DETAILED ACTION
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 .
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements (IDS) submitted on 1/20/2023 and 1/7/2026 were filed. The submissions are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statements are being considered by the examiner.
Claim Objections
Claim 14 is objected to because of the following informalities:
In claim 14, “selecting an optimized model compression technique” should read “select an optimized model compression technique”.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are:
“a logic component configured to execute an automated determination …” in claim 15.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claim 15-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Per the “logic component configured to execute an automated determination …” of claim 15, the Instant Application’s Specification at [0053] discusses a logic unit “The logic unit might be integrated into a control unit”, but does not disclose any hardware structure or algorithm to perform the claimed specific computer functions. Thus, the specification does not disclose a definite structure for the “logic component” and does not provide an accompanying algorithm to perform the claimed specific computer functions. It has been recognized by the courts that “merely restating a function associated with a means-plus-function limitation is insufficient to provide the corresponding structure for definiteness” (see MPEP 2181 (IV)). Thus, the specification does not provide a disclosure of the computer and algorithm in sufficient detail to demonstrate to one of ordinary skill in the art that the inventor possessed the invention at the time of filing. For the purposes of further examination, the “logic component” will be interpreted as part of a computer processor. Claim 16 is rejected for its dependency on claim 15.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 15-16 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim limitation “a logic component configured to execute an automated determination …” of claim 15 invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function.
Per the “logic component configured to execute an automated determination …” of claim 15, the Instant Application’s Specification at [0053] discusses a logic unit “The logic unit might be integrated into a control unit”, but does not disclose any hardware structure or algorithm to perform the claimed specific computer functions. Thus, the specification does not disclose a definite structure for the “logic component” and does not provide an accompanying algorithm to perform the claimed specific computer functions. It has been recognized by the courts that “merely restating a function associated with a means-plus-function limitation is insufficient to provide the corresponding structure for definiteness” (see MPEP 2181 (IV)). Thus, the specification does not provide a disclosure of the computer and algorithm in sufficient detail to demonstrate to one of ordinary skill in the art that the inventor possessed the invention at the time of filing. For the purposes of further examination, the “logic component” will be interpreted as part of a computer processor. Claim 16 is rejected for its dependency on claim 15.
Therefore, the claim is indefinite and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph.
Applicant may:
(a) Amend the claim so that the claim limitation will no longer be interpreted as a limitation under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph;
(b) Amend the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites what structure, material, or acts perform the entire claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(c) Amend the written description of the specification such that it clearly links the structure, material, or acts disclosed therein to the function recited in the claim, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)).
If applicant is of the opinion that the written description of the specification already implicitly or inherently discloses the corresponding structure, material, or acts and clearly links them to the function so that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize what structure, material, or acts perform the claimed function, applicant should clarify the record by either:
(a) Amending the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function and clearly links or associates the structure, material, or acts to the claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(b) Stating on the record what the corresponding structure, material, or acts, which are implicitly or inherently set forth in the written description of the specification, perform the claimed function. For more information, see 37 CFR 1.75(d) and MPEP §§ 608.01(o) and 2181.
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.
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter. The claim does not fall within at least one of the four categories of patent eligible subject matter because they are directed to software per se. Claim 14 recites “A computer program product comprising instructions, when executed by a computer, cause the computer to: …”, which is further discussed in Instant Application’s Specification [0050] “The computer program product may be embodied as a function, as a routine, as a program code or as an executable object, in particular stored on a storage device”. In view of the limitation of claim 14 and the cited disclosure of the Instant Application’s Specification under the Broadest Reasonable Interpretation, “A computer program product comprising instructions, when executed by a computer, cause the computer to: …” is directed to software per se since it is a product without any structural recitations (See MPEP 2106.03(I)).
Claims 1-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Regarding Claim 1,
Claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1 Analysis: Claim 1 is directed to a method, which is directed to a process, one of the statutory categories.
Step 2A Prong One Analysis: The following limitation:
providing a set of model compression techniques using an expert rule
determining metrics for model compression techniques of the set of model compression techniques based on weighted constraints
selecting an optimized model compression technique based on the determined metrics
as drafted, under the broadest reasonable interpretation, covers mental processes – concepts performed in the human mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion) but for the recitation of mere instructions to apply an exception language and insignificant extra-solution activity language. In particular, the above limitation in the context of this claim encompasses:
providing a set of model compression techniques using an expert rule (corresponds to evaluation and judgment);
determining metrics for model compression techniques of the set of model compression techniques based on weighted constraints (corresponds to evaluation and judgment);
selecting an optimized model compression technique based on the determined metrics (corresponds to evaluation and judgment).
Step 2A Prong Two Analysis: This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim recites additional elements that amount to recitation of the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) or are more than mere instructions to implement an abstract idea or other exception on a computer, which do not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application. See MPEP 2106.05(f). For example, the additional element of “a computer-implemented method for automated determination of a model compression technique for a compression of an artificial intelligence-based model” and “automatically providing …”, as drafted, amounts to mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea. Accordingly, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. See MPEP 2106.04(d). Even when viewed in combination, these additional elements do not integrate the recited judicial exception into a practical application and the claim is directed to the judicial exception.
Step 2B Analysis: As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the claim recites additional elements that amount to recitation of the words "apply it" (or an equivalent) or are more than mere instructions to implement an abstract idea or other exception on a computer. This has been re-evaluated under step 2B and does not amount to significantly more. See MPEP 2106.05(f). Mere instructions to apply an exception cannot provide an inventive concept. As an ordered whole, the claim is directed to a mentally performable process of determining and selecting optimized model compression techniques for an artificial intelligence-based model. Therefore, the claim is not patent eligible.
Regarding Claim 2,
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1 Analysis: Claim 2 is directed to a method, which is directed to a process, one of the statutory categories.
Step 2A Prong One Analysis: The following limitation:
the weighted constraints reflect hardware or software constraints of an executing system for execution of a compressed model of the artificial intelligence-based model compressed with the model compression technique
as drafted, under the broadest reasonable interpretation, covers mental processes – concepts performed in the human mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion) but for the recitation of mere instructions to apply an exception language and insignificant extra-solution activity language. In particular, the above limitation in the context of this claim encompasses:
the weighted constraints reflect hardware or software constraints of an executing system for execution of a compressed model of the artificial intelligence-based model compressed with the model compression technique (corresponds to evaluation and judgment).
Step 2A Prong Two Analysis: See corresponding analysis of claim 1.
Step 2B Analysis: See corresponding analysis of claim 1.
Regarding Claim 3,
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1 Analysis: Claim 3 is directed to a method, which is directed to a process, one of the statutory categories.
Step 2A Prong One Analysis: The following limitation:
the expert rule relates an artificial intelligence-based model to the model compression techniques of the set of model compression techniques based on a condition of the artificial intelligence-based model or data needed for training or executing the artificial intelligence-based model
as drafted, under the broadest reasonable interpretation, covers mental processes – concepts performed in the human mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion) but for the recitation of mere instructions to apply an exception language and insignificant extra-solution activity language. In particular, the above limitation in the context of this claim encompasses:
the expert rule relates an artificial intelligence-based model to the model compression techniques of the set of model compression techniques based on a condition of the artificial intelligence-based model or data needed for training or executing the artificial intelligence-based model (corresponds to evaluation and judgment).
Step 2A Prong Two Analysis: See corresponding analysis of claim 1.
Step 2B Analysis: See corresponding analysis of claim 1.
Regarding Claim 4,
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1 Analysis: Claim 4 is directed to a method, which is directed to a process, one of the statutory categories.
Step 2A Prong One Analysis: The following limitation:
the metrics are functions in dependence of respective values representing respective constraints, and wherein the respective values are weighted with respective weighting factors
as drafted, under the broadest reasonable interpretation, covers mental processes – concepts performed in the human mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion) but for the recitation of mere instructions to apply an exception language and insignificant extra-solution activity language. In particular, the above limitation in the context of this claim encompasses:
the metrics are functions in dependence of respective values representing respective constraints, and wherein the respective values are weighted with respective weighting factors (corresponds to evaluation and judgment).
Step 2A Prong Two Analysis: See corresponding analysis of claim 1.
Step 2B Analysis: See corresponding analysis of claim 1.
Regarding Claim 5,
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1 Analysis: Claim 5 is directed to a method, which is directed to a process, one of the statutory categories.
Step 2A Prong One Analysis: The following limitation:
the functions describe linear, exponential, polynomial, fitted, or fuzzy relations
as drafted, under the broadest reasonable interpretation, covers mental processes – concepts performed in the human mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion) and mathematical concepts (mathematical relationships, mathematical formulas or equations, mathematical calculations) but for the recitation of mere instructions to apply an exception language and insignificant extra-solution activity language. In particular, the above limitation in the context of this claim encompasses:
the functions describe linear, exponential, polynomial, fitted, or fuzzy relations (corresponds to evaluation and judgment with mathematical relationships).
Step 2A Prong Two Analysis: See corresponding analysis of claim 4.
Step 2B Analysis: See corresponding analysis of claim 4.
Regarding Claim 6,
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1 Analysis: Claim 6 is directed to a method, which is directed to a process, one of the statutory categories.
Step 2A Prong One Analysis: The following limitation:
the functions vary depending on the weighted constraints
as drafted, under the broadest reasonable interpretation, covers mental processes – concepts performed in the human mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion) but for the recitation of mere instructions to apply an exception language and insignificant extra-solution activity language. In particular, the above limitation in the context of this claim encompasses:
the functions vary depending on the weighted constraints (corresponds to evaluation and judgment).
Step 2A Prong Two Analysis: See corresponding analysis of claim 4.
Step 2B Analysis: See corresponding analysis of claim 4.
Regarding Claim 7,
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1 Analysis: Claim 7 is directed to a method, which is directed to a process, one of the statutory categories.
Step 2A Prong One Analysis: The following limitation:
the metrics are relative to a reference metric of the artificial intelligence-based model
as drafted, under the broadest reasonable interpretation, covers mental processes – concepts performed in the human mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion) but for the recitation of mere instructions to apply an exception language and insignificant extra-solution activity language. In particular, the above limitation in the context of this claim encompasses:
the metrics are relative to a reference metric of the artificial intelligence-based model (corresponds to evaluation and judgment).
Step 2A Prong Two Analysis: See corresponding analysis of claim 1.
Step 2B Analysis: See corresponding analysis of claim 1.
Regarding Claim 8,
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1 Analysis: Claim 8 is directed to a method, which is directed to a process, one of the statutory categories.
Step 2A Prong One Analysis: See corresponding analysis of claim 1.
Step 2A Prong Two Analysis: This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim recites additional elements that amount to recitation of the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) or are more than mere instructions to implement an abstract idea or other exception on a computer, which do not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application. See MPEP 2106.05(f). For example, the additional element of “the weighted constraints for building the metrics depend on hardware and software framework conditions of a system or a device the artificial intelligence-based model is used in”, as drafted, amounts to mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea. Accordingly, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. See MPEP 2106.04(d). Even when viewed in combination, these additional elements do not integrate the recited judicial exception into a practical application and the claim is directed to the judicial exception.
Step 2B Analysis: As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the claim recites additional elements that amount to recitation of the words "apply it" (or an equivalent) or are more than mere instructions to implement an abstract idea or other exception on a computer. This has been re-evaluated under step 2B and does not amount to significantly more. See MPEP 2106.05(f). Mere instructions to apply an exception cannot provide an inventive concept. Therefore, the claim is not patent eligible.
Regarding Claim 9,
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1 Analysis: Claim 9 is directed to a method, which is directed to a process, one of the statutory categories.
Step 2A Prong One Analysis: See corresponding analysis of claim 1.
Step 2A Prong Two Analysis: This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim recites additional elements that amount to recitation of the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) or are more than mere instructions to implement an abstract idea or other exception on a computer, which do not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application. See MPEP 2106.05(f). For example, the additional element of “a respective weighting factor for a respective weighted constraint of the weighted constraints depends on an analysis type the artificial intelligence-based model is used in”, as drafted, amounts to mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea. Accordingly, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. See MPEP 2106.04(d). Even when viewed in combination, these additional elements do not integrate the recited judicial exception into a practical application and the claim is directed to the judicial exception.
Step 2B Analysis: As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the claim recites additional elements that amount to recitation of the words "apply it" (or an equivalent) or are more than mere instructions to implement an abstract idea or other exception on a computer. This has been re-evaluated under step 2B and does not amount to significantly more. See MPEP 2106.05(f). Mere instructions to apply an exception cannot provide an inventive concept. Therefore, the claim is not patent eligible.
Regarding Claim 10,
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1 Analysis: Claim 10 is directed to a method, which is directed to a process, one of the statutory categories.
Step 2A Prong One Analysis: The following limitation:
the selecting of the optimized model compression technique further comprises optimizing the metrics for each model compression technique of the model compression techniques over the weighted constraints
as drafted, under the broadest reasonable interpretation, covers mental processes – concepts performed in the human mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion) but for the recitation of mere instructions to apply an exception language and insignificant extra-solution activity language. In particular, the above limitation in the context of this claim encompasses:
the selecting of the optimized model compression technique further comprises optimizing the metrics for each model compression technique of the model compression techniques over the weighted constraints (corresponds to evaluation and judgment).
Step 2A Prong Two Analysis: See corresponding analysis of claim 1.
Step 2B Analysis: See corresponding analysis of claim 1.
Regarding Claim 11,
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1 Analysis: Claim 11 is directed to a method, which is directed to a process, one of the statutory categories.
Step 2A Prong One Analysis: The following limitation:
in the optimizing of the metrics for each model compression technique of the model compression techniques over the weighted constraints, at least one weighted constraint is fixed
as drafted, under the broadest reasonable interpretation, covers mental processes – concepts performed in the human mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion) but for the recitation of mere instructions to apply an exception language and insignificant extra-solution activity language. In particular, the above limitation in the context of this claim encompasses:
in the optimizing of the metrics for each model compression technique of the model compression techniques over the weighted constraints, at least one weighted constraint is fixed (corresponds to evaluation and judgment).
Step 2A Prong Two Analysis: See corresponding analysis of claim 10.
Step 2B Analysis: See corresponding analysis of claim 10.
Regarding Claim 12,
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1 Analysis: Claim 12 is directed to a method, which is directed to a process, one of the statutory categories.
Step 2A Prong One Analysis: The following limitation:
in the optimizing of the metrics for each model compression technique of the model compression techniques over the constraints, an optimization method is used
as drafted, under the broadest reasonable interpretation, covers mental processes – concepts performed in the human mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion) but for the recitation of mere instructions to apply an exception language and insignificant extra-solution activity language. In particular, the above limitation in the context of this claim encompasses:
in the optimizing of the metrics for each model compression technique of the model compression techniques over the constraints, an optimization method is used (corresponds to evaluation and judgment).
Step 2A Prong Two Analysis: See corresponding analysis of claim 10.
Step 2B Analysis: See corresponding analysis of claim 10.
Regarding Claim 13,
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1 Analysis: Claim 13 is directed to a method, which is directed to a process, one of the statutory categories.
Step 2A Prong One Analysis: See corresponding analysis of claim 1.
Step 2A Prong Two Analysis: This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim recites additional elements that amount to recitation of the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) or are more than mere instructions to implement an abstract idea or other exception on a computer, which do not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application. See MPEP 2106.05(f). For example, the additional element of “generating a compressed artificial intelligence-based model using the optimized model compression technique”, as drafted, amounts to mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea. Accordingly, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. See MPEP 2106.04(d). Even when viewed in combination, these additional elements do not integrate the recited judicial exception into a practical application and the claim is directed to the judicial exception.
Step 2B Analysis: As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the claim recites additional elements that amount to recitation of the words "apply it" (or an equivalent) or are more than mere instructions to implement an abstract idea or other exception on a computer. This has been re-evaluated under step 2B and does not amount to significantly more. See MPEP 2106.05(f). Mere instructions to apply an exception cannot provide an inventive concept. Therefore, the claim is not patent eligible.
Regarding Claim 14,
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1 Analysis: Claim 14 is directed to software per se. For the purposes of further examination, claim 14 will be interpreted as being directed to a manufacture, one of the statutory categories.
Step 2A Prong One Analysis: The following limitation:
provide a set of model compression techniques using an expert rule
determine metrics for model compression techniques of the set of model compression techniques based on weighted constraints
selecting an optimized model compression technique based on the determined metrics
as drafted, under the broadest reasonable interpretation, covers mental processes – concepts performed in the human mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion) but for the recitation of mere instructions to apply an exception language and insignificant extra-solution activity language. In particular, the above limitation in the context of this claim encompasses:
provide a set of model compression techniques using an expert rule (corresponds to evaluation and judgment);
determine metrics for model compression techniques of the set of model compression techniques based on weighted constraints (corresponds to evaluation and judgment);
selecting an optimized model compression technique based on the determined metrics (corresponds to evaluation and judgment).
Step 2A Prong Two Analysis: This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim recites additional elements that amount to recitation of the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) or are more than mere instructions to implement an abstract idea or other exception on a computer, which do not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application. See MPEP 2106.05(f). For example, the additional element of “A computer program product comprising instructions which, when executed by a computer, cause the computer” and “automatically providing …”, as drafted, amounts to mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea. Accordingly, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. See MPEP 2106.04(d). Even when viewed in combination, these additional elements do not integrate the recited judicial exception into a practical application and the claim is directed to the judicial exception.
Step 2B Analysis: As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the claim recites additional elements that amount to recitation of the words "apply it" (or an equivalent) or are more than mere instructions to implement an abstract idea or other exception on a computer. This has been re-evaluated under step 2B and does not amount to significantly more. See MPEP 2106.05(f). Mere instructions to apply an exception cannot provide an inventive concept. As an ordered whole, the claim is directed to a mentally performable process of determining and selecting optimized model compression techniques for an artificial intelligence-based model. Therefore, the claim is not patent eligible.
Regarding Claim 15,
Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1 Analysis: Claim 15 is directed to an apparatus, which is directed to a machine, one of the statutory categories.
Step 2A Prong One Analysis: The following limitation:
provision of a set of model compression techniques using an expert rule
a determination of metrics for model compression techniques of the set of model compression techniques based on weighted constraints
a selection of an optimized model compression technique based on the determined metrics
as drafted, under the broadest reasonable interpretation, covers mental processes – concepts performed in the human mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion) but for the recitation of mere instructions to apply an exception language and insignificant extra-solution activity language. In particular, the above limitation in the context of this claim encompasses:
provision of a set of model compression techniques using an expert rule (corresponds to evaluation and judgment);
a determination of metrics for model compression techniques of the set of model compression techniques based on weighted constraints (corresponds to evaluation and judgment);
a selection of an optimized model compression technique based on the determined metrics (corresponds to evaluation and judgment).
Step 2A Prong Two Analysis: This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim recites additional elements that amount to recitation of the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) or are more than mere instructions to implement an abstract idea or other exception on a computer, which do not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application. See MPEP 2106.05(f). For example, the additional element of “An apparatus of an automation environment”, “a logic component1 configured to execute an automated determination of a model compression technique for compression of an artificial intelligence-based model” and “an automated provision …”, as drafted, amounts to mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea. Accordingly, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. See MPEP 2106.04(d). Even when viewed in combination, these additional elements do not integrate the recited judicial exception into a practical application and the claim is directed to the judicial exception.
Step 2B Analysis: As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the claim recites additional elements that amount to recitation of the words "apply it" (or an equivalent) or are more than mere instructions to implement an abstract idea or other exception on a computer. This has been re-evaluated under step 2B and does not amount to significantly more. See MPEP 2106.05(f). Mere instructions to apply an exception cannot provide an inventive concept. As an ordered whole, the claim is directed to a mentally performable process of determining and selecting optimized model compression techniques for an artificial intelligence-based model. Therefore, the claim is not patent eligible.
Regarding Claim 16,
Claim 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1 Analysis: Claim 16 is directed to an apparatus, which is directed to a machine, one of the statutory categories.
Step 2A Prong One Analysis: See corresponding analysis of claim 15.
Step 2A Prong Two Analysis: This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim recites additional elements that amount to recitation of the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) or are more than mere instructions to implement an abstract idea or other exception on a computer, which do not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application. See MPEP 2106.05(f). For example, the additional element of “the apparatus is an edge device of an industrial automation environment”, as drafted, amounts to mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea. Accordingly, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. See MPEP 2106.04(d). Even when viewed in combination, these additional elements do not integrate the recited judicial exception into a practical application and the claim is directed to the judicial exception.
Step 2B Analysis: As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the claim recites additional elements that amount to recitation of the words "apply it" (or an equivalent) or are more than mere instructions to implement an abstract idea or other exception on a computer. This has been re-evaluated under step 2B and does not amount to significantly more. See MPEP 2106.05(f). Mere instructions to apply an exception cannot provide an inventive concept. Therefore, the claim is not patent eligible.
Regarding Claim 17,
Claim 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1 Analysis: Claim 17 is directed to a method, which is directed to a process, one of the statutory categories.
Step 2A Prong One Analysis: The following limitation:
the optimizing of the metrics for each model compression technique of the model compression techniques over the weighted constraints is over respective values representing the respective constraints or over parameters of the respective model compression techniques influencing the respective value representing the respective constraint
as drafted, under the broadest reasonable interpretation, covers mental processes – concepts performed in the human mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion) but for the recitation of mere instructions to apply an exception language and insignificant extra-solution activity language. In particular, the above limitation in the context of this claim encompasses:
the optimizing of the metrics for each model compression technique of the model compression techniques over the weighted constraints is over respective values representing the respective constraints or over parameters of the respective model compression techniques influencing the respective value representing the respective constraint (corresponds to evaluation and judgment).
Step 2A Prong Two Analysis: See corresponding analysis of claim 1.
Step 2B Analysis: See corresponding analysis of claim 1.
Regarding Claim 18,
Claim 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1 Analysis: Claim 18 is directed to a method, which is directed to a process, one of the statutory categories.
Step 2A Prong One Analysis: The following limitation:
a gradient descent method
as drafted, under the broadest reasonable interpretation, covers mathematical concepts (mathematical relationships, mathematical formulas or equations, mathematical calculations) but for the recitation of mere instructions to apply an exception language and insignificant extra-solution activity language. In particular, the above limitation in the context of this claim encompasses:
a gradient descent method (corresponds to mathematical calculations).
Step 2A Prong Two Analysis: This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim recites additional elements that amount to recitation of the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) or are more than mere instructions to implement an abstract idea or other exception on a computer, which do not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application. See MPEP 2106.05(f). For example, the additional element of “a genetic algorithm based method, or a machine learning classification method”, as drafted, amounts to mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea. Accordingly, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. See MPEP 2106.04(d). Even when viewed in combination, these additional elements do not integrate the recited judicial exception into a practical application and the claim is directed to the judicial exception.
Step 2B Analysis: As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the claim recites additional elements that amount to recitation of the words "apply it" (or an equivalent) or are more than mere instructions to implement an abstract idea or other exception on a computer. This has been re-evaluated under step 2B and does not amount to significantly more. See MPEP 2106.05(f). Mere instructions to apply an exception cannot provide an inventive concept. Therefore, the claim is not patent eligible.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-15 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Li et al. (“Pruning Filters for Efficient ConvNets” (Published 2017); hereinafter Li).
Regarding Claim 1,
Li discloses a computer-implemented method for automated determination of a model compression technique for a compression of an artificial intelligence-based model, the method comprising:
automatically providing a set of model compression techniques using an expert rule (Li P.3, Sec.3.1, Para.1 “filters from a well-trained model for computational efficiency while minimizing the accuracy drop. We measure the relative importance of a filter in each layer by calculating the sum of its absolute weights … we find l1-norm is a good criterion for data-free filter selection”; P.3, Sec.3.1, Para.2 “The procedure of pruning m filters from the ith convolutional layer is as follows: 1. For each filter … calculate the sum of its absolute kernel weights … 3. Pune m filters with the smallest sum values and their corresponding feature maps”; Li discloses a heuristic criterion (l1-norm of filter weights) to decide which filters to prune (corresponds to compression techniques) which constitutes an expert rule because it is a human-designed method that guides which filters are removed (corresponds to using an expert rule). This expert rule is applied across layers and filters, effectively providing a selection mechanism for compression actions (corresponds to automatically providing a set of model compression techniques));
determining metrics for model compression techniques of the set of model compression techniques based on weighted constraints (Li P.3, Sec.3.1, Para.1 “Our method prunes the less useful filters from a well-trained model for computational efficiency while minimizing the accuracy drop”; Li evaluates candidate pruning actions by computing their effect on accuracy and computational cost (corresponds to determining metrics for model compression techniques of the set of model compression techniques). These metrics represent weighted constraints insofar as the process of balancing accuracy and computational efficiency is effectively weighted (corresponds to determining metrics … based on weighted constraints)); and
selecting an optimized model compression technique based on the determined metrics (Li P.3, Sec.3.1, Para.1 “We find that pruning the smallest filters works better in comparison with pruning the same number of random or largest filters”; discloses selecting a pruning technique that optimizes the trade-off between reduced computation and accuracy loss (corresponds to selecting an optimized model compression technique based on the determined metrics)).
Regarding Claim 2,
Li discloses the method of claim 1, wherein the weighted constraints reflect hardware or software constraints of an executing system for execution of a compressed model of the artificial intelligence-based model compressed with the model compression technique (Li P.3, Sec.3.1, Para.1 “Our method prunes the less useful filters from a well-trained model for computational efficiency”; Li’s pruning method considers computational efficiency which is disclosed to be measured in FLOPs (see Li P.6, Table 1) which reflects hardware/software constraints (corresponds to the weighted constraints reflect hardware or software constraints of an executing system for execution of a compressed model of the artificial intelligence-based model compressed with the model compression technique)).
Regarding Claim 3,
Li discloses the method of claim 1, wherein the expert rule relates an artificial intelligence-based model to the model compression techniques of the set of model compression techniques based on a condition of the artificial intelligence-based model or data needed for training or executing the artificial intelligence-based model (Li P.4, Sec.3.2, Para.1 “We empirically determine the number of filters to prune for each layer based on their sensitivity to pruning”; Li applies expert rules that are layer-specific where sensitivity analysis guides the pruning amount per layer, linking the expert rules to the conditions of the artificial intelligence-based model (corresponds to the expert rule relates an artificial intelligence-based model to the model compression techniques of the set of model compression techniques based on a condition of the artificial intelligence-based model … or executing the artificial intelligence-based model)).
Regarding Claim 4,
Li discloses the method of claim 1, wherein the metrics are functions in dependence of respective values representing respective constraints, and wherein the respective values are weighted with respective weighting factors (Li P.2, Para.3 “The number of pruned filters correlates directly with acceleration by reducing the number of matrix multiplications”; Li’s metrics relate pruning actions to computational cost savings and model accuracy which are quantifiable metrics (corresponds to the metrics are functions in dependence of respective values representing respective constraints). The pruning decisions effectively combine multiple constraints (accuracy and FLOPs) to produce metrics which consider balancing accuracy and computational efficiency and are effectively weighted (corresponds to the respective values are weighted with respective weighting factors)).
Regarding Claim 5,
Li discloses the method of claim 4, wherein the functions describe linear, exponential, polynomial, fitted, or fuzzy relations (Li P.2, Para.3 “We conduct sensitivity analysis for convolutional layers”; P.4, Sec.3.2, Para.1 “layers that maintain their accuracy as filters are pruned away correspond to layers with larger slopes”; Li measures how accuracy varies with pruning, effectively capturing a fitted functional relationship between pruning extent and resulting performance (corresponds to the functions describe … fitted … relations)).
Regarding Claim 6,
Li discloses the method of claim 4, wherein the functions vary depending on the weighted constraints (Li P.4, Sec.3.2, Para.1 “For layers that are sensitive to pruning, we prune a smaller percentage of these layers or completely skip pruning them.”; Li’s metric relationship of accuracy vs. pruning amount varies across layers depending on sensitivity which serves as a weighted constraint. More sensitive layers are pruned less; less sensitive layers are pruned more (corresponds to the functions vary depending on the weighted constraints)).
Regarding Claim 7,
Li discloses the method of claim 1, wherein the metrics are relative to a reference metric of the artificial intelligence-based model (Li P.6, Table 1 discloses evaluating metrics such as accuracy and FLOPs relative to the original uncompressed model (corresponds to the metrics are relative to a reference metric of the artificial intelligence-based model; for more please see Li P.6, Table 1)).
Regarding Claim 8,
Li discloses the method of claim 1, wherein the weighted constraints for building the metrics depend on hardware and software framework conditions of a system or a device the artificial intelligence-based model is used in (Li P.2, Para.3 “Compared to pruning weights across the network, filter pruning is a naturally structured way of pruning without introducing sparsity and therefore does not require using sparse libraries or any specialized hardware”; P.1, Abstract “this approach does not need the support of sparse convolution libraries and can work with existing efficient BLAS libraries for dense matrix multiplications”; Li’s constraint evaluation accounts for hardware and software compatibility, e.g., choosing pruning strategies that optimize runtime using existing libraries (corresponds to the weighted constraints for building the metrics depend on hardware and software framework conditions of a system or a device the artificial intelligence-based model is used in)).
Regarding Claim 9,
Li discloses the method of claim 1, wherein a respective weighting factor for a respective weighted constraint of the weighted constraints depends on an analysis type the artificial intelligence-based model is used in (Li P.4, Sec.3.2, Para.1 “We empirically determine the number of filters to prune for each layer based on their sensitivity to pruning”; Lie varies the pruning amount based on layer sensitivity which is a property of the model and its intended performance context. Layer-dependent pruning serves as an analysis type, that is, adjustment of pruning decisions based on the model’s layers’ sensitivity demonstrates an analysis type, e.g., more sensitive layers are pruned less and less sensitive layers are pruned more (corresponds to a respective weighting factor for a respective weighted constraint of the weighted constraints depends on an analysis type the artificial intelligence-based model is used in)).
Regarding Claim 10,
Li discloses the method of claim 1, wherein the selecting of the optimized model compression technique further comprises optimizing the metrics for each model compression technique of the model compression techniques over the weighted constraints (Li P.3, Sec.3.1, Para.1 “We find that pruning the smallest filters works better in comparison with pruning the same number of random or largest filters”; Li evaluates different pruning strategies (smallest filters, random filters, largest filters) using accuracy as a metric. The selection of the best performing strategy constitutes an optimization over competing objectives (accuracy vs. computational reduction). This comparison effectively selects and optimizes the best tradeoff between accuracy and computational efficiency (corresponds to the selecting of the optimized model compression technique further comprises optimizing the metrics for each model compression technique of the model compression techniques over the weighted constraints)).
Regarding Claim 11,
Li discloses the method of claim 10, wherein, in the optimizing of the metrics for each model compression technique of the model compression techniques over the weighted constraints, at least one weighted constraint is fixed Li P.3, Sec.3.1, Para.1 “Our method prunes the less useful filters from a well-trained model for computational efficiency while minimizing the accuracy drop”; Li treats accuracy as a constraint that must be maintained while pruning for computational efficiency. I.e., one constraint (accuracy) is fixed, and the pruning decision are made to satisfy it while optimizing another metric, e.g., FLOPs (corresponds to in the optimizing of the metrics for each model compression technique of the model compression techniques over the weighted constraints, at least one weighted constraint is fixed)).
Regarding Claim 12,
Li discloses the method of claim 10, wherein, in the optimizing of the metrics for each model compression technique of the model compression techniques over the constraints, an optimization method is used (Li P.4, Sec.3.2, Para.1 “To understand the sensitivity of each layer, we prune each layer independently and evaluate the resulting pruned network’s accuracy on the validation set … We empirically determine the number of filters to prune for each layer based on their sensitivity to pruning”; Li’s sensitivity analysis is the method used to guide pruning decisions which serves the function of determining how to select pruning levels to maximize computational efficiency without violating the accuracy constraint (corresponds to the optimizing of the metrics for each model compression technique of the model compression techniques over the constraints, an optimization method is used)).
Regarding Claim 13,
Li discloses the method of claim 1, further comprising:
generating a compressed artificial intelligence-based model using the optimized model compression technique (Li P.5, Sec.3.4, Para.1 “After pruning the filters, the performance degradation should be compensated by retraining the network.”; Li produces a compressed network after pruning and retrains it to recover accuracy (corresponds to generating a compressed artificial intelligence-based model using the optimized model compression technique)).
Regarding Claim 14,
Claim 14 is rejected on the same grounds as claim 1.
Per claim 14, Li discloses a computer program product comprising instructions which, when executed by a computer, cause the computer (Li P.13, Sec.6.2, Para.2 “The evaluation is conducted in Torch7 with Titan X (Pascal) GPU and cuDNN v5.1”; discloses conducting model evaluation using a Titan X GPU which includes memory which stores instructions to be executed by a computer (corresponds to a computer program product comprising instructions which, when executed by a computer, cause the computer)).
Regarding Claim 15,
Claim 15 is rejected on the same grounds as claim 1.
Per claim 15, Li discloses an apparatus of an automation environment, the apparatus comprising:
a logic component2 (Li P.13, Sec.6.2, Para.2 “The evaluation is conducted in Torch7 with Titan X (Pascal) GPU and cuDNN v5.1”; discloses conducting model evaluation using a Titan X GPU which includes a memory and processor executes instructions stored by the memory (corresponds to a logic component)).
Regarding Claim 17,
Li discloses the method of claim 10, wherein the optimizing of the metrics for each model compression technique of the model compression techniques over the weighted constraints is over respective values representing the respective constraints or over parameters of the respective model compression techniques influencing the respective value representing the respective constraint (Li P.3, Sec.3.1, Para.1 “We measure the relative importance of a filter in each layer by calculating the sum of its absolute weights … Filters with smaller kernel weights tend to produce feature maps with weak activations”; discloses calculating l1-norm values of each filter which determines a filter’s impact on output accuracy and determines which filters can be pruned (corresponds to optimizing of the metrics for each model compression technique of the model compression techniques over the weighted constraints is over respective values representing the respective constraints); P.3, Sec.3.1, Para.2 “The procedure of pruning m filters from the ith convolutional layer is as follows: 1. For each filter … calculate the sum of its absolute kernel weights … 3. Pune m filters with the smallest sum values and their corresponding feature maps”; discloses that the parameters of Li’s model compression technique are the filters themselves. These parameters directly influence the computed l1-norm values, which represent the effect on accuracy or constraint. Li’s process prunes filters based on their calculated impact (corresponds to over parameters of the respective model compression techniques influence the respective value representing the respective constraint)).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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, 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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim(s) 16 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Li et al. (“Pruning Filters for Efficient ConvNets” (Published 2017); hereinafter Li) in view of Cella et al. (US 20190121348 A1 (Published 2019); hereinafter Cella).
Regarding Claim 16,
Li discloses the apparatus of claim 15, but appears to not disclose explicitly the limitations of claim 16.
However, Cella teaches wherein the apparatus is an edge device of an industrial automation environment (Cella Specification [0054] “These methods and systems include methods, systems, components, devices, workflows, services, processes, and the like that are deployed in various configurations and locations, such as: (a) at the ‘edge’ of the Internet of Things, such as in the local environment of a heavy industrial machine”; discloses a machine learning process which is performed on an edge device such as a heavy industrial machine (corresponds to the apparatus is an edge device of an industrial automation environment; for more please see Cella Specification [0055])).
Li and Cella are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of utilizing machine learning models. Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Li to incorporate the teachings of Cella. Doing so could assist in extending the application of compression techniques disclosed by Li to models stored on edge devices in industrial environments, as suggested by Cella (Cella Specification [0054] “These methods and systems include a range of ways for providing improved data include a range of methods and systems for providing improved data collection, as well as methods and systems for deploying increased intelligence at the edge, in the network, and in the cloud or premises of the controller of an industrial environment”).
Regarding Claim 18,
Li discloses the method of claim 12, but appears to not disclose explicitly the remaining limitations of claim 18.
However, Cella teaches wherein the optimization method comprises a gradient descent method, a genetic algorithm based method, or a machine learning classification method (Cella Specification [0886] “A further embodiment of any of the foregoing embodiments of the present disclosure may include situations wherein the swarm optimization algorithm is one or more types of Genetic Algorithms”; discloses performing a swarm optimization algorithm which applies a genetic algorithm (corresponds to the optimization method comprises …, or a machine learning classification method)).
Li and Cella are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of utilizing machine learning models. Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Li to incorporate the teachings of Cella. Doing so could improve optimization techniques when applying the compression and optimizations techniques disclosed by Li in a system using genetically optimized sensors to gather data, as suggested by Cella (Cella Specification [0873] “Self-organizing the distribution of the mobile data collector unit and the one or more other mobile data collector units at the target location, in some implementations, can comprise utilizing a swarm optimization algorithm to allocate areas of sensor responsibility amongst the mobile data collector unit and the one or more other mobile data collector units”).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SIMON F ELLIS whose telephone number is (703)756-1536. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:30 am - 5:30 pm.
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, Kamran Afshar can be reached at (571) 272-7796. 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.
/SIMON FISCHER ELLIS/Examiner, Art Unit 2125
/KAMRAN AFSHAR/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2125
1 For the purposes of further examination, a “logic component” is being interpreted as part of a computer processor.
2 For the purposes of further examination, a “logic component” is being interpreted as part of a computer processor.