DETAILED ACTION
Status of Claims
This is a non-final office action on the merits in response to the arguments and/or amendments filed on 5 February 2026 and the request for continued examination filed on 5 February 2026.
Claim(s) 1, 29, 31, and 32 is/are amended.
Claim(s) 1-33 is/are currently pending and have been examined.
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 5 February 2026 has been entered.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(a)
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claim(s) 1-33 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. Claims not listed below are rejected for dependency.
Amended claim 1 recites the non-original limitation “tuning the respective segment outputs to generate normalized respective segment outputs by at least one of pruning or trimming to standardize the respective segment outputs such that the respective segment outputs are compatible with one or more other respective segment outputs and combinable by one or more combination layers.” There does not appear to be support for the non-original limitation in the application as filed.
Applicant’s remarks do not appear to identify support for the identified limitation.
What appears to be the only relevant portion of the originally filed disclosure is [68].
[68] The present techniques may include adapting a loss function to work with combined layers. Conventionally, loss functions expect inputs that are compatible and have similar shapes of a similar modality. Such weights are trivially combinable by a loss function. Advantageously, the present techniques enable different modalities to be combined, for example, by normalizing the different modalities using pruning or trimming. In this way, a loss function may be tuned to receive inputs that are expected. In some aspects, multiple layers (e.g., the isolated layers) are tuned to output normalized values, such that once control reaches the combination layers, respective outputs of the isolated layers are compatible and thus, combinable by the combination layers. In this way, the loss function can process the inputs to generate a useful and expected result. The present techniques enable the respective isolated layers to standardize outputs in such a way that such outputs are compatible with other(s) of the isolated layers, at the combination layers. In some aspects, an additional component is used to reconcile outputs of the respective isolated layers. As discussed above, various techniques may be used to combine outputs at the combination layers 304. [69] The final output of the configurable single architecture machine learning model 300 may be provided as the modeling output 312. This output may vary, depending upon the purpose for which the configurable single architecture machine learning model 300 is being used.
The preceding disclosure echoes the claimed functionality by stating “normalizing the different modalities using pruning or trimming” but provides no explanation of how to implement the claimed functionality. It would not be apparent to one of ordinary skill in the art how pruning or trimming could possibly result in “normalizing different modalities.” One of ordinary skill in the art would consider “generate normalized respective segment outputs by at least one of pruning or trimming” to be a functionality that needs to be explained beyond merely stating the functionality. As there is no further explanation, one of ordinary skill in the art would not regard this mere description of a desired functionality as supporting the identified limitation. As such, this disclosure does not support the identified limitation. The remainder of the originally filed disclosure similarly fails to support the identified limitation.
Because the original disclosure does not support a non-original limitation, one of ordinary skill in the art could not reasonably conclude that the inventor had possession of the claimed invention at the time of filing. Therefore the claim is rejected for lack of written description. Claims 31 and 32 are similarly rejected.
Amended claim 1 recites the non-original limitation “tuning the respective segment outputs to generate normalized respective segment outputs by at least one of pruning or trimming to standardize the respective segment outputs such that the respective segment outputs are compatible with one or more other respective segment outputs and combinable by one or more combination layers.” There does not appear to be support for the non-original limitation in the application as filed.
Applicant’s remarks do not appear to identify support for the identified limitation.
What appears to be the only relevant portion of the originally filed disclosure is [68].
[68] The present techniques may include adapting a loss function to work with combined layers. Conventionally, loss functions expect inputs that are compatible and have similar shapes of a similar modality. Such weights are trivially combinable by a loss function. Advantageously, the present techniques enable different modalities to be combined, for example, by normalizing the different modalities using pruning or trimming. In this way, a loss function may be tuned to receive inputs that are expected. In some aspects, multiple layers (e.g., the isolated layers) are tuned to output normalized values, such that once control reaches the combination layers, respective outputs of the isolated layers are compatible and thus, combinable by the combination layers. In this way, the loss function can process the inputs to generate a useful and expected result. The present techniques enable the respective isolated layers to standardize outputs in such a way that such outputs are compatible with other(s) of the isolated layers, at the combination layers. In some aspects, an additional component is used to reconcile outputs of the respective isolated layers. As discussed above, various techniques may be used to combine outputs at the combination layers 304. [69] The final output of the configurable single architecture machine learning model 300 may be provided as the modeling output 312. This output may vary, depending upon the purpose for which the configurable single architecture machine learning model 300 is being used.
The preceding disclosure echoes the claimed functionality by stating that “present techniques” enable the layers to standardize outputs in such a way that such outputs are compatible at combination layers. This assertion regarding “present techniques” occurs in the same paragraph as a statement asserting the “normalizing [of] the different modalities using pruning or trimming.” However, there is no explanation of how such pruning or trimming results in compatible and combinable outputs, and generally there is no explanation of how to implement the claimed functionality. It would not be apparent to one of ordinary skill in the art how pruning or trimming could possibly result in “standardiz[ing] the respective segment outputs such that the respective segment outputs are compatible.” One of ordinary skill in the art would consider “standardiz[ing] the respective segment outputs such that the respective segment outputs are compatible” to be a functionality that needs to be explained beyond merely stating the functionality. As there is no further explanation, one of ordinary skill in the art would not regard this mere description of a desired functionality as supporting the identified limitation. As such, this disclosure does not support the identified limitation. The remainder of the originally filed disclosure similarly fails to support the identified limitation.
Because the original disclosure does not support a non-original limitation, one of ordinary skill in the art could not reasonably conclude that the inventor had possession of the claimed invention at the time of filing. Therefore the claim is rejected for lack of written description. Claims 31 and 32 are similarly rejected.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(b)
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-33 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 not listed below are rejected for dependency.
Claim 1 recites “standardize the respective segment outputs such that the respective segment outputs are compatible with one or more other respective segment outputs and combinable by one or more combination layers.” Claim 1 subsequently recites “reshaping the normalized respective segment outputs to a common dimension, wherein the normalized respective segment outputs comprise at least two of: a one-dimensional output, a two-dimensional output, or a three-dimensional output.”
Thus claim 1 first describes operating on the claims such that they are “compatible … and combinable.” The disclosure does not define or describe what it means for segment outputs to be “compatible” or “combinable.” In this context, the ordinary meaning of “compatible” is “designed to work with another device or system without modification” ” and the ordinary meaning of “combinable” is “that can be combined.”
The claim further recites additional processing of reshaping the segments that is apparently necessary to actually combine the outputs.
One of ordinary skill in the art would not understand what it means for the segments to be “compatible … and combinable” while still requiring further reshaping to combine the outputs. One of ordinary skill in the art would not understand the metes and bounds of “compatible … and combinable”, and thus would not be able to determine the boundaries of the claim, rendering the claim indefinite. Claims 31 and 32 are similarly rejected.
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 1-33 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Claim 1, which is representative of claims 31 and 32, recites: a
receiving,
each respective segment corresponding to a different respective input feature modality,
each respective segment including one or more respective preprocessing [steps]
each respective segment including a respective plurality of isolated processing [steps]
the predefined configuring parameters specifying, for each of the three or more segments,
dynamically configuring,
wherein the plurality of dissimilar input feature modalities include at least three of: structured data, time-series data, imaging data, genomic data, or categorical data;
for each of the three or more segments:
preprocessing,
processing,
generating respective segment outputs, and
tuning the respective segment outputs to generate normalized respective segment outputs by at least one of pruning or trimming to standardize the respective segment outputs such that the respective segment outputs are compatible with one or more other respective segment outputs and combinable by one or more combination [steps]
processing,
adding or reducing a weight of at least one of the respective segment outputs;
processing,
processing,
The preceding recitation of the claim has had strikethroughs applied to the additional elements beyond the abstract idea to more clearly demonstrate the limitations setting forth the abstract idea. The remaining limitations describe a concept of analyzing multi-modal data to generate clinically relevant information. This concept describes a mental process that an analyst should follow to generate a cross-modality analysis of dissimilar data, similar to the “mental process that a neurologist should follow when testing a patient for nervous system malfunctions” given in MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(II)(C) as an example of managing personal behavior in the methods of organizing human activity sub-grouping. Therefore, the claims are determined to set forth a method of organizing human activity, and as such are determined to recite an abstract idea.
MPEP 2106, reflecting the 2019 PEG, directs examiners at Step 2A Prong Two to consider whether the additional elements of the claims integrate a recited abstract idea into a practical application.
Claim 1 recites the additional element of one or more processors which are used to implement various steps of the method. Claim 31 recites the additional element of a computing system comprising: one or more processors and one or more memories. Claim 32 recites the additional element of a non-transitory computer-readable medium having stored thereon instructions which are executed via one or more processors. These additional elements are recited at an extremely high level of generality, and are interpreted as generic computing devices used to implement the abstract idea. Per MPEP 2106.05(f), implementing an abstract idea on a generic computing device does not integrate an abstract idea into a practical application in Step 2A Prong Two, similar to how the recitation of the computer in the claim in Alice amounted to mere instructions to apply the abstract idea on a generic computer. As such, this additional element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application.
The claims further recite the additional elements of preprocessing using the one or more respective preprocessing layers, processing via the respective plurality of isolated processing layers, processing using one or more combination layers, processing using one or more fully-connected layers, processing using one or more final output layers, and a respective architecture corresponding to processing layers. The various layers are interpreted as high level portions of a neural network. Interpreted as such, these additional elements provide nothing more than mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a generic computer. See MPEP 2106.05(f). These additional elements also merely indicate a field of use or technological environment in which the judicial exception is performed, as this limitation merely confines the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment involving neural networks. As such, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application.
The claims further recite an additional element of reshaping the respective segment outputs to a common dimension. This additional element does not appear to constitute a technical improvement, based on the lack of technical explanation of the specification regarding the additional element. This additional element does not implement the abstract idea with a particular machine or manufacturer. This additional element does not effect a transformation of a particular article, based on 1) the generality of the change, 2) the generality of the segment outputs, 3) the nature of the change being a mere rearrangement of data, and 4) the absence of a physical article. Instead, this additional element appears to be an insignificant manipulation of gathered information. As such, this additional element is considered insignificant extra-solution activity. As such, this additional element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application.
There are no further additional elements. When considered as a combination, the additional elements only generally link the abstract idea and insignificant extra-solution activity to a technological environment involving computing devices implementing neural networks. Per MPEP 2106.04(d), the courts have identified generally linking the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment as insufficient to integrate a judicial exception into a practical application. Therefore the combination of additional elements does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Therefore the claims are determined to be directed to an abstract idea.
At Step 2B of the Mayo/Alice analysis, examiners are to consider whether the additional elements amount to significantly more than the abstract idea.
As previously noted, the claims recite additional elements which may be interpreted as generic computing devices used to implement the abstract idea. However, per MPEP 2106.05(f), implementing an abstract idea on a generic computing does not add significantly more in Step 2B, similar to how the recitation of the computer in the claim in Alice amounted to mere instructions to apply the abstract idea on a generic computer. As such, these additional elements do not amount to significantly more.
As previously noted, the claims recite additional elements of various processing layers. These additional elements merely indicate a field of use or technological environment in which the judicial exception is performed, as this limitation merely confines the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment involving neural networks. As such, these additional elements do not amount to significantly more.
As previously noted, the claims recite an additional element of reshaping the respective segment outputs to a common dimension which was considered insignificant extra-solution activity under Prong Two. At Step 2B, the conventionality of an additional element may be considered in evaluating whether it is insignificant extra-solution activity. Before the priority date of the claimed invention, Nguyen et al. (US 10496884 B1) notes that “Tensor reshaping is a functionality that is available in typical neural network libraries as it is needed to modify C×H×W tensor dimensions” Column 24, Lines 15-17. This further indicates that the identified additional element is insignificant extra-solution activity. As such, this additional elements does not amount to significantly more.
There are no further additional elements. When considered as a combination, the additional elements only generally link the abstract idea and insignificant extra-solution activity to a technological environment involving computing devices implementing neural networks. Per MPEP 2106.05, the courts have identified generally linking the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment as insufficient to amount to significantly more than a judicial exception. Therefore the combination of additional elements does not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. Therefore, when considered individually and as an ordered combination, the additional elements of the independent claims do not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. Thus the independent claims are not patent eligible.
Dependent claims 3-30 and 33 further describe the abstract idea, but these claims continue to recite an abstract idea, albeit a narrowed one. Claims 3-21, 23, 25, 26, and 28-30 recite no further additional elements. The previously identified additional elements, individually and as a combination, do not either integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or amount to significantly more than the abstract idea, for the same reasons as articulated above. Dependent claim 2, 22, 24, and 27 further describes the additional element of the layers, but this additional element continues to amount to no more than an instruction to implement the abstract idea with a generic computing device. The additional elements of these claims, when considered either individually or as a combination, do not either integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or amount to significantly more than the abstract idea, for the same reasons as articulated above. Dependent claim 33 describes receiving the configuration parameters in a file. This additional element only generally links the abstract idea to a technological environment of a computer with a file system, and as such, when considered either individually or as a combination with the other additional elements, does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. Thus as the dependent claims remain directed to a judicial exception, and as the additional elements of the claims do not amount to significantly more, the dependent claims are not patent eligible.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s Argument Regarding 101 Rejections of claims 1-33:
The specification describes specific technical solutions that overcome these deficiencies, explaining that “the present techniques enable different modalities to be combined, for example, by normalizing the different modalities using pruning or trimming … “.
The precedential decision in Desjardins supports the eligibility of the claims. … Similarly here, representative claim 1 reflects a specific improvement that addresses the technical problem of incompatible outputs from dissimilar modalities in deep learning systems.
The additional elements recited in the claims are not well-understood, routine, or conventional activities previously known in the industry. Specifically, claim 1 recites “tuning the respective segment outputs to generate normalized respective segment outputs by at least one of pruning or trimming to standardize the respective segment outputs such that the respective segment outputs are compatible with one or more other respective segment outputs and combinable by one or more combination layers.”
Additionally, representative claim 1 recites “wherein the normalized respective segment outputs comprise at least two of: a one-dimensional output, a two dimensional output, or a three dimensional output.”
The specification describes this as a “breakthrough in the ability to combine multimodal features to perform cardiac state modeling in a single ML architecture” (see paragraph [0032]).
Examiner’s Response: Applicant's arguments filed 5 February 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Per MPEP 2106.05(a), “If it is asserted that the invention improves upon conventional functioning of a computer, or upon conventional technology or technological processes, a technical explanation as to how to implement the invention should be present in the specification. That is, the disclosure must provide sufficient details such that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize the claimed invention as providing an improvement.” Here, there is no technical explanation of how to implement the normalization of different modalities using pruning or trimming. One of ordinary skill in the art would not recognize the claimed invention as providing a technical improvement. As such, Applicant’s argument is unpersuasive.
As noted above, the claims do not appear to provide a technical improvement. As such, the claims are not analogous to those of Desjardins.
The identified feature is considered part of the abstract idea, and as such, it is not evaluated for conventionality at step 2B. Note that per MPEP 2106.04, “The Supreme Court’s decisions make it clear that judicial exceptions need not be old or long-prevalent, and that even newly discovered or novel judicial exceptions are still exceptions.”
The identified feature is considered part of the abstract idea, and as such, it is not evaluated for conventionality at step 2B. Note that per MPEP 2106.04, “The Supreme Court’s decisions make it clear that judicial exceptions need not be old or long-prevalent, and that even newly discovered or novel judicial exceptions are still exceptions.”
Examiner notes that the disclosure does not provide any technical explanation of how to implement ““wherein the normalized respective segment outputs comprise at least two of: a one-dimensional output, a two dimensional output, or a three dimensional output.” As such, this feature would not be considered a technical improvement if it were an additional element.
Applicant’s Argument Regarding 103 Rejections of claims 1-33: Fornwalt does not teach or suggest combining outputs that retain different dimensional profiles. To the contrary, Fornwalt explicitly discloses that the video branch includes a “Flatten” layer that reshapes the multidimensional video output to a one-dimensional vector of 640 elements before combination. … Thus, in Fornwalt, both segment outputs are one-dimensional at the point of combination. Accordingly, Fornwalt does not suggest reshaping outputs to a common dimension wherein the outputs “comprise at least two of: a one-dimensional output, a two dimensional output, or a three-dimensional output.”
Examiner’s Response: Applicant's arguments filed 5 February 2026 have been fully considered. Examiner notes that Applicant’s argument is unpersuasive. Applicant admits that Fornwalt discloses a “layer that reshapes the multidimensional video output to a one-dimensional vector.” It is unclear how then Applicant can assert that “Fornwalt does not suggest reshaping outputs to a common dimension wherein the outputs ‘comprise at least two of: a one-dimensional output, a two dimensional output, or a three-dimensional output.’” It appears that Applicant may be relying on a distinction that the “combination” of Fornwalt occurs subsequent to the flattening. However, 1) examiner notes that the claims do not reflect any requirement that the reshaping occurs “at the point of combination”, and 2) this is merely an exercise in arbitrary line-drawing and the “flatten” layer may reasonably be considered part of the combination layers of Fornwalt. As such, even this thin distinction does not actually distinguish Fornwalt from the identified feature.
However, the new limitation tuning the respective segment outputs to generate normalized respective segment outputs by at least one of pruning or trimming to standardize the respective segment outputs such that the respective segment outputs are compatible with one or more other respective segment outputs and combinable by one or more combination layers does not reasonably appear to be disclosed or taught by Fornwalt or the prior art at large. As such, the rejection under 103 is withdrawn.
Additional Considerations
The prior art made of record and not relied upon that is considered pertinent to applicant’s disclosure can be found in the PTO-892 of the prior office actions dated 7 November 2024, 19 March 2025, and 29 July 2025.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Bion A Shelden whose telephone number is (571)270-0515. The examiner can normally be reached M-F, 12pm-10pm EST.
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, Kambiz Abdi can be reached at (571) 272-6702. 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.
/Bion A Shelden/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3685 2026-03-16