DETAILED ACTION
Claims 1-13 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 .
Claim Rejections - 35 U.S.C. § 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.
The invention, as taught in Claims 1-12, is directed to “mental steps” and “mathematical steps” without significantly more.
The claims recite:
• a first inference model serving as a reference (i.e., mathematical steps)
Note that the Specification recites:
“Also, each of the inference models is, for example, a mathematical model for performing inference processing, and may be any one of a machine learning model, a neural network model, or a deep learning model.”
• computing a second inference model (i.e., mathematical steps)
Note that the Specification recites:
“Also, each of the inference models is, for example, a mathematical model for performing inference processing, and may be any one of a machine learning model, a neural network model, or a deep learning model.”
• quantizing the second inference model computed (i.e.,
mathematical steps)
• training the third inference model, using machine learning
(i.e., mathematical steps)
Note that the Specification recites:
“Also, each of the inference models is, for example, a mathematical model for performing inference processing, and may be any one of a machine learning model, a neural network model, or a deep learning model.”
• second form of data representation...requiring a smaller number of
bits than the first form of data representation (i.e., mathematical
expression)
• determining whether a performance of the third inference model
trained satisfies a condition (i.e., mental or mathematical steps)
• performance satisfies the condition (i.e., mental or mathematical steps)
• “first form of data representation”/“second form of data representation”
(i.e., mathematical expression)
• “third inference model requiring a smaller number of bits than the
first form of data representation utilized in the first inference model and
the second inference model” (i.e., mathematical steps)
• “A first form of data representation utilized in the first inference
model and the second inference model is converted into a second form of
data representation utilized in the third inference model”
(i.e., mathematical expression)
• “The second form of data representation utilized in the third
inference model requiring a smaller number of bits than the first
form of data representation utilized in the first inference model and
the second inference model” (i.e., mathematical expression)
Claim 1
Step 1 inquiry: Does this claim fall within a statutory category?
The preamble of the claim recites “1. An information processing method executed by a computer, the information processing method comprising…” Therefore, it is a “method” (or “process”), which is a statutory category of invention. Therefore, the answer to the inquiry is: “YES.”
Step 2A (Prong One) inquiry:
Are there limitations in Claim 1 that recite abstract ideas?
YES. The following limitations in Claim 1 recite abstract ideas that fall within at least one of the groupings of abstract ideas enumerated in the 2019 PEG. Specifically, they are “mental steps” and “mathematical steps”:
• a first inference model serving as a reference (i.e., mathematical steps)
Note that the Specification recites:
“Also, each of the inference models is, for example, a mathematical model for performing inference processing, and may be any one of a machine learning model, a neural network model, or a deep learning model.”
• computing a second inference model (i.e., mathematical steps)
Note that the Specification recites:
“Also, each of the inference models is, for example, a mathematical model for performing inference processing, and may be any one of a machine learning model, a neural network model, or a deep learning model.”
• quantizing the second inference model computed (i.e.,
mathematical steps)
• training the third inference model, using machine learning
(i.e., mathematical steps)
Note that the Specification recites:
“Also, each of the inference models is, for example, a mathematical model for performing inference processing, and may be any one of a machine learning model, a neural network model, or a deep learning model.”
• second form of data representation...requiring a smaller number of
bits than the first form of data representation (i.e., mathematical
expression)
• determining whether a performance of the third inference model
trained satisfies a condition (i.e., mental or mathematical steps)
• performance satisfies the condition (i.e., mental or mathematical steps)
• “first form of data representation”/“second form of data representation”
(i.e., mathematical expression)
• “third inference model requiring a smaller number of bits than the
first form of data representation utilized in the first inference model and
the second inference model” (i.e., mathematical steps)
• “A first form of data representation utilized in the first inference
model and the second inference model is converted into a second form of
data representation utilized in the third inference model”
(i.e., mathematical expression)
• “The second form of data representation utilized in the third
inference model requiring a smaller number of bits than the first
form of data representation utilized in the first inference model and
the second inference model” (i.e., mathematical expression)
Step 2A (Prong Two) inquiry:
Are there additional elements or a combination of elements in the claim that apply, rely on, or use the judicial exception in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on the judicial exception, such that it is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception?
Applicant’s claims contain the following “additional elements”:
(1) An “obtaining a first inference model”
(2) An “outputting the third inference model”
(3) graphics processing unit (GPU)
(4) Internet of Things (IoT) device
A “obtaining a first inference model” is a broad term which is described at a high level. M.P.E.P. § 2106.05(d)(I)(2) recites in part:
2. A factual determination is required to support a conclusion that an additional element (or combination of additional elements) is well-understood, routine, conventional activity. Berkheimer v. HP, Inc., 881 F.3d 1360, 1368, 125 USPQ2d 1649, 1654 (Fed. Cir. 2018). However, this does not mean that a prior art search is necessary to resolve this inquiry. Instead, examiners should rely on what the courts have recognized, or those in the art would recognize, as elements that are well-understood, routine, conventional activity in the relevant field when making the required determination. For example, in many instances, the specification of the application may indicate that additional elements are well-known or conventional. See, e.g., Intellectual Ventures v. Symantec, 838 F.3d at 1317; 120 USPQ2d at 1359 ("The written description is particularly useful in determining what is well-known or conventional"); Internet Patents Corp. v. Active Network, Inc., 790 F.3d 1343, 1348, 115 USPQ2d 1414, 1418 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (relying on specification’s description of additional elements as "well-known", "common" and "conventional"); TLI Communications LLC v. AV Auto. LLC, 823 F.3d 607, 614, 118 USPQ2d 1744, 1748 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (Specification described additional elements as "either performing basic computer functions such as sending and receiving data, or performing functions ‘known’ in the art.").
Further, M.P.E.P. § 2106.05(d)(II) recites:
The courts have recognized the following computer functions as well‐understood, routine, and conventional functions when they are claimed in a merely generic manner (e.g., at a high level of generality) or as insignificant extra-solution activity.
i. Receiving or transmitting data over a network, e.g., using the Internet to gather data, Symantec, 838 F.3d at 1321, 120 USPQ2d at 1362 (utilizing an intermediary computer to forward information); TLI Communications LLC v. AV Auto. LLC, 823 F.3d 607, 610, 118 USPQ2d 1744, 1745 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (using a telephone for image transmission); OIP Techs., Inc., v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363, 115 USPQ2d 1090, 1093 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (sending messages over a network); buySAFE, Inc. v. Google, Inc., 765 F.3d 1350, 1355, 112 USPQ2d 1093, 1096 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (computer receives and sends information over a network); …
Merely using the conventional computer to receive data is well known, understood, and conventional. Thus, it adds nothing significantly more to the judicial exception.
This “obtaining a first inference model” limitation does not integrate the additional element into a practical application and represents “insignificant extra-solution activity”. (See, M.P.E.P. § 2106.05(I)(A)).
A “outputting the third inference model” is a broad term which is described at a high level. M.P.E.P. § 2106.05(d)(I)(2) recites in part:
2. A factual determination is required to support a conclusion that an additional element (or combination of additional elements) is well-understood, routine, conventional activity. Berkheimer v. HP, Inc., 881 F.3d 1360, 1368, 125 USPQ2d 1649, 1654 (Fed. Cir. 2018). However, this does not mean that a prior art search is necessary to resolve this inquiry. Instead, examiners should rely on what the courts have recognized, or those in the art would recognize, as elements that are well-understood, routine, conventional activity in the relevant field when making the required determination. For example, in many instances, the specification of the application may indicate that additional elements are well-known or conventional. See, e.g., Intellectual Ventures v. Symantec, 838 F.3d at 1317; 120 USPQ2d at 1359 ("The written description is particularly useful in determining what is well-known or conventional"); Internet Patents Corp. v. Active Network, Inc., 790 F.3d 1343, 1348, 115 USPQ2d 1414, 1418 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (relying on specification’s description of additional elements as "well-known", "common" and "conventional"); TLI Communications LLC v. AV Auto. LLC, 823 F.3d 607, 614, 118 USPQ2d 1744, 1748 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (Specification described additional elements as "either performing basic computer functions such as sending and receiving data, or performing functions ‘known’ in the art.").
Further, M.P.E.P. § 2106.05(d)(II) recites:
The courts have recognized the following computer functions as well‐understood, routine, and conventional functions when they are claimed in a merely generic manner (e.g., at a high level of generality) or as insignificant extra-solution activity.
i. Receiving or transmitting data over a network, e.g., using the Internet to gather data, Symantec, 838 F.3d at 1321, 120 USPQ2d at 1362 (utilizing an intermediary computer to forward information); TLI Communications LLC v. AV Auto. LLC, 823 F.3d 607, 610, 118 USPQ2d 1744, 1745 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (using a telephone for image transmission); OIP Techs., Inc., v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363, 115 USPQ2d 1090, 1093 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (sending messages over a network); buySAFE, Inc. v. Google, Inc., 765 F.3d 1350, 1355, 112 USPQ2d 1093, 1096 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (computer receives and sends information over a network); …
Merely using the conventional computer to receive data is well known, understood, and conventional. Thus, it adds nothing significantly more to the judicial exception.
This “outputting the third inference model” limitation does not integrate the additional element into a practical application and represents “insignificant extra-solution activity”. (See, M.P.E.P. § 2106.05(I)(A)).
A “graphics processing unit” is a broad term which is described at a high level. Applicant’s limitations are to merely “apply it.” M.P.E.P. § 2106.05 (f)(2) recites in part:
(2) Whether the claim invokes computers or other machinery merely as a tool to perform an existing process. Use of a computer or other machinery in its ordinary capacity for economic or other tasks (e.g., to receive, store, or transmit data) or simply adding a general purpose computer or computer components after the fact to an abstract idea (e.g., a fundamental economic practice or mathematical equation) does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more. See Affinity Labs v. DirecTV, 838 F.3d 1253, 1262, 120 USPQ2d 1201, 1207 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (cellular telephone); TLI Communications LLC v. AV Auto, LLC, 823 F.3d 607, 613, 118 USPQ2d 1744, 1748 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (computer server and telephone unit). Similarly, “claiming the improved speed or efficiency inherent with applying the abstract idea on a computer” does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide an inventive concept. Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Capital One Bank (USA), 792 F.3d 1363, 1367, 115 USPQ2d 1636, 1639 (Fed. Cir. 2015). In contrast, a claim that purports to improve computer capabilities or to improve an existing technology may integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more. McRO, Inc. v. Bandai Namco Games Am. Inc., 837 F.3d 1299, 1314-15, 120 USPQ2d 1091, 1101-02 (Fed. Cir. 2016); Enfish, LLC v. Microsoft Corp., 822 F.3d 1327, 1335-36, 118 USPQ2d 1684, 1688-89 (Fed. Cir. 2016). See MPEP §§ 2106.04(d)(1) and 2106.05(a) for a discussion of improvements to the functioning of a computer or to another technology or technical field.
TLI Communications provides an example of a claim invoking computers and other machinery merely as a tool to perform an existing process. The court stated that the claims describe steps of recording, administration and archiving of digital images, and found them to be directed to the abstract idea of classifying and storing digital images in an organized manner. 823 F.3d at 612, 118 USPQ2d at 1747. The court then turned to the additional elements of performing these functions using a telephone unit and a server and noted that these elements were being used in their ordinary capacity (i.e., the telephone unit is used to make calls and operate as a digital camera including compressing images and transmitting those images, and the server simply receives data, extracts classification information from the received data, and stores the digital images based on the extracted information). 823 F.3d at 612-13, 118 USPQ2d at 1747-48. In other words, the claims invoked the telephone unit and server merely as tools to execute the abstract idea. Thus, the court found that the additional elements did not add significantly more to the abstract idea because they were simply applying the abstract idea on a telephone network without any recitation of details of how to carry out the abstract idea.
This “graphics processing unit” limitation does not integrate the additional element into a practical application and represents “insignificant extra-solution activity”. (See, M.P.E.P. § 2106.05(I)(A)).
A “Internet of Things (IoT) device” is a broad term which is described at a high level. Applicant’s limitations are to merely “apply it.” M.P.E.P. § 2106.05 (f)(2) recites in part:
(2) Whether the claim invokes computers or other machinery merely as a tool to perform an existing process. Use of a computer or other machinery in its ordinary capacity for economic or other tasks (e.g., to receive, store, or transmit data) or simply adding a general purpose computer or computer components after the fact to an abstract idea (e.g., a fundamental economic practice or mathematical equation) does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more. See Affinity Labs v. DirecTV, 838 F.3d 1253, 1262, 120 USPQ2d 1201, 1207 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (cellular telephone); TLI Communications LLC v. AV Auto, LLC, 823 F.3d 607, 613, 118 USPQ2d 1744, 1748 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (computer server and telephone unit). Similarly, “claiming the improved speed or efficiency inherent with applying the abstract idea on a computer” does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide an inventive concept. Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Capital One Bank (USA), 792 F.3d 1363, 1367, 115 USPQ2d 1636, 1639 (Fed. Cir. 2015). In contrast, a claim that purports to improve computer capabilities or to improve an existing technology may integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more. McRO, Inc. v. Bandai Namco Games Am. Inc., 837 F.3d 1299, 1314-15, 120 USPQ2d 1091, 1101-02 (Fed. Cir. 2016); Enfish, LLC v. Microsoft Corp., 822 F.3d 1327, 1335-36, 118 USPQ2d 1684, 1688-89 (Fed. Cir. 2016). See MPEP §§ 2106.04(d)(1) and 2106.05(a) for a discussion of improvements to the functioning of a computer or to another technology or technical field.
TLI Communications provides an example of a claim invoking computers and other machinery merely as a tool to perform an existing process. The court stated that the claims describe steps of recording, administration and archiving of digital images, and found them to be directed to the abstract idea of classifying and storing digital images in an organized manner. 823 F.3d at 612, 118 USPQ2d at 1747. The court then turned to the additional elements of performing these functions using a telephone unit and a server and noted that these elements were being used in their ordinary capacity (i.e., the telephone unit is used to make calls and operate as a digital camera including compressing images and transmitting those images, and the server simply receives data, extracts classification information from the received data, and stores the digital images based on the extracted information). 823 F.3d at 612-13, 118 USPQ2d at 1747-48. In other words, the claims invoked the telephone unit and server merely as tools to execute the abstract idea. Thus, the court found that the additional elements did not add significantly more to the abstract idea because they were simply applying the abstract idea on a telephone network without any recitation of details of how to carry out the abstract idea.
This “Internet of Things (IoT) device” limitation does not integrate the additional element into a practical application and represents “insignificant extra-solution activity”. (See, M.P.E.P. § 2106.05(I)(A)).
The answer to the inquiry is “NO”, no additional elements integrate the claimed abstract idea into a practical application.
Step 2B inquiry:
Does the claim provide an inventive concept, i.e., does the claim recite additional element(s) or a combination of elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception in the claim?
Applicant’s claims contain the following “additional elements”:
(1) An “obtaining a first inference model”
(2) An “outputting the third inference model”
(3) graphics processing unit (GPU)
(4) Internet of Things (IoT) device
A “obtaining a first inference model” is a broad term which is described at a high level. M.P.E.P. § 2106.05(d)(I)(2) recites in part:
2. A factual determination is required to support a conclusion that an additional element (or combination of additional elements) is well-understood, routine, conventional activity. Berkheimer v. HP, Inc., 881 F.3d 1360, 1368, 125 USPQ2d 1649, 1654 (Fed. Cir. 2018). However, this does not mean that a prior art search is necessary to resolve this inquiry. Instead, examiners should rely on what the courts have recognized, or those in the art would recognize, as elements that are well-understood, routine, conventional activity in the relevant field when making the required determination. For example, in many instances, the specification of the application may indicate that additional elements are well-known or conventional. See, e.g., Intellectual Ventures v. Symantec, 838 F.3d at 1317; 120 USPQ2d at 1359 ("The written description is particularly useful in determining what is well-known or conventional"); Internet Patents Corp. v. Active Network, Inc., 790 F.3d 1343, 1348, 115 USPQ2d 1414, 1418 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (relying on specification’s description of additional elements as "well-known", "common" and "conventional"); TLI Communications LLC v. AV Auto. LLC, 823 F.3d 607, 614, 118 USPQ2d 1744, 1748 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (Specification described additional elements as "either performing basic computer functions such as sending and receiving data, or performing functions ‘known’ in the art.").
Further, M.P.E.P. § 2106.05(d)(II) recites:
The courts have recognized the following computer functions as well‐understood, routine, and conventional functions when they are claimed in a merely generic manner (e.g., at a high level of generality) or as insignificant extra-solution activity.
i. Receiving or transmitting data over a network, e.g., using the Internet to gather data, Symantec, 838 F.3d at 1321, 120 USPQ2d at 1362 (utilizing an intermediary computer to forward information); TLI Communications LLC v. AV Auto. LLC, 823 F.3d 607, 610, 118 USPQ2d 1744, 1745 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (using a telephone for image transmission); OIP Techs., Inc., v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363, 115 USPQ2d 1090, 1093 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (sending messages over a network); buySAFE, Inc. v. Google, Inc., 765 F.3d 1350, 1355, 112 USPQ2d 1093, 1096 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (computer receives and sends information over a network); …
Merely using the conventional computer to receive data is well known, understood, and conventional. Thus, it adds nothing significantly more to the judicial exception.
Therefore, the claim as a whole does not amount to significantly more than the exception itself (i.e., there is no inventive concept in the claim). (See, M.P.E.P. § 2106.05(II)).
A “outputting the third inference model” is a broad term which is described at a high level. M.P.E.P. § 2106.05(d)(I)(2) recites in part:
2. A factual determination is required to support a conclusion that an additional element (or combination of additional elements) is well-understood, routine, conventional activity. Berkheimer v. HP, Inc., 881 F.3d 1360, 1368, 125 USPQ2d 1649, 1654 (Fed. Cir. 2018). However, this does not mean that a prior art search is necessary to resolve this inquiry. Instead, examiners should rely on what the courts have recognized, or those in the art would recognize, as elements that are well-understood, routine, conventional activity in the relevant field when making the required determination. For example, in many instances, the specification of the application may indicate that additional elements are well-known or conventional. See, e.g., Intellectual Ventures v. Symantec, 838 F.3d at 1317; 120 USPQ2d at 1359 ("The written description is particularly useful in determining what is well-known or conventional"); Internet Patents Corp. v. Active Network, Inc., 790 F.3d 1343, 1348, 115 USPQ2d 1414, 1418 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (relying on specification’s description of additional elements as "well-known", "common" and "conventional"); TLI Communications LLC v. AV Auto. LLC, 823 F.3d 607, 614, 118 USPQ2d 1744, 1748 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (Specification described additional elements as "either performing basic computer functions such as sending and receiving data, or performing functions ‘known’ in the art.").
Further, M.P.E.P. § 2106.05(d)(II) recites:
The courts have recognized the following computer functions as well‐understood, routine, and conventional functions when they are claimed in a merely generic manner (e.g., at a high level of generality) or as insignificant extra-solution activity.
i. Receiving or transmitting data over a network, e.g., using the Internet to gather data, Symantec, 838 F.3d at 1321, 120 USPQ2d at 1362 (utilizing an intermediary computer to forward information); TLI Communications LLC v. AV Auto. LLC, 823 F.3d 607, 610, 118 USPQ2d 1744, 1745 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (using a telephone for image transmission); OIP Techs., Inc., v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363, 115 USPQ2d 1090, 1093 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (sending messages over a network); buySAFE, Inc. v. Google, Inc., 765 F.3d 1350, 1355, 112 USPQ2d 1093, 1096 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (computer receives and sends information over a network); …
Merely using the conventional computer to receive data is well known, understood, and conventional. Thus, it adds nothing significantly more to the judicial exception.
Therefore, the claim as a whole does not amount to significantly more than the exception itself (i.e., there is no inventive concept in the claim). (See, M.P.E.P. § 2106.05(II)).
A “graphics processing unit” is a broad term which is described at a high level. Since the “graphics processing unit” is well understood, routine and conventional, simply using the graphics processing unit to produce a result is not eligible. M.P.E.P. § 2106.05(f) recites:
For claim limitations that do not amount to more than a recitation of the words “apply it” (or an equivalent), such as mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, examiners should explain why they do not meaningfully limit the claim in an eligibility rejection. For example, an examiner could explain that implementing an abstract idea on a generic computer, does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application in Step 2A Prong Two…
Further, M.P.E.P. § 2106.05(f)(2) recites:
(2) Whether the claim invokes computers or other machinery merely as a tool to perform an existing process. Use of a computer or other machinery in its ordinary capacity for economic or other tasks (e.g., to receive, store, or transmit data) or simply adding a general purpose computer or computer components after the fact to an abstract idea (e.g., a fundamental economic practice or mathematical equation) does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more. See Affinity Labs v. DirecTV, 838 F.3d 1253, 1262, 120 USPQ2d 1201, 1207 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (cellular telephone); TLI Communications LLC v. AV Auto, LLC, 823 F.3d 607, 613, 118 USPQ2d 1744, 1748 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (computer server and telephone unit). Similarly, “claiming the improved speed or efficiency inherent with applying the abstract idea on a computer” does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide an inventive concept. Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Capital One Bank (USA), 792 F.3d 1363, 1367, 115 USPQ2d 1636, 1639 (Fed. Cir. 2015). In contrast, a claim that purports to improve computer capabilities or to improve an existing technology may integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more. McRO, Inc. v. Bandai Namco Games Am. Inc., 837 F.3d 1299, 1314-15, 120 USPQ2d 1091, 1101-02 (Fed. Cir. 2016); Enfish, LLC v. Microsoft Corp., 822 F.3d 1327, 1335-36, 118 USPQ2d 1684, 1688-89 (Fed. Cir. 2016). See MPEP §§ 2106.04(d)(1) and 2106.05(a) for a discussion of improvements to the functioning of a computer or to another technology or technical field.
The graphics processing unit is well-understood, routine, and conventional. In 2009, Glaskowsky, NVIDIA’s Fermi: The First Complete GPU Computing Architecture, NVIDIA Corporation, SEP 2009, pp. 1-26 recited on page 3, last three full paragraphs:
NVIDIA’s next-generation CUDA architecture (code named Fermi), is the latest and greatest expression of this trend. With many times the performance of any conventional CPU on parallel software, and new features to make it easier for software developers to realize the full potential of the hardware, Fermi-based GPUs will bring supercomputer performance to more users than ever before.
Fermi is the first architecture of any kind to deliver all of the features required for the most demanding HPC applications: unmatched double-precision floating-point performance, IEEE 754-2008 compliance including fused multiply-add operations, ECC protection from the registers to DRAM, a straightforward linear addressing model with caching at all levels, and support for languages including C, C++, FORTRAN, Java, Matlab, and Python.
With these features, plus many other performance and usability enhancements, Fermi is the first complete architecture for GPU computing.
Simply using the graphics processing unit to produce a result is not eligible.
Therefore, the claim as a whole does not amount to significantly more than the exception itself (i.e., there is no inventive concept in the claim). (See, M.P.E.P. § 2106.05(II)).
A “Internet of Things (IoT) device” is a broad term which is described at a high level.
Since the “Internet of Things (IoT) device” is well understood, routine and conventional, simply using the Internet of Things (IoT) device to produce a result is not eligible. M.P.E.P. § 2106.05(f) recites:
For claim limitations that do not amount to more than a recitation of the words “apply it” (or an equivalent), such as mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, examiners should explain why they do not meaningfully limit the claim in an eligibility rejection. For example, an examiner could explain that implementing an abstract idea on a generic computer, does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application in Step 2A Prong Two…
Further, M.P.E.P. § 2106.05(f)(2) recites:
(2) Whether the claim invokes computers or other machinery merely as a tool to perform an existing process. Use of a computer or other machinery in its ordinary capacity for economic or other tasks (e.g., to receive, store, or transmit data) or simply adding a general purpose computer or computer components after the fact to an abstract idea (e.g., a fundamental economic practice or mathematical equation) does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more. See Affinity Labs v. DirecTV, 838 F.3d 1253, 1262, 120 USPQ2d 1201, 1207 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (cellular telephone); TLI Communications LLC v. AV Auto, LLC, 823 F.3d 607, 613, 118 USPQ2d 1744, 1748 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (computer server and telephone unit). Similarly, “claiming the improved speed or efficiency inherent with applying the abstract idea on a computer” does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide an inventive concept. Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Capital One Bank (USA), 792 F.3d 1363, 1367, 115 USPQ2d 1636, 1639 (Fed. Cir. 2015). In contrast, a claim that purports to improve computer capabilities or to improve an existing technology may integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more. McRO, Inc. v. Bandai Namco Games Am. Inc., 837 F.3d 1299, 1314-15, 120 USPQ2d 1091, 1101-02 (Fed. Cir. 2016); Enfish, LLC v. Microsoft Corp., 822 F.3d 1327, 1335-36, 118 USPQ2d 1684, 1688-89 (Fed. Cir. 2016). See MPEP §§ 2106.04(d)(1) and 2106.05(a) for a discussion of improvements to the functioning of a computer or to another technology or technical field.
The Internet of Things (IoT) device is well-understood, routine, and conventional. In 2019, Patel, et al., Defining Internet of Things: A Survey, International Journal of Management, Technology And Engineering, Volume IX, Issue I, JAN 2019, pp. 1293-1298 recited on page 1293, second full paragraph:
1. Introduction
Kevin Ashton, in 1999, during his tenure with AutoId Center of Massachusetts Institute of Technology, used a term “Internet of Things” while presenting the idea of linking RFID in Procter & Gamble’s supply chain to Internet. [1]. This term created ripples giving a life to new vision. The idea of connecting RFID to Internet to track the movement of goods is now transformed into a paradigm covering all areas of everyday life of individual, enterprises and society as a whole, making it more and more pervasive. Such pervasiveness requires the integration of various domains into single unified domain.
Simply using the Internet of Things (IoT) device to produce a result is not eligible.
Therefore, the claim as a whole does not amount to significantly more than the exception itself (i.e., there is no inventive concept in the claim). (See, M.P.E.P. § 2106.05(II)).
Therefore, the answer to the inquiry is “NO”, no additional elements provide an inventive concept that is significantly more than the claimed abstract ideas the claimed abstract idea into a practical application.
Claim 1 is, therefore, NOT ELIGIBLE subject matter under 35 U.S.C. § 101.
Claim 2
Claim 2 recites:
2. The information processing method according to claim 1, further comprising:
obtaining settings information indicating settings for the quantizing of the second inference model; and
setting an initial value for the computing of the second inference model, based on the settings information and the first inference model.
Applicant’s Claim 2 merely teaches collecting data and setting parameters. It does not integrate the abstract idea to a practical application, nor is it anything significantly more than the abstract idea. (See, 2106.05(a)(II).)
Claim 2 is, therefore, NOT ELIGIBLE subject matter under 35 U.S.C. § 101.
Claim 3
Claim 3 recites:
3. The information processing method according to claim 1, further comprising:
obtaining difficulty level information indicating an inference difficulty level of at least one of the first inference model, the second inference model, or the third inference model; and
setting an initial value for the computing of the second inference model, based on the difficulty level information and the first inference model.
Applicant’s Claim 3 merely teaches collecting data and setting parameters. It does not integrate the abstract idea to a practical application, nor is it anything significantly more than the abstract idea. (See, 2106.05(a)(II).)
Claim 3 is, therefore, NOT ELIGIBLE subject matter under 35 U.S.C. § 101.
Claim 4
Claim 4 recites:
4. The information processing method according to claim 1,
wherein the computing of the second inference model is a search for the second inference model performed using a loss function,
the loss function is a function whose output value decreases with a decrease in a difference between an inference result of the first inference model and an inference result of the third inference model, and whose output value decreases with an increase in the model size of the second inference model relative to the first inference model, and
the search for the second inference model is performed to cause the output value of the loss function to decrease.
Applicant’s Claim 4 merely teaches calculation of a function and a mathematical “search” for an inference model through mathematical training via a mathematical loss function. It does not integrate the abstract idea to a practical application, nor is it anything significantly more than the abstract idea. (See, 2106.05(a)(II).)
Claim 4 is, therefore, NOT ELIGIBLE subject matter under 35 U.S.C. § 101.
Claim 5
Claim 5 recites:
5. The information processing method according to claim 4, further comprising:
obtaining settings information indicating settings for the quantizing of the second inference model; and
changing the loss function, based on the settings information.
Applicant’s Claim 5 merely teaches collecting data and setting parameters of the loss function. It does not integrate the abstract idea to a practical application, nor is it anything significantly more than the abstract idea. (See, 2106.05(a)(II).)
Claim 5 is, therefore, NOT ELIGIBLE subject matter under 35 U.S.C. § 101.
Claim 6
Claim 6 recites:
6. The information processing method according to claim 5,
wherein the loss function is changed to increase the output value of the loss function with an increase in a degree of the quantizing in the settings indicated by the settings information, and
the search for the second inference model is performed to cause the output value of the loss function to be less than or equal to a threshold.
Applicant’s Claim 6 merely teaches setting parameters of the loss function and a mathematical “search” for an inference model through mathematical training via a mathematical loss function. It does not integrate the abstract idea to a practical application, nor is it anything significantly more than the abstract idea. (See, 2106.05(a)(II).)
Claim 6 is, therefore, NOT ELIGIBLE subject matter under 35 U.S.C. § 101.
Claim 7
Claim 7 recites:
7. The information processing method according to claim 4, further comprising:
obtaining difficulty level information indicating an inference difficulty level of at least one of the first inference model, the second inference model, or the third inference model; and
changing the loss function, based on the difficulty level information.
Applicant’s Claim 7 merely teaches collecting data and setting parameters of the loss function. It does not integrate the abstract idea to a practical application, nor is it anything significantly more than the abstract idea. (See, 2106.05(a)(II).)
Claim 7 is, therefore, NOT ELIGIBLE subject matter under 35 U.S.C. § 101.
Claim 8
Claim 8 recites:
8. The information processing method according to claim 7,
wherein the loss function is changed to increase the output value of the loss function with an increase in the inference difficulty level indicated by the difficulty level information, and
the search for the second inference model is performed to cause the output value of the loss function to be less than or equal to a threshold.
Applicant’s Claim 8 merely teaches setting parameters of the loss function and a mathematical “search” for an inference model through mathematical training via a mathematical loss function. It does not integrate the abstract idea to a practical application, nor is it anything significantly more than the abstract idea. (See, 2106.05(a)(II).)
Claim 8 is, therefore, NOT ELIGIBLE subject matter under 35 U.S.C. § 101.
Claim 9
Claim 9 recites:
9. The information processing method according to claim 1, further comprising:
changing settings for the quantizing of the second inference model when the performance fails to satisfy the condition.
Applicant’s Claim 9 merely teaches setting parameters. It does not integrate the abstract idea to a practical application, nor is it anything significantly more than the abstract idea. (See, 2106.05(a)(II).)
Claim 9 is, therefore, NOT ELIGIBLE subject matter under 35 U.S.C. § 101.
Claim 10
Claim 10 recites:
10. The information processing method according to claim 9,
wherein the condition includes accuracy or correctness of an inference of the third inference model with respect to an inference result of the first inference model or reference data, and
the changing of the settings includes decreasing a degree of the quantizing when the accuracy or the correctness of the inference of the third inference model is less than or equal to a threshold.
Applicant’s Claim 10 merely teaches a “condition,” that may be mental data or mathematical data, and setting parameters. It does not integrate the abstract idea to a practical application, nor is it anything significantly more than the abstract idea. (See, 2106.05(a)(II).)
Claim 10 is, therefore, NOT ELIGIBLE subject matter under 35 U.S.C. § 101.
Claim 11
Claim 11 recites:
11. The information processing method according to claim 9,
wherein the condition includes a speed of inference processing of the third inference model, and
the changing of the settings includes increasing a degree of the quantizing when the speed of the inference processing is less than or equal to a threshold.
Applicant’s Claim 11 merely teaches a “condition,” that may be mental data or mathematical data, and setting parameters. It does not integrate the abstract idea to a practical application, nor is it anything significantly more than the abstract idea. (See, 2106.05(a)(II).)
Claim 11 is, therefore, NOT ELIGIBLE subject matter under 35 U.S.C. § 101.
Claim 12
Claim 12 recites:
12. The information processing method according to claim 9, further comprising:
inputting data to the first inference model to obtain an inference result of the first inference model;
inputting the data to the second inference model to obtain an inference result of the second inference model; and
training the first inference model, based on a difference between the inference result of the first inference model and the inference result of the second inference model.
Applicant’s Claim 12 merely teaches inputting data to mathematical models and mathematically training a mathematical object. It does not integrate the abstract idea to a practical application, nor is it anything significantly more than the abstract idea. (See, 2106.05(a)(II).)
Claim 12 is, therefore, NOT ELIGIBLE subject matter under 35 U.S.C. § 101.
Claim 13
Step 1 inquiry: Does this claim fall within a statutory category?
The preamble of the claim recites “13. (Currently Amended) An information processing system comprising…” Therefore, it is a “system” (or “apparatus”), which is a statutory category of invention. Therefore, the answer to the inquiry is: “YES.”
Step 2A (Prong One) inquiry:
Are there limitations in Claim 13 that recite abstract ideas?
YES. The following limitations in Claim 13 recite abstract ideas that fall within at least one of the groupings of abstract ideas enumerated in the 2019 PEG. Specifically, they are “mental steps” and “mathematical steps”:
• a first inference model serving as a reference (i.e., mathematical steps)
Note that the Specification recites:
“Also, each of the inference models is, for example, a mathematical model for performing inference processing, and may be any one of a machine learning model, a neural network model, or a deep learning model.”
• computing a second inference model (i.e., mathematical steps)
Note that the Specification recites:
“Also, each of the inference models is, for example, a mathematical model for performing inference processing, and may be any one of a machine learning model, a neural network model, or a deep learning model.”
• quantizing the second inference model computed (i.e.,
mathematical steps)
• training the third inference model, using machine learning
(i.e., mathematical steps)
Note that the Specification recites:
“Also, each of the inference models is, for example, a mathematical model for performing inference processing, and may be any one of a machine learning model, a neural network model, or a deep learning model.”
• second form of data representation...requiring a smaller number of
bits than the first form of data representation (i.e., mathematical
expression)
• determining whether a performance of the third inference model
trained satisfies a condition (i.e., mental or mathematical steps)
• performance satisfies the condition (i.e., mental or mathematical steps)
• “first form of data representation”/“second form of data representation”
(i.e., mathematical expression)
• “third inference model requiring a smaller number of bits than the
first form of data representation utilized in the first inference model and
the second inference model” (i.e., mathematical steps)
• “A first form of data representation utilized in the first inference
model and the second inference model is converted into a second form of
data representation utilized in the third inference model”
(i.e., mathematical expression)
• “The second form of data representation utilized in the third
inference model requiring a smaller number of bits than the first
form of data representation utilized in the first inference model and
the second inference model” (i.e., mathematical expression)
Step 2A (Prong Two) inquiry:
Are there additional elements or a combination of elements in the claim that apply, rely on, or use the judicial exception in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on the judicial exception, such that it is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception?
Applicant’s claims contain the following “additional elements”:
(1) An “obtaining a first inference model”
(2) An “outputting the third inference model”
(3) graphics processing unit (GPU)
(4) Internet of Things (IoT) device
A “obtaining a first inference model” is a broad term which is described at a high level. M.P.E.P. § 2106.05(d)(I)(2) recites in part:
2. A factual determination is required to support a conclusion that an additional element (or combination of additional elements) is well-understood, routine, conventional activity. Berkheimer v. HP, Inc., 881 F.3d 1360, 1368, 125 USPQ2d 1649, 1654 (Fed. Cir. 2018). However, this does not mean that a prior art search is necessary to resolve this inquiry. Instead, examiners should rely on what the courts have recognized, or those in the art would recognize, as elements that are well-understood, routine, conventional activity in the relevant field when making the required determination. For example, in many instances, the specification of the application may indicate that additional elements are well-known or conventional. See, e.g., Intellectual Ventures v. Symantec, 838 F.3d at 1317; 120 USPQ2d at 1359 ("The written description is particularly useful in determining what is well-known or conventional"); Internet Patents Corp. v. Active Network, Inc., 790 F.3d 1343, 1348, 115 USPQ2d 1414, 1418 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (relying on specification’s description of additional elements as "well-known", "common" and "conventional"); TLI Communications LLC v. AV Auto. LLC, 823 F.3d 607, 614, 118 USPQ2d 1744, 1748 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (Specification described additional elements as "either performing basic computer functions such as sending and receiving data, or performing functions ‘known’ in the art.").
Further, M.P.E.P. § 2106.05(d)(II) recites:
The courts have recognized the following computer functions as well‐understood, routine, and conventional functions when they are claimed in a merely generic manner (e.g., at a high level of generality) or as insignificant extra-solution activity.
i. Receiving or transmitting data over a network, e.g., using the Internet to gather data, Symantec, 838 F.3d at 1321, 120 USPQ2d at 1362 (utilizing an intermediary computer to forward information); TLI Communications LLC v. AV Auto. LLC, 823 F.3d 607, 610, 118 USPQ2d 1744, 1745 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (using a telephone for image transmission); OIP Techs., Inc., v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363, 115 USPQ2d 1090, 1093 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (sending messages over a network); buySAFE, Inc. v. Google, Inc., 765 F.3d 1350, 1355, 112 USPQ2d 1093, 1096 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (computer receives and sends information over a network); …
Merely using the conventional computer to receive data is well known, understood, and conventional. Thus, it adds nothing significantly more to the judicial exception.
This “obtaining a first inference model” limitation does not integrate the additional element into a practical application and represents “insignificant extra-solution activity”. (See, M.P.E.P. § 2106.05(I)(A)).
A “outputting the third inference model” is a broad term which is described at a high level. M.P.E.P. § 2106.05(d)(I)(2) recites in part:
2. A factual determination is required to support a conclusion that an additional element (or combination of additional elements) is well-understood, routine, conventional activity. Berkheimer v. HP, Inc., 881 F.3d 1360, 1368, 125 USPQ2d 1649, 1654 (Fed. Cir. 2018). However, this does not mean that a prior art search is necessary to resolve this inquiry. Instead, examiners should rely on what the courts have recognized, or those in the art would recognize, as elements that are well-understood, routine, conventional activity in the relevant field when making the required determination. For example, in many instances, the specification of the application may indicate that additional elements are well-known or conventional. See, e.g., Intellectual Ventures v. Symantec, 838 F.3d at 1317; 120 USPQ2d at 1359 ("The written description is particularly useful in determining what is well-known or conventional"); Internet Patents Corp. v. Active Network, Inc., 790 F.3d 1343, 1348, 115 USPQ2d 1414, 1418 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (relying on specification’s description of additional elements as "well-known", "common" and "conventional"); TLI Communications LLC v. AV Auto. LLC, 823 F.3d 607, 614, 118 USPQ2d 1744, 1748 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (Specification described additional elements as "either performing basic computer functions such as sending and receiving data, or performing functions ‘known’ in the art.").
Further, M.P.E.P. § 2106.05(d)(II) recites:
The courts have recognized the following computer functions as well‐understood, routine, and conventional functions when they are claimed in a merely generic manner (e.g., at a high level of generality) or as insignificant extra-solution activity.
i. Receiving or transmitting data over a network, e.g., using the Internet to gather data, Symantec, 838 F.3d at 1321, 120 USPQ2d at 1362 (utilizing an intermediary computer to forward information); TLI Communications LLC v. AV Auto. LLC, 823 F.3d 607, 610, 118 USPQ2d 1744, 1745 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (using a telephone for image transmission); OIP Techs., Inc., v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363, 115 USPQ2d 1090, 1093 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (sending messages over a network); buySAFE, Inc. v. Google, Inc., 765 F.3d 1350, 1355, 112 USPQ2d 1093, 1096 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (computer receives and sends information over a network); …
Merely using the conventional computer to receive data is well known, understood, and conventional. Thus, it adds nothing significantly more to the judicial exception.
This “outputting the third inference model” limitation does not integrate the additional element into a practical application and represents “insignificant extra-solution activity”. (See, M.P.E.P. § 2106.05(I)(A)).
A “graphics processing unit” is a broad term which is described at a high level. Applicant’s limitations are to merely “apply it.” M.P.E.P. § 2106.05 (f)(2) recites in part:
(2) Whether the claim invokes computers or other machinery merely as a tool to perform an existing process. Use of a computer or other machinery in its ordinary capacity for economic or other tasks (e.g., to receive, store, or transmit data) or simply adding a general purpose computer or computer components after the fact to an abstract idea (e.g., a fundamental economic practice or mathematical equation) does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more. See Affinity Labs v. DirecTV, 838 F.3d 1253, 1262, 120 USPQ2d 1201, 1207 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (cellular telephone); TLI Communications LLC v. AV Auto, LLC, 823 F.3d 607, 613, 118 USPQ2d 1744, 1748 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (computer server and telephone unit). Similarly, “claiming the improved speed or efficiency inherent with applying the abstract idea on a computer” does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide an inventive concept. Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Capital One Bank (USA), 792 F.3d 1363, 1367, 115 USPQ2d 1636, 1639 (Fed. Cir. 2015). In contrast, a claim that purports to improve computer capabilities or to improve an existing technology may integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more. McRO, Inc. v. Bandai Namco Games Am. Inc., 837 F.3d 1299, 1314-15, 120 USPQ2d 1091, 1101-02 (Fed. Cir. 2016); Enfish, LLC v. Microsoft Corp., 822 F.3d 1327, 1335-36, 118 USPQ2d 1684, 1688-89 (Fed. Cir. 2016). See MPEP §§ 2106.04(d)(1) and 2106.05(a) for a discussion of improvements to the functioning of a computer or to another technology or technical field.
TLI Communications provides an example of a claim invoking computers and other machinery merely as a tool to perform an existing process. The court stated that the claims describe steps of recording, administration and archiving of digital images, and found them to be directed to the abstract idea of classifying and storing digital images in an organized manner. 823 F.3d at 612, 118 USPQ2d at 1747. The court then turned to the additional elements of performing these functions using a telephone unit and a server and noted that these elements were being used in their ordinary capacity (i.e., the telephone unit is used to make calls and operate as a digital camera including compressing images and transmitting those images, and the server simply receives data, extracts classification information from the received data, and stores the digital images based on the extracted information). 823 F.3d at 612-13, 118 USPQ2d at 1747-48. In other words, the claims invoked the telephone unit and server merely as tools to execute the abstract idea. Thus, the court found that the additional elements did not add significantly more to the abstract idea because they were simply applying the abstract idea on a telephone network without any recitation of details of how to carry out the abstract idea.
This “graphics processing unit” limitation does not integrate the additional element into a practical application and represents “insignificant extra-solution activity”. (See, M.P.E.P. § 2106.05(I)(A)).
A “Internet of Things (IoT) device” is a broad term which is described at a high level. Applicant’s limitations are to merely “apply it.” M.P.E.P. § 2106.05 (f)(2) recites in part:
(2) Whether the claim invokes computers or other machinery merely as a tool to perform an existing process. Use of a computer or other machinery in its ordinary capacity for economic or other tasks (e.g., to receive, store, or transmit data) or simply adding a general purpose computer or computer components after the fact to an abstract idea (e.g., a fundamental economic practice or mathematical equation) does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more. See Affinity Labs v. DirecTV, 838 F.3d 1253, 1262, 120 USPQ2d 1201, 1207 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (cellular telephone); TLI Communications LLC v. AV Auto, LLC, 823 F.3d 607, 613, 118 USPQ2d 1744, 1748 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (computer server and telephone unit). Similarly, “claiming the improved speed or efficiency inherent with applying the abstract idea on a computer” does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide an inventive concept. Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Capital One Bank (USA), 792 F.3d 1363, 1367, 115 USPQ2d 1636, 1639 (Fed. Cir. 2015). In contrast, a claim that purports to improve computer capabilities or to improve an existing technology may integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more. McRO, Inc. v. Bandai Namco Games Am. Inc., 837 F.3d 1299, 1314-15, 120 USPQ2d 1091, 1101-02 (Fed. Cir. 2016); Enfish, LLC v. Microsoft Corp., 822 F.3d 1327, 1335-36, 118 USPQ2d 1684, 1688-89 (Fed. Cir. 2016). See MPEP §§ 2106.04(d)(1) and 2106.05(a) for a discussion of improvements to the functioning of a computer or to another technology or technical field.
TLI Communications provides an example of a claim invoking computers and other machinery merely as a tool to perform an existing process. The court stated that the claims describe steps of recording, administration and archiving of digital images, and found them to be directed to the abstract idea of classifying and storing digital images in an organized manner. 823 F.3d at 612, 118 USPQ2d at 1747. The court then turned to the additional elements of performing these functions using a telephone unit and a server and noted that these elements were being used in their ordinary capacity (i.e., the telephone unit is used to make calls and operate as a digital camera including compressing images and transmitting those images, and the server simply receives data, extracts classification information from the received data, and stores the digital images based on the extracted information). 823 F.3d at 612-13, 118 USPQ2d at 1747-48. In other words, the claims invoked the telephone unit and server merely as tools to execute the abstract idea. Thus, the court found that the additional elements did not add significantly more to the abstract idea because they were simply applying the abstract idea on a telephone network without any recitation of details of how to carry out the abstract idea.
This “Internet of Things (IoT) device” limitation does not integrate the additional element into a practical application and represents “insignificant extra-solution activity”. (See, M.P.E.P. § 2106.05(I)(A)).
The answer to the inquiry is “NO”, no additional elements integrate the claimed abstract idea into a practical application.
Step 2B inquiry:
Does the claim provide an inventive concept, i.e., does the claim recite additional element(s) or a combination of elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception in the claim?
Applicant’s claims contain the following “additional elements”:
(1) An “obtaining a first inference model”
(2) An “outputting the third inference model”
(3) graphics processing unit (GPU)
(4) Internet of Things (IoT) device
A “obtaining a first inference model” is a broad term which is described at a high level. M.P.E.P. § 2106.05(d)(I)(2) recites in part:
2. A factual determination is required to support a conclusion that an additional element (or combination of additional elements) is well-understood, routine, conventional activity. Berkheimer v. HP, Inc., 881 F.3d 1360, 1368, 125 USPQ2d 1649, 1654 (Fed. Cir. 2018). However, this does not mean that a prior art search is necessary to resolve this inquiry. Instead, examiners should rely on what the courts have recognized, or those in the art would recognize, as elements that are well-understood, routine, conventional activity in the relevant field when making the required determination. For example, in many instances, the specification of the application may indicate that additional elements are well-known or conventional. See, e.g., Intellectual Ventures v. Symantec, 838 F.3d at 1317; 120 USPQ2d at 1359 ("The written description is particularly useful in determining what is well-known or conventional"); Internet Patents Corp. v. Active Network, Inc., 790 F.3d 1343, 1348, 115 USPQ2d 1414, 1418 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (relying on specification’s description of additional elements as "well-known", "common" and "conventional"); TLI Communications LLC v. AV Auto. LLC, 823 F.3d 607, 614, 118 USPQ2d 1744, 1748 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (Specification described additional elements as "either performing basic computer functions such as sending and receiving data, or performing functions ‘known’ in the art.").
Further, M.P.E.P. § 2106.05(d)(II) recites:
The courts have recognized the following computer functions as well‐understood, routine, and conventional functions when they are claimed in a merely generic manner (e.g., at a high level of generality) or as insignificant extra-solution activity.
i. Receiving or transmitting data over a network, e.g., using the Internet to gather data, Symantec, 838 F.3d at 1321, 120 USPQ2d at 1362 (utilizing an intermediary computer to forward information); TLI Communications LLC v. AV Auto. LLC, 823 F.3d 607, 610, 118 USPQ2d 1744, 1745 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (using a telephone for image transmission); OIP Techs., Inc., v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363, 115 USPQ2d 1090, 1093 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (sending messages over a network); buySAFE, Inc. v. Google, Inc., 765 F.3d 1350, 1355, 112 USPQ2d 1093, 1096 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (computer receives and sends information over a network); …
Merely using the conventional computer to receive data is well known, understood, and conventional. Thus, it adds nothing significantly more to the judicial exception.
Therefore, the claim as a whole does not amount to significantly more than the exception itself (i.e., there is no inventive concept in the claim). (See, M.P.E.P. § 2106.05(II)).
A “outputting the third inference model” is a broad term which is described at a high level. M.P.E.P. § 2106.05(d)(I)(2) recites in part:
2. A factual determination is required to support a conclusion that an additional element (or combination of additional elements) is well-understood, routine, conventional activity. Berkheimer v. HP, Inc., 881 F.3d 1360, 1368, 125 USPQ2d 1649, 1654 (Fed. Cir. 2018). However, this does not mean that a prior art search is necessary to resolve this inquiry. Instead, examiners should rely on what the courts have recognized, or those in the art would recognize, as elements that are well-understood, routine, conventional activity in the relevant field when making the required determination. For example, in many instances, the specification of the application may indicate that additional elements are well-known or conventional. See, e.g., Intellectual Ventures v. Symantec, 838 F.3d at 1317; 120 USPQ2d at 1359 ("The written description is particularly useful in determining what is well-known or conventional"); Internet Patents Corp. v. Active Network, Inc., 790 F.3d 1343, 1348, 115 USPQ2d 1414, 1418 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (relying on specification’s description of additional elements as "well-known", "common" and "conventional"); TLI Communications LLC v. AV Auto. LLC, 823 F.3d 607, 614, 118 USPQ2d 1744, 1748 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (Specification described additional elements as "either performing basic computer functions such as sending and receiving data, or performing functions ‘known’ in the art.").
Further, M.P.E.P. § 2106.05(d)(II) recites:
The courts have recognized the following computer functions as well‐understood, routine, and conventional functions when they are claimed in a merely generic manner (e.g., at a high level of generality) or as insignificant extra-solution activity.
i. Receiving or transmitting data over a network, e.g., using the Internet to gather data, Symantec, 838 F.3d at 1321, 120 USPQ2d at 1362 (utilizing an intermediary computer to forward information); TLI Communications LLC v. AV Auto. LLC, 823 F.3d 607, 610, 118 USPQ2d 1744, 1745 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (using a telephone for image transmission); OIP Techs., Inc., v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363, 115 USPQ2d 1090, 1093 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (sending messages over a network); buySAFE, Inc. v. Google, Inc., 765 F.3d 1350, 1355, 112 USPQ2d 1093, 1096 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (computer receives and sends information over a network); …
Merely using the conventional computer to receive data is well known, understood, and conventional. Thus, it adds nothing significantly more to the judicial exception.
Therefore, the claim as a whole does not amount to significantly more than the exception itself (i.e., there is no inventive concept in the claim). (See, M.P.E.P. § 2106.05(II)).
A “graphics processing unit” is a broad term which is described at a high level. Since the “graphics processing unit” is well understood, routine and conventional, simply using the graphics processing unit to produce a result is not eligible. M.P.E.P. § 2106.05(f) recites:
For claim limitations that do not amount to more than a recitation of the words “apply it” (or an equivalent), such as mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, examiners should explain why they do not meaningfully limit the claim in an eligibility rejection. For example, an examiner could explain that implementing an abstract idea on a generic computer, does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application in Step 2A Prong Two…
Further, M.P.E.P. § 2106.05(f)(2) recites:
(2) Whether the claim invokes computers or other machinery merely as a tool to perform an existing process. Use of a computer or other machinery in its ordinary capacity for economic or other tasks (e.g., to receive, store, or transmit data) or simply adding a general purpose computer or computer components after the fact to an abstract idea (e.g., a fundamental economic practice or mathematical equation) does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more. See Affinity Labs v. DirecTV, 838 F.3d 1253, 1262, 120 USPQ2d 1201, 1207 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (cellular telephone); TLI Communications LLC v. AV Auto, LLC, 823 F.3d 607, 613, 118 USPQ2d 1744, 1748 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (computer server and telephone unit). Similarly, “claiming the improved speed or efficiency inherent with applying the abstract idea on a computer” does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide an inventive concept. Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Capital One Bank (USA), 792 F.3d 1363, 1367, 115 USPQ2d 1636, 1639 (Fed. Cir. 2015). In contrast, a claim that purports to improve computer capabilities or to improve an existing technology may integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more. McRO, Inc. v. Bandai Namco Games Am. Inc., 837 F.3d 1299, 1314-15, 120 USPQ2d 1091, 1101-02 (Fed. Cir. 2016); Enfish, LLC v. Microsoft Corp., 822 F.3d 1327, 1335-36, 118 USPQ2d 1684, 1688-89 (Fed. Cir. 2016). See MPEP §§ 2106.04(d)(1) and 2106.05(a) for a discussion of improvements to the functioning of a computer or to another technology or technical field.
The graphics processing unit is well-understood, routine, and conventional. In 2009, Glaskowsky, NVIDIA’s Fermi: The First Complete GPU Computing Architecture, NVIDIA Corporation, SEP 2009, pp. 1-26 recited on page 3, last three full paragraphs:
NVIDIA’s next-generation CUDA architecture (code named Fermi), is the latest and greatest expression of this trend. With many times the performance of any conventional CPU on parallel software, and new features to make it easier for software developers to realize the full potential of the hardware, Fermi-based GPUs will bring supercomputer performance to more users than ever before.
Fermi is the first architecture of any kind to deliver all of the features required for the most demanding HPC applications: unmatched double-precision floating-point performance, IEEE 754-2008 compliance including fused multiply-add operations, ECC protection from the registers to DRAM, a straightforward linear addressing model with caching at all levels, and support for languages including C, C++, FORTRAN, Java, Matlab, and Python.
With these features, plus many other performance and usability enhancements, Fermi is the first complete architecture for GPU computing.
Simply using the graphics processing unit to produce a result is not eligible.
Therefore, the claim as a whole does not amount to significantly more than the exception itself (i.e., there is no inventive concept in the claim). (See, M.P.E.P. § 2106.05(II)).
A “Internet of Things (IoT) device” is a broad term which is described at a high level.
Since the “Internet of Things (IoT) device” is well understood, routine and conventional, simply using the Internet of Things (IoT) device to produce a result is not eligible. M.P.E.P. § 2106.05(f) recites:
For claim limitations that do not amount to more than a recitation of the words “apply it” (or an equivalent), such as mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, examiners should explain why they do not meaningfully limit the claim in an eligibility rejection. For example, an examiner could explain that implementing an abstract idea on a generic computer, does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application in Step 2A Prong Two…
Further, M.P.E.P. § 2106.05(f)(2) recites:
(2) Whether the claim invokes computers or other machinery merely as a tool to perform an existing process. Use of a computer or other machinery in its ordinary capacity for economic or other tasks (e.g., to receive, store, or transmit data) or simply adding a general purpose computer or computer components after the fact to an abstract idea (e.g., a fundamental economic practice or mathematical equation) does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more. See Affinity Labs v. DirecTV, 838 F.3d 1253, 1262, 120 USPQ2d 1201, 1207 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (cellular telephone); TLI Communications LLC v. AV Auto, LLC, 823 F.3d 607, 613, 118 USPQ2d 1744, 1748 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (computer server and telephone unit). Similarly, “claiming the improved speed or efficiency inherent with applying the abstract idea on a computer” does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide an inventive concept. Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Capital One Bank (USA), 792 F.3d 1363, 1367, 115 USPQ2d 1636, 1639 (Fed. Cir. 2015). In contrast, a claim that purports to improve computer capabilities or to improve an existing technology may integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more. McRO, Inc. v. Bandai Namco Games Am. Inc., 837 F.3d 1299, 1314-15, 120 USPQ2d 1091, 1101-02 (Fed. Cir. 2016); Enfish, LLC v. Microsoft Corp., 822 F.3d 1327, 1335-36, 118 USPQ2d 1684, 1688-89 (Fed. Cir. 2016). See MPEP §§ 2106.04(d)(1) and 2106.05(a) for a discussion of improvements to the functioning of a computer or to another technology or technical field.
The Internet of Things (IoT) device is well-understood, routine, and conventional. In 2019, Patel, et al., Defining Internet of Things: A Survey, International Journal of Management, Technology And Engineering, Volume IX, Issue I, JAN 2019, pp. 1293-1298 recited on page 1293, second full paragraph:
1. Introduction
Kevin Ashton, in 1999, during his tenure with AutoId Center of Massachusetts Institute of Technology, used a term “Internet of Things” while presenting the idea of linking RFID in Procter & Gamble’s supply chain to Internet. [1]. This term created ripples giving a life to new vision. The idea of connecting RFID to Internet to track the movement of goods is now transformed into a paradigm covering all areas of everyday life of individual, enterprises and society as a whole, making it more and more pervasive. Such pervasiveness requires the integration of various domains into single unified domain.
Simply using the Internet of Things (IoT) device to produce a result is not eligible.
Therefore, the claim as a whole does not amount to significantly more than the exception itself (i.e., there is no inventive concept in the claim). (See, M.P.E.P. § 2106.05(II)).
Therefore, the answer to the inquiry is “NO”, no additional elements provide an inventive concept that is significantly more than the claimed abstract ideas the claimed abstract idea into a practical application.
Claim 13 is, therefore, NOT ELIGIBLE subject matter under 35 U.S.C. § 101.
Reasons Claims 1-13 are not Rejected Under Art
The following is an Examiner's statement of reasons for not rejecting Claims 1-13 under art: None of the references of record, whether taken alone or in combination, discloses or suggests the combination of limitations specified in independent Claim 1. Specifically, the closest prior art of Zhong, et al., Topological Structural Analysis Based on Self-Adaptive Growing Neural Network for Shape Feature Extraction, Neurocomputing, Volume 503, 07 SEP 2022, pp. 219-235 fails to expressly teach:
Claim 1's "...quantizes the second inference model to generate the third inference model by converting a first form of data representation utilized in the first inference model and the second inference model into a second form of data representation utilized in the third inference model..."
Claim 1's "...the second form of data representation utilized in the third inference model requiring a smaller number of bits than the first form of data representation utilized in the first inference model and the second inference model..."
Only to the extent that these limitations (specifically as defined above) are not found in the prior art of record is the present case not rejected under the prior art.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 01 JUL 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Specifically, Applicant argues:
Argument 1
I. Request for Form PTO-892 ("Notice of
References Cited")
On page 21 of the Office Action, the Examiner cites "NVIDIA's Fermi: The First Complete GPU Computing Architecture." However, Applicant notes that this reference is not listed on the Form PTO-892 attached to the Office Action. Accordingly, it is respectfully requested that the Examiner provide a Form PTO-892 listing the above reference with the next Office communication.
The reference is provided, herein.
Argument 2
II. Objection to the Specification/Claim Rejection
under 35 U.S.C. 112(a)
The specification was objected to for informalities, and claims 1-13 were rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) for failing to comply with the enablement requirement. In particular, the Examiner has taken the position that the terms "trainer", "determiner", and "outputter" are entirely defined in the specification by their functions.
Applicant notes that paragraphs [0255] and [0266] of US 2023/0196142, which is the pre-grant publication of the instant application discloses the following:
[0255] FIG. 17 is a block diagram showing another basic implementation example of information processing system 200 in the foregoing embodiments. Information processing system 200 includes, for example, computing processor 401, generator 402, trainer 403, determiner 404, and outputter 405. Information processing system 200 may further include at least one of initial value setter 406, loss function changer 407, or quantization settings changer 408.
[0266] Each of these elements is an information processing circuit that performs information processing. These elements may be implemented as processor 301 shown in FIG. 15.
Applicant respectfully submits that paragraph [0266] discloses that "each of these elements," which directly refers to the elements recited in paragraph [0255] (that is, the information processing system 200 including trainer 403, determiner 404, and outputter 405), is an information processing circuit or implemented as processor 301. As such, it is respectfully submitted that the specification defines the structure of "trainer", "determiner", and "outputter" as either "an information processing circuit" or "processor 301."
In order to expedite prosecution of the instant application, the specification has been amended herein to make the above explicit, that is, the specification has been amended to recite "each of trainer 403, determiner 404, and outputter 405 may be an information processing circuit, or may be implemented as processor 301."
In view of the above, Applicant respectfully requests that the objection to the specification and the rejection of claims 1-13 under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) be withdrawn. If you would like us to review the specification, and provide you with our recommendations, please let us know.
The 35 U.S.C § 112 rejections are withdrawn.
Argument 3
In the Amendment filed on December 30, 2025, Applicant argued, with reference to the specification, that the presently claimed invention is able to reduce a loss in inference accuracy of an integrated environment network as compared to the reference network, and as such, the presently claimed invention provides a clear technological improvement (as opposed to an improvement to a specified technology) to the relevant technical field (i.e. field of use).
Inference is a mental step. The reduction of a loss in the accuracy in that inference is also a mental step.
Applicant’s argument is unpersuasive.
The rejections stand.
Argument 4
In the "Response to Arguments" section of the Office Action, the Examiner states that "Applicant claims improvement in the conversion/quantization process, rather than the model itself." Applicant respectfully disagrees.
In this regard, Applicant notes that claim 1 clearly recites processing applied to a model (e.g., "quantizing the second inference model computed to generate a third inference model as an integrated environment network for use in an Internet of Things (IoT) device, the IoT device having less computation resources than the GPU environment" and "in the quantizing the second inference model, a first form of data representation utilized in the first inference model and the second inference model is converted into a second form of data representation utilized in the third inference model, the second form of data representation utilized in the third inference model requiring a smaller number of bits than the first form of data representation utilized in the first inference model and the second inference model), and as such, the presently claimed invention is clearly directed to an improvement to the model itself.
About “quantization,” Applicant’s Specification recites:
However, in quantization, for example, a reference network (RefNW) that uses floating-point representation is converted into an integrated environment network (IntNW) that uses fixed-point representation.
Note that the conversion of floating point numbers to fixed point numbers is a purely mathematical operation.
Applicant’s argument is unpersuasive.
The rejections stand.
Argument 5
Additionally, paragraphs [0029]-[0031] of US 2023/0196142 disclose a technical problem of quantization loss in conventional methods as follows:
***
To address and solve the technological deficiencies identified in the specification of the instant application, the presently claimed invention according to claim 1 provides technical solutions with a combination of elements reciting:
***
In other words, the claim 1 specifies a concrete model-generation process including, for example:
larger intermediate model (i.e., mathematical steps) ---> quantization (i.e., mathematical steps) ---> training (i.e., mathematical steps) ---> performance gate (this limitation is not in Specification; not in Claims; would be mental step anyway) ---> output (generic output).
Applicant respectfully submits that this processing sequence solves the technical problem (as opposed to improving a specified technology) of quantization loss (quantization is mathematical steps) , as described at least at paragraph [0033] of US 2023/0196142 as follows:
[0033] With this, the second inference model that is larger than the first inference model in model size is quantized. It is assumed that the performance of the second inference model having a large model size is less subjected to a decrease even after being quantized. Stated differently, the third inference model that is generated by quantizing the second inference model that is larger than the first inference model in model size is assumed to be subjected to a relatively small loss caused by quantization. This thus enables to find an inference model that is expected to reduce a loss caused by quantization.
Accordingly, it is respectfully submitted that the presently claimed invention improves the relevant existing technological processes, and as such, it is respectfully submitted that the alleged judicial exemption recited by the claimed invention is integrated into a practical application.
Each step in the argued sequence is purely mathematical. The process, as a whole, is purely mathematical.
Applicant’s argument is unpersuasive.
The rejections stand.
Argument 6
In view of the above, it is respectfully submitted that claims 1-13 are directed to statutory subject matter under 35 U.S.C. 101, and as such, it is respectfully requested that the rejection of claims 1-13 under 35 U.S.C. 101 be withdrawn.
Regarding independent Claim 13, similar arguments are similarly unpersuasive. Accordingly, there is no eligible matter in the independent claims that may be incorporated by reference to the dependent claims To make them eligible.
Applicant’s argument is unpersuasive.
The rejections stand.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 inquiries concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Wilbert L. Starks, Jr., who may be reached Monday through Friday, between 8:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m. EST. or via telephone at (571) 272-3691 or email: Wilbert.Starks@uspto.gov.
If you need to send an Official facsimile transmission, please send it to (571) 273-8300.
If attempts to reach the examiner are unsuccessful the Examiner’s Supervisor (SPE), Kakali Chaki, may be reached at (571) 272-3719.
Hand-delivered responses should be delivered to the Receptionist @ (Customer Service Window Randolph Building 401 Dulany Street, Alexandria, VA 22313), located on the first floor of the south side of the Randolph Building.
Finally, information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Moreover, status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have any questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) toll-free @ 1-866-217-9197.
/WILBERT L STARKS/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2122
WLS
15 SEP 2026
Prosecution Insights