Detailed Action
This action is in response to the amendment filed 03/19/2026 for application 18/009,980, in which:
Claim 1, 9, 16, 21, and 22 are the independent Claims.
Claims 4, 6, 13, and 16 have been amended.
Claims 1-22 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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 03/19/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Regarding the 35 U.S.C. § 101 Rejections:
Applicant's arguments regarding the 35 U.S.C. § 101 rejections of the previous office action have been fully considered, but are unpersuasive.
Applicant agrees (Page 1) with the Examiner that claim 1 recites a method; thus, the rejection under section 101 should be withdrawn. Applicant also asserts (Pages 1-3), the Examiner selects 23 words of the claim to be the purported "abstract idea", meaning that the other 176 words of the claim will necessarily be dismissed as "no more than instructions to 'apply it' on a computer" (MPEP § 2106.05(f)) or "insignificant extra-solution activity" (MPEP § 2106.0S(g)) or "restricting the abstract idea to a Particular Technological Environment" (MPEP § 2106.0S(h)). Examiner may not have taken fully into account the mandate set forth in MPEP § 2106.0S(a), pursuant to which the Examiner is directed to consider whether the claimed invention "purports to improve the functioning of the computer itself" or "any other technology or technical field." Here the specification does explicitly set forth the improvement, in at least the places cited above (improving performance and improving accuracy). Not only that, but the claim also explicitly recites the improvement, for example "accessing accuracy of the first neural network" and carrying out particular steps "responsive to the updated first neural network achieving accuracy". The Examiner is respectfully requested to consider the claim as a whole, taking fully into account the fact that the recited improvements provide subject matter eligibility to Claim 1.
Examiner respectfully disagrees. The Examiner does agree that the claim recites a method; however, for the reasons given below and in the 35 U.S.C. § 101 rejections, the claims are directed to an abstract idea (Step 2A Prong 1) and do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application (Step 2A Prong 2) and thus the rejection is not withdrawn. The claims recites abstract ideas a and b; where the abstract ideas are evaluations/judgements that can be performed in the human mind (or by a human using pen and paper). The independent claim is no more detailed than a method of receiving specific data using a computing system, accessing accuracy of a neural network (mental process) using a specific models (additional element), and based on the accuracy then obtaining/using/forming data to update a neural network (additional elements), and deploying updated neural networks based on specific thresholds (additional element). The additional elements noted within Step 2A Prong 2 are unable to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception (when evaluated individually and holistically) as they are merely applying the abstract idea on a computer, restricting the abstract idea to a specific technological environment, or insignificant extra-solution of data gathering. Thus, the additional elements are not able to integrate the abstract ideas in a practical application as they fall within MPEP 2106.05. The claims are directed towards the improvement of an abstract idea. Improvements to an abstract idea are still considered to an abstract idea. Additionally, the Claims does not reflect any improvement in the functioning of a computer or hardware processor rather the additional elements merely use a generic computer component to perform the abstract idea, restricting the abstract idea to a particular technological environment, or are data gathering solutions. Therefore, the claims do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application nor amount to significantly more. The rejection follows the steps of the analysis as laid out in the MPEP which was followed for the previous and current examination (see MPEP 2106). Thus, the office action does not fail to establish a proper and well-supported prima facie case as the claims are explained to be not patentable via the Patent Subject Matter Eligibility steps within MPEP 2106. The claims do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application nor amount to significantly more. The claim is not patent eligible. Although the Claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the Claims.
MPEP 2106.05(a) recites:
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 … the claim must include the components or steps of the invention that provide the improvement described in the specification
…
It is important to note, the judicial exception alone cannot provide the improvement. The improvement can be provided by one or more additional elements. See the discussion of Diamond v. Diehr, 450 U.S. 175, 187 and 191-92, 209 USPQ 1, 10 (1981)) in subsection II, below.
Applicant fails to show how any alleged technical improvement would be provided by anything more than the judicial exception on its own. Additionally, applicant fails to show how the claim includes components or steps that would provide the alleged improvement described in the specification or by the cited case law. By MPEP 2106.05(f)(1), "the claim recites only the idea of a solution or outcome, i.e. the claim fails to recite details of how a solution to a problem is accomplished". Moreover, the examiner maintains that the Claim does not impose any meaningful limits on the judicial exceptions. As noted in the rejection, the Claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to an integration of the identified abstract idea into a practical application, thus the claim is directed to an abstract idea. For the reasons given above and in the rejections below, the rejection to all Claims (including Claim 1, similar independent claims, and all dependent Claims) are maintained. More specific details are discussed below within the 35 USC § 101 Rejections.
Applicant asserts (Pages 3-4), that similar independent claims 9, 21, and 22 should also be reconsidered for the reasons noted above for Claim 1.
Examiner respectfully disagrees. Applicant’s arguments regarding the other similar independent claims rely upon the same assertions as with respect to Claim 1, and are thus likewise unpersuasive. Therefore, for the reasons given above and in the rejections below, the rejection to all Claims (including Claim 1, similar independent claims, and all dependent Claims) are maintained.
Applicant agrees (Pages 4) with the Examiner that claim 16 recites a system; thus, the rejection under section 101 should be withdrawn. Applicant also asserts (Page 5), the Examiner selects 21 words of the claim to be the purported "abstract idea", meaning that the other 226 words of the claim will necessarily be dismissed as "no more than instructions to 'apply it' on a computer" (MPEP § 2106.05(f)) or "insignificant extra-solution activity" (MPEP § 2106.05(g)) or "restricting the abstract idea to a Particular Technological Environment" (MPEP § 2106.05(h)). The Examiner may not have taken fully into account the mandate set forth in MPEP § 2106.0S(a), pursuant to which the Examiner is directed to consider whether the claimed invention "purports to improve the functioning of the computer itself" or "any other technology or technical field." Just as was discussed above with respect to claim 1, we see an unequivocal commitment to improving the deployed neural network model's accuracy, improving computer performance, improving the accuracy of the original lightweight pretrained model, and improving the performance of deployment neural networks. Claim 16 expressly sets forth "accessing accuracy of the first neural network using a second neural network model". Just as was discussed above with respect to claim 1, the August 4, 2025 Reminders memo at page 4, the December 5, 2025 changes to the MPEP section 2106.05(a), and the teaching of in re Desjardins require the Examiner to take into account the improvements recited. The Examiner is respectfully requested to consider the claim as a whole, taking fully into account the fact that the recited improvements provide subject matter eligibility to Claim 16.
Examiner respectfully disagrees. The Examiner does agree that the claim recites a system; however, for the reasons given below and in the 35 U.S.C. § 101 rejections, the claims are directed to an abstract idea (Step 2A Prong 1) and do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application (Step 2A Prong 2) and thus the rejection is not withdrawn. The claims recites abstract ideas a and b; where the abstract ideas are evaluations/judgements that can be performed in the human mind (or by a human using pen and paper). The additional elements noted within Step 2A Prong 2 are unable to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception (when evaluated individually and holistically) as they are merely applying the abstract idea on a computer, restricting the abstract idea to a specific technological environment, or insignificant extra-solution of data gathering. Thus, the additional elements are not able to integrate the abstract ideas in a practical application as they fall within MPEP 2106.05. The claims are directed towards the improvement of an abstract idea. Improvements to an abstract idea are still considered to an abstract idea. Additionally, the Claims does not reflect any improvement in the functioning of a computer or hardware processor rather the additional elements merely use a generic computer component to perform the abstract idea, restricting the abstract idea to a particular technological environment, or are data gathering solutions. Therefore, the claims do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application nor amount to significantly more. The rejection follows the steps of the analysis as laid out in the MPEP which was followed for the previous and current examination (see MPEP 2106). Thus, the office action does not fail to establish a proper and well-supported prima facie case as the claims are explained to be not patentable via the Patent Subject Matter Eligibility steps within MPEP 2106. The claims do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application nor amount to significantly more. The claim is not patent eligible. Although the Claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the Claims.
MPEP 2106.05(a) recites:
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 … the claim must include the components or steps of the invention that provide the improvement described in the specification
…
It is important to note, the judicial exception alone cannot provide the improvement. The improvement can be provided by one or more additional elements. See the discussion of Diamond v. Diehr, 450 U.S. 175, 187 and 191-92, 209 USPQ 1, 10 (1981)) in subsection II, below.
Applicant fails to show how any alleged technical improvement would be provided by anything more than the judicial exception on its own. Additionally, applicant fails to show how the claim includes components or steps that would provide the alleged improvement described in the specification or by the cited case law. By MPEP 2106.05(f)(1), "the claim recites only the idea of a solution or outcome, i.e. the claim fails to recite details of how a solution to a problem is accomplished". Moreover, the examiner maintains that the Claim does not impose any meaningful limits on the judicial exceptions. As noted in the rejection, the Claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to an integration of the identified abstract idea into a practical application, thus the claim is directed to an abstract idea. For the reasons given above and in the rejections below, the rejection to all Claims (including Claim 16, similar independent claims, and all dependent Claims) are maintained. More specific details are discussed below within the 35 USC § 101 Rejections.
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 1-22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Regarding Claim 1:
Subject Matter Eligibility Analysis Step 1:
Claim 1 recites a method, thus a process, one of the four statutory categories of patentable subject matter.
Subject Matter Eligibility Analysis Step 2A Prong 1:
However, Claim 1 further recites the method comprising of:
accessing accuracy of the first neural network … (a human being can mentally apply evaluation to access accuracy of a neural network)
… comparing results of the second neural network model with corresponding results from the first neural network (a human being can mentally apply evaluation to compare corresponding results from two neural networks)
Claim 1 thus recites an abstract idea (that falls into the “mental processes” group of abstract ideas).
Subject Matter Eligibility Analysis Step 2A Prong 2:
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the additional elements consist of:
receiving a set of results which were obtained … (which is insignificant extra-solution activity of data gathering, by MPEP 2106.05(g))
… using a first neural network model that receives input data as an input and operates using a first computing system (to perform a mental process and the performance of an abstract idea on a computer is no more than instructions to “apply it” on a computer, by MPEP 2106.05(f))
… using a second neural network model, which is more complex than the first neural network, operating on a second computing system, which is communicatively coupled to the first computing system, by inputting at least some of input data into the second neural network … (which is insignificant extra-solution activity of data gathering, by MPEP 2106.05(g))
responsive to the accuracy of the first neural network being below a threshold measure: obtaining input data collected for the first neural network (which is insignificant extra-solution activity of data gathering, by MPEP 2106.05(g))
using the collected input data as inputs into the second neural network to obtain corresponding results (to perform a mental process and the performance of an abstract idea on a computer is no more than instructions to “apply it” on a computer, by MPEP 2106.05(f))
forming training data comprising the collected input data as input data and the corresponding results from the second neural network as ground truth results (which is restricting the abstract idea to a Particular Technological Environment, by MPEP 2106.05(h))
using the training data to update the first neural network (to perform a mental process and the performance of an abstract idea on a computer is no more than instructions to “apply it” on a computer, by MPEP 2106.05(f))
responsive to the updated first neural network achieving accuracy above an update threshold value, deploying the updated first neural network on the first computing system (which is insignificant extra-solution activity of data gathering, by MPEP 2106.05(g))
Subject Matter Eligibility Analysis Step 2B:
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the additional elements, alone or in combination, do not provide significantly more than the abstract idea itself. Additional elements a, c-d and h fall within MPEP 2106.05(d) as well-understood, routine and conventional activities of receiving or transmitting data over a network (MPEP 2106.05(d)(II): buySAFE, Inc. v. Google, Inc., 765 F.3d 1350, 1355, 112 USPQ2d 1093, 1096 (Fed. Cir. 2014)). Additional elements b, e, and g are merely applying the abstract idea on a computer (MPEP 2106.05(f)) which cannot provide significantly more. Additional element f is only restricting the abstract idea to a Particular Technological Environment (MPEP 2106.05(h)) which cannot provide significantly more. Thus, the claim is subject-matter ineligible.
Regarding Claim 2:
Subject Matter Eligibility Analysis Step 1:
Dependent Claim 2 recites the method of Claim 1. Claim 1 is a method, thus a process, one of the four statutory categories of patentable subject matter.
Subject Matter Eligibility Analysis Step 2A Prong 1:
However, Claim 2 does not recite any additional abstract ideas and only inherits the abstract ideas from Claim 1. Claim 2 thus recites an abstract idea (that falls into the “mental processes” group of abstract ideas).
Subject Matter Eligibility Analysis Step 2A Prong 2:
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the additional elements consist of:
responsive to the updated first neural network not achieving accuracy above an update threshold value given existing training data: obtaining additional input data collected for the first neural network; obtaining additional corresponding results using the additional collected input data as inputs into the second neural network (which is insignificant extra-solution activity of data gathering, by MPEP 2106.05(g))
performing supplemental training on the first neural network or the updated first neural network using the additional collected input data and the additional corresponding results as supplemental training data (to perform a mental process and the performance of an abstract idea on a computer is no more than instructions to “apply it” on a computer, by MPEP 2106.05(f))
Subject Matter Eligibility Analysis Step 2B:
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the additional elements, alone or in combination, do not provide significantly more than the abstract idea itself. Additional element a falls within MPEP 2106.05(d) as well-understood, routine and conventional activities of receiving or transmitting data over a network (MPEP 2106.05(d)(II): buySAFE, Inc. v. Google, Inc., 765 F.3d 1350, 1355, 112 USPQ2d 1093, 1096 (Fed. Cir. 2014)). Additional elements b, d, f, and h-i are merely applying the abstract idea on a computer (MPEP 2106.05(f)) which cannot provide significantly more. Thus, the claim is subject-matter ineligible.
Regarding Claim 3:
Subject Matter Eligibility Analysis Step 1:
Dependent Claim 3 recites the method of Claim 2. Claim 2 is a method, thus a process, one of the four statutory categories of patentable subject matter.
Subject Matter Eligibility Analysis Step 2A Prong 1:
However, Claim 3 does not recite any additional abstract ideas and only inherits the abstract ideas from Claim 2. Claim 3 thus recites an abstract idea (that falls into the “mental processes” group of abstract ideas).
Subject Matter Eligibility Analysis Step 2A Prong 2:
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the sole additional element recited consists of wherein the supplemental training data comprises at least some training data that produce inaccurate results by the first neural network (which is restricting the abstract idea to a Particular Technological Environment, by MPEP 2106.05(h)).
Subject Matter Eligibility Analysis Step 2B:
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the new sole additional element recited, alone or in combination, does not provide significantly more than the abstract idea itself. The additional element is only restricting the abstract idea to a Particular Technological Environment (MPEP 2106.05(h)) which cannot provide significantly more. Thus, the claim is subject-matter ineligible.
Regarding Claim 4:
Subject Matter Eligibility Analysis Step 1:
Dependent Claim 4 recites the method of Claim 2. Claim 2 is a method, thus a process, one of the four statutory categories of patentable subject matter.
Subject Matter Eligibility Analysis Step 2A Prong 1:
However, Claim 4 does not recite any additional abstract ideas and only inherits the abstract ideas from Claim 2. Claim 4 thus recites an abstract idea (that falls into the “mental processes” group of abstract ideas).
Subject Matter Eligibility Analysis Step 2A Prong 2:
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the sole additional element recited consists of responsive to the updated first neural network not achieving accuracy above the update threshold value, repeating updating by returning to the step of obtaining additional input data collected for the first neural network (which is insignificant extra-solution activity of data gathering, by MPEP 2106.05(g)).
Subject Matter Eligibility Analysis Step 2B:
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the new sole additional element recited, alone or in combination, does not provide significantly more than the abstract idea itself. The additional element falls within MPEP 2106.05(d) as well-understood, routine and conventional activities of performing repetitive calculations (MPEP 2106.05(d)(II)(ii): “Performing repetitive calculations, Flook, 437 U.S. at 594, 198 USPQ2d at 199”). Thus, the claim is subject-matter ineligible.
Regarding Claim 5:
Subject Matter Eligibility Analysis Step 1:
Dependent Claim 5 recites the method of Claim 1. Claim 1 is a method, thus a process, one of the four statutory categories of patentable subject matter.
Subject Matter Eligibility Analysis Step 2A Prong 1:
However, Claim 5 further recites the method comprising of:
forming a set of combined neural networks comprising a combination of two or more of the first neural networks (a mathematical relationship between variables and/or numbers using a mathematical formula/equations)
selecting a combined neural network with an acceptable accuracy measure (a human being can mentally apply evaluation to select a combined neural network based on a specific requirement such as an accuracy measure)
Claim 5 thus recites an abstract idea (that falls into the “mental processes” and “mathematical concepts” group of abstract ideas).
Subject Matter Eligibility Analysis Step 2A Prong 2:
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the additional elements consist of:
wherein the second computing system is communicatively coupled to a plurality of first computing systems, in which each first computing system comprises a version of the first neural network and the method further comprises (which is restricting the abstract idea to a Particular Technological Environment, by MPEP 2106.05(h))
obtaining from each of at least some of the plurality of first computing systems its version of the first neural network (which is insignificant extra-solution activity of data gathering, by MPEP 2106.05(g))
using evaluation data to obtain accuracy measures for each combined neural network (to perform a mental process and the performance of an abstract idea on a computer is no more than instructions to “apply it” on a computer, by MPEP 2106.05(f))
deploying the combined neural network at least one of the first computing systems (which is insignificant extra-solution activity of data gathering, by MPEP 2106.05(g))
Subject Matter Eligibility Analysis Step 2B:
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the additional elements, alone or in combination, do not provide significantly more than the abstract idea itself. Additional element a is only restricting the abstract idea to a Particular Technological Environment (MPEP 2106.05(h)) which cannot provide significantly more. Additional elements b and d falls within MPEP 2106.05(d) as well-understood, routine and conventional activities of receiving or transmitting data over a network (MPEP 2106.05(d)(II): buySAFE, Inc. v. Google, Inc., 765 F.3d 1350, 1355, 112 USPQ2d 1093, 1096 (Fed. Cir. 2014)). Additional element c is merely applying the abstract idea on a computer (MPEP 2106.05(f)) which cannot provide significantly more. Thus, the claim is subject-matter ineligible.
Regarding Claim 6:
Subject Matter Eligibility Analysis Step 1:
Dependent Claim 6 recites the method of Claim 5. Claim 5 is a method, thus a process, one of the four statutory categories of patentable subject matter.
Subject Matter Eligibility Analysis Step 2A Prong 1:
However, Claim 6 does not recite any additional abstract ideas and only inherits the abstract ideas from Claim 5. Claim 6 thus recites an abstract idea (that falls into the “mental processes” group of abstract ideas).
Subject Matter Eligibility Analysis Step 2A Prong 2:
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the additional elements consist of:
wherein the second computing system is communicatively coupled to a central computing system, which is communicatively coupled to a plurality of second computing systems which each comprises its version of training data, the method further comprising (which is restricting the abstract idea to a Particular Technological Environment, by MPEP 2106.05(h))
sending, from the second computing system to the central computing system, its training data (which is insignificant extra-solution activity of data gathering, by MPEP 2106.05(g))
receiving from the central computing system an updated second neural network; (which is insignificant extra-solution activity of data gathering, by MPEP 2106.05(g))
wherein the updated second neural network was obtained by updating the second neural network using a training data superset obtained from at least some of the plurality of second computing systems (to perform a mental process and the performance of an abstract idea on a computer is no more than instructions to “apply it” on a computer, by MPEP 2106.05(f))
Subject Matter Eligibility Analysis Step 2B:
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the additional elements, alone or in combination, do not provide significantly more than the abstract idea itself. Additional element a is only restricting the abstract idea to a Particular Technological Environment (MPEP 2106.05(h)) which cannot provide significantly more. Additional elements b and c fall within MPEP 2106.05(d) as well-understood, routine and conventional activities of receiving or transmitting data over a network (MPEP 2106.05(d)(II): buySAFE, Inc. v. Google, Inc., 765 F.3d 1350, 1355, 112 USPQ2d 1093, 1096 (Fed. Cir. 2014)). Additional element d is merely applying the abstract idea on a computer (MPEP 2106.05(f)) which cannot provide significantly more. Thus, the claim is subject-matter ineligible.
Regarding Claim 7:
Subject Matter Eligibility Analysis Step 1:
Dependent Claim 7 recites the method of Claim 6. Claim 6 is a method, thus a process, one of the four statutory categories of patentable subject matter.
Subject Matter Eligibility Analysis Step 2A Prong 1:
However, Claim 7 does not recite any additional abstract ideas and only inherits the abstract ideas from Claim 6. Claim 7 thus recites an abstract idea (that falls into the “mental processes” group of abstract ideas).
Subject Matter Eligibility Analysis Step 2A Prong 2:
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the sole additional element recited consists of wherein the training data selected from the plurality of second computing systems is done using one or more observed characteristics associated with the training data (which is restricting the abstract idea to a Particular Technological Environment, by MPEP 2106.05(h)).
Subject Matter Eligibility Analysis Step 2B:
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the new sole additional element recited, alone or in combination, does not provide significantly more than the abstract idea itself. The additional element is only restricting the abstract idea to a Particular Technological Environment (MPEP 2106.05(h)) which cannot provide significantly more. Thus, the claim is subject-matter ineligible.
Regarding Claim 8:
Subject Matter Eligibility Analysis Step 1:
Dependent Claim 8 recites the method of Claim 7. Claim 7 is a method, thus a process, one of the four statutory categories of patentable subject matter.
Subject Matter Eligibility Analysis Step 2A Prong 1:
However, Claim 8 does not recite any additional abstract ideas and only inherits the abstract ideas from Claim 7. Claim 8 thus recites an abstract idea (that falls into the “mental processes” group of abstract ideas).
Subject Matter Eligibility Analysis Step 2A Prong 2:
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the sole additional element recited consists of wherein one or more observed characteristics associated with the training data comprises training data obtained from first computing systems deployed within a region or training data obtained from first computing systems deployed in an environment with similar conditions (which is restricting the abstract idea to a Particular Technological Environment, by MPEP 2106.05(h)).
Subject Matter Eligibility Analysis Step 2B:
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the new sole additional element recited, alone or in combination, does not provide significantly more than the abstract idea itself. The additional element is only restricting the abstract idea to a Particular Technological Environment (MPEP 2106.05(h)) which cannot provide significantly more. Thus, the claim is subject-matter ineligible.
Regarding Claims 9-10 and 12-15:
Claims 9-10 and 12-15 incorporate substantively all the limitations of Claims 1, [2+4] and 5-8 in a system (thus a machine) and further recites a second computing system comprising: one or more communication connections, m which at least one of the communication connections connects with a first computing system; one or more processors; and a non-transitory computer-readable medium or media comprising one or more sets of instructions which, when executed by at least one of the one or more processors, causes steps to be performed comprising (these claim limitations appear to perform a mental process and the performance of an abstract idea on a computer is no more than instructions to “apply it” on a computer, by MPEP 2106.05(f)) and does not appear to integrate the abstract idea into a particular application; thus, the claim is subject matter ineligible as it does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the additional elements, alone or in combination, and do not provide significantly more than the abstract idea itself); thus, Claims 9-10 and 12-15 are rejected for reasons set forth in the rejections of Claims 1, [2+4] and 5-8, respectively.
Regarding Claim 11:
Subject Matter Eligibility Analysis Step 1:
Dependent Claim 11 recites the system of Claim 9. Claim 9 is a system, thus a process, one of the four statutory categories of patentable subject matter.
Subject Matter Eligibility Analysis Step 2A Prong 1:
However, Claim 11 does not recite any additional abstract ideas and only inherits the abstract ideas from Claim 9. Claim 11 thus recites an abstract idea (that falls into the “mental processes” group of abstract ideas).
Subject Matter Eligibility Analysis Step 2A Prong 2:
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the sole additional element recited consists of wherein the first computing system comprises a camera system and the input data is image data and the first neural network and the second neural network are recognition models that are used to recognize one or more objects in an input image (which is restricting the abstract idea to a Particular Technological Environment, by MPEP 2106.05(h)).
Subject Matter Eligibility Analysis Step 2B:
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the new sole additional element recited, alone or in combination, does not provide significantly more than the abstract idea itself. The additional element is only restricting the abstract idea to a Particular Technological Environment (MPEP 2106.05(h)) which cannot provide significantly more. Thus, the claim is subject-matter ineligible.
Regarding Claim 16:
Subject Matter Eligibility Analysis Step 1:
Claim 16 recites a system, thus a machine, one of the four statutory categories of patentable subject matter.
Subject Matter Eligibility Analysis Step 2A Prong 1:
However, Claim 16 further recites the method comprising of:
… comparing results of the second neural network model with corresponding results from the first neural network (a human being can mentally apply evaluation to compare corresponding results from two neural networks)
obtaining a set of results … (a human being can mentally apply evaluation to obtain a set of results)
Claim 16 thus recites an abstract idea (that falls into the “mental processes” group of abstract ideas).
Subject Matter Eligibility Analysis Step 2A Prong 2:
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the additional elements consist of:
one or more sensor devices; and a first computing system comprising: one or more communication connections, in which at least one of the communication connections connects with a second computing system; one or more processors; and a non-transitory computer-readable medium or media comprising one or more sets of instructions which, when executed by at least one of the one or more processors, causes steps to be performed comprising (to perform a mental process and the performance of an abstract idea on a computer is no more than instructions to “apply it” on a computer, by MPEP 2106.05(f))
capturing input data using at least one of the one or more sensor devices (which is insignificant extra-solution activity of data gathering, by MPEP 2106.05(g))
… using a first neural network model that receives the input data as an input (to perform a mental process and the performance of an abstract idea on a computer is no more than instructions to “apply it” on a computer, by MPEP 2106.05(f))
sending at least some of the set of results and the corresponding input data to a second computing system that accessing accuracy of the first neural network … (which is insignificant extra-solution activity of data gathering, by MPEP 2106.05(g))
… using a second neural network model, which is more complex than the first neural network … (to perform a mental process and the performance of an abstract idea on a computer is no more than instructions to “apply it” on a computer, by MPEP 2106.05(f))
receiving a request to provide collected input data to the second computing device (which is insignificant extra-solution activity of data gathering, by MPEP 2106.05(g))
providing the collected input data to the second computing device that uses the collected input data …(which is insignificant extra-solution activity of data gathering, by MPEP 2106.05(g))
… to form training data comprising the collected input data as input data and corresponding results from the second neural network as ground truth results (which is restricting the abstract idea to a Particular Technological Environment, by MPEP 2106.05(h))
deploying an updated first neural network in place of the first neural network, in which the updated first neural network was updated using at least some of the training data (which is insignificant extra-solution activity of data gathering, by MPEP 2106.05(g))
Subject Matter Eligibility Analysis Step 2B:
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the additional elements, alone or in combination, do not provide significantly more than the abstract idea itself. Additional elements a, c, and e are merely applying the abstract idea on a computer (MPEP 2106.05(f)) which cannot provide significantly more. Additional elements b, d, f-g, and i fall within MPEP 2106.05(d) as well-understood, routine and conventional activities of receiving or transmitting data over a network (MPEP 2106.05(d)(II): buySAFE, Inc. v. Google, Inc., 765 F.3d 1350, 1355, 112 USPQ2d 1093, 1096 (Fed. Cir. 2014)). Additional element h is only restricting the abstract idea to a Particular Technological Environment (MPEP 2106.05(h)) which cannot provide significantly more. Thus, the claim is subject-matter ineligible.
Regarding Claim 17:
Subject Matter Eligibility Analysis Step 1:
Dependent Claim 17 recites the system of Claim 16. Claim 16 is a system, thus a machine, one of the four statutory categories of patentable subject matter.
Subject Matter Eligibility Analysis Step 2A Prong 1:
However, Claim 17 does not recite any additional abstract ideas and only inherits the abstract ideas from Claim 16. Claim 17 thus recites an abstract idea (that falls into the “mental processes” group of abstract ideas).
Subject Matter Eligibility Analysis Step 2A Prong 2:
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the sole additional element recited consists of wherein the request to provide collected input data to the second computing device comprises a request to collect input data with one or more characteristics that produce inaccurate results by the first neural network (which is restricting the abstract idea to a Particular Technological Environment, by MPEP 2106.05(h)).
Subject Matter Eligibility Analysis Step 2B:
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the new sole additional element recited, alone or in combination, does not provide significantly more than the abstract idea itself. The additional element is only restricting the abstract idea to a Particular Technological Environment (MPEP 2106.05(h)) which cannot provide significantly more. Thus, the claim is subject-matter ineligible.
Regarding Claim 18:
Subject Matter Eligibility Analysis Step 1:
Dependent Claim 18 recites the system of Claim 16. Claim 16 is a system, thus a machine, one of the four statutory categories of patentable subject matter.
Subject Matter Eligibility Analysis Step 2A Prong 1:
However, Claim 18 does not recite any additional abstract ideas and only inherits the abstract ideas from Claim 16. Claim 18 thus recites an abstract idea (that falls into the “mental processes” group of abstract ideas).
Subject Matter Eligibility Analysis Step 2A Prong 2:
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the additional elements consist of:
wherein the non-transitory computer-readable medium or media further comprise one or more sets of instructions which, when executed by at least one of the one or more processors, causes steps to be performed comprising (which is restricting the abstract idea to a Particular Technological Environment, by MPEP 2106.05(h))
receiving a request for additional input data collected for the first neural network; collecting additional input data using one or more of the sensors (which is insignificant extra-solution activity of data gathering, by MPEP 2106.05(g))
providing the additional collected input data to the second computing device that uses the collected input data to form additional training data comprising the additional collected input data as input data and corresponding results from the second neural network as ground truth results (to perform a mental process and the performance of an abstract idea on a computer is no more than instructions to “apply it” on a computer, by MPEP 2106.05(f))
Subject Matter Eligibility Analysis Step 2B:
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the additional elements, alone or in combination, do not provide significantly more than the abstract idea itself. Additional element a is only restricting the abstract idea to a Particular Technological Environment (MPEP 2106.05(h)) which cannot provide significantly more. Additional element b falls within MPEP 2106.05(d) as well-understood, routine and conventional activities of receiving or transmitting data over a network (MPEP 2106.05(d)(II): buySAFE, Inc. v. Google, Inc., 765 F.3d 1350, 1355, 112 USPQ2d 1093, 1096 (Fed. Cir. 2014)). Additional element c is merely applying the abstract idea on a computer (MPEP 2106.05(f)) which cannot provide significantly more. Thus, the claim is subject-matter ineligible.
Regarding Claim 19:
Subject Matter Eligibility Analysis Step 1:
Dependent Claim 19 recites the system of Claim 16. Claim 16 is a system, thus a machine, one of the four statutory categories of patentable subject matter.
Subject Matter Eligibility Analysis Step 2A Prong 1:
However, Claim 19 further recites the system comprising of wherein the combined neural network was selected from among a plurality of different combined neural networks based upon accuracy of results of the different combined neural networks (a human being can mentally apply evaluation to select a combined neural network based on a specific requirement such as an accuracy measure). Claim 19 thus recites an abstract idea (that falls into the “mental processes” group of abstract ideas).
Subject Matter Eligibility Analysis Step 2A Prong 2:
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the additional elements consist of:
wherein the second computing system is communicatively coupled to a plurality of first computing systems, in which each first computing system comprises a version of the first neural network and wherein the non-transitory computer readable medium or media further comprise one or more sets of instructions which, when executed by at least one of the one or more processors, causes steps to be performed comprising: (which is restricting the abstract idea to a Particular Technological Environment, by MPEP 2106.05(h))
obtaining from the second computing system a combined neural network comprising a combination of two or more of first neural networks (which is insignificant extra-solution activity of data gathering, by MPEP 2106.05(g))
deploying the combined neural network using the first computing system (which is insignificant extra-solution activity of data gathering, by MPEP 2106.05(g))
Subject Matter Eligibility Analysis Step 2B:
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the additional elements, alone or in combination, do not provide significantly more than the abstract idea itself. Additional element a is only restricting the abstract idea to a Particular Technological Environment (MPEP 2106.05(h)) which cannot provide significantly more. Additional elements b and c fall within MPEP 2106.05(d) as well-understood, routine and conventional activities of receiving or transmitting data over a network (MPEP 2106.05(d)(II): buySAFE, Inc. v. Google, Inc., 765 F.3d 1350, 1355, 112 USPQ2d 1093, 1096 (Fed. Cir. 2014)). Thus, the claim is subject-matter ineligible.
Regarding Claim 21:
Claim 21 incorporates substantively all the limitations of Claim 1 in a non-transitory computer readable storage medium (thus a manufacture) and further recites storing a computer program executable to cause one or more processors to cause steps to be performed comprising: (these claim limitations appear to perform a mental process and the performance of an abstract idea on a computer is no more than instructions to “apply it” on a computer, by MPEP 2106.05(f)) and does not appear to integrate the abstract idea into a particular application; thus, the claim is subject matter ineligible as it does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the additional elements, alone or in combination, and do not provide significantly more than the abstract idea itself); thus, Claim 21 is rejected for reasons set forth in the rejection of Claim 1.
Regarding Claim 22:
Claim 22 incorporates substantively all the limitations of Claim 1 in a computer program product (thus a manufacture) and further recites comprising a program stored on a
computer-readable storage medium, the program comprising program instructions executable
to cause one or more processors to cause steps to be performed comprising (these claim limitations appear to perform a mental process and the performance of an abstract idea on a computer is no more than instructions to “apply it” on a computer, by MPEP 2106.05(f)) and does not appear to integrate the abstract idea into a particular application; thus, the claim is subject matter ineligible as it does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the additional elements, alone or in combination, and do not provide significantly more than the abstract idea itself); thus, Claim 22 is rejected for reasons set forth in the rejection of Claim 1.
Conclusion
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 IBRAHIM RAHMAN whose telephone number is (703)756-1646. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8am-5pm.
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.
/I.R./Examiner, Art Unit 2122
/KAKALI CHAKI/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2122
Prosecution Insights