IV.BC-Net "A high CS means the BNN was able to classify the given input with enough confidence, whereas a low CS means that the two topmost scored classes get very close to each other, which reveals high uncertainty. In this latter case, the BC-Net switches from LM to FM mode. A key variable to consider for a safe control policy is the Confidence Threshold (CT), that is the value below which the FM mode is activated.") However, Mocerino does not teach the (CS) confidence score is based on detection results from prior executions of LM (light mode) or FM (full mode).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments with respect to the rejection of the claims under 35 U.S.C. 101 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive:
Argument: (p. 8-9) … This additional element integrates the recited determination into a practical application. Applicant's Specification explains that the energy consumption of executing a neural network depends on the number of calculations performed, and that microcontrollers implementing neural networks are frequently powered by batteries of limited capacity, making reduction of energy consumption particularly important to extending device operating life before recharging or replacement. See, e.g., Specification, [ooo4]-[ooo6]. Applicant's Specification further explains that the reference and auxiliary artificial neural networks "can be implemented by a microcontroller supplied with energy by a battery," that the auxiliary artificial neural network "requires fewer calculations to be performed than the execution of the reference artificial neural network," and that "the execution of the auxiliary artificial neural network consumes less energy than the execution of the reference artificial neural network," such that executing the auxiliary network "reduces the energy consumption" relative to executing the reference network. ID. at [0011], [0013], [0047], and [0048]. Amended claim 1 thus recites a specific technical mechanism of selectively invoking a neural network requiring fewer calculations that produces a specific technical result of reduced energy consumption in a battery-powered microcontroller.
Response: The added limitation “wherein the reference artificial neural network and the auxiliary artificial neural network are implemented by a microcontroller supplied with energy by a battery, and” is evaluated under step 2A prong 2 and step 2B as an additional element as mere instructions to apply an exception - MPEP 2106.05(f). The limitation amounts to generic computer components or generic hardware implementation, rather than a specific machine that limits the abstract idea.
The added limitation “wherein the auxiliary artificial neural network requires fewer calculations to generate output data than the reference artificial neural network;” is a “wherein” clause merely adding details to the identified abstract idea (“determining a probability… based on… detections… from prior executions of a reference artificial neural network or an auxiliary artificial neural network”). Specifying the details of a reference artificial neural network or an auxiliary artificial neural network does not change the scope of the claim.
The added limitation “thereby reducing energy consumption of the microcontroller relative to executing the reference artificial neural network” amounts to an intended result, therefore is not given weight.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Chu teaches selecting between two models based on a threshold.
A process claim (claims 1-7) defines actions. The BRI of a process claim reciting actions that are performed only when a condition precedent is met requires only those steps that must be performed and does not include steps that are not required to be performed because the condition precedent is not met.
A product/system claim (claims 8-20) defines physical or tangible things. The BRI of a product claim reciting structure for performing a function, which function only needs to occur if a condition precedent is met, still requires that structure for performing the function whether or not the condition occurs.
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 SU-TING CHUANG whose telephone number is (408)918-7519. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Thursday 8-5 PT.
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, Usmaan Saeed can be reached at (571) 272-4046. 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.
/S.C./Examiner, Art Unit 2146
/USMAAN SAEED/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2146
