DETAILED ACTION
This action is in response to the Applicant Response filed 02 January 2026 for application 18/060,089 filed 30 November 2022.
Claim(s) 1, 4, 8, 11, 15, 18 is/are currently amended.
Claim(s) 21-22 is/are new.
Claim(s) 14, 20 is/are cancelled.
Claim(s) 1-13, 15-19, 21-22 is/are pending.
Claim(s) 1-13, 15-19, 21-22 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 .
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. 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) 22 is/are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 22, lines 3-4, the first deployment locations should read “the first deployment location” [“s” removed]
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
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 1-13, 15-19, 21-22 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 1, 8, 15 recite the first location and the second location while failing to provide a proper antecedent basis for the terms. It is suggested that the terms be amended to recite “a first location” and “a second location.” Correction or clarification is required.
Claim 22 recites additional language after the first period and it is unclear whether that information is to be included in the claim or not. Since the errant limitations are included in claim 21, the claim will be interpreted as in this is a typographical error and the limitations are not part of the claim; therefore, ending the claim at the first period. Correction or clarification is required.
Claims 2-7, 9-13, 16-19, 21-22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) due to their dependence, either directly or indirectly, on claim 1, 8, 15.
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) 1-13, 15-19, 21-22 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 1, 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 1 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, the second inference model sharing at least one hidden layer with 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.
The limitation of obtaining a deployment plan for 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, the shared portion being based, at least in part, on: first computing resources available at the first location, second computing resources available at the second location, and a timeliness goal for generation 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, and that the shared portion is to distribute a partial processing result to both 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) – 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, (deployed) first inference model, (deployed) 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 deploying 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 providing inferences to the consumers using the deployed first inference model, the deployed second inference model, and the sources of data which is simply applying the model 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)).
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 amount(s) to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components (MPEP 2106.05(b))
applying the model 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, (deployed) first inference model, (deployed) 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))
The additional element(s) do(es) not provide an inventive concept, and, therefore, the claim is not patent eligible.
Regarding claim 2, 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 2 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 1 is applicable here since claim 2 carries out the method of claim 1 but for the recitation of additional element(s) of wherein the second inference model comprises one of the independent portions, the one of the independent portions being 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.
The claim recites wherein the second inference model comprises one of the independent portions, the one of the independent portions being obtained via transfer learning with the first inference model which is simply additional information regarding the second inference model, and the element(s) do(es) not apply the exception in a meaningful way (MPEP 2106.05(e)).
The claim recites additional element(s) – transfer learning. 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:
transfer learning 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 second inference model 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 3, 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 3 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 a first data processing system of the data processing systems nearest to a source of the sources of 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 a second data processing system of the data processing systems nearest to a consumer of the consumers that provided 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 identifying a third data processing system of the data processing systems nearest to a second consumer of the consumers that provided 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 a shared input layer 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 output layer of a first 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 output layer of a second 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) – first data processing system, 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:
first data processing system, 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 4, 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 4 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 3 is applicable here since claim 4 carries out the method of claim 3 but for the recitation of additional element(s) of wherein providing the inferences comprises: generating, using the shared input layer and the shared at least one hidden layer, a partial processing result; providing the partial processing result to both of the independent portions; generating a first inference by the first of the independent portions, the first inference being responsive to the first goal; and generating a second inference by the second of the independent portions, the second inference being responsive to the second goal.
Step 2A Prong Two Analysis: With respect to the abstract idea, the judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application.
The claim recites providing the partial processing result to both of the independent portions, 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 generating, using the shared input layer and the shared at least one hidden layer, a partial processing result; generating a first inference by the first of the independent portions, the first inference being responsive to the first goal; generating a second inference by the second of the independent portions, the second inference being responsive to the second goal which is simply applying the model 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)).
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 model 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 5, 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 5 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 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 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 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, 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 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 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 6, 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 6 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 7, 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 7 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 1 is applicable here since claim 7 carries out the method of claim 1 but for the recitation of additional element(s) of wherein the first inference model and the second inference model comprise machine learning models, and the shared portion comprises an input layer and a hidden layer.
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 comprise machine learning models, and the shared portion comprises an input layer and a hidden layer 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 8, 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 8 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 ... 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, the second inference model sharing at least one hidden layer with 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.
The limitation of obtaining a deployment plan for 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, the shared portion being based, at least in part, on: first computing resources available at the first location, second computing resources available at the second location, and a timeliness goal for generation 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, and that the shared portion is to distribute a partial processing result to both 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) – machine-readable medium, instructions, processor, 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, (deployed) first inference model, (deployed) 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 deploying 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 providing inferences to the consumers using the deployed first inference model, the deployed second inference model, and the sources of data which is simply applying the model 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)).
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 amount(s) to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components (MPEP 2106.05(b))
applying the model 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, (deployed) first inference model, (deployed) 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))
The additional element(s) do(es) not provide an inventive concept, and, therefore, the claim is not patent eligible.
Regarding claim 9, 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 9 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 ... for managing inference models hosted by data processing systems. The Step 2A Prong One Analysis for claim 8 is applicable here since claim 9 carries out the machine-readable medium of claim 8 but for the recitation of additional element(s) of wherein the second inference model comprises one of the independent portions, the one of the independent portions being 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.
The claim recites wherein the second inference model comprises one of the independent portions, the one of the independent portions being obtained via transfer learning with the first inference model which is simply additional information regarding the second inference model, and the element(s) do(es) not apply the exception in a meaningful way (MPEP 2106.05(e)).
The claim recites additional element(s) – transfer learning. 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:
transfer learning 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 second inference model 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 10, 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 10 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 ... for managing inference models hosted by data processing systems.
The limitation of identifying a first data processing system of the data processing systems nearest to a source of the sources of 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 a second data processing system of the data processing systems nearest to a consumer of the consumers that provided 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 identifying a third data processing system of the data processing systems nearest to a second consumer of the consumers that provided 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 a shared input layer 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 output layer of a first 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 output layer of a second 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) – first data processing system, 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:
first data processing system, 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 11, 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 11 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 ... for managing inference models hosted by data processing systems: The claim recites a(n) method of managing inference models hosted by data processing systems. The Step 2A Prong One Analysis for claim 10 is applicable here since claim 11 carries out the machine-readable medium of claim 10 but for the recitation of additional element(s) of wherein providing the inferences comprises: generating, using the shared input layer and the shared at least one hidden layer, a partial processing result; providing the partial processing result to both of the independent portions; generating a first inference by the first of the independent portions, the first inference being responsive to the first goal; and generating a second inference by the second of the independent portions, the second inference being responsive to the second goal.
Step 2A Prong Two Analysis: With respect to the abstract idea, the judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application.
The claim recites providing the partial processing result to both of the independent portions, 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 generating, using the shared input layer and the shared at least one hidden layer, a partial processing result; generating a first inference by the first of the independent portions, the first inference being responsive to the first goal; generating a second inference by the second of the independent portions, the second inference being responsive to the second goal which is simply applying the model 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)).
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 model 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 12, 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 12 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 ... for managing inference models hosted by data processing systems.
The limitation of making an identification that an instance of the first inference model is 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 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 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, 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 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 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 13, 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 13 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 ... 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 15, 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 15 is directed to a 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 ... for managing a distribution of 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, the second inference model sharing at least one hidden layer with 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.
The limitation of obtaining a deployment plan for 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, the shared portion being based, at least in part, on: first computing resources available at the first location, second computing resources available at the second location, and a timeliness goal for generation 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, and that the shared portion is to distribute a partial processing result to both 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) – data processing system, processor, memory, instructions, 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, (deployed) first inference model, (deployed) 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 deploying 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 providing inferences to the consumers using the deployed first inference model, the deployed second inference model, and the sources of data which is simply applying the model 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)).
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 amount(s) to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components (MPEP 2106.05(b))
applying the model 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, (deployed) first inference model, (deployed) 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))
The additional element(s) do(es) not provide an inventive concept, and, therefore, the claim is not patent eligible.
Regarding claim 16, 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 16 is directed to a 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 ... for managing a distribution of inference models hosted by data processing systems. The Step 2A Prong One Analysis for claim 15 is applicable here since claim 16 carries out the data processing system of claim 15 but for the recitation of additional element(s) of wherein the second inference model comprises one of the independent portions, the one of the independent portions being 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.
The claim recites wherein the second inference model comprises one of the independent portions, the one of the independent portions being obtained via transfer learning with the first inference model which is simply additional information regarding the second inference model, and the element(s) do(es) not apply the exception in a meaningful way (MPEP 2106.05(e)).
The claim recites additional element(s) – transfer learning. 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:
transfer learning 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 second inference model 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 17, 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 17 is directed to a 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 ... for managing a distribution of inference models hosted by data processing systems.
The limitation of identifying a first data processing system of the data processing systems nearest to a source of the sources of 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 a second data processing system of the data processing systems nearest to a consumer of the consumers that provided 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 identifying a third data processing system of the data processing systems nearest to a second consumer of the consumers that provided 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 a shared input layer 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 output layer of a first 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 output layer of a second 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) – first data processing system, 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:
first data processing system, 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 18, 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 18 is directed to a 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 ... for managing a distribution of inference models hosted by data processing systems. The Step 2A Prong One Analysis for claim 17 is applicable here since claim 18 carries out the data processing system of claim 17 but for the recitation of additional element(s) of wherein providing the inferences comprises: generating, using the shared input layer and the shared at least one hidden layer, a partial processing result; providing the partial processing result to both of the independent portions; generating a first inference by the first of the independent portions, the first inference being responsive to the first goal; and generating a second inference by the second of the independent portions, the second inference being responsive to the second goal.
Step 2A Prong Two Analysis: With respect to the abstract idea, the judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application.
The claim recites providing the partial processing result to both of the independent portions, 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 generating, using the shared input layer and the shared at least one hidden layer, a partial processing result; generating a first inference by the first of the independent portions, the first inference being responsive to the first goal; generating a second inference by the second of the independent portions, the second inference being responsive to the second goal which is simply applying the model 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)).
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 model 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 19, 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 19 is directed to a 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 ... for managing a distribution of inference models hosted by data processing systems.
The limitation of making an identification that an instance of the first inference model is 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 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 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, 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 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 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 21, 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 21 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 1 is applicable here since claim 21 carries out the method of claim 1 but for the recitation of additional element(s) of wherein the deployment plan further specifies: third deployment locations for redundant copies of the shared portion and/or the independent portions, and that the redundant copies are not to be used unless the timeliness goal is at risk of not being met.
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 22, 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 22 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 1 is applicable here since claim 22 carries out the method of claim 1 but for the recitation of additional element(s) of wherein the shared portion is further based on data dependencies of the independent portions of the first inference model and the second inference model to reduce necessary communications between the second deployment locations and the first deployment locations.
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 shared portion 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 shared portion 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.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1, 7-8, 15, 21-22 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by 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 1 (Currently Amended), 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]);
obtain 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);
obtain 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);
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 based on the first location data (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), the shared portion being based, at least in part, on:
first computing resources available at the first location (Umezawa, [0043] - teaches performing partial models on multiple machines to reduce requests to machine resource; Umezawa, [0119] - teaches configuring partial models to balance machine resources),
second computing resources available at the second location (Umezawa, [0043] - teaches performing partial models on multiple machines to reduce requests to machine resource; Umezawa, [0119] - teaches configuring partial models to balance machine resources), and
a timeliness goal for generation of the inferences (Umezawa, [0043] - teaches partial models reduce communication time between processing apparatuses; Umezawa, [0050] - teaches reducing time for creating input data; Umezawa, [0059] - teaches reducing inference time to generate results; see also Umezawa, [0062]),
second deployment locations for independent portions of the first inference model and the second inference model based on the second location data (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]), and
that the shared portion is to distribute a partial processing result to both 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 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); and
providing inferences to the consumers using the deployed first inference model, the deployed second inference model, and the sources of data (Umezawa, [0029]-[0032] - teaches processing target medical data with the plurality of models to generate inference results).
Regarding claim 7 (Original), Umezawa teaches all of the limitations of the method of claim 1 as noted above. Umezawa teaches wherein the first inference model and the second inference model comprise machine learning models (Umezawa, [0026] – teaches that the models are trained models [ML models]), and the shared portion comprises an input layer and a hidden layer (Umezawa, [0030] – teaches the first partial model includes an input layer and at least some of the intermediate layers).
Regarding claim 8 (Currently Amended), it is the machine-readable medium embodiment of claim 1 with similar limitations to claim 1 and is rejected using the same reasoning found in claim 1. 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 15 (Currently Amended), it is the data processing system embodiment of claim 1 with similar limitations to claim 1 and is rejected using the same reasoning found in claim 1. Umezawa further teaches a data processing system, comprising:
a processor (Umezawa, [0124] – teaches computer system with processor executing instructions stored in memory); 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) …
Regarding claim 21 (New), Umezawa teaches all of the limitations of the method of claim 1 as noted above. Umezawa teaches wherein the deployment plan further specifies:
third deployment locations for redundant copies of the shared portion and/or the independent portions (Umezawa, [0049] – teaches multiple second partial models which may or may not be performed based on the sequential performance of previous second partial models), and
that the redundant copies are not to be used unless the timeliness goal is at risk of not being met (Umezawa, [0049] – teaches multiple second partial models which may or may not be performed based on the sequential performance of previous second partial models).
Regarding claim 22 (New), Umezawa teaches all of the limitations of the method of claim 1 as noted above. Umezawa further teaches wherein the shared portion is further based on data dependencies of the independent portions of the first inference model and the second inference model to reduce necessary communications between the second deployment locations and the first deployment locations (Umezawa, [0043] – teaches data dependencies of the partial models reduce communications between deployment locations).
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) 2-4, 9-11, 16-28 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 2 (Original), Umezawa teaches all of the limitations of the method of claim 1 as noted above. Umezawa further teaches wherein the second inference model comprises one of the independent portions (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 the second inference model comprises one of the independent portions (Saeed, section II.C – teaches multi-task learning to generate independent portions for each subject), the one of the independent portions being 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 3 (Original), Umezawa in view of Saeed teaches all of the limitations of the method of claim 2 as noted above.
Umezawa further teaches wherein obtaining the deployment plan comprises:
identifying a first data processing system of the data processing systems nearest to a source of the sources of 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);
selecting the first data processing system for deployment of a shared input layer 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).
Saeed further teaches
identifying a second data processing system of the data processing systems nearest to a consumer of the consumers that provided 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); identifying a third data processing system of the data processing systems nearest to a second consumer of the consumers that provided 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 output layer of a first 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 output layer of a second 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 4 (Currently Amended), Umezawa in view of Saeed teaches all of the limitations of the method of claim 3 as noted above. Umezawa further teaches wherein providing the inferences comprises:
generating, using the shared input layer and the shared at least one hidden layer (Umezawa, [0030] – teaches the first partial model includes an input layer and at least some of the intermediate layers), a partial processing result (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 both of the independent portions (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 by the first of the independent portions, 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 by the second of the independent portions, 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).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing data of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Umezawa and Saeed for the same reasons as disclosed in claim 3 above.
Regarding claim 9 (Original), the rejection of claim 8 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 2.
Regarding claim 10 (Original), the rejection of claim 9 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 3.
Regarding claim 11 (Currently Amended), the rejection of claim 10 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 4.
Regarding claim 16 (Original), the rejection of claim 15 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 2.
Regarding claim 17 (Original), the rejection of claim 16 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 3.
Regarding claim 18 (Currently Amended), the rejection of claim 17 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 4.
Claim(s) 5, 12, 19 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 5 (Original), Umezawa in view of Saeed teaches all of the limitations of the method of claim 2 as noted above. Umezawa further teaches wherein obtaining the deployment plan comprises:
making an identification that an instance of the first inference model is 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 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 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 12 (Original), the rejection of claim 9 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 5.
Regarding claim 19 (Original), the rejection of claim 18 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 5.
Claim(s) 6, 13, 20 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 6 (Original), Umezawa teaches all of the limitations of the method of claim 1 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 13 (Original), the rejection of claim 8 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 6.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier 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