DETAILED ACTION
This action is in response to the Applicant Response filed 07 May 2026 for application 18/060,089 filed 30 November 2022.
Claim(s) 23-42 is/are new.
Claim(s) 1-22 is/are cancelled.
Claim(s) 23-42 is/are pending.
Claim(s) 23-42 is/are rejected.
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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 07 May 2026 has been entered.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments regarding the objections to the claims have been fully considered and, in light of the amendments to the claims, are persuasive. However, in light of the amendments to the claims, new claim objections have arisen, as noted below.
Applicant's arguments regarding the 35 U.S.C. 112(b) rejection(s) of claim(s) 1-13, 15-19, 21-22 have been fully considered and, in light of the amendments to the claims, are persuasive. The 35 U.S.C. 112(b) rejection(s) of claim(s) 1-13, 15-19, 21-22 has/have been withdrawn. However, in light of the amendments to the claims, new 35 U.S.C. 112(b) rejections have arisen, as noted below.
Applicant’s arguments regarding the 35 U.S.C. 101 rejection of the claims are based on the newly amended subject matter. All arguments are addressed in the 35 U.S.C. 101 rejection of the claims below.
Applicant’s arguments regarding the 35 U.S.C. 102 and/or 35 U.S.C. 103 rejections of the claims are based on the newly amended subject matter. All arguments are addressed in the 35 U.S.C. 102 and/or 35 U.S.C. 103 rejections of the claims below.
Claim Objections
Claim(s) 23-42 is/are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 23, lines 22-23, a partial processing results should read “[[a ]]partial processing results”
Claim 23, lines 31-32, generating any of the inferences should read “generate any of the inferences”
Claim 30, line 2, used the data processing systems should read “used by the data processing systems”
Claim 32, lines 23-24, a partial processing results should read “[[a ]]partial processing results”
Claim 32, lines 32-33, generating any of the inferences should read “generate any of the inferences”
Claim 38, line 27, a partial processing results should read “[[a ]]partial processing results”
Claim 38, lines 37-38, generating any of the inferences should read “generate any of the inferences”
Claims 24-31, 33-37, 39-42 are objected to due to their dependence, either directly or indirectly, on claims 23, 32, 38
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(a)
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 31 is 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.
Claim 31 recites training … using a least amount of its respective limited computing resources. However, the specification does not provide support for a least amount of any resource. While the specification discloses reducing various computing resources (e.g., [0014], [0018], [0033]-[0035], [0038]-, [0039]), optimizing location ([0077]) and minimizing latency and bandwidth for the independent portions for providing inferences ([0075]), it does not disclose any mention a least amount of computing resources for the data processing system comprising the shared portion. Therefore, there is no support in the original description for the inclusion of the amendment to the claims and the claims fail to comply with the written description requirement. Correction or clarification is required.
Examiner’s note: For the purposes of examination, the claim will be interpreted as reducing computing resources.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(b)
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 23-42 are 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.
Claims 23, 30-32, 38 recites limited computing resources which is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “limited” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. Correction or clarification is required.
Examiner’s Note: For the purposes of examination, the term will be interpreted to include any resource that prevents, prohibits or reduces any capabilities to a hardware device to perform a function.
Claims 24-31, 33-37, 39-42 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) due to their dependence, either directly or indirectly, on claims 23, 30-33, 38.
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(s) 23-42 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101, because the claim(s) is/are directed to an abstract idea, and because the claim elements, whether considered individually or in combination, do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea, see Alice Corporation Pty. Ltd. V. CLS Bank International et al., 573 US 208 (2014).
Regarding claim 23, the claim 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 23 is directed to a method, which is directed to a process, one of the statutory categories.
Step 2A Prong One Analysis: The claim recites a(n) method of managing inference models hosted by data processing systems.
The limitation of obtaining first location data for sources of data usable to obtain inferences, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers a mental process. The limitation is directed to observation, evaluation, judgment and opinion and is a process capable of being performed by a human mentally or using pen and paper.
The limitation of obtaining second location data for consumers of the inferences, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers a mental process. The limitation is directed to observation, evaluation, judgment and opinion and is a process capable of being performed by a human mentally or using pen and paper.
The limitation of obtaining a first inference model based on a first goal of the consumers for deployment to the data processing systems, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers a mental process. The limitation is directed to observation, evaluation, judgment and opinion and is a process capable of being performed by a human mentally or using pen and paper.
The limitation of obtaining a second inference model based on a second goal of the consumers for deployment to the data processing systems, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers a mental process. The limitation is directed to observation, evaluation, judgment and opinion and is a process capable of being performed by a human mentally or using pen and paper.
The limitation of obtaining a deployment plan for the first inference model and the second inference model …, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers a mental process. The limitation is directed to observation, evaluation, judgment and opinion and is a process capable of being performed by a human mentally or using pen and paper.
If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind, then it falls within the "Mental Processes" grouping. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
Step 2A Prong Two Analysis: With respect to the abstract idea, the judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application.
The claim recites additional element(s) – data processing systems, first data processing system, one or more data processing systems. The additional element(s) is/are recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as generic computer components performing generic computer functions of executing instructions on the computers) such that it amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components (MPEP 2106.05(b)).
The claim recites additional element(s) – inference models, first inference model, second inference model. The additional element(s) is/are recited at a high-level of generality such that it amounts to no more than indicating a field of use or technological environment in which to apply the judicial exception (MPEP 2106.05(h)).
The claim recites generating and providing the inferences to the consumers using the sources of the data and deployed ones of the shared portion and the independent portions of the first inference model and the second inference model which is simply applying the models recited at a high level of generality and amounts to the recitation of the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) or amounts to no more than mere instructions to implement an abstract idea or other exception on a computer (MPEP 2106.05(f)).
The claim recites ... obtaining the data usable to obtain the inferences via first network transmissions, and providing the inferences to the consumers via second network transmissions; deploying the shared portion and the independent portions of the first inference model and the second inference model to the data processing systems based on the deployment plan, which is simply transmitting data recited at a high level of generality. This is nothing more than insignificant extra-solution activity (MPEP 2106.05(g)).
The claim recites ... the second inference model sharing at least one hidden layer with the first inference model, each of the data processing systems comprises limited computing resources for hosting and executing the first inference model and the second inference model ...; the deployment plan specifying: a first deployment location for a shared portion of the first inference model and the second inference model based on the first location data to deploy the shared portion to a first data processing system among the data processing systems that is closest in network proximity to the sources of the data usable to obtain the inferences, wherein the shared portion comprises the at least one hidden layer of the second inference model that is shared with the first inference model and is only capable of generating a partial processing results of the inferences and not complete versions of the inferences; second deployment locations for independent portions of the first inference model and the second inference model based on the second location data to deploy the independent portions to one or more data processing systems among the data processing systems that are closest in network proximity to at least one of the consumers of the inferences that provided the first goal and the second goal, each of the independent portions is able to individually and independently generate one or more of the inferences while the shared portion is unable to individually and independently generating any of the inferences without utilizing one or more of the independent portions to process the partial processing results generated by the shared portion; and that the shared portion is to distribute a partial processing result to all of the independent portions which is simply additional information regarding the models, the data processing systems and the deployment plan, and the element(s) do(es) not apply the exception in a meaningful way (MPEP 2106.05(e)).
Accordingly, the additional element(s) do(es) not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because the additional element(s) do(es) not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea, and, therefore, the claim is directed to an abstract idea.
Step 2B Analysis: The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to the integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional element(s) of:
data processing systems, first data processing system, one or more data processing systems amount(s) to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components (MPEP 2106.05(b))
applying the models amount(s) to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception (MPEP 2106.05(f))
transmitting data amount(s) to no more than insignificant extra-solution activity (MPEP 2106.05(g)), wherein the insignificant extra-solution activity is the well-understood routine and conventional activit(y/ies) of receiving or transmitting data over a network (MPEP 2016.05(d))
inference models, first inference model, second inference model amount(s) to no more than indicating a field of use or technological environment in which to apply the judicial exception (MPEP 2106.05(h))
additional information regarding the models, the data processing systems and the deployment plan do(es) not apply the exception in a meaningful way (MPEP 2106.05(e))
The additional element(s) do(es) not provide an inventive concept, and, therefore, the claim is not patent eligible.
Regarding claim 24, the claim 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 24 is directed to a method, which is directed to a process, one of the statutory categories.
Step 2A Prong One Analysis: The claim recites a(n) method of managing inference models hosted by data processing systems. The Step 2A Prong One Analysis for claim 23 is applicable here since claim 24 carries out the method of claim 23 but for the recitation of additional element(s) of wherein one of the independent portions is: an independent portion of the second inference model, and is obtained via transfer learning with the first inference model.
Step 2A Prong Two Analysis: With respect to the abstract idea, the judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim recites additional information regarding the models and the element(s) do(es) not apply the exception in a meaningful way (MPEP 2106.05(e)). Accordingly, the additional element(s) do(es) not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because the additional element(s) do(es) not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea, and, therefore, the claim is directed to an abstract idea.
Step 2B Analysis: The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to the integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional element(s) of additional information regarding the models do(es) not apply the exception in a meaningful way (MPEP 2106.05(e)). Not applying the exception in a meaningful way does not provide an inventive concept, and, therefore, the claim is not patent eligible.
Regarding claim 25, the claim 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 25 is directed to a method, which is directed to a process, one of the statutory categories.
Step 2A Prong One Analysis: The claim recites a(n) method of managing inference models hosted by data processing systems.
The limitation of identifying the first data processing system based on the first location data, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers a mental process. The limitation is directed to observation, evaluation, judgment and opinion and is a process capable of being performed by a human mentally or using pen and paper.
The limitation of identifying, using the second location data and information associated with a first consumer of the consumers, a second data processing system, the second goal being provided by a second consumer of the consumers and the second data processing system being one of the one or more data processing systems among the data processing systems that are closest in network proximity to at least one of the consumers of the inferences that provided the first goal and the second goal, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers a mental process. The limitation is directed to observation, evaluation, judgment and opinion and is a process capable of being performed by a human mentally or using pen and paper.
The limitation of identifying, using the second location data and information associated with the second consumer, a third data processing system, that is another one of the one or more data processing systems among the data processing systems that are closest in network proximity to at least one of the consumers of the inferences that provided the first goal and the second goal, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers a mental process. The limitation is directed to observation, evaluation, judgment and opinion and is a process capable of being performed by a human mentally or using pen and paper.
The limitation of selecting the first data processing system for deployment of the shared portion of the first inference model and the second inference model, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers a mental process. The limitation is directed to observation, evaluation, judgment and opinion and is a process capable of being performed by a human mentally or using pen and paper.
The limitation of selecting the second data processing system for deployment of a first independent portion of the independent portions, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers a mental process. The limitation is directed to observation, evaluation, judgment and opinion and is a process capable of being performed by a human mentally or using pen and paper.
The limitation of selecting the third data processing system for deployment of a second independent portion of the independent portions, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers a mental process. The limitation is directed to observation, evaluation, judgment and opinion and is a process capable of being performed by a human mentally or using pen and paper.
If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind, then it falls within the "Mental Processes" grouping. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
Step 2A Prong Two Analysis: With respect to the abstract idea, the judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application.
The claim recites additional element(s) – second data processing system, third data processing system. The additional element(s) is/are recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as generic computer components performing generic computer functions of executing instructions on the computers) such that it amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components (MPEP 2106.05(b)).
Accordingly, the additional element(s) do(es) not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because the additional element(s) do(es) not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea, and, therefore, the claim is directed to an abstract idea.
Step 2B Analysis: The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to the integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional element(s) of:
second data processing system, third data processing system amount(s) to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components (MPEP 2106.05(b))
The additional element(s) do(es) not provide an inventive concept, and, therefore, the claim is not patent eligible.
Regarding claim 26, the claim 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 26 is directed to a method, which is directed to a process, one of the statutory categories.
Step 2A Prong One Analysis: The claim recites a(n) method of managing inference models hosted by data processing systems.
The limitation of generating the partial processing result of the inferences ..., as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers a mental process. The limitation is directed to observation, evaluation, judgment and opinion and is a process capable of being performed by a human mentally or using pen and paper.
The limitation of generating a first inference of the inferences ..., the first inference being responsive to the first goal, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers a mental process. The limitation is directed to observation, evaluation, judgment and opinion and is a process capable of being performed by a human mentally or using pen and paper.
The limitation of generating a second inference of the inferences ..., the second inference being responsive to the second goal, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers a mental process. The limitation is directed to observation, evaluation, judgment and opinion and is a process capable of being performed by a human mentally or using pen and paper.
If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind, then it falls within the "Mental Processes" grouping. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
Step 2A Prong Two Analysis: With respect to the abstract idea, the judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application.
The claim recites ... using the shared portion that was deployed based on the deployment plan; ... using the first independent portion deployed to the second data processing system ...; ... using the second independent portion deployed to the third data processing system ... which is simply applying the models recited at a high level of generality and amounts to the recitation of the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) or amounts to no more than mere instructions to implement an abstract idea or other exception on a computer (MPEP 2106.05(f)).
The claim recites providing the partial processing result to all of the independent portions that were deployed based on the deployment plan, which is simply transmitting data recited at a high level of generality. This is nothing more than insignificant extra-solution activity (MPEP 2106.05(g)).
Accordingly, the additional element(s) do(es) not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because the additional element(s) do(es) not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea, and, therefore, the claim is directed to an abstract idea.
Step 2B Analysis: The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to the integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional element(s) of:
applying the models amount(s) to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception (MPEP 2106.05(f))
transmitting data amount(s) to no more than insignificant extra-solution activity (MPEP 2106.05(g)), wherein the insignificant extra-solution activity is the well-understood routine and conventional activit(y/ies) of receiving or transmitting data over a network (MPEP 2016.05(d))
The additional element(s) do(es) not provide an inventive concept, and, therefore, the claim is not patent eligible.
Regarding claim 27, the claim 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 27 is directed to a method, which is directed to a process, one of the statutory categories.
Step 2A Prong One Analysis: The claim recites a(n) method of managing inference models hosted by data processing systems.
The limitation of making an identification that an instance of the first inference model is already hosted by the data processing systems, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers a mental process. The limitation is directed to observation, evaluation, judgment and opinion and is a process capable of being performed by a human mentally or using pen and paper.
The limitation of based on the identification: making a determination regarding whether an input layer of the instance of the first inference model and an output layer of the instance of the first inference model are within predetermined network distances of locations specified by the first location data and the second location data, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers a mental process. The limitation is directed to observation, evaluation, judgment and opinion and is a process capable of being performed by a human mentally or using pen and paper.
The limitation of based on the identification: ... in an instance of the determination where the input layer of the instance of the first inference model and an output layer of the instance of the first inference model are within the predetermined network distances: establishing the instance of the first inference model as being part of the deployment plan, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers a mental process. The limitation is directed to observation, evaluation, judgment and opinion and is a process capable of being performed by a human mentally or using pen and paper.
The limitation of based on the identification: ... in an instance of the determination where the input layer of the instance of the first inference model and an output layer of the instance of the first inference model are within the predetermined network distances: ... establishing a new instance of the second inference model that depends on operation of the instance of the first inference model, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers a mental process. The limitation is directed to observation, evaluation, judgment and opinion and is a process capable of being performed by a human mentally or using pen and paper.
If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind, then it falls within the "Mental Processes" grouping. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
Step 2A Prong Two Analysis: With respect to the abstract idea, the judicial exception is not integrated
into a practical application. The claim does not recite any additional elements which integrate the
abstract idea into a practical application and, therefore, does not impose any meaningful limits on
practicing the abstract idea. Therefore, the claim is directed to an abstract idea.
Step 2B Analysis: The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to
significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to the integration of the
abstract idea into a practical application, the claim does not recite any additional elements which
provide an inventive concept, and, therefore, the claim is not patent eligible.
Regarding claim 28, the claim 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 28 is directed to a method, which is directed to a process, one of the statutory categories.
Step 2A Prong One Analysis: The claim recites a(n) method of managing inference models hosted by data processing systems.
The limitation of identifying latency of communication between each of the data processing systems and the sources of the data, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers a mental process. The limitation is directed to observation, evaluation, judgment and opinion and is a process capable of being performed by a human mentally or using pen and paper.
The limitation of ranking the data processing systems based on the latency to obtain a ranking, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers a mental process. The limitation is directed to observation, evaluation, judgment and opinion and is a process capable of being performed by a human mentally or using pen and paper.
The limitation of obtaining the first location data based on the ranking, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers a mental process. The limitation is directed to observation, evaluation, judgment and opinion and is a process capable of being performed by a human mentally or using pen and paper.
If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind, then it falls within the "Mental Processes" grouping. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
Step 2A Prong Two Analysis: With respect to the abstract idea, the judicial exception is not integrated
into a practical application. The claim does not recite any additional elements which integrate the
abstract idea into a practical application and, therefore, does not impose any meaningful limits on
practicing the abstract idea. Therefore, the claim is directed to an abstract idea.
Step 2B Analysis: The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to
significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to the integration of the
abstract idea into a practical application, the claim does not recite any additional elements which
provide an inventive concept, and, therefore, the claim is not patent eligible.
Regarding claim 29, the claim 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 29 is directed to a method, which is directed to a process, one of the statutory categories.
Step 2A Prong One Analysis: The claim recites a(n) method of managing inference models hosted by data processing systems. The Step 2A Prong One Analysis for claim 23 is applicable here since claim 29 carries out the method of claim 23 but for the recitation of additional element(s) of wherein the first inference model and the second inference model are machine learning models, and the shared portion comprises only an input layer and a hidden layer making up the machine learning models.
Step 2A Prong Two Analysis: With respect to the abstract idea, the judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application.
The claim recites wherein the first inference model and the second inference model are machine learning models, and the shared portion comprises only an input layer and a hidden layer making up the machine learning models which is simply additional information regarding the models, and the element(s) do(es) not apply the exception in a meaningful way (MPEP 2106.05(e)).
The claim recites additional element(s) – machine learning models. The additional element(s) is/are recited at a high-level of generality such that it amounts to no more than indicating a field of use or technological environment in which to apply the judicial exception (MPEP 2106.05(h)).
Accordingly, the additional element(s) do(es) not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because the additional element(s) do(es) not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea, and, therefore, the claim is directed to an abstract idea.
Step 2B Analysis: The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to the integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional element(s) of:
machine learning models amount(s) to no more than indicating a field of use or technological environment in which to apply the judicial exception (MPEP 2106.05(h))
additional information regarding the models do(es) not apply the exception in a meaningful way (MPEP 2106.05(e))
The additional element(s) do(es) not provide an inventive concept, and, therefore, the claim is not patent eligible.
Regarding claim 30, the claim 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 30 is directed to a method, which is directed to a process, one of the statutory categories.
Step 2A Prong One Analysis: The claim recites a(n) method of managing inference models hosted by data processing systems. The Step 2A Prong One Analysis for claim 23 is applicable here since claim 30 carries out the method of claim 23 but for the recitation of additional element(s) of wherein the deployment plan reduces an amount of the limited computing resources required to be used the data processing systems as a whole to generate and provide the inferences to the consumers.
Step 2A Prong Two Analysis: With respect to the abstract idea, the judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim recites additional information regarding the deployment plan and the element(s) do(es) not apply the exception in a meaningful way (MPEP 2106.05(e)). Accordingly, the additional element(s) do(es) not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because the additional element(s) do(es) not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea, and, therefore, the claim is directed to an abstract idea.
Step 2B Analysis: The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to the integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional element(s) of additional information regarding the deployment plan do(es) not apply the exception in a meaningful way (MPEP 2106.05(e)). Not applying the exception in a meaningful way does not provide an inventive concept, and, therefore, the claim is not patent eligible.
Regarding claim 31, the claim 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 31 is directed to a method, which is directed to a process, one of the statutory categories.
Step 2A Prong One Analysis: The claim recites a(n) method of managing inference models hosted by data processing systems. The Step 2A Prong One Analysis for claim 30 is applicable here since claim 31 carries out the method of claim 30 but for the recitation of additional element(s) of wherein the first data processing system that is closest in network proximity to the sources of the data is a data processing system among the data processing systems that is able to obtain the data usable to obtain the inferences from the sources using a least amount of its respective limited computing resources.
Step 2A Prong Two Analysis: With respect to the abstract idea, the judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim recites additional information regarding the data processing systems and the element(s) do(es) not apply the exception in a meaningful way (MPEP 2106.05(e)). Accordingly, the additional element(s) do(es) not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because the additional element(s) do(es) not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea, and, therefore, the claim is directed to an abstract idea.
Step 2B Analysis: The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to the integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional element(s) of additional information regarding the data processing systems do(es) not apply the exception in a meaningful way (MPEP 2106.05(e)). Not applying the exception in a meaningful way does not provide an inventive concept, and, therefore, the claim is not patent eligible.
Regarding claim 32, the claim 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 32 is directed to a machine-readable medium, which is directed to an article of manufacture, one of the statutory categories.
Step 2A Prong One Analysis: The claim recites a(n) machine-readable medium ... to perform operations for managing inference models hosted by data processing systems.
The limitation of obtaining first location data for sources of data usable to obtain inferences, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers a mental process. The limitation is directed to observation, evaluation, judgment and opinion and is a process capable of being performed by a human mentally or using pen and paper.
The limitation of obtaining second location data for consumers of the inferences, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers a mental process. The limitation is directed to observation, evaluation, judgment and opinion and is a process capable of being performed by a human mentally or using pen and paper.
The limitation of obtaining a first inference model based on a first goal of the consumers for deployment to the data processing systems, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers a mental process. The limitation is directed to observation, evaluation, judgment and opinion and is a process capable of being performed by a human mentally or using pen and paper.
The limitation of obtaining a second inference model based on a second goal of the consumers for deployment to the data processing systems, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers a mental process. The limitation is directed to observation, evaluation, judgment and opinion and is a process capable of being performed by a human mentally or using pen and paper.
The limitation of obtaining a deployment plan for the first inference model and the second inference model …, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers a mental process. The limitation is directed to observation, evaluation, judgment and opinion and is a process capable of being performed by a human mentally or using pen and paper.
If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind, then it falls within the "Mental Processes" grouping. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
Step 2A Prong Two Analysis: With respect to the abstract idea, the judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application.
The claim recites additional element(s) – machine-readable medium, instructions, processor, data processing systems, first data processing system, one or more data processing systems. The additional element(s) is/are recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as generic computer components performing generic computer functions of executing instructions on the computers) such that it amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components (MPEP 2106.05(b)).
The claim recites additional element(s) – inference models, first inference model, second inference model. The additional element(s) is/are recited at a high-level of generality such that it amounts to no more than indicating a field of use or technological environment in which to apply the judicial exception (MPEP 2106.05(h)).
The claim recites generating and providing the inferences to the consumers using the sources of the data and deployed ones of the shared portion and the independent portions of the first inference model and the second inference model which is simply applying the models recited at a high level of generality and amounts to the recitation of the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) or amounts to no more than mere instructions to implement an abstract idea or other exception on a computer (MPEP 2106.05(f)).
The claim recites ... obtaining the data usable to obtain the inferences via first network transmissions, and providing the inferences to the consumers via second network transmissions; deploying the shared portion and the independent portions of the first inference model and the second inference model to the data processing systems based on the deployment plan, which is simply transmitting data recited at a high level of generality. This is nothing more than insignificant extra-solution activity (MPEP 2106.05(g)).
The claim recites ... the second inference model sharing at least one hidden layer with the first inference model, each of the data processing systems comprises limited computing resources for hosting and executing the first inference model and the second inference model ...; the deployment plan specifying: a first deployment location for a shared portion of the first inference model and the second inference model based on the first location data to deploy the shared portion to a first data processing system among the data processing systems that is closest in network proximity to the sources of the data usable to obtain the inferences, wherein the shared portion comprises the at least one hidden layer of the second inference model that is shared with the first inference model and is only capable of generating a partial processing results of the inferences and not complete versions of the inferences; second deployment locations for independent portions of the first inference model and the second inference model based on the second location data to deploy the independent portions to one or more data processing systems among the data processing systems that are closest in network proximity to at least one of the consumers of the inferences that provided the first goal and the second goal, each of the independent portions is able to individually and independently generate one or more of the inferences while the shared portion is unable to individually and independently generating any of the inferences without utilizing one or more of the independent portions to process the partial processing results generated by the shared portion; and that the shared portion is to distribute a partial processing result to all of the independent portions which is simply additional information regarding the models, the data processing systems and the deployment plan, and the element(s) do(es) not apply the exception in a meaningful way (MPEP 2106.05(e)).
Accordingly, the additional element(s) do(es) not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because the additional element(s) do(es) not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea, and, therefore, the claim is directed to an abstract idea.
Step 2B Analysis: The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to the integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional element(s) of:
machine-readable medium, instructions, processor, data processing systems, first data processing system, one or more data processing systems amount(s) to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components (MPEP 2106.05(b))
applying the models amount(s) to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception (MPEP 2106.05(f))
transmitting data amount(s) to no more than insignificant extra-solution activity (MPEP 2106.05(g)), wherein the insignificant extra-solution activity is the well-understood routine and conventional activit(y/ies) of receiving or transmitting data over a network (MPEP 2016.05(d))
inference models, first inference model, second inference model amount(s) to no more than indicating a field of use or technological environment in which to apply the judicial exception (MPEP 2106.05(h))
additional information regarding the models, the data processing systems and the deployment plan do(es) not apply the exception in a meaningful way (MPEP 2106.05(e))
The additional element(s) do(es) not provide an inventive concept, and, therefore, the claim is not patent eligible.
Regarding claim 33, the claim 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 33 is directed to a machine-readable medium, which is directed to an article of manufacture, one of the statutory categories.
Step 2A Prong One Analysis: The claim recites a(n) machine-readable medium ... to perform operations for managing inference models hosted by data processing systems. The Step 2A Prong One Analysis for claim 32 is applicable here since claim 33 carries out the machine-readable medium of claim 32 but for the recitation of additional element(s) of wherein one of the independent portions is: an independent portion of the second inference model, and is obtained via transfer learning with the first inference model.
Step 2A Prong Two Analysis: With respect to the abstract idea, the judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim recites additional information regarding the models and the element(s) do(es) not apply the exception in a meaningful way (MPEP 2106.05(e)). Accordingly, the additional element(s) do(es) not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because the additional element(s) do(es) not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea, and, therefore, the claim is directed to an abstract idea.
Step 2B Analysis: The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to the integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional element(s) of additional information regarding the models do(es) not apply the exception in a meaningful way (MPEP 2106.05(e)). Not applying the exception in a meaningful way does not provide an inventive concept, and, therefore, the claim is not patent eligible.
Regarding claim 34, the claim 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 34 is directed to a machine-readable medium, which is directed to an article of manufacture, one of the statutory categories.
Step 2A Prong One Analysis: The claim recites a(n) machine-readable medium ... to perform operations for managing inference models hosted by data processing systems.
The limitation of identifying the first data processing system based on the first location data, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers a mental process. The limitation is directed to observation, evaluation, judgment and opinion and is a process capable of being performed by a human mentally or using pen and paper.
The limitation of identifying, using the second location data and information associated with a first consumer of the consumers, a second data processing system, the second goal being provided by a second consumer of the consumers and the second data processing system being one of the one or more data processing systems among the data processing systems that are closest in network proximity to at least one of the consumers of the inferences that provided the first goal and the second goal, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers a mental process. The limitation is directed to observation, evaluation, judgment and opinion and is a process capable of being performed by a human mentally or using pen and paper.
The limitation of identifying, using the second location data and information associated with the second consumer, a third data processing system, that is another one of the one or more data processing systems among the data processing systems that are closest in network proximity to at least one of the consumers of the inferences that provided the first goal and the second goal, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers a mental process. The limitation is directed to observation, evaluation, judgment and opinion and is a process capable of being performed by a human mentally or using pen and paper.
The limitation of selecting the first data processing system for deployment of the shared portion of the first inference model and the second inference model, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers a mental process. The limitation is directed to observation, evaluation, judgment and opinion and is a process capable of being performed by a human mentally or using pen and paper.
The limitation of selecting the second data processing system for deployment of a first independent portion of the independent portions, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers a mental process. The limitation is directed to observation, evaluation, judgment and opinion and is a process capable of being performed by a human mentally or using pen and paper.
The limitation of selecting the third data processing system for deployment of a second independent portion of the independent portions, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers a mental process. The limitation is directed to observation, evaluation, judgment and opinion and is a process capable of being performed by a human mentally or using pen and paper.
If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind, then it falls within the "Mental Processes" grouping. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
Step 2A Prong Two Analysis: With respect to the abstract idea, the judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application.
The claim recites additional element(s) – second data processing system, third data processing system. The additional element(s) is/are recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as generic computer components performing generic computer functions of executing instructions on the computers) such that it amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components (MPEP 2106.05(b)).
Accordingly, the additional element(s) do(es) not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because the additional element(s) do(es) not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea, and, therefore, the claim is directed to an abstract idea.
Step 2B Analysis: The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to the integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional element(s) of:
second data processing system, third data processing system amount(s) to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components (MPEP 2106.05(b))
The additional element(s) do(es) not provide an inventive concept, and, therefore, the claim is not patent eligible.
Regarding claim 35, the claim 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 35 is directed to a machine-readable medium, which is directed to an article of manufacture, one of the statutory categories.
Step 2A Prong One Analysis: The claim recites a(n) machine-readable medium ... to perform operations for managing inference models hosted by data processing systems.
The limitation of generating the partial processing result of the inferences ..., as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers a mental process. The limitation is directed to observation, evaluation, judgment and opinion and is a process capable of being performed by a human mentally or using pen and paper.
The limitation of generating a first inference of the inferences ..., the first inference being responsive to the first goal, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers a mental process. The limitation is directed to observation, evaluation, judgment and opinion and is a process capable of being performed by a human mentally or using pen and paper.
The limitation of generating a second inference of the inferences ..., the second inference being responsive to the second goal, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers a mental process. The limitation is directed to observation, evaluation, judgment and opinion and is a process capable of being performed by a human mentally or using pen and paper.
If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind, then it falls within the "Mental Processes" grouping. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
Step 2A Prong Two Analysis: With respect to the abstract idea, the judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application.
The claim recites ... using the shared portion that was deployed based on the deployment plan; ... using the first independent portion deployed to the second data processing system ...; ... using the second independent portion deployed to the third data processing system ... which is simply applying the models recited at a high level of generality and amounts to the recitation of the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) or amounts to no more than mere instructions to implement an abstract idea or other exception on a computer (MPEP 2106.05(f)).
The claim recites providing the partial processing result to all of the independent portions that were deployed based on the deployment plan, which is simply transmitting data recited at a high level of generality. This is nothing more than insignificant extra-solution activity (MPEP 2106.05(g)).
Accordingly, the additional element(s) do(es) not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because the additional element(s) do(es) not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea, and, therefore, the claim is directed to an abstract idea.
Step 2B Analysis: The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to the integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional element(s) of:
applying the models amount(s) to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception (MPEP 2106.05(f))
transmitting data amount(s) to no more than insignificant extra-solution activity (MPEP 2106.05(g)), wherein the insignificant extra-solution activity is the well-understood routine and conventional activit(y/ies) of receiving or transmitting data over a network (MPEP 2016.05(d))
The additional element(s) do(es) not provide an inventive concept, and, therefore, the claim is not patent eligible.
Regarding claim 36, the claim 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 36 is directed to a machine-readable medium, which is directed to an article of manufacture, one of the statutory categories.
Step 2A Prong One Analysis: The claim recites a(n) machine-readable medium ... to perform operations for managing inference models hosted by data processing systems.
The limitation of making an identification that an instance of the first inference model is already hosted by the data processing systems, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers a mental process. The limitation is directed to observation, evaluation, judgment and opinion and is a process capable of being performed by a human mentally or using pen and paper.
The limitation of based on the identification: making a determination regarding whether an input layer of the instance of the first inference model and an output layer of the instance of the first inference model are within predetermined network distances of locations specified by the first location data and the second location data, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers a mental process. The limitation is directed to observation, evaluation, judgment and opinion and is a process capable of being performed by a human mentally or using pen and paper.
The limitation of based on the identification: ... in an instance of the determination where the input layer of the instance of the first inference model and an output layer of the instance of the first inference model are within the predetermined network distances: establishing the instance of the first inference model as being part of the deployment plan, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers a mental process. The limitation is directed to observation, evaluation, judgment and opinion and is a process capable of being performed by a human mentally or using pen and paper.
The limitation of based on the identification: ... in an instance of the determination where the input layer of the instance of the first inference model and an output layer of the instance of the first inference model are within the predetermined network distances: ... establishing a new instance of the second inference model that depends on operation of the instance of the first inference model, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers a mental process. The limitation is directed to observation, evaluation, judgment and opinion and is a process capable of being performed by a human mentally or using pen and paper.
If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind, then it falls within the "Mental Processes" grouping. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
Step 2A Prong Two Analysis: With respect to the abstract idea, the judicial exception is not integrated
into a practical application. The claim does not recite any additional elements which integrate the
abstract idea into a practical application and, therefore, does not impose any meaningful limits on
practicing the abstract idea. Therefore, the claim is directed to an abstract idea.
Step 2B Analysis: The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to
significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to the integration of the
abstract idea into a practical application, the claim does not recite any additional elements which
provide an inventive concept, and, therefore, the claim is not patent eligible.
Regarding claim 37, the claim 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 37 is directed to a machine-readable medium, which is directed to an article of manufacture, one of the statutory categories.
Step 2A Prong One Analysis: The claim recites a(n) machine-readable medium ... to perform operations for managing inference models hosted by data processing systems.
The limitation of identifying latency of communication between each of the data processing systems and the sources of the data, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers a mental process. The limitation is directed to observation, evaluation, judgment and opinion and is a process capable of being performed by a human mentally or using pen and paper.
The limitation of ranking the data processing systems based on the latency to obtain a ranking, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers a mental process. The limitation is directed to observation, evaluation, judgment and opinion and is a process capable of being performed by a human mentally or using pen and paper.
The limitation of obtaining the first location data based on the ranking, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers a mental process. The limitation is directed to observation, evaluation, judgment and opinion and is a process capable of being performed by a human mentally or using pen and paper.
If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind, then it falls within the "Mental Processes" grouping. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
Step 2A Prong Two Analysis: With respect to the abstract idea, the judicial exception is not integrated
into a practical application. The claim does not recite any additional elements which integrate the
abstract idea into a practical application and, therefore, does not impose any meaningful limits on
practicing the abstract idea. Therefore, the claim is directed to an abstract idea.
Step 2B Analysis: The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to
significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to the integration of the
abstract idea into a practical application, the claim does not recite any additional elements which
provide an inventive concept, and, therefore, the claim is not patent eligible.
Regarding claim 38, the claim 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 38 is directed to a data processing system with a processor, which is directed to a machine, one of the statutory categories.
Step 2A Prong One Analysis: The claim recites a(n) data processing system configured as an inference model manager.
The limitation of obtaining first location data for sources of data usable to obtain inferences, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers a mental process. The limitation is directed to observation, evaluation, judgment and opinion and is a process capable of being performed by a human mentally or using pen and paper.
The limitation of obtaining second location data for consumers of the inferences, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers a mental process. The limitation is directed to observation, evaluation, judgment and opinion and is a process capable of being performed by a human mentally or using pen and paper.
The limitation of obtaining a first inference model based on a first goal of the consumers for deployment to the data processing systems, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers a mental process. The limitation is directed to observation, evaluation, judgment and opinion and is a process capable of being performed by a human mentally or using pen and paper.
The limitation of obtaining a second inference model based on a second goal of the consumers for deployment to the data processing systems, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers a mental process. The limitation is directed to observation, evaluation, judgment and opinion and is a process capable of being performed by a human mentally or using pen and paper.
The limitation of obtaining a deployment plan for the first inference model and the second inference model …, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers a mental process. The limitation is directed to observation, evaluation, judgment and opinion and is a process capable of being performed by a human mentally or using pen and paper.
If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind, then it falls within the "Mental Processes" grouping. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
Step 2A Prong Two Analysis: With respect to the abstract idea, the judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application.
The claim recites additional element(s) – data processing system, processor, memory, instructions, data processing systems, first data processing system, one or more data processing systems. The additional element(s) is/are recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as generic computer components performing generic computer functions of executing instructions on the computers) such that it amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components (MPEP 2106.05(b)).
The claim recites additional element(s) – inference models, first inference model, second inference model. The additional element(s) is/are recited at a high-level of generality such that it amounts to no more than indicating a field of use or technological environment in which to apply the judicial exception (MPEP 2106.05(h)).
The claim recites generating and providing the inferences to the consumers using the sources of the data and deployed ones of the shared portion and the independent portions of the first inference model and the second inference model which is simply applying the models recited at a high level of generality and amounts to the recitation of the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) or amounts to no more than mere instructions to implement an abstract idea or other exception on a computer (MPEP 2106.05(f)).
The claim recites ... obtaining the data usable to obtain the inferences via first network transmissions, and providing the inferences to the consumers via second network transmissions; deploying the shared portion and the independent portions of the first inference model and the second inference model to the data processing systems based on the deployment plan, which is simply transmitting data recited at a high level of generality. This is nothing more than insignificant extra-solution activity (MPEP 2106.05(g)).
The claim recites ... the second inference model sharing at least one hidden layer with the first inference model, each of the data processing systems comprises limited computing resources for hosting and executing the first inference model and the second inference model ...; the deployment plan specifying: a first deployment location for a shared portion of the first inference model and the second inference model based on the first location data to deploy the shared portion to a first data processing system among the data processing systems that is closest in network proximity to the sources of the data usable to obtain the inferences, wherein the shared portion comprises the at least one hidden layer of the second inference model that is shared with the first inference model and is only capable of generating a partial processing results of the inferences and not complete versions of the inferences; second deployment locations for independent portions of the first inference model and the second inference model based on the second location data to deploy the independent portions to one or more data processing systems among the data processing systems that are closest in network proximity to at least one of the consumers of the inferences that provided the first goal and the second goal, each of the independent portions is able to individually and independently generate one or more of the inferences while the shared portion is unable to individually and independently generating any of the inferences without utilizing one or more of the independent portions to process the partial processing results generated by the shared portion; and that the shared portion is to distribute a partial processing result to all of the independent portions which is simply additional information regarding the models, the data processing systems and the deployment plan, and the element(s) do(es) not apply the exception in a meaningful way (MPEP 2106.05(e)).
Accordingly, the additional element(s) do(es) not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because the additional element(s) do(es) not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea, and, therefore, the claim is directed to an abstract idea.
Step 2B Analysis: The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to the integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional element(s) of:
data processing system, processor, memory, instructions, data processing systems, first data processing system, one or more data processing systems amount(s) to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components (MPEP 2106.05(b))
applying the models amount(s) to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception (MPEP 2106.05(f))
transmitting data amount(s) to no more than insignificant extra-solution activity (MPEP 2106.05(g)), wherein the insignificant extra-solution activity is the well-understood routine and conventional activit(y/ies) of receiving or transmitting data over a network (MPEP 2016.05(d))
inference models, first inference model, second inference model amount(s) to no more than indicating a field of use or technological environment in which to apply the judicial exception (MPEP 2106.05(h))
additional information regarding the models, the data processing systems and the deployment plan do(es) not apply the exception in a meaningful way (MPEP 2106.05(e))
The additional element(s) do(es) not provide an inventive concept, and, therefore, the claim is not patent eligible.
Regarding claim 39, the claim 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 39 is directed to a data processing system with a processor, which is directed to a machine, one of the statutory categories.
Step 2A Prong One Analysis: The claim recites a(n) data processing system configured as an inference model manager. The Step 2A Prong One Analysis for claim 38 is applicable here since claim 39 carries out the data processing system of claim 38 but for the recitation of additional element(s) of wherein one of the independent portions is: an independent portion of the second inference model, and is obtained via transfer learning with the first inference model.
Step 2A Prong Two Analysis: With respect to the abstract idea, the judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim recites additional information regarding the models and the element(s) do(es) not apply the exception in a meaningful way (MPEP 2106.05(e)). Accordingly, the additional element(s) do(es) not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because the additional element(s) do(es) not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea, and, therefore, the claim is directed to an abstract idea.
Step 2B Analysis: The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to the integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional element(s) of additional information regarding the models do(es) not apply the exception in a meaningful way (MPEP 2106.05(e)). Not applying the exception in a meaningful way does not provide an inventive concept, and, therefore, the claim is not patent eligible.
Regarding claim 40, the claim 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 40 is directed to a data processing system with a processor, which is directed to a machine, one of the statutory categories.
Step 2A Prong One Analysis: The claim recites a(n) data processing system configured as an inference model manager.
The limitation of identifying the first data processing system based on the first location data, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers a mental process. The limitation is directed to observation, evaluation, judgment and opinion and is a process capable of being performed by a human mentally or using pen and paper.
The limitation of identifying, using the second location data and information associated with a first consumer of the consumers, a second data processing system, the second goal being provided by a second consumer of the consumers and the second data processing system being one of the one or more data processing systems among the data processing systems that are closest in network proximity to at least one of the consumers of the inferences that provided the first goal and the second goal, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers a mental process. The limitation is directed to observation, evaluation, judgment and opinion and is a process capable of being performed by a human mentally or using pen and paper.
The limitation of identifying, using the second location data and information associated with the second consumer, a third data processing system, that is another one of the one or more data processing systems among the data processing systems that are closest in network proximity to at least one of the consumers of the inferences that provided the first goal and the second goal, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers a mental process. The limitation is directed to observation, evaluation, judgment and opinion and is a process capable of being performed by a human mentally or using pen and paper.
The limitation of selecting the first data processing system for deployment of the shared portion of the first inference model and the second inference model, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers a mental process. The limitation is directed to observation, evaluation, judgment and opinion and is a process capable of being performed by a human mentally or using pen and paper.
The limitation of selecting the second data processing system for deployment of a first independent portion of the independent portions, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers a mental process. The limitation is directed to observation, evaluation, judgment and opinion and is a process capable of being performed by a human mentally or using pen and paper.
The limitation of selecting the third data processing system for deployment of a second independent portion of the independent portions, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers a mental process. The limitation is directed to observation, evaluation, judgment and opinion and is a process capable of being performed by a human mentally or using pen and paper.
If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind, then it falls within the "Mental Processes" grouping. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
Step 2A Prong Two Analysis: With respect to the abstract idea, the judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application.
The claim recites additional element(s) – second data processing system, third data processing system. The additional element(s) is/are recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as generic computer components performing generic computer functions of executing instructions on the computers) such that it amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components (MPEP 2106.05(b)).
Accordingly, the additional element(s) do(es) not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because the additional element(s) do(es) not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea, and, therefore, the claim is directed to an abstract idea.
Step 2B Analysis: The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to the integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional element(s) of:
second data processing system, third data processing system amount(s) to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components (MPEP 2106.05(b))
The additional element(s) do(es) not provide an inventive concept, and, therefore, the claim is not patent eligible.
Regarding claim 41, the claim 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 41 is directed to a data processing system with a processor, which is directed to a machine, one of the statutory categories.
Step 2A Prong One Analysis: The claim recites a(n) data processing system configured as an inference model manager.
The limitation of generating the partial processing result of the inferences ..., as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers a mental process. The limitation is directed to observation, evaluation, judgment and opinion and is a process capable of being performed by a human mentally or using pen and paper.
The limitation of generating a first inference of the inferences ..., the first inference being responsive to the first goal, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers a mental process. The limitation is directed to observation, evaluation, judgment and opinion and is a process capable of being performed by a human mentally or using pen and paper.
The limitation of generating a second inference of the inferences ..., the second inference being responsive to the second goal, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers a mental process. The limitation is directed to observation, evaluation, judgment and opinion and is a process capable of being performed by a human mentally or using pen and paper.
If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind, then it falls within the "Mental Processes" grouping. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
Step 2A Prong Two Analysis: With respect to the abstract idea, the judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application.
The claim recites ... using the shared portion that was deployed based on the deployment plan; ... using the first independent portion deployed to the second data processing system ...; ... using the second independent portion deployed to the third data processing system ... which is simply applying the models recited at a high level of generality and amounts to the recitation of the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) or amounts to no more than mere instructions to implement an abstract idea or other exception on a computer (MPEP 2106.05(f)).
The claim recites providing the partial processing result to all of the independent portions that were deployed based on the deployment plan, which is simply transmitting data recited at a high level of generality. This is nothing more than insignificant extra-solution activity (MPEP 2106.05(g)).
Accordingly, the additional element(s) do(es) not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because the additional element(s) do(es) not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea, and, therefore, the claim is directed to an abstract idea.
Step 2B Analysis: The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to the integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional element(s) of:
applying the models amount(s) to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception (MPEP 2106.05(f))
transmitting data amount(s) to no more than insignificant extra-solution activity (MPEP 2106.05(g)), wherein the insignificant extra-solution activity is the well-understood routine and conventional activit(y/ies) of receiving or transmitting data over a network (MPEP 2016.05(d))
The additional element(s) do(es) not provide an inventive concept, and, therefore, the claim is not patent eligible.
Regarding claim 42, the claim 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 42 is directed to a data processing system with a processor, which is directed to a machine, one of the statutory categories.
Step 2A Prong One Analysis: The claim recites a(n) data processing system configured as an inference model manager.
The limitation of making an identification that an instance of the first inference model is already hosted by the data processing systems, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers a mental process. The limitation is directed to observation, evaluation, judgment and opinion and is a process capable of being performed by a human mentally or using pen and paper.
The limitation of based on the identification: making a determination regarding whether an input layer of the instance of the first inference model and an output layer of the instance of the first inference model are within predetermined network distances of locations specified by the first location data and the second location data, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers a mental process. The limitation is directed to observation, evaluation, judgment and opinion and is a process capable of being performed by a human mentally or using pen and paper.
The limitation of based on the identification: ... in an instance of the determination where the input layer of the instance of the first inference model and an output layer of the instance of the first inference model are within the predetermined network distances: establishing the instance of the first inference model as being part of the deployment plan, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers a mental process. The limitation is directed to observation, evaluation, judgment and opinion and is a process capable of being performed by a human mentally or using pen and paper.
The limitation of based on the identification: ... in an instance of the determination where the input layer of the instance of the first inference model and an output layer of the instance of the first inference model are within the predetermined network distances: ... establishing a new instance of the second inference model that depends on operation of the instance of the first inference model, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers a mental process. The limitation is directed to observation, evaluation, judgment and opinion and is a process capable of being performed by a human mentally or using pen and paper.
If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind, then it falls within the "Mental Processes" grouping. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
Step 2A Prong Two Analysis: With respect to the abstract idea, the judicial exception is not integrated
into a practical application. The claim does not recite any additional elements which integrate the
abstract idea into a practical application and, therefore, does not impose any meaningful limits on
practicing the abstract idea. Therefore, the claim is directed to an abstract idea.
Step 2B Analysis: The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to
significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to the integration of the
abstract idea into a practical application, the claim does not recite any additional elements which
provide an inventive concept, and, therefore, the claim is not patent eligible.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, 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.
Claim(s) 23, 29-32, 38 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Umezawa et al. (US 2023/0010769 A1 – Information Processing System, Information Processing Apparatus, Information Processing Method, and Non-Transitory Storage Medium, hereinafter referred to as “Umezawa”).
Regarding claim 23 (New), Umezawa teaches a method of managing inference models hosted by data processing systems (Umezawa [0029] – teaches a method for managing inference models; see also Umezawa, Fig. 2), the method comprising:
obtaining first location data for sources of data usable to obtain inferences (Umezawa, [0029] – teaches a first information processing apparatus for generating inferences; Umezawa, [0031] – teaches the first information processing apparatus manages input medical data);
obtaining second location data for consumers of the inferences (Umezawa, [0029] – teaches a second information processing apparatus for generating inferences; Umezawa, [0031] – teaches the second information processing apparatus is controlled by a provider [consumer]);
obtaining a first inference model based on a first goal of the consumers for deployment to the data processing systems (Umezawa, [0032] – teaches a plurality of second partial models on the second information processing apparatus, each designed for specific classification tasks; see also Umezawa, Fig. 2);
obtaining a second inference model based on a second goal of the consumers for deployment to the data processing systems (Umezawa, [0032] – teaches a plurality of second partial models on the second information processing apparatus, each designed for specific classification tasks; see also Umezawa, Fig. 2),
the second inference model sharing at least one hidden layer with the first inference model (Umezawa, [0032] - teaches the plurality of second partial models obtaining intermediate results from a first partial model [share partial model] ; see also Umezawa, Fig. 2),
each of the data processing systems comprises limited computing resources for hosting and executing the first inference model and the second inference model (Umezawa, [0043] – teaches reducing computing resources on the processing apparatuses; Umezawa, [0119] – teaches balancing computing resources),
obtaining the data usable to obtain the inferences via first network transmissions (Umezawa, [0024]-[0025] – teaches acquiring input medical data via first transmissions; see also Umezawa, [0032]), and
providing the inferences to the consumers via second network transmissions (Umezawa, [0034] – teaches displaying the inference results);
obtaining a deployment plan for the first inference model and the second inference model (Umezawa, [0029]-[0032] - teaches deploying a plurality of models across a first and second information processing apparatus), the deployment plan specifying:
a first deployment location for a shared portion of the first inference model and the second inference model (Umezawa, [0029] – teaches a first information processing apparatus for a first partial model [shared model]; Umezawa, [0031] – teaches the first information processing apparatus manages input medical data) based on the first location data to deploy the shared portion to a first data processing system among the data processing systems that is closest in network proximity to the sources of the data usable to obtain the inferences (Umezawa, [0031]-[0032] – teaches shared model on a first processing apparatus which acquires the input data),
wherein the shared portion comprises the at least one hidden layer of the second inference model that is shared with the first inference model (Umezawa, [0032] - teaches the plurality of second partial models obtaining intermediate results from a first partial model [share partial model] ; see also Umezawa, Fig. 2) and is only capable of generating a partial processing results of the inferences and not complete versions of the inferences (Umezawa, [0029]-[0032] - teaches the intermediate result of the first partial model is sent to the plurality of second partial models);
second deployment locations for independent portions of the first inference model and the second inference model based on the second location data to deploy the independent portions to one or more data processing systems among the data processing systems (Umezawa, [0029] – teaches a second information processing apparatus for a plurality of second partial models; Umezawa, [0031] – teaches the second information processing apparatus is controlled by a provider [consumer]) that are closest in network proximity to at least one of the consumers of the inferences that provided the first goal and the second goal (Umezawa, [0031] – teaches the second information processing apparatus is controlled by a provider [consumer]),
each of the independent portions is able to individually and independently generate one or more of the inferences (Umezawa, [0029]-[0032] - teaches processing target medical data with the plurality of models to generate inference results) while the shared portion is unable to individually and independently generating any of the inferences without utilizing one or more of the independent portions to process the partial processing results generated by the shared portion (Umezawa, [0029]-[0032] - teaches the intermediate result of the first partial model is sent to the plurality of second partial models); and
that the shared portion is to distribute a partial processing result to all of the independent portions (Umezawa, [0029]-[0032] - teaches the intermediate result of the first partial model is sent to the plurality of second partial models);
deploying the shared portion and the independent portions of the first inference model and the second inference model to the data processing systems based on the deployment plan (Umezawa, [0029]-[0032] - teaches deploying a plurality of models across a first and second information processing apparatus where each apparatus has a partial model; see also Umezawa, Fig. 2); and
generating and providing the inferences to the consumers using the sources of the data and deployed ones of the shared portion and the independent portions of the first inference model and the second inference model (Umezawa, [0029]-[0032] - teaches processing target medical data with the plurality of models to generate inference results).
Regarding claim 29 (New), Umezawa teaches all of the limitations of the method of claim 23 as noted above. Umezawa further teaches wherein the first inference model and the second inference model are machine learning models (Umezawa, [0026] – teaches that the models are trained models [ML models]), and the shared portion comprises only an input layer and a hidden layer making up the machine learning models (Umezawa, [0030] – teaches the first partial model includes an input layer and at least some of the intermediate layers; see also Umezawa, Fig. 2).
Regarding claim 30 (New), Umezawa teaches all of the limitations of the method of claim 23 as noted above. Umezawa further teaches wherein the deployment plan reduces an amount of the limited computing resources required to be used the data processing systems as a whole to generate and provide the inferences to the consumers (Umezawa, [0043] – teaches reducing computing resources on the processing apparatuses; Umezawa, [0119] – teaches balancing computing resources).
Regarding claim 31 (New), Umezawa teaches all of the limitations of the method of claim 30 as noted above. Umezawa further teaches wherein the first data processing system that is closest in network proximity to the sources of the data is a data processing system among the data processing systems that is able to obtain the data usable to obtain the inferences from the sources using a least amount of its respective limited computing resources (Umezawa, [0043] – teaches reducing computing resources on the processing apparatuses; Umezawa, [0119] – teaches balancing computing resources).
Regarding claim 32 (New), it is the machine-readable medium embodiment of claim 23 with similar limitations to claim 23 and is rejected using the same reasoning found in claim 23. Umezawa further teaches a non-transitory machine-readable medium having instructions stored therein, which when executed by a processor (Umezawa, [0124] – teaches computer system with processor executing instructions stored in memory), cause the processor to perform operations for managing inference models hosted by data processing systems (Umezawa [0029] – teaches a method for managing inference models; see also Umezawa, Fig. 2) …
Regarding claim 38 (New), it is the data processing system embodiment of claim 23 with similar limitations to claim 23 and is rejected using the same reasoning found in claim 23. Umezawa further teaches a data processing system configured as an inference model manager, comprising: a processor; and a memory coupled to the processor to store instructions, which when executed by the processor (Umezawa, [0124] – teaches computer system with processor executing instructions stored in memory), cause the processor to perform operations for managing a distribution of inference models hosted by data processing systems (Umezawa [0029] – teaches a method for managing inference models; see also Umezawa, Fig. 2) …
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, 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.
Claim(s) 24-26, 33-35, 39-41 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Umezawa in view of Saeed et al. (Model Adaptation and Personalization for Physiological Stress Detection, hereinafter referred to as “Saeed”).
Regarding claim 24 (New), Umezawa teaches all of the limitations of the method of claim 23 as noted above. Umezawa further teaches wherein one of the independent portions is:
an independent portion of the second inference model (Umezawa, [0032] – teaches a plurality of second partial models on the second information processing apparatus, each designed for specific classification tasks; see also Umezawa, Fig. 2).
However, Umezawa does not explicitly teach the one of the independent portions being obtained via transfer learning with the first inference model.
Saeed teaches wherein one of the independent portions is:
an independent portion of the second inference model (Saeed, section II.C – teaches multi-task learning to generate independent portions for each subject), and
is obtained via transfer learning with the first inference model (Saeed, section II.B – teaches training a plurality of tasks in multi-task learning using transfer learning).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the claimed invention to modify Umezawa with the teachings of Saeed in order to generate personalized task specific models in the field of multi-task learning with hard parameter sharing (Saeed, Abstract – “Stress and accompanying physiological responses can occur when everyday emotional, mental and physical challenges exceed one’s ability to cope. A long-term exposure to stressful situations can have negative health consequences, such as increased risk of cardiovascular diseases and immune system disorder. It is also shown to adversely affect productivity, wellbeing, and self-confidence, which can lead to social and economic inequality. Hence, a timely stress recognition can contribute to better strategies for its management and prevention in the future. Stress can be detected from multimodal physiological signals (e.g. skin conductance and heart rate) using well-trained models. However, these models need to be adapted to a new target domain and personalized for each test subject. In this paper, we propose a deep reconstruction classification network and multitask learning (MTL) for domain adaption and personalization of stress recognition models. The domain adaption is achieved via a hybrid model consisting of temporal convolutional and recurrent layers that perform shared feature extraction through supervised source label predictions and unsupervised target data reconstruction. Furthermore, MTL based neural network approach with hard parameter sharing of mutual representation and task-specific layers is utilized to acquire personalized models. The proposed methods are tested on multimodal physiological time-series data collected during driving tasks, in both real-world and driving simulator settings.”).
Regarding claim 25 (New), Umezawa in view of Saeed teaches all of the limitations of the method of claim 24 as noted above.
Umezawa further teaches wherein obtaining the deployment plan comprises:
identifying the first data processing system based on the first location data (Umezawa, [0029] – teaches a first information processing apparatus for the first partial model; Umezawa, [0031] – teaches the first information processing apparatus manages input medical data);
identifying, using the second location data and information associated with a first consumer of the consumers, a second data processing system (Umezawa, [0029] – teaches a second information processing apparatus for generating inferences; Umezawa, [0031] – teaches the second information processing apparatus is controlled by a provider [consumer]),
the second goal being provided by a second consumer of the consumers and the second data processing system being one of the one or more data processing systems among the data processing systems that are closest in network proximity to at least one of the consumers of the inferences that provided the first goal and the second goal (Umezawa, [0029] – teaches a second information processing apparatus for generating inferences; Umezawa, [0031] – teaches the second information processing apparatus is controlled by a provider [consumer]);
selecting the first data processing system for deployment of the shared portion of the first inference model and the second inference model (Umezawa, [0029] – teaches a first information processing apparatus for the first partial model; Umezawa, [0031] – teaches the first information processing apparatus manages input medical data);
selecting the second data processing system for deployment of a first independent portion of the independent portions (Umezawa, [0029] – teaches a second information processing apparatus for generating inferences; Umezawa, [0031] – teaches the second information processing apparatus is controlled by a provider [consumer]).
Saeed further teaches
identifying, using the second location data and information associated with a first consumer of the consumers, a second data processing system (Saeed, section II.C - teaches a personalized second model portion for each of a plurality of subjects; Saeed, sections III, IV - teaches monitoring each driver with a personalized model [Monitoring each driver with a personalized model means that the model is in the vehicle of the respective driver, nearest to the goal of monitoring the respective driver]; see also Saeed, Figs. 2-3),
the second goal being provided by a second consumer of the consumers and the second data processing system being one of the one or more data processing systems among the data processing systems that are closest in network proximity to at least one of the consumers of the inferences that provided the first goal and the second goal (Saeed, section II.C - teaches a personalized second model portion for each of a plurality of subjects; Saeed, sections III, IV - teaches monitoring each driver with a personalized model [Monitoring each driver with a personalized model means that the model is in the vehicle of the respective driver, nearest to the goal of monitoring the respective driver]; see also Saeed, Figs. 2-3);
identifying, using the second location data and information associated with the second consumer, a third data processing system (Saeed, section II.C - teaches a personalized second model portion for each of a plurality of subjects; Saeed, sections III, IV - teaches monitoring each driver with a personalized model [Monitoring each driver with a personalized model means that the model is in the vehicle of the respective driver, nearest to the goal of monitoring the respective driver]; see also Saeed, Figs. 2-3),
that is another one of the one or more data processing systems among the data processing systems that are closest in network proximity to at least one of the consumers of the inferences that provided the first goal and the second goal (Saeed, section II.C - teaches a personalized second model portion for each of a plurality of subjects; Saeed, sections III, IV - teaches monitoring each driver with a personalized model [Monitoring each driver with a personalized model means that the model is in the vehicle of the respective driver, nearest to the goal of monitoring the respective driver]; see also Saeed, Figs. 2-3);
selecting the second data processing system for deployment of a first independent portion of the independent portions (Saeed, section II.C - teaches a personalized second model portion for each of a plurality of subjects; Saeed, sections III, IV - teaches monitoring each driver with a personalized model [Monitoring each driver with a personalized model means that the model is in the vehicle of the respective driver, nearest to the goal of monitoring the respective driver]; see also Saeed, Figs. 2-3); and
selecting the third data processing system for deployment of a second independent portion of the independent portions (Saeed, section II.C - teaches a personalized second model portion for each of a plurality of subjects; Saeed, sections III, IV - teaches monitoring each driver with a personalized model [Monitoring each driver with a personalized model means that the model is in the vehicle of the respective driver, nearest to the goal of monitoring the respective driver]; see also Saeed, Figs. 2-3).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Umezawa and Saeed in order to select nearest customer devices to generate personalized task specific models (Saeed, Abstract).
Regarding claim 26 (New), Umezawa in view of Saeed teaches all of the limitations of the method of claim 25 as noted above.
Umezawa further teaches wherein generating and providing the inferences comprises:
generating the partial processing result of the inferences using the shared portion that was deployed based on the deployment plan (Umezawa, [0029]-[0032] – teaches generating an intermediate result from the first partial model that is sent to the second partial models);
providing the partial processing result to all of the independent portions that were deployed based on the deployment plan (Umezawa, [0029]-[0032] – teaches generating an intermediate result from the first partial model that is sent to the second partial models);
generating a first inference of the inferences using the first independent portion deployed to the second data processing system, the first inference being responsive to the first goal (Umezawa, [0029]-[0032] - teaches processing target medical data with the plurality of models to generate inference results); and
generating a second inference of the inferences using the second independent portion deployed to the third data processing system, the second inference being responsive to the second goal (Umezawa, [0029]-[0032] - teaches processing target medical data with the plurality of models to generate inference results).
Saeed further teaches
generating a first inference of the inferences using the first independent portion deployed to the second data processing system, the first inference being responsive to the first goal (Saeed, section II.C - teaches a personalized second model portion for each of a plurality of subjects; Saeed, sections III, IV - teaches monitoring each driver with a personalized model [Monitoring each driver with a personalized model means that the model is in the vehicle of the respective driver, nearest to the goal of monitoring the respective driver]; see also Saeed, Figs. 2-3); and
generating a second inference of the inferences using the second independent portion deployed to the third data processing system, the second inference being responsive to the second goal (Saeed, section II.C - teaches a personalized second model portion for each of a plurality of subjects; Saeed, sections III, IV - teaches monitoring each driver with a personalized model [Monitoring each driver with a personalized model means that the model is in the vehicle of the respective driver, nearest to the goal of monitoring the respective driver]; see also Saeed, Figs. 2-3).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Umezawa and Saeed in order to select nearest customer devices to generate personalized task specific models (Saeed, Abstract).
Regarding claim 33 (New), the rejection of claim 32 is incorporated herein. Further, the limitations in this claim are taught by Umezawa in view of Saeed for the reasons set forth in the rejection of claim 24.
Regarding claim 34 (New), the rejection of claim 33 is incorporated herein. Further, the limitations in this claim are taught by Umezawa in view of Saeed for the reasons set forth in the rejection of claim 25.
Regarding claim 35 (New), the rejection of claim 34 is incorporated herein. Further, the limitations in this claim are taught by Umezawa in view of Saeed for the reasons set forth in the rejection of claim 26.
Regarding claim 39 (New), the rejection of claim 38 is incorporated herein. Further, the limitations in this claim are taught by Umezawa in view of Saeed for the reasons set forth in the rejection of claim 24.
Regarding claim 40 (New), the rejection of claim 39 is incorporated herein. Further, the limitations in this claim are taught by Umezawa in view of Saeed for the reasons set forth in the rejection of claim 25.
Regarding claim 41 (New), the rejection of claim 40 is incorporated herein. Further, the limitations in this claim are taught by Umezawa in view of Saeed for the reasons set forth in the rejection of claim 26.
Claim(s) 27, 36, 42 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Umezawa in view of Saeed and further in view of Park et al. (US 2022/0414503 A1 – Sol-Aware Artificial Intelligence Inference Scheduler for Heterogeneous Processors in Edge Platforms, hereinafter referred to as “Park”).
Regarding claim 27 (New), Umezawa in view of Saeed teaches all of the limitations of the method of claim 24 as noted above. Umezawa further teaches wherein obtaining the deployment plan comprises:
making an identification that an instance of the first inference model is already hosted by the data processing systems (Umezawa, [0032] – teaches a plurality of second partial models on the second information processing apparatus, each designed for specific classification tasks; see also Umezawa, Fig. 2).
However, Umezawa in view of Saeed does not explicitly teach based on the identification: making a determination regarding whether an input layer of the instance of the first inference model and an output layer of the instance of the first inference model are within predetermined distances of locations specified by the first location data and the second location data; and in an instance of the determination where the input layer of the instance of the first inference model and an output layer of the instance of the first inference model are within the predetermined distances: establishing the instance of the first inference model as being part of the deployment plan; and establishing a new instance of the second inference model that depends on operation of the instance of the first inference model.
Park teaches based on the identification:
making a determination regarding whether an input layer of the instance of the first inference model and an output layer of the instance of the first inference model are within predetermined network distances of locations specified by the first location data and the second location data (Park, [0064]-[0069] - teaches for an inference/hardware pair, determining a latency score and selecting the minimum latency [predetermined distance]); and
in an instance of the determination where the input layer of the instance of the first inference model and an output layer of the instance of the first inference model are within the predetermined network distances:
establishing the instance of the first inference model as being part of the deployment plan (Park, [0064]-[0069] - teaches for an inference/hardware pair, determining a latency score and selecting the minimum latency [predetermined distance] and selecting a location for the first instance); and
establishing a new instance of the second inference model that depends on operation of the instance of the first inference model (Park, [0064]-[0069] – teaches scheduling the second model based on the operation of the first model).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the claimed invention to modify Umezawa in view of Saeed with the teachings of Park in order to more efficiently use hardware resources in the field of heterogeneous model performance (Park, [0033] – “Although the variety of an ML model is increased and an inference operation workload is increased in the future, the economic feasibility and profitability of the edge system development industry can be improved through a scheduling scheme that enables resources of given heterogeneous processors to be more efficiently used in an edge system.”).
Regarding claim 36 (New), the rejection of claim 33 is incorporated herein. Further, the limitations in this claim are taught by Umezawa in view of Saeed and further in view of Park for the reasons set forth in the rejection of claim 27.
Regarding claim 42 (New), the rejection of claim 39 is incorporated herein. Further, the limitations in this claim are taught by Umezawa in view of Saeed and further in view of Park for the reasons set forth in the rejection of claim 27.
Claim(s) 28, 37 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Umezawa in view of Zhang et al. (Bandwidth-Efficient Multi-Task AI Inference with Dynamic Task Importance for the Internet of Things in Edge Computing, hereinafter referred to as “Zhang”).
Regarding claim 28 (New), Umezawa teaches all of the limitations of the method of claim 23 as noted above. However, Umezawa does not explicitly teach wherein obtaining the first location data comprises: identifying latency of communication between each of the data processing systems and the sources of the data; ranking the data processing systems based on the latency to obtain a ranking; and obtaining the first location data based on the ranking.
Zhang teaches wherein obtaining the first location data comprises:
identifying latency of communication between each of the data processing systems and the sources of the data (Zhang, section 3 – teaches comparing the bandwidth [latency] of three architectural designs);
ranking the data processing systems based on the latency to obtain a ranking (Zhang, section 3 – teaches ranking the three architectural designs based on bandwidth [latency]); and
obtaining the first location data based on the ranking (Zhang, section 3 – teaches selecting an architectural design [location] based on bandwidth [latency]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the claimed invention to modify Umezawa with the teachings of Zhang in order to reduce bandwidth and latency without accuracy reduction in the field of multi-task learning (Zhang, Abstract – “Over the past years, artificial intelligence (AI) models have been utilized for the Internet of Things (IoT) in applications such as remote assistance based on augmented reality (AR) in smart factories, as well as powerline inspection and precision agriculture missions performed by unmanned aerial vehicles (UAVs). Due to the limited battery capacity and computing power of these devices (e.g., AR glasses and UAVs), edge computing is recognized as a means to empower the Internet of Things (IoT) with AI. Considering that multiple AI model inference tasks (e.g., point cloud classification and fault detection) are typically performed on the same stream of sensory data (e.g., UAV camera feed), we propose TORC (Tasks-Oriented Edge Computing) to reduce the bandwidth requirement. By incorporating AI into data transmission, the lightweight framework of TORC preserves edge computing servers’ ability to reconstruct/restore data into the original form, ensuring the proper coexistence of AI inference tasks and traditional non-AI tasks like human inspection, as well as simultaneous localization and mapping. It encodes and decodes sensory data with neural networks, whose training is driven by the AI inference tasks, in order to reduce bandwidth consumption and latency without impairing the accuracy of the AI inference tasks. Additionally, taking into account the mobility of the IoT and changes in the environment, TORC can adapt to variation in the bandwidth budget, as well as the temporally dynamic importance of AI inference tasks, without the need to train multiple neural networks for each setting. As a demonstration, empirical results conducted on the Cityscapes dataset and tasks related to autonomous driving show that, at the same level of accuracy, TORC reduces the bandwidth consumption by up to 48% and latency by up to 26%.”).
Regarding claim 37 (New), the rejection of claim 32 is incorporated herein. Further, the limitations in this claim are taught by Umezawa in view of Zhang for the reasons set forth in the rejection of claim 28.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communication from the examiner should be directed to MARSHALL WERNER whose telephone number is (469) 295-9143. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday – Thursday 7:30 AM – 4:30 PM ET.
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 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.
/MARSHALL L WERNER/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2125
Prosecution Insights