DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
This action is in response to amendments filed May 27th, 2026, in which claims 1, 7, and 13 have been amended and claims 3, 9, and 15 have been cancelled. No claims have been added. The amendments have been entered, and claims 1, 4-7, 10-13, and 16-18 are currently pending in the case. Claims 1, 7, and 13 are independent claims.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1, 4-7, 10-13, and 16-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Regarding claim 1:
Step 1: Claim 1 is directed to An interpretation method, therefore it falls under the statuary category of a process.
Step 2A Prong 1: The claim recites, in part:
“acquiring a key inference path through which the classification result is obtained…based on the input image, wherein the key inference path comprises target concepts respectively used by the layers…when the input image is processed…, and the target concepts are selected from the plurality of candidate concepts” this encompasses the mental creation of a key inference path from observed input data and selecting target concepts from observed candidate concepts.
“determining interpretation information corresponding to the layers…according to the target concepts corresponding to the layers…, respectively, wherein the interpretation information is used for indicating a basis…” this encompasses the mental determination of interpretation information corresponding to the observed layers and observed target concepts.
“acquiring a jth layer…corresponding to the classification result, wherein j is equal to N, and N is a total number of layers” this encompasses the mental observation of a jth layer of a number of observed layers.
“acquiring a target concept in the jth layer…” this encompasses the mental observation of a target concept.
“acquiring quantitative relationships between candidate concepts in an ith layer…and the target concept, respectively, wherein i is equal to j minus 1, and the quantitative relationships represent conversion relationships of the candidate concepts in the ith layer transformed into the target concept” this limitation is a mathematical concept.
“determining a target concept in the ith layer…according to the candidate concepts in the ith layer…and the quantitative relationships” this encompasses the mental determination of a target concept among observed candidate concepts.
“subtracting 1 from j, and executing acquiring the target concept in the jth layer…when j is greater than 2” this encompasses the mental subtraction of 1 from an observed j and the mental observation of a target concept. Further, this limitation is a mathematical concept.
“generating the key inference path according to the target concepts in the layers…when j is equal to 2” this encompasses the mental creation of a key inference path when an observed j is equal to 2.
“acquiring importance values of the quantitative relationships, wherein the importance values are determined after training… is completed and a correspondence between the quantitative relationships and the importance values is stored in advance” this encompasses the mental creation of importance values for observed quantitative relationships after observed training is completed.
“ranking the quantitative relationships in a descending order of the importance values of the quantitative relationships to obtain a ranking result” this encompasses the mental ranking of observed quantitative relationships.
“taking out the quantitative relationships sequentially according to the ranking result, and acquiring candidate concepts corresponding to the quantitative relationships from the candidate concepts in the ith layer…” this encompasses the mental removal of observed quantitative relationships and observing new candidate concepts.
“accumulating estimated values of the candidate concepts corresponding to the quantitative relationships taken out until an accumulated value is greater than a preset threshold” this encompasses the mental accumulation of estimated values of observed candidate concepts until a threshold is met.
“determining the target concept in the ith layer…from the candidate concepts corresponding to the quantitative relationships taken out from the ranking result” this encompasses the mental determination of a target concept in an observed layer amongst observed candidate concepts.
Step 2A Prong 2: The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application; the remaining limitations of the claim are as follows: “acquiring an input image and classification result corresponding to the input data”, the limitation is an additional element that amounts to adding insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception. See MPEP § 2106.05(g). “of a neural network model” (line 2), “the neural network model comprises layers of the neural network model connected sequentially, and each layer of the neural network model corresponds to a plurality of candidate concepts, wherein the candidate concepts are interpretable image features”, “in the neural network model” (line 8), “…the neural network model” (throughout the claim), “networks in the neural network model” these limitations are an additional element that generally links the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use. See MPEP § 2106.05(h). “on which the neural network model makes the classification result”, “outputting the key inference path and the interpretation information” the limitations are an additional element that amounts to adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or merely uses a computer in its ordinary capacity as a tool to perform an existing process. See MPEP § 2106.05(f)(2).
Step 2B: The additional elements, taken individually and in combination, do not provide an inventive concept of significantly more than the abstract idea itself for the reasons set forth in step 2A prong 2 above. Further, “acquiring input data and output data corresponding to the input data” the limitation is an additional element that amounts to adding insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception. See MPEP § 2106.05(g). Furthermore the additional element is directed to storing and retrieving information in memory, Versata Dev. Group, Inc. v. SAP Am., Inc., 793 F.3d 1306, 1334, 115 USPQ2d 1681, 1701 (Fed. Cir. 2015) as well as receiving or transmitting data over a network, e.g., using the Internet to gather data, Symantec, 838 F.3d at 1321, 120 USPQ2d. See MPEP § 2106.05(d)/(II). Therefore, the claim is ineligible.
Regarding claim 4, the rejection of claim 1 is incorporated and further:
Step 2A Prong 1: a continuation of the abstract idea identified in the parent claim.
Step 2A Prong 2: The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application; the remaining limitations of the claim are as follows: “the interpretation information comprises semantic information of the target concept” the limitation is an additional element that generally links the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use. See MPEP § 2106.05(h).
Step 2B: The additional elements, taken individually and in combination, do not provide an inventive concept of significantly more than the abstract idea itself for the reasons set forth in step 2A prong 2 above. Therefore, the claim is ineligible.
Regarding claim 5, the rejection of claim 4 is incorporated and further:
Step 2A Prong 1: a continuation of the abstract idea identified in the parent claim.
Step 2A Prong 2: The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application; the remaining limitations of the claim are as follows: “the interpretation information further comprises sample characteristics of a target sample corresponding to the target concept” the limitation is an additional element that generally links the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use. See MPEP § 2106.05(h).
Step 2B: The additional elements, taken individually and in combination, do not provide an inventive concept of significantly more than the abstract idea itself for the reasons set forth in step 2A prong 2 above. Therefore, the claim is ineligible.
Regarding claim 6, the rejection of claim 1 is incorporated and further:
Step 2A Prong 1: The claim recites, in part:
“acquiring a quantitative relationship between target concepts in two adjacent layers…according to the target concepts in the two adjacent layers…for any two adjacent layers…in the key inference path” this encompasses the mental creation of a quantitative relationship according to observed target concepts.
“marking the quantitative relationship between the target concepts in the two adjacent layers…in the key inference path” this encompasses the mental marking of observed quantitative relationships in observed layers.
Step 2A Prong 2: The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application; the remaining limitations of the claim are as follows: “…the neural network model” (lines 3, 4, 5 and 7 of the claim) these limitations are an additional element that generally links the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use. See MPEP § 2106.05(h).
Step 2B: The additional elements, taken individually and in combination, do not provide an inventive concept of significantly more than the abstract idea itself for the reasons set forth in step 2A prong 2 above. Therefore, the claim is ineligible.
Regarding claim 7:
Step 1: Claim 7 is directed to An electronic device, therefore it falls under the statuary category of a machine.
Step 2A Prong 1: The claim recites, in part:
“acquire a key inference path through which the classification result is obtained…based on the input image, wherein the key inference path comprises target concepts respectively used by the layers…when the input image is processed…, and the target concepts are selected from the plurality of candidate concepts” this encompasses the mental creation of a key inference path from observed input data and selecting target concepts from observed candidate concepts.
“determine interpretation information corresponding to the layers…according to the target concepts corresponding to the layers…, respectively, wherein the interpretation information is used for indicating a basis…” this encompasses the mental determination of interpretation information corresponding to the observed layers and observed target concepts.
“acquire a jth layer…corresponding to the classification result, wherein j is equal to N, and N is a total number of layers” this encompasses the mental observation of a jth layer of a number of observed layers.
“acquire a target concept in the jth layer…” this encompasses the mental observation of a target concept.
“acquire quantitative relationships between candidate concepts in an ith layer…and the target concept, respectively, wherein i is equal to j minus 1, and the quantitative relationships represent conversion relationships of the candidate concepts in the ith layer transformed into the target concept” this limitation is a mathematical concept.
“determine a target concept in the ith layer…according to the candidate concepts in the ith layer…and the quantitative relationships” this encompasses the mental determination of a target concept among observed candidate concepts.
“subtract 1 from j, and executing acquiring the target concept in the jth layer…when j is greater than 2” this encompasses the mental subtraction of 1 from an observed j and the mental observation of a target concept. Further, this limitation is a mathematical concept.
“generate the key inference path according to the target concepts in the layers…when j is equal to 2” this encompasses the mental creation of a key inference path when an observed j is equal to 2.
“acquire importance values of the quantitative relationships, wherein the importance values are determined after training… is completed and a correspondence between the quantitative relationships and the importance values is stored in advance” this encompasses the mental creation of importance values for observed quantitative relationships after observed training is completed.
“rank the quantitative relationships in a descending order of the importance values of the quantitative relationships to obtain a ranking result” this encompasses the mental ranking of observed quantitative relationships.
“take out the quantitative relationships sequentially according to the ranking result, and acquiring candidate concepts corresponding to the quantitative relationships from the candidate concepts in the ith layer…” this encompasses the mental removal of observed quantitative relationships and observing new candidate concepts.
“accumulate estimated values of the candidate concepts corresponding to the quantitative relationships taken out until an accumulated value is greater than a preset threshold” this encompasses the mental accumulation of estimated values of observed candidate concepts until a threshold is met.
“determine the target concept in the ith layer…from the candidate concepts corresponding to the quantitative relationships taken out from the ranking result” this encompasses the mental determination of a target concept in an observed layer amongst observed candidate concepts.
Step 2A Prong 2: The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application; the remaining limitations of the claim are as follows: “acquire an input image and classification result corresponding to the input data”, the limitation is an additional element that amounts to adding insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception. See MPEP § 2106.05(g). “at least one processor; and
a memory communicatively connected with the at least one processor for storing instructions executable by the at least one processor”, “of a neural network model” (line 2), “the neural network model comprises layers of the neural network model connected sequentially, and each layer of the neural network model corresponds to a plurality of candidate concepts, wherein the candidate concepts are interpretable image features”, “in the neural network model” (line 8), “…the neural network model” (throughout the claim), “networks in the neural network model” these limitations are an additional element that generally links the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use. See MPEP § 2106.05(h). “on which the neural network model makes the classification result”, “outputting the key inference path and the interpretation information” the limitations are an additional element that amounts to adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or merely uses a computer in its ordinary capacity as a tool to perform an existing process. See MPEP § 2106.05(f)(2).
Step 2B: The additional elements, taken individually and in combination, do not provide an inventive concept of significantly more than the abstract idea itself for the reasons set forth in step 2A prong 2 above. Further, “acquiring input data and output data corresponding to the input data” the limitation is an additional element that amounts to adding insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception. See MPEP § 2106.05(g). Furthermore the additional element is directed to storing and retrieving information in memory, Versata Dev. Group, Inc. v. SAP Am., Inc., 793 F.3d 1306, 1334, 115 USPQ2d 1681, 1701 (Fed. Cir. 2015) as well as receiving or transmitting data over a network, e.g., using the Internet to gather data, Symantec, 838 F.3d at 1321, 120 USPQ2d. See MPEP § 2106.05(d)/(II). Therefore, the claim is ineligible.
Regarding claims 10-12:
The rejection of claim 7 is further incorporated, the rejection of claims 4-6 are applicable to claims 10-12, respectively.
Regarding claim 13:
Step 1: Claim 1 is directed to An interpretation method, therefore it falls under the statuary category of a process.
Step 2A Prong 1: The claim recites, in part:
“acquiring a key inference path through which the classification result is obtained…based on the input image, wherein the key inference path comprises target concepts respectively used by the layers…when the input image is processed…, and the target concepts are selected from the plurality of candidate concepts” this encompasses the mental creation of a key inference path from observed input data and selecting target concepts from observed candidate concepts.
“determining interpretation information corresponding to the layers…according to the target concepts corresponding to the layers…, respectively, wherein the interpretation information is used for indicating a basis…” this encompasses the mental determination of interpretation information corresponding to the observed layers and observed target concepts.
“acquiring a jth layer…corresponding to the classification result, wherein j is equal to N, and N is a total number of layers” this encompasses the mental observation of a jth layer of a number of observed layers.
“acquiring a target concept in the jth layer…” this encompasses the mental observation of a target concept.
“acquiring quantitative relationships between candidate concepts in an ith layer…and the target concept, respectively, wherein i is equal to j minus 1, and the quantitative relationships represent conversion relationships of the candidate concepts in the ith layer transformed into the target concept” this limitation is a mathematical concept.
“determining a target concept in the ith layer…according to the candidate concepts in the ith layer…and the quantitative relationships” this encompasses the mental determination of a target concept among observed candidate concepts.
“subtracting 1 from j, and executing acquiring the target concept in the jth layer…when j is greater than 2” this encompasses the mental subtraction of 1 from an observed j and the mental observation of a target concept. Further, this limitation is a mathematical concept.
“generating the key inference path according to the target concepts in the layers…when j is equal to 2” this encompasses the mental creation of a key inference path when an observed j is equal to 2.
“acquiring importance values of the quantitative relationships, wherein the importance values are determined after training… is completed and a correspondence between the quantitative relationships and the importance values is stored in advance” this encompasses the mental creation of importance values for observed quantitative relationships after observed training is completed.
“ranking the quantitative relationships in a descending order of the importance values of the quantitative relationships to obtain a ranking result” this encompasses the mental ranking of observed quantitative relationships.
“taking out the quantitative relationships sequentially according to the ranking result, and acquiring candidate concepts corresponding to the quantitative relationships from the candidate concepts in the ith layer…” this encompasses the mental removal of observed quantitative relationships and observing new candidate concepts.
“accumulating estimated values of the candidate concepts corresponding to the quantitative relationships taken out until an accumulated value is greater than a preset threshold” this encompasses the mental accumulation of estimated values of observed candidate concepts until a threshold is met.
“determining the target concept in the ith layer…from the candidate concepts corresponding to the quantitative relationships taken out from the ranking result” this encompasses the mental determination of a target concept in an observed layer amongst observed candidate concepts.
Step 2A Prong 2: The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application; the remaining limitations of the claim are as follows: “acquiring an input image and classification result corresponding to the input data”, the limitation is an additional element that amounts to adding insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception. See MPEP § 2106.05(g). “at least one processor; and
a memory communicatively connected with the at least one processor for storing instructions executable by the at least one processor”, “of a neural network model” (line 2), “the neural network model comprises layers of the neural network model connected sequentially, and each layer of the neural network model corresponds to a plurality of candidate concepts, wherein the candidate concepts are interpretable image features”, “in the neural network model” (line 8), “…the neural network model” (throughout the claim), “networks in the neural network model” these limitations are an additional element that generally links the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use. See MPEP § 2106.05(h). “on which the neural network model makes the classification result”, “outputting the key inference path and the interpretation information” the limitations are an additional element that amounts to adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or merely uses a computer in its ordinary capacity as a tool to perform an existing process. See MPEP § 2106.05(f)(2).
Step 2B: The additional elements, taken individually and in combination, do not provide an inventive concept of significantly more than the abstract idea itself for the reasons set forth in step 2A prong 2 above. Further, “acquiring input data and output data corresponding to the input data” the limitation is an additional element that amounts to adding insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception. See MPEP § 2106.05(g). Furthermore the additional element is directed to storing and retrieving information in memory, Versata Dev. Group, Inc. v. SAP Am., Inc., 793 F.3d 1306, 1334, 115 USPQ2d 1681, 1701 (Fed. Cir. 2015) as well as receiving or transmitting data over a network, e.g., using the Internet to gather data, Symantec, 838 F.3d at 1321, 120 USPQ2d. See MPEP § 2106.05(d)/(II). Therefore, the claim is ineligible.
Regarding claims 16-18:
The rejection of claim 13 is further incorporated, the rejection of claims 4-6 are applicable to claims 16-18, respectively.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1, 4-7, 10-13, and 16-18 would be allowable if rewritten or amended to overcome the rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 101 set forth in this Office action.
After detailed search, the cited arts, neither alone nor in combination, teach the claimed subject matter of claim 1, “acquiring importance values of the quantitative relationships, wherein the importance values are determined after training of the neural network model is completed and a correspondence between the quantitative relationships and the importance values is stored in advance;
ranking the quantitative relationships in a descending order of the importance values of the quantitative relationships to obtain a ranking result;
taking out the quantitative relationships sequentially according to the ranking result, and acquiring candidate concepts corresponding to the quantitative relationships from the candidate concepts in the ith layer of the neural network model;
accumulating estimated values of the candidate concepts corresponding to the Quantitative relationships taken out until an accumulated value is greater than a preset threshold;”
Pertinent art Wang et al. ("CHAIN: Concept-harmonized Hierarchical Inference Interpretation of Deep Convolutional Neural Networks", Wang et al., 5 Feb 2020) discloses selecting lower-level concepts and finding quantitative relationships, but uses a sparsity-constrained optimization and thus does not specifically disclose the claimed subject matter of claim 1.
Pertinent art Bach et al. (“On Pixel-Wise Explanations for Non-Linear Classifier Decisions by Layer-Wise Relevance Propagation”, Bach et al., 10 July 2015) discloses an interpretation method for a neural network model using key inference paths and finding quantitative relationships, but does not specifically disclose the claimed subject matter of claim 1.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed May 27th, 2026 (hereinafter “Remarks”) have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 101:
Argument 1:
“Amended independent claim 1 specifies that the application scenario is image classification and that image data are processed, so it is clearly not directed to an abstract method. Furthermore, by limiting the candidate concepts to interpretable image features, the candidate concepts are technically associated with the image data, thereby giving "candidate concepts" a physical meaning and no longer amounting to abstract concepts.” (Remarks, page 12).
Examiners Response:
Examiner respectfully disagrees, the MPEP states “Nor do the courts distinguish between claims that recite mental processes performed by humans and claims that recite mental processes performed on a computer. As the Federal Circuit has explained, "[c]ourts have examined claims that required the use of a computer and still found that the underlying, patent-ineligible invention could be performed via pen and paper or in a person’s mind." Versata Dev. Group v. SAP Am., Inc., 793 F.3d 1306, 1335, 115 USPQ2d 1681, 1702 (Fed. Cir. 2015). See also Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Symantec Corp., 838 F.3d 1307, 1318, 120 USPQ2d 1353, 1360 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (‘‘[W]ith the exception of generic computer-implemented steps, there is nothing in the claims themselves that foreclose them from being performed by a human, mentally or with pen and paper.’’); Mortgage Grader, Inc. v. First Choice Loan Servs. Inc., 811 F.3d 1314, 1324, 117 USPQ2d 1693, 1699 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (holding that computer-implemented method for "anonymous loan shopping" was an abstract idea because it could be "performed by humans without a computer"). Mental processes recited in claims that require computers are explained further below with respect to point C.” See MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)(III). The use of image data with a mental process may be an additional element that generally links the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use, but is still a mental process. See MPEP § 2106.05(h). Further, “As the Supreme Court explained in Alice Corp., mere physical or tangible implementation of an exception is not in itself an inventive concept and does not guarantee eligibility: “The fact that a computer "necessarily exist[s] in the physical, rather than purely conceptual, realm," is beside the point. There is no dispute that a computer is a tangible system (in § 101 terms, a "machine"), or that many computer-implemented claims are formally addressed to patent-eligible subject matter. But if that were the end of the § 101 inquiry, an applicant could claim any principle of the physical or social sciences by reciting a computer system configured to implement the relevant concept. Such a result would make the determination of patent eligibility "depend simply on the draftsman’s art," Flook, supra, at 593, 98 S. Ct. 2522, 57 L. Ed. 2d 451, thereby eviscerating the rule that "‘[l]aws of nature, natural phenomena, and abstract ideas are not patentable,’" Myriad, 133 S. Ct. 1289, 186 L. Ed. 2d 124, 133).” Alice Corp., 573 U.S. at 224, 110 USPQ2d at 1983-84 (alterations in original).” See MPEP § 2106.05(I)(A).
Argument 2:
“Accordingly, the method of amended claim 1, through the steps of acquiring an image, extracting a key inference path, determining interpretation information based on the target concepts involved in the path, and finally outputting the key inference path and the interpretation information, achieves the technical effect of obtaining an interpretable basis that can provide the classification result in image classification. Consequently, the method of claim 1 is not an abstract concept. Additionally, the added features amount to significantly more than any alleged abstract idea.” (Remarks, page 12).
Examiners Response:
Examiner respectfully disagrees, the MPEP states “An inventive concept "cannot be furnished by the unpatentable law of nature (or natural phenomenon or abstract idea) itself." Genetic Techs. v. Merial LLC, 818 F.3d 1369, 1376, 118 USPQ2d 1541, 1546 (Fed. Cir. 2016).” See MPEP § 2106.05(I). Here, the applicant merely uses a computer to perform processes which can be performed by a mental process. An improvement to image classification may be an improvement in an abstract idea, but not an improvement in the functioning of a computer, as a computer. Further, the additional elements are recited at a high level of generality, and even when viewed in combination, these additional elements do not integrate the recited judicial exception into a practical application.
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 communications from the examiner should be directed to JACOB Z SUSSMAN MOSS whose telephone number is (571) 272-1579. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 9 a.m. - 5 p.m. ET.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Kakali Chaki can be reached on (571) 272-3719. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/J.S.M./Examiner, Art Unit 2122
/KAKALI CHAKI/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2122
Prosecution Insights