DETAILED ACTION
Acknowledgments
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
This action is in reply to the response filed on 01/26/2026.
Claims 1-25 are currently pending and have been examined.
Response to Arguments
Claim Interpretation
After careful review of the original specification, the Examiner is unable to locate any lexicographic definitions with the required clarity, deliberateness, and precision. See MPEP §2111.01 IV.
Terms such as “when”, “if”, “only if”, “on the condition”, “in the event” and “in a case where” are representative of optional limitations; therefore, optional or conditional language do not narrow the claims because they can always be omitted.
Arguments and Assertions by the Applicant
Applicant’s arguments received 01/26/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
With regard to the limitations of the independent claims, Applicant argues that Mehta is an old reference, dating back to 2016. In response to applicant's argument based upon the age of the references, contentions that the reference patents are old are not impressive absent a showing that the art tried and failed to solve the same problem notwithstanding its presumed knowledge of the references. See In re Wright, 569 F.2d 1124, 193 USPQ 332 (CCPA 1977).
With regard to the limitations of the independent claims, Applicant argues, “Mehta does not teach or reasonably suggest generating predicted performance scores for individual compute resources at the time of workload execution to dynamically select which compute resource to execute the workload.” The Examiner respectfully disagrees and points to at least the Abstract as well as the aforementioned passages and citations shown in the rejections below.
Applicant’s amendments, with respect to the rejection of claims 1-25 under 35 U.S.C. 101 have been fully considered and are not persuasive. The rejections of claims 1-25 under 35 U.S.C. 101 have been updated to conform to current guidelines and maintained accordingly.
The relevant question is whether the claims do more than collect, store, display, and compare data to optimize a heterogeneous computing and prediction of workload performance on a generic computer. This does not appear to be the case.
As an initial matter, when recited at this high level of generality without any technical details of the process by which these operations are performed, the claimed components/steps are part of the abstract idea of Certain Methods Of Organizing Human Activity. Additionally, Using such components to perform the abstract idea does not improve computers, another technology, or a technical field. It does not implement the abstract idea on a machine that is integral to the claim. It does not transform or reduce a particular article to a different state or thing. Nor does it apply the abstract idea in a meaningful way beyond linking its use to a particular technological environment. Revised Guidance 84 Fed. Reg. at 55; MPEP § 2106.04(d). It is well-settled that such a generic computer implementation does not improve computers or other technology and does not make an abstract idea patent eligible. See Alice, 573 U.S. at 223 (“[T]he mere recitation of a generic computer cannot transform a patent-ineligible abstract idea into a patent-eligible invention.”); BSG Tech LLC y. Buyseasons, Inc., 899 F.3d 1281, 1286 (Fed. Cir. 2018) (“[C]laims are not saved from abstraction merely because they recite components more specific than a generic computer.”); Jn re TLI Comme ‘ns LLC Patent Litig., 823 F.3d 607, 613 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (reciting concrete, tangible elements of a mobile telephone system did not confer eligibility).
Taking the claim elements separately, the function performed by the computer at each step of the process is purely conventional. Using a computer to obtain data, use data to identify other data, and filtering data are some of the most basic functions of a computer. Moreover, the technical solution described in this invention does not alter hardware structure or its routine, does not transform the character of the information being processed, does not identify a novel source or type of data, does not advance the functionality of a computer as a tool, and does not incorporate specific rules enabling the computer to accomplish innovative utilities. Therefore the claims are not significantly more than recitations of a judicial exception. In summary, each step does no more than require a common computer to perform universal computer functions. Therefore, the claims are directed to using a computer as a tool to follow instructions.
Considered as an ordered combination, the computer components of petitioner's method, system, and/or computer readable medium add nothing that is not already present when the steps reconsidered separately. Viewed as a whole, the method, system, and/or computer readable medium claims simply recite the concept of analyzing storing data in the form of digital data, comparing/categorizing data, and displaying the data.
The method, system, and/or computer readable medium claims do not, for example, purport to improve the functioning of the computer itself. Nor do they effect an improvement in any other technology or technical field. Instead, the claims at issue amount to nothing significantly more than an instruction to apply the abstract idea of organizing and analyzing data using some unspecified, generic computer. Consequently, that is not enough to transform an abstract idea into a patent-eligible invention.
As in TLI, Applicant’s claims are “not directed to a specific improvement to computer functionality. Rather, they are directed to the use of conventional or generic technology in a nascent but well-known environment, without any claim that the invention reflects an inventive solution to any problem presented by combing the two.” See TLI Communications LLC v. A.V. Automotive, LLC, (Fed. Cir. 2016). “The specification does not describe a new telephone, a new server, or a new physical combination of the two. The specification fails to provide any technical details for the tangible components, but instead predominantly describes the system and methods in purely functional terms.” Id. "Instead, the claims, as noted, are simply directed to the abstract idea of classifying and storing digital images in an organized manner." Id.
The claims in this case fall into a familiar class of claims “directed to” a patent-ineligible concept. The focus of the asserted claims, as illustrated by the claims, is on collecting information, analyzing it, displaying certain results of the collection and analysis and sending instruction to implement result. The outer limits of “abstract idea” need not be defined, nor at this stage exclude the possibility that any particular inventive means are to be found somewhere in the claims, to conclude that these claims focus on an abstract idea - and hence require stage-two analysis under §101. Information as such is an intangible. See Microsoft Corp. v. AT & T Corp., 550 U.S. 437, 451 n.12 (2007); Bayer AG v. Housey Pharm., Inc., 340 F.3d 1367, 1372 (Fed. Cir. 2003). Accordingly, the courts have treated, including when limited to particular content (which does not change its character as information), as within the realm of abstract ideas. See, e.g., Internet Patents, 790 F.3d at 1349; OIP Techs., Inc. v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363 (Fed. Cir. 2015); Content Extraction & Transmission LLC v. Wells Fargo Bank, Nat’l Ass’n, 776 F.3d 1343, 1347 (Fed. Cir. 2014); Digitech Image Techs., LLC v. Elecs. for Imaging, Inc., 758 F.3d 1344, 1351 (Fed. Cir. 2014); CyberSource Corp. v. Retail Decisions, Inc., 654 F.3d 1366, 1370 (Fed. Cir. 2011).
In a similar vein, the courts have treated analyzing information by steps people go through in their minds, or by mathematical algorithms, without more, as essentially mental processes within the abstract-idea category. See, e.g., TLI Communications, 823 F.3d at 613; Digitech, 758 F.3d at 1351; Bancorp Servs., L.L.C. v. Sun Life Assurance Co. of Canada (U.S.), 687 F.3d 1266, 1278 (Fed. Cir. 2012); CyberSource Corp. v. Retail Decisions, Inc., 654 F.3d 1366, 1372 (Fed. Cir. 2011); SiRF Tech., Inc. v. Int’l Trade Comm’n, 601 F.3d 1319, 1333 (Fed. Cir. 2010); see also Mayo, 132 S. Ct. at 1301; Parker v. Flook, 437 U.S. 584, 589–90 (1978); Gottschalk v. Benson, 409 U.S. 63, 67 (1972). In addition, merely presenting the results of abstract processes of collecting and analyzing information, without more (such as identifying a particular tool for presentation), is abstract as an ancillary part of such collection and analysis. See, e.g., Content Extraction, 776 F.3d at 1347; Ultramercial, Inc. v. Hulu, LLC, 772 F.3d 709, 715 (Fed. Cir. 2014).
In this case, the claims are clearly focused on the combination of those abstract-idea processes. This invention claims a process of gathering and analyzing information of a specified content, processing that data, then displaying the results, without any particular or asserted inventive technology for performing those functions. They are therefore directed to an abstract idea.
For stage 2 of the analysis, merely selecting information, by content or source, for collection, analysis, and display does nothing significant to differentiate a process from ordinary mental processes, whose implicit exclusion from §101 undergirds the information-based category of abstract ideas.
Referring to Electric Power Group, LLC v. Alstrom S.A., the claims in this case do not even require a new source or type of information, or new techniques for analyzing it. See, e.g., US Patent 8,401,710 B2 (Budhraja et. al.), col. 8, lines 51–62 (referring to existing phasor data sources); J.A. 6969–71 (describing workings and history of phasor data use); Electric Power Group Br. at 21–22; Reply Br. at 5 (new algorithms not claimed). As a result, the claims do not require an inventive set of components or methods, such as measurement devices or techniques that would generate new data. They do not invoke any novel inventive programming. Merely requiring the selection and manipulation of information—to provide a “humanly comprehensible” amount of information useful for users, Reply Br. at 6; Electric Power Group Br. at 14–15—by itself does not transform the otherwise-abstract processes of information collection and analysis.
With regard to claims 5-9, 15-19, 23-25, the common knowledge declared to be well-known in the art is hereby taken to be admitted prior art because the Applicant either failed to traverse the Examiner’s assertion of OFFICIAL NOTICE or failed to traverse the Examiner’s assertion of OFFICIAL NOTICE adequately. See MPEP §2144.03. To adequately traverse the examiner’s assertion of OFFICIAL NOTICE, the Applicant must specifically point out the supposed errors in the Examiner’s action, which would include stating why the noticed fact is not considered to be common knowledge or well-known in the art. A general allegation that the claims define a patentable invention without any reference to the Examiner’s assertion of OFFICIAL NOTICE would be inadequate. Support for the Applicant’s assertion should be included.
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 1-25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-patent eligible subject matter because the claim(s) as a whole, considering all claim elements both individually and in combination, do not amount to significantly more than an abstract idea.
Step 1:
The claims recite a process, system, apparatus, article of manufacture, and/or a nontransitory storage medium with instructions, each of which are proper statutory categories.
Step 2A (prong 1):
Claim 1 (representative of claims 11 and 20):
The claim limitations are grouped as shown immediately following:
based on telemetry samples collected from the computer system or a second computer system in real-time and indicative of a state of the computer system or the second computer system, build or update one or more workload performance prediction models for a set of compute resources of the computer system or the second computer system with reference to one or more optimization goals; (Certain Methods Of Organizing Human Activity - business relations or managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people including social activities, teaching, and following rules or instructions)
at a time of execution of a workload, determine a particular compute resource of the set of compute resources on which to dispatch the workload by: (Mathematical Concepts - mathematical relationships; mathematical formulas or equations; mathematical calculations)
generating at least one predicted performance score corresponding to a compute resource of the set of compute resources based on the state of the computer system and the one or more workload performance prediction models; (Mathematical Concepts - mathematical relationships; mathematical formulas or equations; mathematical calculations)
selecting the particular compute resource based on the predicted performance score. (Certain Methods Of Organizing Human Activity - business relations or managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people including social activities, teaching, and following rules or instructions)
Additional dependent claims 2-10, 12-20, and 21-25 do not appear remedy the deficiency.
Step 2A (prong 2):
Claim 1 (representative of claims 11 and 20):
…a non-transitory machine-readable medium
…a processing resource
…a computer system
These remaining claim limitations are delineated as shown immediately preceding. The abstract idea is not integrated into a practical application. There are no improvements to the functioning of a computer, other technology or technical field, a particular machine is not cited, nothing is transformed to a different state or thing, the abstract idea is not more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the abstract idea. The claim merely uses a computer as a tool to perform the abstract idea, which is generally linked to a particular field of use, in this case, marketing and advertising. Thus, these limitations are recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as a generic processor and memory performing a generic computer function of processing and storing data) such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component – MPEP 2106.05(f). Further, receiving data, evaluating data and distributing data are data gathering and data outputting, which has no effect on technology and does no more than generally link the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use – see MPEP 2106.05(h).
Step 2B:
The claim limitations do not provide an Inventive Concept. The claim limitations do not recite additional elements that amount to significantly more that the abstract idea because the additional elements of the system comprising a computer processor, computer readable storage medium with instructions, and a memory configured to store information, each recited at a high level of generality in a computer network which only perform the universal computer functions of accessing, receiving, storing, and processing data, transmitting and presenting information. Taking the elements both individually and as an ordered combination, the function performed by the computer at each step of the process is purely orthodox. Using a computer to obtain and display data are some of the most basic functions of a computer. As shown, the individual limitations claimed are some of the most rudimentary functions of a computer. The technical solution described in this invention does not alter hardware structure or its routine, does not transform the character of the information being processed, does not identify a novel source or type of data, does not advance the functionality of a computer as a tool, and does not incorporate specific rules enabling the computer to accomplish innovative utilities. In summary, the individual step and/or component does no more than require a general computer to perform standard computer functions. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional element of a computer devices amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component - requiring the use of software to tailor information and provide it to the user on a generic computer, Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Capital One Bank (USA), 792 F.3d 1363, 1370-71, 115 USPQ2d 1636, 1642 (Fed. Cir. 2015).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102 of this title, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 1-4, 11-14, 21 are rejected under U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mehta et al. (USPGP 2018/002/4868 A1), hereinafter MEHTA.
Claims 1, 11, and 21:
MEHTA as shown below discloses the following limitations:
based on telemetry samples collected from the computer system or a second computer system in real-time and indicative of a state of the computer system or the second computer system, build or update one or more workload performance prediction models for a set of compute resources of the computer system or the second computer system with reference to one or more optimization goals; (see at least paragraphs 0017, 0019, 0021, 0026, 0037, 0038, 0059)
at a time of execution of a workload, determine a particular compute resource of the set of compute resources on which to dispatch the workload by: (see at least paragraphs 0017, 0019, 0021, 0026, 0037, 0038, 0059)
generating at least one predicted performance score corresponding to a compute resource of the set of compute resources based on the state of the computer system and the one or more workload performance prediction models; (see at least paragraphs 0017, 0019, 0021, 0026, 0037, 0038, 0059)
selecting the particular compute resource based on the predicted performance score. (see at least paragraphs 0017, 0019, 0021, 0026, 0037, 0038, 0059)
MEHTA does not necessarily disclose each of the above limitations in a single embodiment . In this case, however each of the elements claimed are all shown by the prior art of record but not combined as claimed. Consequently, the technical ability exists to combine the elements as claimed and the results of the combination are predictable. Therefore, when combined, the elements perform the same function as they did separately. (KSR v. Teleflex, 127 S. Ct. 1727 (2007)). Consequently, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date to combine/modify the workload optimization system of MEHTA because, “…an information technology (IT) environment, such as a data center, a cloud services platform or other type of computing environment, may include computer resources that are dynamically allocated to workloads. A workload may include an amount of work performed by an entity in a given period of time, or the average amount of work handled by an entity at a particular instant of time. The entity may include computer resources, such as servers, memory, databases, network devices, etc. One approach to boosting workload capabilities is to increase the number of servers and run applications on different servers.” (MEHTA: paragraph 0015). Additionally, there is a recognized problem or need in the art including market pressure, design need, etc., and there are a finite number of identified predictable solutions. Accordingly, those in the art could have pursued known solutions with reasonable expectation of success. (KSR v. Teleflex, 127 S. Ct. 1727 (2007)). Fundamentally, in the competitive business climate, there is a profit-driven motive to maximize the profitability of goods and services that are provided or marketed to customers. Enterprises typically use business planning to make decisions in order to maximize profits.
Claims 2, 12:
MEHTA discloses the limitations as shown in the rejections above. MEHTA further discloses:
wherein the telemetry samples comprise compute utilization for each compute resource of the set of compute resources.
See at least paragraph 0017.
Claims 3, 13:
MEHTA discloses the limitations as shown in the rejections above. MEHTA further discloses:
wherein the telemetry samples include one or more of hardware properties and hardware counters.
See at least paragraph 0032.
Claims 4, 14:
MEHTA discloses the limitations as shown in the rejections above. MEHTA further discloses:
wherein the hardware properties comprise one or more of a base frequency of a given compute resource of the plurality of compute resources, a maximum frequency of the given compute resource, a maximum power draw of the given compute resource, and a size of a local memory of the given compute resource.
See at least paragraph 0016.
Claims 10 and 22 are rejected under U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over MEHTA, in view of Barker et al. (USPGP 2022/0083370 A1), hereinafter BARKER.
Claim 10:
MEHTA discloses the limitations as shown in the rejections above. BARKER further discloses:
wherein the set of compute resources include a central processing unit (CPU), a graphics processing unit (GPU), and a vision processing unit (VPU).
See at least paragraphs 0024, 0100, 0109, 0116, 0123, 0124, 0143, and 0156. In this case, each of the elements claimed are all shown by the prior art of record but not combined as claimed. Consequently, the technical ability exists to combine the elements as claimed and the results of the combination are predictable. Therefore, when combined, the elements perform the same function as they did separately. (KSR v. Teleflex, 127 S. Ct. 1727 (2007)). Consequently, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date to combine/modify the workload optimization system of MEHTA with the processing hardware of BARKER because, “…an information technology (IT) environment, such as a data center, a cloud services platform or other type of computing environment, may include computer resources that are dynamically allocated to workloads. A workload may include an amount of work performed by an entity in a given period of time, or the average amount of work handled by an entity at a particular instant of time. The entity may include computer resources, such as servers, memory, databases, network devices, etc. One approach to boosting workload capabilities is to increase the number of servers and run applications on different servers.” (MEHTA: paragraph 0015). Additionally, there is a recognized problem or need in the art including market pressure, design need, etc., and there are a finite number of identified predictable solutions. Accordingly, those in the art could have pursued known solutions with reasonable expectation of success. (KSR v. Teleflex, 127 S. Ct. 1727 (2007)). Fundamentally, in the competitive business climate, there is a profit-driven motive to maximize the profitability of goods and services that are provided or marketed to customers. Enterprises typically use business planning to make decisions in order to maximize profits.
Claim 22:
MEHTA discloses the limitations as shown in the rejections above. BARKER further discloses:
wherein the telemetry samples comprise compute utilization for each compute resource of the heterogenous set of compute resources. See at least paragraph 0146 and 0150.
In this case, each of the elements claimed are all shown by the prior art of record but not combined as claimed. Consequently, the technical ability exists to combine the elements as claimed and the results of the combination are predictable. Therefore, when combined, the elements perform the same function as they did separately. (KSR v. Teleflex, 127 S. Ct. 1727 (2007)). Consequently, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date to combine/modify the workload optimization system of MEHTA with the processing hardware of BARKER because, “…an information technology (IT) environment, such as a data center, a cloud services platform or other type of computing environment, may include computer resources that are dynamically allocated to workloads. A workload may include an amount of work performed by an entity in a given period of time, or the average amount of work handled by an entity at a particular instant of time. The entity may include computer resources, such as servers, memory, databases, network devices, etc. One approach to boosting workload capabilities is to increase the number of servers and run applications on different servers.” (MEHTA: paragraph 0015). Additionally, there is a recognized problem or need in the art including market pressure, design need, etc., and there are a finite number of identified predictable solutions. Accordingly, those in the art could have pursued known solutions with reasonable expectation of success. (KSR v. Teleflex, 127 S. Ct. 1727 (2007)). Fundamentally, in the competitive business climate, there is a profit-driven motive to maximize the profitability of goods and services that are provided or marketed to customers. Enterprises typically use business planning to make decisions in order to maximize profits.
Claims 5-9, 15-19, 23-25 are rejected under U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over MEHTA and further in view of Applicant’s Own Admissions, hereinafter AOA.
Claims 5, 15, 23:
MEHTA discloses the limitations as shown in the rejections above. MEHTA does not specifically disclose:
wherein the one or more workload performance prediction models include a plurality of:
a cloud-based federated learning model;
a statistical model;
a local machine-learning model;
a network-based synthetic model.
However, the Examiner accepts AOA that it is old and well known in the machine learning arts to incorporate these tools for analysis, prediction, or simulation. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date to combine/modify the method of MEHTA with the technique of Machine Learning modelling because there is a recognized problem or need in the art including market pressure, design need, etc., and there are a finite number of identified predictable solutions. Consequently, those in the art could have pursued known solutions with reasonable expectation of success. (KSR v. Teleflex, 127 S. Ct. 1727 (2007)). Additionally, there is a recognized problem or need in the art including market pressure, design need, etc., and there are a finite number of identified predictable solutions. Accordingly, those in the art could have pursued known solutions with reasonable expectation of success. (KSR v. Teleflex, 127 S. Ct. 1727 (2007)). In the competitive business climate, there is a profit-driven motive to maximize the profitability of goods and services that are provided or marketed to customers. Enterprises typically use business planning to make decisions in order to maximize profits.
Claims 6, 16, 24:
The combination of MEHTA/OFFICIAL NOTICE discloses the limitations as shown in the rejections above. MEHTA further discloses:
wherein the instructions further cause the processing resource to:
determine an actual workload performance for a given workload that has completed execution on a given compute resource of the set of compute resources;
cause the one or more workload performance prediction models to be updated based on the actual workload performance.
See at least paragraphs 0017, 0053, 0059.
Claims 7-9, 17-19, 25:
MEHTA discloses the limitations as shown in the rejections above. MEHTA does not specifically disclose:
wherein the one or more optimization goals comprise completing execution of a given workload by the computer system or the second computer system in a least amount of time.
wherein the one or more optimization goals comprises completing execution of a given workload while utilizing a least amount of power by the computer system.
wherein the one or more optimization goals comprises completing execution of a given workload while maintaining a predefined or configurable ratio of power consumption to performance.
However, the Examiner accepts AOA that it is old and well known in the commercial, industrial, and manufacturing arts to produce deliverables better, cheaper, and faster. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date to combine/modify the method of MEHTA with the technique of optimized deliverable metrics because there is a recognized problem or need in the art including market pressure, design need, etc., and there are a finite number of identified predictable solutions. Consequently, those in the art could have pursued known solutions with reasonable expectation of success. (KSR v. Teleflex, 127 S. Ct. 1727 (2007)). Additionally, there is a recognized problem or need in the art including market pressure, design need, etc., and there are a finite number of identified predictable solutions. Accordingly, those in the art could have pursued known solutions with reasonable expectation of success. (KSR v. Teleflex, 127 S. Ct. 1727 (2007)). In the competitive business climate, there is a profit-driven motive to maximize the profitability of goods and services that are provided or marketed to customers. Enterprises typically use business planning to make decisions in order to maximize profits.
CONCLUSION
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Non-Patent Literature:
Rajeev Muralidhar et al. “Energy Efficient Computing Systems: Architectures, Abstractions and Modeling to Techniques and Standards.” (09 September 2022) Retrieved online 11/16/2025. https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.1145/3511094
Tuomo Sipola et al. “Artificial Intelligence in the IoT Era: A Review of Edge AI Hardware and Software.” (April 2022). Retrieved online 11/16/2025. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/360545603_Artificial_Intelligence_in_the_IoT_Era_A_Review_of_Edge_AI_Hardware_and_Software
RAJEEV MURALIDHAR et al. “Energy Efficient Computing Systems: Architectures, Abstractions and Modeling to Techniques and Standards.” (23 Mar 2022). Retrieved online 11/16/2025.
Foreign Art:
DORSETT et al. “Ensuring Method Of Reproducibility In Artificial Intelligence Infrastructure, Involves Storing Information Describing Machine Learning Models Executed Using Transformed Dataset As Input Within Storage Systems.” (WO 2018/218259 A1)
BEYER et al. “TRAINING LARGE-SCALE VISION TRANSFORMER NEURAL NETWORKS.” (EP 4095758 A1)
SLINGER et al. “PERFORMANCE PREDICTION USING DYNAMIC MODEL CORRELATION.” (EP 3923143 A1)
:
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 extension fee 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 date of this final action.
Any inquiry of a general nature or relating to the status of this application or concerning this communication or earlier communications from the Examiner should be directed to James A. Reagan (james.reagan@uspto.gov) whose telephone number is 571.272.6710. The Examiner can normally be reached Monday through Friday from 9 AM to 5 PM. If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the Examiner’s supervisor, John Hayes, can be reached at 571.272.6708.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://portal.uspto.gov/external/portal/pair . Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866.217.9197 (toll-free).
Any response to this action should be mailed to:
Commissioner for Patents
PO Box 1450
Alexandria, Virginia 22313-1450
or faxed to 571-273-8300.
Hand delivered responses should be brought to the United States Patent and Trademark Office Customer Service Window:
Randolph Building
401 Dulany Street
Alexandria, VA 22314.
/JAMES A REAGAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3697
james.reagan@uspto.gov
571.272.6710 (Office)
571.273.6710 (Desktop Fax)