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 .
Response to Amendment
This office action is responsive to the amendments filed August 17, 2026.
Claims 62, 63, 82, 83, 84, 85, and 86, are amended.
Claims 1-61, 64, 70-73, 75, and 77-81 are canceled.
Claims 62-63, 65-69, 74, 76, and 82-87 are pending in this office action.
A 35U.S.C 112(f) claim interpretation is being added below since applicant has amended claims to delete “wherein the decoder is implemented using a hardware apparatus, or using a computer, or using a combination of a hardware apparatus and a computer”.
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: “wherein the decoder is configured to acquire…”, “wherein the decoder is configured to decode…”, “wherein the decoder is configured to use…”, “wherein the decoder is configured to determine…”, “wherein the decoder is configured to update…”, “wherein the decoder is configured to vary…”, “wherein the decoder is configured to choose…”, and “wherein the decoder is configured to selectively choose…”, in claims 62, 63, 65, 66, 69, 74, 76, and “wherein the encoder is configured to acquire…”, “wherein the encoder is configured to encode…”, “wherein the encoder is configured to use…”, “wherein the encoder is configured to determine…”, “wherein the encoder is configured to update…”, and “wherein the encoder is configured to vary…” in claim 82.
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 § 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 62-63, 65-69, 74, 76, and 82-87 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claims are directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Regarding claim 62, in Step 1 of the 101 analysis set forth in MPEP 2106, the claim recites "A decoder for decoding weight parameters of a neural network...". This claim is directed to a machine which is one of the four statutory categories of invention.
In Step 2a Pong 1 of the 101 analysis set forth in the MPEP 2106, the examiner has determined that the following limitations recite a process that, under the broadest reasonable interpretation, covers abstract ideas but for recitation of generic computer components:
“A decoder for decoding weight parameters of a neural network, wherein the decoder is configured to decode the neural network parameters of the neural network using a context-dependent arithmetic decoding” is a mathematical concept in view of specification pages 34-35 (See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(I)).
“wherein the decoder is configured to acquire a probability estimate for a decoding of a bin of a number representation of a neural network parameter using one or more probability estimation parameters” is a mathematical concept in view of specification pages 34-35 (See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(I)).
“wherein the decoder is configured to use different probability estimation parameter values for a decoding of different neural network parameters and/or to use different probability estimation parameter values for a decoding of bins associated with different context models” is a mathematical concept in view of specification pages 34-35 (See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(I)).
“wherein the decoder is configured to determine one or more state variables and to derive the probability estimate using the one or more state variables” is a mathematical concept in view of specification pages 34-35 (See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(I)).
“wherein the decoder is configured to update the state variables
PNG
media_image1.png
22
48
media_image1.png
Greyscale
according to
PNG
media_image2.png
148
468
media_image2.png
Greyscale
” is a mathematical concept in view the recited formula and in view of specification pages 34-35 (See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(I)).
“wherein the decoder is configured to vary the weighting factors
PNG
media_image3.png
26
24
media_image3.png
Greyscale
, so as to use different probability estimation parameter values for a decoding of different neural network parameters and/or to use different probability estimation parameter values for a decoding of bins associated with different context models and/or to use different probability estimation parameter values for a decoding of neural network parameters associated with different layers of the neural network” is a mathematical concept in view of specification pages 33-36 (See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(I)).
If claim limitations, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitations as mathematical concepts but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the mathematical concept grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim "recites" an abstract idea.
In Step 2a Prong 2 of the 101-analysis set forth in MPEP 2106, the examiner has determined that the following additional elements do not integrate this judicial exception into a practical application:
“wherein the decoder is configured to acquire a plurality of neural network parameters of the neural network on the basis of an encoded bitstream” is an insignificant extra solution activity of mere data gathering (See MPEP 2106.05(g)).
Since the claim as a whole, looking at the additional elements individually and in combination, does not contain any other additional elements that are indicative of integration into a practical application, the claim is directed to an abstract idea.
In Step 2b of the 101-analysis set forth in the 2019 PEG, the examiner has determined that the claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
“wherein the decoder is configured to acquire a plurality of neural network parameters of the neural network on the basis of an encoded bitstream” is an insignificant extra solution activity of mere data gathering (See MPEP 2106.05(g)). Under step 2B, this insignificant extra solution activity is a well understood routine and conventional activity, see Receiving or transmitting data over a network, e.g., using the Internet to gather data, Symantec, 838 F.3d at 1321, 120 USPQ2d at 1362 (See MPEP 2016.05(d)(ii)(i)).
Considering the additional elements individually and in combination, and the claim as a whole, the additional elements do not provide significantly more than the abstract idea. Therefore, the claim is not patent eligible.
Regarding claim 63, in Step 1 of the 101 analysis set forth in MPEP 2106, the claim recites "A decoder for decoding weight parameters of a neural network...". This claim is directed to a machine which is one of the four statutory categories of invention.
In Step 2a Pong 1 of the 101 analysis set forth in the MPEP 2106, the examiner has determined that the following limitations recite a process that, under the broadest reasonable interpretation, covers abstract ideas but for recitation of generic computer components:
“A decoder for decoding weight parameters of a neural network, wherein the decoder is configured to decode the neural network parameters of the neural network using a context-dependent arithmetic decoding” is a mathematical concept in view of specification pages 34-35 (See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(I)).
“wherein the decoder is configured to acquire a probability estimate for a decoding of a bin of a number representation of a neural network parameter using one or more probability estimation parameters” is a mathematical concept in view of specification pages 34-35 (See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(I)).
“wherein the decoder is configured to use different probability estimation parameter values for a decoding of neural network parameters associated with different layers of the neural network” is a mathematical concept in view of specification pages 34-35 (See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(I)).
“wherein the decoder is configured to determine one or more state variables and to derive the probability estimate using the one or more state variables” is a mathematical concept in view of specification pages 34-35 (See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(I)).
“wherein the decoder is configured to update the state variables
PNG
media_image1.png
22
48
media_image1.png
Greyscale
according to
PNG
media_image2.png
148
468
media_image2.png
Greyscale
” is a mathematical concept in view the recited formula and in view of specification pages 34-35 (See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(I)).
“wherein the decoder is configured to vary the weighting factors
PNG
media_image3.png
26
24
media_image3.png
Greyscale
, so as to use different probability estimation parameter values for a decoding of different neural network parameters and/or to use different probability estimation parameter values for a decoding of bins associated with different context models and/or to use different probability estimation parameter values for a decoding of neural network parameters associated with different layers of the neural network” is a mathematical concept in view of specification pages 33-36 (See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(I)).
If claim limitations, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitations as mathematical concepts but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the mathematical concept grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim "recites" an abstract idea.
In Step 2a Prong 2 of the 101-analysis set forth in MPEP 2106, the examiner has determined that the following additional elements do not integrate this judicial exception into a practical application:
“wherein the decoder is configured to acquire a plurality of neural network parameters of the neural network on the basis of an encoded bitstream” is an insignificant extra solution activity of mere data gathering (See MPEP 2106.05(g)).
Since the claim as a whole, looking at the additional elements individually and in combination, does not contain any other additional elements that are indicative of integration into a practical application, the claim is directed to an abstract idea.
In Step 2b of the 101-analysis set forth in the 2019 PEG, the examiner has determined that the claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
“wherein the decoder is configured to acquire a plurality of neural network parameters of the neural network on the basis of an encoded bitstream” is an insignificant extra solution activity of mere data gathering (See MPEP 2106.05(g)). Under step 2B, this insignificant extra solution activity is a well understood routine and conventional activity, see Receiving or transmitting data over a network, e.g., using the Internet to gather data, Symantec, 838 F.3d at 1321, 120 USPQ2d at 1362 (See MPEP 2016.05(d)(ii)(i)).
Considering the additional elements individually and in combination, and the claim as a whole, the additional elements do not provide significantly more than the abstract idea. Therefore, the claim is not patent eligible.
Regarding claim 65 “choose one or more probability estimation parameters from different sets of useable parameter values or of useable tuples of parameter values” and “use different mapping rules mapping an encoded value representing one or more probability estimation parameters onto one or more probability estimation” A person can mentally choose probability estimation parameters and also use different mapping rules representing estimation parameter (See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III)).
“wherein the decoder is configured to choose … parameter values in dependence on a quantization mode and/or in dependence on a number of parameters of a layer of the neural network, or in dependence on a number of neural network parameters to be decoded using the chosen one or more probability estimation parameters, or in dependence on a number of elements of a layer parameter” Under step 2A prong II and Step 2B, these limitations are mere instructions to apply the judicial exception using generic computer components (See MPEP 2106.05(f)).
“wherein the decoder is configured to use … onto one or more probability estimation parameters in dependence on a quantization mode and/or in dependence on a number of parameters of a layer of the neural network, or in dependence on a number of neural network parameters to be decoded using the chosen one or more probability estimation parameters, or in dependence on a number of elements of a layer parameter” Under step 2A prong II and Step 2B, these limitations are mere instructions to apply the judicial exception using generic computer components (See MPEP 2106.05(f)).
Since the claim does not recite additional elements that either integrate the judicial exception into a practical application, nor provide significantly more than the judicial exception, the claim is not patent eligible.
Regarding claim 66, “choose one or more probability estimation parameters from a first set of useable parameter values or from a first set of useable tuples of parameter values” A person can mentally choose probability estimation parameters (See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III)).
“wherein the decoder is configured to selectively choose… in case that a uniform quantization of the one or more probability estimation parameters is used, and/or if the number of parameters of a layer of the neural network is below a threshold value or if the number of neural network parameters to be decoded using the chosen one or more probability estimation parameters is below a threshold value, or if the number of elements of the layer parameter is below a threshold value” Under step 2A prong II and Step 2B, these limitations are mere instructions to apply the judicial exception using generic computer components (See MPEP 2106.05(f)).
“choose one or more probability estimation parameters from a second set of useable parameter values or from a second set of useable tuples of parameter values” A person can mentally choose probability estimation parameters (See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III)).
“wherein the decoder is configured to selectively choose… in case that a variable quantization of the one or more probability estimation parameters is used, and/or if the number of parameters of a layer of the neural network is above the threshold value or if the number of neural network parameters to be decoded using the chosen one or more probability estimation parameters is above the threshold value, or if the number of elements of the layer parameter is above the threshold value” Under step 2A prong II and Step 2B, these limitations are mere instructions to apply the judicial exception using generic computer components (See MPEP 2106.05(f)).
“selectively use, a first mapping rule mapping an encoded value representing one or more probability estimation parameters onto one or more probability estimation parameters” A person can mentally use a mapping rule to map a value with probability estimation parameters (See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III)).
“wherein the decoder is configured to use … in case that a uniform quantization of the one or more probability estimation parameters is used, and/or if the number of parameters of a layer of the neural network is below a threshold value or if the number of neural network parameters to be decoded using the chosen one or more probability estimation parameters is below a threshold value, or if the number of elements of the layer parameter is below a threshold value” Under step 2A prong II and Step 2B, these limitations are mere instructions to apply the judicial exception using generic computer components (See MPEP 2106.05(f)).
“selectively use a second mapping rule mapping an encoded value representing one or more probability estimation parameters onto one or more probability estimation parameters” A person can mentally use a mapping rule to map a value with probability estimation parameters (See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III)).
“wherein the decoder is configured to use, … in case that a variable quantization of the one or more probability estimation parameters is used, and/or if the number of parameters of a layer of the neural network is above the threshold value or if the number of neural network parameters to be decoded using the chosen one or more probability estimation parameters is above the threshold value, or if the number of elements of the layer parameter is above the threshold value” Under step 2A prong II and Step 2B, these limitations are mere instructions to apply the judicial exception using generic computer components (See MPEP 2106.05(f)).
“wherein the first set of useable parameter values is different from the second set of useable parameter values, and wherein the first set of useable tuples of parameter values is different from the second set of useable tuples of parameter values; and/or wherein the second set of useable parameter values comprises more useable parameter values than the first set of useable parameter values, and wherein the second set of useable tuples of parameter values comprises more useable tuples than the first set of useable tuples of parameter values; and/or wherein the second mapping rule is different from the first mapping rule” Under step 2A prong II and Step 2B, these limitations are mere instructions to apply the judicial exception using generic computer components (See MPEP 2106.05(f)).
Since the claim does not recite additional elements that either integrate the judicial exception into a practical application, nor provide significantly more than the judicial exception, the claim is not patent eligible.
Regarding claim 67, “wherein, on average, useable parameter values of the second set of useable parameter values allow for a faster adaptation of a probability estimate than useable parameter values of the first set of useable parameter values, or wherein, on average, useable tuples of parameter values of the second set of useable tuples of parameter values allow for a faster adaptation of a probability estimate than useable tuples of parameter values of the first set of useable tuples of parameter values” Under step 2A prong II and Step 2B, these limitations are mere instructions to apply the judicial exception using generic computer components (See MPEP 2106.05(f)).
Since the claim does not recite additional elements that either integrate the judicial exception into a practical application, nor provide significantly more than the judicial exception, the claim is not patent eligible.
Regarding claim 68, “wherein the second set of useable parameter values comprises a useable parameter value which allows for a faster adaptation of a probability estimate than useable parameter values of the first set of useable parameter values, or wherein the second set of useable tuples of parameter values comprises a useable tuple of parameter values which allows for a faster adaptation of a probability estimate than useable tuples of parameter values of the first set of useable tuples of parameter values” Under step 2A prong II and Step 2B, these limitations are mere instructions to apply the judicial exception using generic computer components (See MPEP 2106.05(f)).
Since the claim does not recite additional elements that either integrate the judicial exception into a practical application, nor provide significantly more than the judicial exception, the claim is not patent eligible.
Regarding claim 69 “selectively choose the one or more probability estimation parameters” A person can mentally choose probability estimation parameters (See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III)).
“wherein the decoder is configured to selectively choose… from an increased choice if a number of neural network parameters to be decoded using the chosen one or more probability estimation parameters is larger than or equal to a threshold value” Under step 2A prong II and Step 2B, these limitations are mere instructions to apply the judicial exception using generic computer components (See MPEP 2106.05(f)).
Since the claim does not recite additional elements that either integrate the judicial exception into a practical application, nor provide significantly more than the judicial exception, the claim is not patent eligible.
Regarding claim 74, “wherein the decoder is configured to vary a number of bins or a maximum number of bins used for decoding the one or more probability estimation parameters in dependence on a quantization mode used for quantizing the one or more probability estimation parameters; and/or in dependence on a number of parameters of a layer of the neural network, or in dependence on a number of neural network parameters to be decoded using the one or more probability estimation parameters, or in dependence on a number of elements of a layer parameter” is a mathematical concept in view of specification pages 34-35 (See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(I)).
Since the claim does not recite additional elements that either integrate the judicial exception into a practical application, nor provide significantly more than the judicial exception, the claim is not patent eligible.
Regarding claim 76 “wherein the decoder is configured to vary a number of bins or a maximum number of bins used for decoding the one or more probability estimation parameters designating a selected probability estimation parameter or a selected tuple of probability estimation parameters in accordance with a switching between different sets of usable parameter values associated with the one or more probability estimation parameters, or between different sets of tuples of useable parameter values associated with a plurality of probability estimation parameters or between different mapping rules” is a mathematical concept in view of specification pages 34-35 (See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(I)).
Since the claim does not recite additional elements that either integrate the judicial exception into a practical application, nor provide significantly more than the judicial exception, the claim is not patent eligible.
Regarding claim 82, in Step 1 of the 101 analysis set forth in MPEP 2106, the claim recites "An encoder for encoding weight parameters of a neural network...". This claim is directed to a machine which is one of the four statutory categories of invention.
In Step 2a Pong 1 of the 101 analysis set forth in the MPEP 2106, the examiner has determined that the following limitations recite a process that, under the broadest reasonable interpretation, covers abstract ideas but for recitation of generic computer components:
“An encoder for encoding weight parameters of a neural network, wherein the encoder is configured to encode the neural network parameters of the neural network using a context-dependent arithmetic coding” is a mathematical concept in view of specification pages 45-46 (See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(I)).
“wherein the encoder is configured to acquire a probability estimate for an encoding of a bin of a number representation of a neural network parameter using one or more probability estimation parameters” is a mathematical concept in view of specification pages 45-46 (See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(I)).
“wherein the encoder is configured to use different probability estimation parameter values for an encoding of different neural network parameters and/or to use different probability estimation parameter values for an encoding of bins associated with different context models” is a mathematical concept in view of specification pages 45-46 (See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(I)).
“wherein the encoder is configured to use different probability estimation parameter values for an encoding of neural network parameters associated with different layers of the neural network” is a mathematical concept in view of specification pages 45-46 (See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(I)).
“wherein the encoder is configured to determine one or more state variables and to derive the probability estimate using the one or more state variables” is a mathematical concept in view of specification pages 45-46 (See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(I)).
“wherein the encoder is configured to update the state variables
PNG
media_image1.png
22
48
media_image1.png
Greyscale
according to
PNG
media_image2.png
148
468
media_image2.png
Greyscale
” is a mathematical concept in view the recited formula and in view of specification pages 45-46 (See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(I)).
“wherein the encoder is configured to vary the weighting factors
PNG
media_image3.png
26
24
media_image3.png
Greyscale
, so as to use different probability estimation parameter values for an encoding of different neural network parameters and/or to use different probability estimation parameter values for an encoding of bins associated with different context models and/or to use different probability estimation parameter values for an encoding of neural network parameters associated with different layers of the neural network” is a mathematical concept in view of specification pages 44-47 (See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(I)).
If claim limitations, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitations as mathematical concepts but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the mathematical concept grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim "recites" an abstract idea.
In Step 2a Prong 2 of the 101-analysis set forth in MPEP 2106, the examiner has determined that the following additional elements do not integrate this judicial exception into a practical application:
“wherein the encoder is configured to acquire a plurality of neural network parameters of the neural network” is an insignificant extra solution activity of mere data gathering (See MPEP 2106.05(g)).
Since the claim as a whole, looking at the additional elements individually and in combination, does not contain any other additional elements that are indicative of integration into a practical application, the claim is directed to an abstract idea.
In Step 2b of the 101-analysis set forth in the 2019 PEG, the examiner has determined that the claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
“wherein the encoder is configured to acquire a plurality of neural network parameters of the neural network” is an insignificant extra solution activity of mere data gathering (See MPEP 2106.05(g)). Under step 2B, this insignificant extra solution activity is a well understood routine and conventional activity, see Receiving or transmitting data over a network, e.g., using the Internet to gather data, Symantec, 838 F.3d at 1321, 120 USPQ2d at 1362 (See MPEP 2016.05(d)(ii)(i)).
Considering the additional elements individually and in combination, and the claim as a whole, the additional elements do not provide significantly more than the abstract idea. Therefore, the claim is not patent eligible.
Claims 83 and 84 recite similar limitations as recited in claims 62, 63 and 82 except that they set forth the claimed invention as a method and are rejected for similar reasons as applied hereinabove.
Claims 85 and 86 recite similar limitations as recited in claims 62, 63 and 82 except that they set forth the claimed invention as a non-transitory digital storage medium having stored thereon a computer program and are rejected for similar reasons as applied hereinabove.
Claims 85 and 86 recite additional limitation of “A non-transitory digital storage medium having stored thereon a computer program for performing a method for decoding weight parameters of a neural network” which under step 2A prong II and Step 2B is mere instructions to apply the judicial exception using generic computer components (See MPEP 2106.05(f)). Since the claim does not recite additional elements that either integrate the judicial exception into a practical application, nor provide significantly more than the judicial exception, the claim is not patent eligible.
Regarding claim 87, in Step 1 of the 101 analysis set forth in MPEP 2106, the claim recites "A non-transitory digital storage medium...". This claim is directed to a machine/product which is one of the four statutory categories of invention.
In Step 2a Pong 1 of the 101 analysis set forth in the MPEP 2106, the examiner has determined that the following limitations recite a process that, under the broadest reasonable interpretation, covers abstract ideas but for recitation of generic computer components:
“determining characteristics of a probability estimation for an adaptation of a context of an arithmetic decoding of the encoded weight parameters” A person can mentally determine characteristics of an estimation (See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III)).
“wherein the one or more probability estimation parameters comprise weighting factors
PNG
media_image4.png
20
24
media_image4.png
Greyscale
for updating state variables
PNG
media_image1.png
22
48
media_image1.png
Greyscale
according to
PNG
media_image5.png
80
460
media_image5.png
Greyscale
” is a mathematical concept in view the recited formula and in view of specification pages 34-35 and 45-46 (See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(I)).
“in order to acquire a probability estimate, based on the state variables, for a decoding of a bin of a number representation of a neural network parameter, wherein mₖ are weighting factors, wherein A is a lookup table and wherein Z is an offset value” is a mathematical concept in view of specification pages 34-35 and 45-46 (See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(I)).
“wherein the signaling indicates a variation of the weighting factors
PNG
media_image3.png
26
24
media_image3.png
Greyscale
, so as to use different probability estimation parameter values for a decoding of different neural network parameters and/or to use different probability estimation parameter values for a decoding of bins associated with different context models and/or to use different probability estimation parameter values for a decoding of neural network parameters associated with different layers of the neural network” is a mathematical concept in view of specification pages 34-35 and 45-46 (See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(I)).
If claim limitations, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitations as mathematical concepts or mental processes but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the mathematical concept/mental process grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim "recites" an abstract idea.
In Step 2a Prong 2 of the 101-analysis set forth in MPEP 2106, the examiner has determined that the following additional elements do not integrate this judicial exception into a practical application:
“A non-transitory digital storage medium having stored thereon an encoded representation of weight parameters of a neural network, the encoded representation comprising: a plurality of encoded weight parameters of the neural network” is mere instructions to apply the judicial exception using generic computer components (See MPEP 2106.05(f)).
“an encoded representation of a signaling, the signaling indicating a selection of one or more probability estimation parameters, the probability estimation parameters” is mere instructions to apply the judicial exception using generic computer components (See MPEP 2106.05(f)).
Since the claim as a whole, looking at the additional elements individually and in combination, does not contain any other additional elements that are indicative of integration into a practical application, the claim is directed to an abstract idea.
In Step 2b of the 101-analysis set forth in the 2019 PEG, the examiner has determined that the claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
“A non-transitory digital storage medium having stored thereon an encoded representation of weight parameters of a neural network, the encoded representation comprising: a plurality of encoded weight parameters of the neural network” is mere instructions to apply the judicial exception using generic computer components (See MPEP 2106.05(f)).
“an encoded representation of a signaling, the signaling indicating a selection of one or more probability estimation parameters, the probability estimation parameters” is mere instructions to apply the judicial exception using generic computer components (See MPEP 2106.05(f)).
Considering the additional elements individually and in combination, and the claim as a whole, the additional elements do not provide significantly more than the abstract idea. Therefore, the claim is not patent eligible.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments with respect to 35 USC 101 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that the rejection sweeps too broadly in treating many of the operative limitations as part of the alleged "mathematical concept."
In response to the preceding argument examiner respectfully submits that the claimed limitations are either reciting math in view of specification and/or math is being explicitly recited in the claims. Claimed limitations of “A decoder for decoding weight parameters of a neural network, wherein the decoder is configured to decode the neural network parameters of the neural network using a context-dependent arithmetic decoding” is a mathematical concept in view of specification pages 34-35 (See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(I)), “wherein the decoder is configured to acquire a probability estimate for a decoding of a bin of a number representation of a neural network parameter using one or more probability estimation parameters” is a mathematical concept in view of specification pages 34-35 (See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(I)), “wherein the decoder is configured to use different probability estimation parameter values for a decoding of different neural network parameters and/or to use different probability estimation parameter values for a decoding of bins associated with different context models” is a mathematical concept in view of specification pages 34-35 (See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(I)), “wherein the decoder is configured to determine one or more state variables and to derive the probability estimate using the one or more state variables” is a mathematical concept in view of specification pages 34-35 (See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(I)), “wherein the decoder is configured to update the state variables
PNG
media_image1.png
22
48
media_image1.png
Greyscale
according to
PNG
media_image2.png
148
468
media_image2.png
Greyscale
” is a mathematical concept in view the recited formula and in view of specification pages 34-35 (See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(I)) and “wherein the decoder is configured to vary the weighting factors
PNG
media_image3.png
26
24
media_image3.png
Greyscale
, so as to use different probability estimation parameter values for a decoding of different neural network parameters and/or to use different probability estimation parameter values for a decoding of bins associated with different context models and/or to use different probability estimation parameter values for a decoding of neural network parameters associated with different layers of the neural network” is a mathematical concept in view of specification pages 33-36 (See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(I)). If claim limitations, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitations as mathematical concepts but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the mathematical concept grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim "recites" an abstract idea.
Applicant further argues that the claims define practical applications and are therefore not "directed to" an exception. The claims must be considered as a whole, and the elements evaluated individually and in combination. Claims are also amended to delete the final clause reciting that the decoder is implemented using a hardware apparatus, a computer, or a combination thereof and states that amendment removes a limitation that the Office characterized as generic and leaves the claim focused on the particular decoding operation.
In response to the preceding argument examiner respectfully submits that claims recite additional elements which do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application, such as
“wherein the decoder is configured to acquire a plurality of neural network parameters of the neural network on the basis of an encoded bitstream” is an insignificant extra solution activity of mere data gathering (See MPEP 2106.05(g)). Examiner submits that improvement comes from the additional limitations recited in the claims and not from the judicial exceptions. Further, it remains unclear how the deletion of use of hardware apparatus or use of a computer further clarifies the claimed invention. Applicant’s arguments in view of Desjardins are not clear since the claimed invention does not appear to be solving the problem of catastrophic forgetting. Since the claim as a whole, looking at the additional elements individually and in combination, does not contain any other additional elements that are indicative of integration into a practical application.
Further, applicant argues that the claims recites significantly more when the additional elements are considered individually and, importantly, as an ordered combination and that the Office Action does not establish that this ordered combination is well-understood, routine, and conventional.
In response to the preceding arguments examiner respectfully submits that the examiner has determined that the claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. The claim recites “Wherein the decoder is configured to acquire a plurality of neural network parameters of the neural network on the basis of an encoded bitstream” which is an insignificant extra solution activity of mere data gathering (See MPEP 2106.05(g)). Under step 2B, this insignificant extra solution activity is a well understood routine and conventional activity, see Receiving or transmitting data over a network, e.g., using the Internet to gather data, Symantec, 838 F.3d at 1321, 120 USPQ2d at 1362 (See MPEP 2016.05(d)(ii)(i)). This Berkheimer evidence is proper since claim is gathering/acquiring data or neural network parameters from a bitstream. Considering the additional elements individually and in combination, and the claim as a whole, the additional elements do not provide significantly more than the abstract idea.
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 Usmaan Saeed whose telephone number is (571)272-4046. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9:00am - 5:30pm.
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 Director, David Wiley can be reached at 571-272-4150. 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.
/USMAAN SAEED/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2146
