NON-FINAL REJECTION
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 the original application filed on January 9th, 2023.
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 1-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 because the claimed invention is directed towards non-statutory subject matter. The claims do not fall within at least one of the four categories of patent eligible subjected matter because the claimed invention is directed towards software per se.
With respect to independent claim 1, The claim recites a “A distributed neural network communication system comprising an edge system and a cloud system communicatively coupled to each other, wherein the edge system is configured to receive an input data stream from an input device and to conduct partial or preliminary feature extraction at the edge system, and the cloud system is configured to communicate with the edge system to receive an extracted feature vector from the edge system and to conduct further feature extraction at the cloud system to yield a final feature vector, thereby to enhance accuracy of a neural network of the distributed neural network communication system.”(Emphasis added). Also, as noted in the specification pp. 12 [0057] which recites, “Aspects of the present invention may be embodied as a system, method and/or computer program product. Accordingly, aspects of the present invention may take the form of hardware, software and/or a combination of hardware and software that may generally be referred to herein as "components", "units", "modules", "systems", "elements", or the like.” (Emphasis added). Under a broadest reasonable interpretation of the claim language, the “distributed neural network communication system” of claim 1 and its dependents may encompass computer program product, and is thus directed towards software per se. Examiner suggests amending claim 1 and its dependents to recite, “A distributed neural network communication system which contains processors that are linked to memory which contain computer readable instructions which are stored and used by the processors to execute said method, the system further comprising an edge system and a cloud system communicatively coupled to each other.”(Emphasis added). Dependent claims 2-13 depend on rejected claim 1, and are also rejected under 35 USC § 101 by virtue of this dependency. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 because the claimed invention is directed towards non-statutory subject matter. The claim does not fall within at least one of the four categories of patent eligible subjected matter because the claimed invention is directed towards signals per se.
With respect to independent claim 19, The claim recites “A computer program product for distributed neural network communication, the computer program product comprising at least one computer-readable storage medium having program instructions embodied therewith, the program instructions being executable by at least one computer to cause the at least one computer to perform a plurality of operations comprising:” (Emphasis added). Also, as noted in the specification pp. [0058] which recites, “Furthermore, aspects of the present invention may take the form of a computer program product embodied in one or more computer-readable storage medium having computer-readable program code embodied thereon. A computer-readable storage medium may, for instance, be an electronic, magnetic, optical, electromagnetic, infrared, or semiconductor system, apparatus, or device, or any suitable combination of the above. In the context of this specification, a computer-readable storage medium may be any suitable medium capable of storing a program for execution or in connection with a system, apparatus, or device. Program code/instructions may execute on a single device, on a plurality of devices (e.g., on local and remote devices), as a single program or as part of a larger system/package.” (Emphasis added). Under a broadest reasonable interpretation of the claim language, the “computer program product” of claim 19 and its dependents may encompass transitory signals, and is thus directed towards signals per se. Examiner suggests amending claim 19 and its dependents to recite, “A computer program product for distributed neural network communication, the computer program product comprising at least one computer-readable storage medium, wherein the computer readable storage medium is non-transitory storage medium and having program instructions embodied therewith, the program instructions being executable by at least one computer to cause the at least one computer to perform a plurality of operations comprising:” (Emphasis added).
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C 101 because the claimed invention is
directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The analysis of the claims will
follow the 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. 50
(“2019 PEG”).
Claim 1
Step 1 – Is the claim to a process, machine, manufacture or composition of matter?
Claim 1, does not fall into any of the four statutory categories and therefore is not eligible subject matter. However, should the applicant amend the claims to not recite software per se, the claims would recite a system containing processors, memory and/or generic computing systems. For examination purposes, claim 1 will be interpreted to be a system containing processors, memory and/or generic computing systems. Therefore, under this interpretation, claim 1 will fall under the statutory category of a machine and will be evaluated under 35 U.S.C. 101 as such.
Step 2A Prong 1 – Does the claim recite an abstract idea, law of nature, or natural
phenomenon?
The claim recites, inter alia:
“to conduct further feature extraction at the cloud system to yield a final feature vector, thereby to enhance accuracy of a neural network of the distributed neural network communication system.” Under its broadest reasonable interpretation in light of the specification, this limitation encompasses the mental process of evaluating and observing data, which is an evaluation or observation that is practically capable of being performed in the human mind with the assistance of pen and paper. A human is able to evaluate data and determine features within that data. The limitation is merely applying an abstract idea on generic computer system. See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III)(c).
Step 2A Prong 2 – Does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application?
The claim recites the additional elements, “wherein the edge system is configured to receive an input data stream from an input device and to conduct partial or preliminary feature extraction at the edge system, and” is an insignificant extra-solution activity required for any uses of the mental processes (see MPEP § 2106.05(g)) As such, the claim is ineligible.
“the cloud system is configured to communicate with the edge system to receive an extracted feature vector from the edge system and” is an insignificant extra-solution activity required for any uses of the mental processes (see MPEP § 2106.05(g)) As such, the claim is ineligible.
Step 2B – Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception?
Finally, the claim taken as a whole does not contain an inventive concept which provides significantly more than the abstract idea. The additional elements, “wherein the edge system is configured to receive an input data stream from an input device and to conduct partial or preliminary feature extraction at the edge system, and” is an insignificant extra-solution activity required for any uses of abstract ideas (see MPEP § 2106.05(g)), and is a well-understood, routine, conventional activity (see MPEP § 2106.05(d)(i); “Receiving or transmitting data over a network, e.g., using the Internet to gather data”.
“the cloud system is configured to communicate with the edge system to receive an extracted feature vector from the edge system and” is an insignificant extra-solution activity required for any uses of abstract ideas (see MPEP § 2106.05(g)), and is a well-understood, routine, conventional activity (see MPEP § 2106.05(d)(i); “Receiving or transmitting data over a network, e.g., using the Internet to gather data”.
Taken alone or in combination, the additional elements of the claim do not provide an inventive concept and thus the claim is subject-matter ineligible.
Claim 2
Step 1 – Is the claim to a process, machine, manufacture or composition of matter?
Claim 2 does not fall under any of the four statutory categories required for patent eligibility as stated above. For examination purposes, claim 2 will be interpreted to be a machine which contains processors, memory and/or generic computing systems to execute the claimed process. Therefore, claim 2 is directed to the category of a machine.
Step 2A Prong 1 – Does the claim recite an abstract idea, law of nature, or natural
phenomenon?
The claim recites, inter alia:
“extract a preliminary feature vector from the input data stream through a preliminary feature analysis process;” Under its broadest reasonable interpretation in light of the specification, this limitation encompasses the mental process of evaluating and observing data, which is an evaluation or observation that is practically capable of being performed in the human mind with the assistance of pen and paper. A human is able to observe a stream of video data and evaluate it for features. The limitation is merely applying an abstract idea on generic computer system. See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III)(c).
“compress and/or encrypt the preliminary feature vector; and” Under its broadest reasonable interpretation in light of the specification, this limitation encompasses mathematical concept of utilizing a mathematical formula to perform calculations. Compression and encryption of data consists of using mathematical functions to alter or obfuscate data. These functions can be performed by a human with pen and paper. This claim discloses a math operation and therefore is ineligible.
“decrypt and/or decompress the preliminary feature vector; and” Under its broadest reasonable interpretation in light of the specification, this limitation encompasses mathematical concept of utilizing a mathematical formula to perform calculations. decompression and decryption of data consists of using mathematical functions to return altered or obfuscated data back to a prior state. These functions can be performed by a human with pen and paper. This claim discloses a math operation and therefore is ineligible.
“analyze the decrypted and/or decompressed preliminary feature vector through an inference engine which implements a model associated with the neural network, thereby yielding a final feature vector.” Under its broadest reasonable interpretation in light of the specification, this limitation encompasses the mental process of evaluating and observing data, which is an evaluation or observation that is practically capable of being performed in the human mind with the assistance of pen and paper. A human is able to evaluate received video data to identify features or objects. The limitation is merely applying an abstract idea on generic computer system. See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III)(c).
Step 2A Prong 2 – Does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application?
The claim recites the additional elements, “wherein the edge system is configured to: receive the input data stream from the input device;” is an insignificant extra-solution activity required for any uses of the mental processes (see MPEP § 2106.05(g)) As such, the claim is ineligible.
“transmit the compressed and/or encrypted preliminary feature vector to the cloud system;” is an insignificant extra-solution activity required for any uses of the mental processes (see MPEP § 2106.05(g)) As such, the claim is ineligible.
“wherein the cloud system is configured to: receive the compressed and/or encrypted preliminary feature vector from the edge system;” is an insignificant extra-solution activity required for any uses of the mental processes (see MPEP § 2106.05(g)) As such, the claim is ineligible.
Step 2B – Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception?
Finally, the claim taken as a whole does not contain an inventive concept which provides significantly more than the abstract idea. The additional elements, “wherein the edge system is configured to: receive the input data stream from the input device;” is an insignificant extra-solution activity required for any uses of abstract ideas (see MPEP § 2106.05(g)), and is a well-understood, routine, conventional activity (see MPEP § 2106.05(d)(i); “Receiving or transmitting data over a network, e.g., using the Internet to gather data”.
“transmit the compressed and/or encrypted preliminary feature vector to the cloud system;” is an insignificant extra-solution activity required for any uses of abstract ideas (see MPEP § 2106.05(g)), and is a well-understood, routine, conventional activity (see MPEP § 2106.05(d)(i); “Receiving or transmitting data over a network, e.g., using the Internet to gather data”.
“wherein the cloud system is configured to: receive the compressed and/or encrypted preliminary feature vector from the edge system;” is an insignificant extra-solution activity required for any uses of abstract ideas (see MPEP § 2106.05(g)), and is a well-understood, routine, conventional activity (see MPEP § 2106.05(d)(i); “Receiving or transmitting data over a network, e.g., using the Internet to gather data”.
Taken alone or in combination, the additional elements of the claim do not provide an inventive concept and thus the claim is subject-matter ineligible.
Claim 3
Step 1 – Is the claim to a process, machine, manufacture or composition of matter?
Claim 3 does not fall under any of the four statutory categories required for patent eligibility as stated above. For examination purposes, claim 3 will be interpreted to be a machine which contains processors, memory and/or generic computing systems to execute the claimed process. Therefore, claim 3 is directed to the category of a machine.
Step 2A Prong 1 – Does the claim recite an abstract idea, law of nature, or natural
phenomenon?
The claim recites, inter alia:
“wherein the model run by the cloud system is an artificial intelligence (Al) model designed to detect objects or events and/or draw inferences from the input data stream.” Under its broadest reasonable interpretation in light of the specification, this limitation encompasses the mental process of evaluating and observing data, which is an evaluation or observation that is practically capable of being performed in the human mind with the assistance of pen and paper. A human is able to evaluate received video data to identify features or objects from video data. The limitation is merely applying an abstract idea on generic computer system. See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III)(c).
Step 2A Prong 2 – Does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application?
This claim does not recite any additional limitations which integrate the abstract idea into a practical application.
Step 2B – Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception?
Finally, the claim taken as a whole does not contain an inventive concept which provides significantly more than the abstract idea and thus the claim is subject-matter ineligible.
Claim 4
Step 1 – Is the claim to a process, machine, manufacture or composition of matter?
Claim 4 does not fall under any of the four statutory categories required for patent eligibility as stated above. For examination purposes, claim 4 will be interpreted to be a machine which contains processors, memory and/or generic computing systems to execute the claimed process. Therefore, claim 4 is directed to the category of a machine.
Step 2A Prong 1 – Does the claim recite an abstract idea, law of nature, or natural
phenomenon?
The claim recites, inter alia:
“wherein the preliminary feature analysis process includes motion detection or object detection, involving dividing frames of the input data stream into frame blocks and analyzing each frame block to check structural similarity to previous frames or frame blocks.” Under its broadest reasonable interpretation in light of the specification, this limitation encompasses the mental process of evaluating and observing data, which is an evaluation or observation that is practically capable of being performed in the human mind with the assistance of pen and paper. A human is able to observe a stream of video data and evaluate it for changes in state. The limitation is merely applying an abstract idea on generic computer system. See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III)(c).
Step 2A Prong 2 – Does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application?
This claim does not recite any additional limitations which integrate the abstract idea into a practical application.
Step 2B – Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception?
Finally, the claim taken as a whole does not contain an inventive concept which provides significantly more than the abstract idea and thus the claim is subject-matter ineligible.
Claim 5
Step 1 – Is the claim to a process, machine, manufacture or composition of matter?
Claim 5 does not fall under any of the four statutory categories required for patent eligibility as stated above. For examination purposes, claim 5 will be interpreted to be a machine which contains processors, memory and/or generic computing systems to execute the claimed process. Therefore, claim 5 is directed to the category of a machine.
Step 2A Prong 1 – Does the claim recite an abstract idea, law of nature, or natural
phenomenon?
The claim recites, inter alia:
“wherein as part of the preliminary feature analysis process, feature extraction is carried out based only on the frame blocks in respect of which significant changes were detected.” Under its broadest reasonable interpretation in light of the specification, this limitation encompasses the mental process of evaluating and observing data, which is an evaluation or observation that is practically capable of being performed in the human mind with the assistance of pen and paper. A human is able to observe a stream of video data and evaluate it for major changes. The limitation is merely applying an abstract idea on generic computer system. See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III)(c).
Step 2A Prong 2 – Does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application?
This claim does not recite any additional limitations which integrate the abstract idea into a practical application.
Step 2B – Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception?
Finally, the claim taken as a whole does not contain an inventive concept which provides significantly more than the abstract idea and thus the claim is subject-matter ineligible.
Claim 6
Step 1 – Is the claim to a process, machine, manufacture or composition of matter?
Claim 6 does not fall under any of the four statutory categories required for patent eligibility as stated above. For examination purposes, claim 6 will be interpreted to be a machine which contains processors, memory and/or generic computing systems to execute the claimed process. Therefore, claim 6 is directed to the category of a machine.
Step 2A Prong 1 – Does the claim recite an abstract idea, law of nature, or natural
phenomenon?
The claim recites the abstract ideas of the preceding claims from which it depends.
Step 2A Prong 2 – Does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application?
The claim recites the additional elements, “wherein the cloud system is coupled to a plurality of edge systems, each of the edge systems transmitting compressed and/or encrypted preliminary feature vectors to the cloud system.” is an insignificant extra-solution activity required for any uses of the mental processes (see MPEP § 2106.05(g)) As such, the claim is ineligible.
Step 2B – Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception?
Finally, the claim taken as a whole does not contain an inventive concept which provides significantly more than the abstract idea. The additional elements, “wherein the cloud system is coupled to a plurality of edge systems, each of the edge systems transmitting compressed and/or encrypted preliminary feature vectors to the cloud system.” is an insignificant extra-solution activity required for any uses of abstract ideas (see MPEP § 2106.05(g)), and is a well-understood, routine, conventional activity (see MPEP § 2106.05(d)(i); “Receiving or transmitting data over a network, e.g., using the Internet to gather data”.
Taken alone or in combination, the additional elements of the claim do not provide an inventive concept and thus the claim is subject-matter ineligible.
Claim 7
Step 1 – Is the claim to a process, machine, manufacture or composition of matter?
Claim 7 does not fall under any of the four statutory categories required for patent eligibility as stated above. For examination purposes, claim 7 will be interpreted to be a machine which contains processors, memory and/or generic computing systems to execute the claimed process. Therefore, claim 7 is directed to the category of a machine.
Step 2A Prong 1 – Does the claim recite an abstract idea, law of nature, or natural
phenomenon?
The claim recites the abstract ideas of the preceding claims from which it depends.
Step 2A Prong 2 – Does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application?
The claim recites the additional elements, “wherein the cloud system comprises a message broker which is configured to handle streams of incoming messages from the edge systems, each message including a compressed and encrypted preliminary feature vector along with metadata associated with the preliminary feature vector.” is an insignificant extra-solution activity required for any uses of the mental processes (see MPEP § 2106.05(g)) As such, the claim is ineligible.
Step 2B – Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception?
Finally, the claim taken as a whole does not contain an inventive concept which provides significantly more than the abstract idea. The additional elements, “wherein the cloud system comprises a message broker which is configured to handle streams of incoming messages from the edge systems, each message including a compressed and encrypted preliminary feature vector along with metadata associated with the preliminary feature vector.” is an insignificant extra-solution activity required for any uses of abstract ideas (see MPEP § 2106.05(g)), and is a well-understood, routine, conventional activity (see MPEP § 2106.05(d)(i); “Receiving or transmitting data over a network, e.g., using the Internet to gather data”.
Taken alone or in combination, the additional elements of the claim do not provide an inventive concept and thus the claim is subject-matter ineligible.
Claim 8
Step 1 – Is the claim to a process, machine, manufacture or composition of matter?
Claim 8 does not fall under any of the four statutory categories required for patent eligibility as stated above. For examination purposes, claim 8 will be interpreted to be a machine which contains processors, memory and/or generic computing systems to execute the claimed process. Therefore, claim 8 is directed to the category of a machine.
Step 2A Prong 1 – Does the claim recite an abstract idea, law of nature, or natural
phenomenon?
The claim recites the abstract ideas of the preceding claims from which it depends.
Step 2A Prong 2 – Does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application?
The claim recites the additional elements, “wherein the cloud system is configured such that analysis is conducted by separate worker nodes or worker modules substantially in parallel, each worker node/module implementing the inference engine in respect of a different feature vector or feature vector stream, thereby distributing Al tasks across difference devices, instances or processors.” amounts to generic computer components used as a tool to perform an existing process. Thus, the additional element amounts to no more than a recitation of the words "apply it" (or an equivalent) or are more than mere instructions to implement an abstract idea or other exception on a computer (see MPEP § 2106.05(f)).
Step 2B – Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception?
Finally, the claim taken as a whole does not contain an inventive concept which provides significantly more than the abstract idea. The additional elements, “wherein the cloud system is configured such that analysis is conducted by separate worker nodes or worker modules substantially in parallel, each worker node/module implementing the inference engine in respect of a different feature vector or feature vector stream, thereby distributing Al tasks across difference devices, instances or processors.” amounts to generic computer components used as a tool to perform an existing process. Thus, the additional element amounts to no more than a recitation of the words "apply it" (or an equivalent) or are more than mere instructions to implement an abstract idea or other exception on a computer (see MPEP § 2106.05(f)).
Taken alone or in combination, the additional elements of the claim do not provide an inventive concept and thus the claim is subject-matter ineligible.
Claim 9
Step 1 – Is the claim to a process, machine, manufacture or composition of matter?
Claim 9 does not fall under any of the four statutory categories required for patent eligibility as stated above. For examination purposes, claim 9 will be interpreted to be a machine which contains processors, memory and/or generic computing systems to execute the claimed process. Therefore, claim 9 is directed to the category of a machine.
Step 2A Prong 1 – Does the claim recite an abstract idea, law of nature, or natural
phenomenon?
The claim recites the abstract ideas of the preceding claims from which it depends.
Step 2A Prong 2 – Does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application?
The claim recites the additional elements, “wherein the distributed neural network communication system is further configured to implement a feedback mechanism.” amounts to generic computer components used as a tool to perform an existing process. Thus, the additional element amounts to no more than a recitation of the words "apply it" (or an equivalent) or are more than mere instructions to implement an abstract idea or other exception on a computer (see MPEP § 2106.05(f)).
Step 2B – Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception?
Finally, the claim taken as a whole does not contain an inventive concept which provides significantly more than the abstract idea. The additional elements, “wherein the distributed neural network communication system is further configured to implement a feedback mechanism.” amounts to generic computer components used as a tool to perform an existing process. Thus, the additional element amounts to no more than a recitation of the words "apply it" (or an equivalent) or are more than mere instructions to implement an abstract idea or other exception on a computer (see MPEP § 2106.05(f)).
Taken alone or in combination, the additional elements of the claim do not provide an inventive concept and thus the claim is subject-matter ineligible.
Claim 10
Step 1 – Is the claim to a process, machine, manufacture or composition of matter?
Claim 10 does not fall under any of the four statutory categories required for patent eligibility as stated above. For examination purposes, claim 10 will be interpreted to be a machine which contains processors, memory and/or generic computing systems to execute the claimed process. Therefore, claim 10 is directed to the category of a machine.
Step 2A Prong 1 – Does the claim recite an abstract idea, law of nature, or natural
phenomenon?
The claim recites, inter alia:
“wherein the cloud system is configured to determine whether a collection rate or sampling rate should be increased or decreased and to communicate a change to the collection rate or the sampling rate to the edge system, via the feedback mechanism, as an input instruction.” Under its broadest reasonable interpretation in light of the specification, this limitation encompasses the mental process of evaluating and observing data, which is an evaluation or observation that is practically capable of being performed in the human mind with the assistance of pen and paper. A human is able to determine sampling rates based on observations or after an evaluation. The limitation is merely applying an abstract idea on generic computer system. See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III)(c).
Step 2A Prong 2 – Does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application?
This claim does not recite any additional limitations which integrate the abstract idea into a practical application.
Step 2B – Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception?
Finally, the claim taken as a whole does not contain an inventive concept which provides significantly more than the abstract idea and thus the claim is subject-matter ineligible.
Claim 11
Step 1 – Is the claim to a process, machine, manufacture or composition of matter?
Claim 11 does not fall under any of the four statutory categories required for patent eligibility as stated above. For examination purposes, claim 11 will be interpreted to be a machine which contains processors, memory and/or generic computing systems to execute the claimed process. Therefore, claim 11 is directed to the category of a machine.
Step 2A Prong 1 – Does the claim recite an abstract idea, law of nature, or natural
phenomenon?
The claim recites the abstract ideas of the preceding claims from which it depends.
Step 2A Prong 2 – Does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application?
The claim recites the additional elements, “wherein the edge system is an edge computer directly connected to the input device and connected to the cloud system via the Internet.” amounts to generic computer components used as a tool to perform an existing process. Thus, the additional element amounts to no more than a recitation of the words "apply it" (or an equivalent) or are more than mere instructions to implement an abstract idea or other exception on a computer (see MPEP § 2106.05(f)).
Step 2B – Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception?
Finally, the claim taken as a whole does not contain an inventive concept which provides significantly more than the abstract idea. The additional elements, “wherein the edge system is an edge computer directly connected to the input device and connected to the cloud system via the Internet.” amounts to generic computer components used as a tool to perform an existing process. Thus, the additional element amounts to no more than a recitation of the words "apply it" (or an equivalent) or are more than mere instructions to implement an abstract idea or other exception on a computer (see MPEP § 2106.05(f)).
Taken alone or in combination, the additional elements of the claim do not provide an inventive concept and thus the claim is subject-matter ineligible.
Claim 12
Step 1 – Is the claim to a process, machine, manufacture or composition of matter?
Claim 12 does not fall under any of the four statutory categories required for patent eligibility as stated above. For examination purposes, claim 12 will be interpreted to be a machine which contains processors, memory and/or generic computing systems to execute the claimed process. Therefore, claim 12 is directed to the category of a machine.
Step 2A Prong 1 – Does the claim recite an abstract idea, law of nature, or natural
phenomenon?
The claim recites the abstract ideas of the preceding claims from which it depends.
Step 2A Prong 2 – Does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application?
The claim recites the additional elements, “wherein the input device is a video camera; and the input data stream is video data.” amounts to generic computer components used as a tool to perform an existing process. Thus, the additional element amounts to no more than a recitation of the words "apply it" (or an equivalent) or are more than mere instructions to implement an abstract idea or other exception on a computer (see MPEP § 2106.05(f)).
Step 2B – Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception?
Finally, the claim taken as a whole does not contain an inventive concept which provides significantly more than the abstract idea. The additional elements, “wherein the input device is a video camera; and the input data stream is video data.” amounts to generic computer components used as a tool to perform an existing process. Thus, the additional element amounts to no more than a recitation of the words "apply it" (or an equivalent) or are more than mere instructions to implement an abstract idea or other exception on a computer (see MPEP § 2106.05(f)).
Taken alone or in combination, the additional elements of the claim do not provide an inventive concept and thus the claim is subject-matter ineligible.
Claim 13
Step 1 – Is the claim to a process, machine, manufacture or composition of matter?
Claim 13 does not fall under any of the four statutory categories required for patent eligibility as stated above. For examination purposes, claim 13 will be interpreted to be a machine which contains processors, memory and/or generic computing systems to execute the claimed process. Therefore, claim 13 is directed to the category of a machine.
Step 2A Prong 1 – Does the claim recite an abstract idea, law of nature, or natural
phenomenon?
The claim recites the abstract ideas of the preceding claims from which it depends.
Step 2A Prong 2 – Does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application?
The claim recites the additional elements, “wherein the preliminary feature vector and/or final feature vector is associated with a detected object or a detected event.” amounts to generic computer components used as a tool to perform an existing process. Thus, the additional element amounts to no more than a recitation of the words "apply it" (or an equivalent) or are more than mere instructions to implement an abstract idea or other exception on a computer (see MPEP § 2106.05(f)).
Step 2B – Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception?
Finally, the claim taken as a whole does not contain an inventive concept which provides significantly more than the abstract idea. The additional elements, “wherein the preliminary feature vector and/or final feature vector is associated with a detected object or a detected event.” amounts to generic computer components used as a tool to perform an existing process. Thus, the additional element amounts to no more than a recitation of the words "apply it" (or an equivalent) or are more than mere instructions to implement an abstract idea or other exception on a computer (see MPEP § 2106.05(f)).
Taken alone or in combination, the additional elements of the claim do not provide an inventive concept and thus the claim is subject-matter ineligible.
Claim 14
Step 1 – Is the claim to a process, machine, manufacture or composition of matter?
Claim 14, recites “A distributed neural network communication method, the method comprising:” therefore it is directed to the statutory category of a process.
Step 2A Prong 1 – Does the claim recite an abstract idea, law of nature, or natural
phenomenon?
The claim recites, inter alia:
“extracting, by the edge system, a preliminary feature vector from the input data stream through a preliminary feature analysis process;” Under its broadest reasonable interpretation in light of the specification, this limitation encompasses the mental process of evaluating and observing data, which is an evaluation or observation that is practically capable of being performed in the human mind with the assistance of pen and paper. A human is able to observe a stream of video data and evaluate it for features. The limitation is merely applying an abstract idea on generic computer system. See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III)(c).
“compressing and/or encrypting, by the edge system, the preliminary feature vector;” Under its broadest reasonable interpretation in light of the specification, this limitation encompasses mathematical concept of utilizing a mathematical formula to perform calculations. Compression and encryption of data consists of using mathematical functions to alter or obfuscate data. These functions can be performed by a human with pen and paper. This claim discloses a math operation and therefore is ineligible.
“decrypting and/or decompressing the preliminary feature vector at the cloud system; and” Under its broadest reasonable interpretation in light of the specification, this limitation encompasses mathematical concept of utilizing a mathematical formula to perform calculations. decompression and decryption of data consists of using mathematical functions to return altered or obfuscated data back to a prior state. These functions can be performed by a human with pen and paper. This claim discloses a math operation and therefore is ineligible.
“analyzing, by the cloud system, the decrypted and/or decompressed preliminary feature vector through an inference engine which implements a model associated with a neural network, thereby yielding a final feature vector.” Under its broadest reasonable interpretation in light of the specification, this limitation encompasses the mental process of evaluating and observing data, which is an evaluation or observation that is practically capable of being performed in the human mind with the assistance of pen and paper. A human is able to evaluate received video data to identify features or objects. The limitation is merely applying an abstract idea on generic computer system. See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III)(c).
Step 2A Prong 2 – Does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application?
The claim recites the additional elements, “receiving, at an edge system which is communicatively coupled to a cloud system, an input data stream from an input device;” is an insignificant extra-solution activity required for any uses of the mental processes (see MPEP § 2106.05(g)) As such, the claim is ineligible.
“transmitting the compressed and/or encrypted preliminary feature vector to the cloud system;” is an insignificant extra-solution activity required for any uses of the mental processes (see MPEP § 2106.05(g)) As such, the claim is ineligible.
Step 2B – Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception?
Finally, the claim taken as a whole does not contain an inventive concept which provides significantly more than the abstract idea. The additional elements, “receiving, at an edge system which is communicatively coupled to a cloud system, an input data stream from an input device;” is an insignificant extra-solution activity required for any uses of the mental processes (see MPEP § 2106.05(g)) As such, the claim is ineligible.
“transmitting the compressed and/or encrypted preliminary feature vector to the cloud system;” is an insignificant extra-solution activity required for any uses of the mental processes (see MPEP § 2106.05(g)) As such, the claim is ineligible.
Taken alone or in combination, the additional elements of the claim do not provide an inventive concept and thus the claim is subject-matter ineligible.
Claim 15
Step 1 – Is the claim to a process, machine, manufacture or composition of matter?
A process, as above.
Step 2A Prong 1 – Does the claim recite an abstract idea, law of nature, or natural
phenomenon?
The claim recites, inter alia:
“wherein the model run by the cloud system is an artificial intelligence (Al) model designed to detect objects or events and/or draw inferences from the input data stream.” Under its broadest reasonable interpretation in light of the specification, this limitation encompasses the mental process of evaluating and observing data, which is an evaluation or observation that is practically capable of being performed in the human mind with the assistance of pen and paper. A human is able to evaluate received video data to identify features or objects from video data. The limitation is merely applying an abstract idea on generic computer system. See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III)(c).
Step 2A Prong 2 – Does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application?
This claim does not recite any additional limitations which integrate the abstract idea into a practical application.
Step 2B – Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception?
Finally, the claim taken as a whole does not contain an inventive concept which provides significantly more than the abstract idea and thus the claim is subject-matter ineligible.
Claim 16
Step 1 – Is the claim to a process, machine, manufacture or composition of matter?
A process, as above.
Step 2A Prong 1 – Does the claim recite an abstract idea, law of nature, or natural
phenomenon?
The claim recites, inter alia:
“wherein the preliminary feature analysis process includes motion detection or object detection, involving dividing frames of the input data stream into frame blocks and analyzing each frame block to check structural similarity to previous frames or frame blocks, and” nder its broadest reasonable interpretation in light of the specification, this limitation encompasses the mental process of evaluating and observing data, which is an evaluation or observation that is practically capable of being performed in the human mind with the assistance of pen and paper. A human is able to observe a stream of video data and evaluate it for changes in state. The limitation is merely applying an abstract idea on generic computer system. See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III)(c).
“wherein as part of the preliminary feature analysis process, feature extraction is carried out based only on the frame blocks in respect of which significant changes were detected.” Under its broadest reasonable interpretation in light of the specification, this limitation encompasses the mental process of evaluating and observing data, which is an evaluation or observation that is practically capable of being performed in the human mind with the assistance of pen and paper. A human is able to observe a stream of video data and evaluate it for major changes. The limitation is merely applying an abstract idea on generic computer system. See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III)(c).
Step 2A Prong 2 – Does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application?
This claim does not recite any additional limitations which integrate the abstract idea into a practical application.
Step 2B – Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception?
Finally, the claim taken as a whole does not contain an inventive concept which provides significantly more than the abstract idea and thus the claim is subject-matter ineligible.
Claim 17
Step 1 – Is the claim to a process, machine, manufacture or composition of matter?
A process, as above.
Step 2A Prong 1 – Does the claim recite an abstract idea, law of nature, or natural
phenomenon?
The claim recites the abstract ideas of the preceding claims from which it depends.
Step 2A Prong 2 – Does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application?
The claim recites the additional elements, “wherein the cloud system is coupled to a plurality of edge systems, each of the edge systems transmitting compressed and/or encrypted preliminary feature vectors to the cloud system, and” is an insignificant extra-solution activity required for any uses of the mental processes (see MPEP § 2106.05(g)) As such, the claim is ineligible.
“wherein the cloud system comprises a message broker which is configured to handle streams of incoming messages from the edge systems, each message including a compressed and encrypted preliminary feature vector along with metadata associated with the preliminary feature vector.” is an insignificant extra-solution activity required for any uses of the mental processes (see MPEP § 2106.05(g)) As such, the claim is ineligible.
Step 2B – Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception?
Finally, the claim taken as a whole does not contain an inventive concept which provides significantly more than the abstract idea. The additional elements, “wherein the cloud system is coupled to a plurality of edge systems, each of the edge systems transmitting compressed and/or encrypted preliminary feature vectors to the cloud system, and” is an insignificant extra-solution activity required for any uses of abstract ideas (see MPEP § 2106.05(g)), and is a well-understood, routine, conventional activity (see MPEP § 2106.05(d)(i); “Receiving or transmitting data over a network, e.g., using the Internet to gather data”.
“wherein the cloud system comprises a message broker which is configured to handle streams of incoming messages from the edge systems, each message including a compressed and encrypted preliminary feature vector along with metadata associated with the preliminary feature vector.” is an insignificant extra-solution activity required for any uses of abstract ideas (see MPEP § 2106.05(g)), and is a well-understood, routine, conventional activity (see MPEP § 2106.05(d)(i); “Receiving or transmitting data over a network, e.g., using the Internet to gather data”.
Taken alone or in combination, the additional elements of the claim do not provide an inventive concept and thus the claim is subject-matter ineligible.
Claim 18
Step 1 – Is the claim to a process, machine, manufacture or composition of matter?
A process, as above.
Step 2A Prong 1 – Does the claim recite an abstract idea, law of nature, or natural
phenomenon?
The claim recites the abstract ideas of the preceding claims from which it depends.
Step 2A Prong 2 – Does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application?
The claim recites the additional elements, “wherein the cloud system is configured such that analysis is conducted by separate worker nodes or worker modules substantially in parallel, each worker node/module implementing the inference engine in respect of a different feature vector or feature vector stream, thereby distributing Al tasks across difference devices, instances or processors.” Under its broadest reasonable interpretation in light of the specification, this limitation encompasses the mental process of evaluating and observing data, which is an evaluation or observation that is practically capable of being performed in the human mind with the assistance of pen and paper. INSERTREASON. The limitation is merely applying an abstract idea on generic computer system. See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III)(c).
Step 2B – Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception?
Finally, the claim taken as a whole does not contain an inventive concept which provides significantly more than the abstract idea. The additional elements, “wherein the cloud system is configured such that analysis is conducted by separate worker nodes or worker modules substantially in parallel, each worker node/module implementing the inference engine in respect of a different feature vector or feature vector stream, thereby distributing Al tasks across difference devices, instances or processors.” Under its broadest reasonable interpretation in light of the specification, this limitation encompasses the mental process of evaluating and observing data, which is an evaluation or observation that is practically capable of being performed in the human mind with the assistance of pen and paper. INSERTREASON. The limitation is merely applying an abstract idea on generic computer system. See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III)(c).
Tak