DETAILED ACTION
This action is in response to the Applicant Response filed 25 March 2026 for application 18/127,700 filed 29 March 2023.
Claim(s) 1-2, 4-5, 7-8, 10-13, 15-16, 18-23, 25 is/are currently amended.
Claim(s) 1-25 is/are pending.
Claim(s) 1-25 is/are rejected.
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments regarding the objections to the claims have been fully considered and, in light of the amendments to the claims, are persuasive. However, in light of the amendments to the claims, new claim objections have arisen, as noted below.
Applicant's arguments regarding the 35 U.S.C. 112(b) rejection(s) of claim(s) 22-24 have been fully considered and, in light of the amendments to the claims, are partially persuasive. Several of the 35 U.S.C. 112(b) rejection(s) of claim(s) 22-24 has/have been withdrawn. However, in light of the amendments to the claims, some rejection remain and new 35 U.S.C. 112(b) rejections have arisen, as noted below.
Applicant’s arguments regarding the 35 U.S.C. 101 rejection of claims 1-25 have been fully considered but are not persuasive. Applicant argues that because the judicial exception is implemented with specific computer components, the functionalities of the claim go beyond mental processes. Examiner respectfully disagrees. Outside of reciting generic computer components such as a memory or processor, the claims do not recite any specific components. It is important to note that a general purpose computer that applies a judicial exception, such as an abstract idea, by use of conventional computer functions does not qualify as a particular machine. MPEP 2106.05(b). When the machine is merely an object on which the method operates, this does not integrate the exception into a practical application or provide significantly more. MPEP 2106.05(b). Here the computer components are simply general purpose components using conventional computer functions, and these components do not integrate the exception into a practical application or provide significantly more. Therefore, the 35 U.S.C. 101 rejection of claims 1-25 is maintained.
Applicant’s arguments regarding the 35 U.S.C. 102 and/or 35 U.S.C. 103 rejections of the claims are based on the newly amended subject matter. All arguments are addressed in the 35 U.S.C. 102 and/or 35 U.S.C. 103 rejections of the claims below.
Claim Objections
Claim(s) 25 is/are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 25, line 5, a skip-connections should read “
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Claims 1, 7, 12 recites wherein the client trains either an encrypted or an unencrypted HE (homomorphic encryption)-friendly CNN (convolution neural network) model. However, the specification does not provide support for training an encrypted model. While the specification discloses training an unencrypted model ([0045], Fig. 4), the specification does not disclose any mention of training an encrypted model. Therefore, there is no support in the original description for the inclusion of the amendment to claim 1 and claim 1 fails to comply with the written description requirement. Correction or clarification is required.
Claims 2-6, 8-11, 13-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) due to their dependence, either directly or indirectly, on claims 1, 7, 12.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(b)
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claim 22-24 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 22 recites when a modulus chain index is a same and when a packing matches. However, it is unclear what is meant by the phrase. Correction or clarification is required.
Examiner’s Note: For the purposes of examination, the above reference phrase will be interpreted as reciting “when modulus chain indices match and when a packing matches.”
Claim 23 recites minimal latency which is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “minimal” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. Correction or clarification is required.
Examiner’s Notes: For the purposes of examination, the term will be interpreted to include any latency which is less than a given threshold.
Claim 24 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) due to its dependence, either directly or indirectly, on claims 22-23.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claim(s) 1-25 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101, because the claim(s) is/are directed to an abstract idea, and because the claim elements, whether considered individually or in combination, do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea, see Alice Corporation Pty. Ltd. V. CLS Bank International et al., 573 US 208 (2014).
Regarding claim 1, the claim is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1 Analysis: Claim 1 is directed to a method, which is directed to a process, one of the statutory categories.
Step 2A Prong One Analysis: The claim recites a(n) computer-implemented skip-connections analysis method for neural networks by removing skip-connections and reducing latency.
The limitation of breaking a dependency within the network on the skip-connections based on break scenarios ..., as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers a mental process. The limitation is directed to observation, evaluation, judgment and opinion and is a process capable of being performed by a human mentally or using pen and paper.
The limitation of replacing skip-connections with smooth transition skip-connection (ST-SC) layers, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers a mental process. The limitation is directed to observation, evaluation, judgment and opinion and is a process capable of being performed by a human mentally or using pen and paper.
If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind, then it falls within the "Mental Processes" grouping. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
Step 2A Prong Two Analysis: With respect to the abstract idea, the judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application.
The claim recites additional element(s) – computer-implemented, servers, client. The additional element(s) is/are recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as generic computer components performing generic computer functions of executing instructions on the computers) such that it amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components (MPEP 2106.05(b)).
The claim recites additional element(s) – neural networks, skip-connections, HE-friendly CNN, smooth transition skip-connection (ST-SC) layers. The additional element(s) is/are recited at a high-level of generality such that it amounts to no more than indicating a field of use or technological environment in which to apply the judicial exception (MPEP 2106.05(h)).
The claim recites training a network with skip-connections ...; ... wherein the client trains either an encrypted or an unencrypted HE(homomorphic encryption)-friendly CNN (convolution neural network) model ...; training the network for N epochs, where N is an integer which is simply generic training to perform the abstract idea of model generation and amounts to mere instructions to apply the exception (MPEP 2106.05(f)).
The claim recites ... wherein the client ... uploads the HE-friendly CNN model to the servers ...; returning the network without the skip-connections, which is simply transmitting data recited at a high level of generality. This is nothing more than insignificant extra-solution activity (MPEP 2106.05(g)).
The claim recites ... wherein the network is embodied within servers and a client...; ... wherein the HE-friendly CNN contains only polynomial components which is simply additional information regarding the model, and the element(s) do(es) not apply the exception in a meaningful way (MPEP 2106.05(e)).
Accordingly, the additional element(s) do(es) not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because the additional element(s) do(es) not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea, and, therefore, the claim is directed to an abstract idea.
Step 2B Analysis: The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to the integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional element(s) of:
computer-implemented, servers, client amount(s) to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components (MPEP 2106.05(b))
generic training to perform the abstract idea amount(s) to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception (MPEP 2106.05(f))
transmitting data amount(s) to no more than insignificant extra-solution activity (MPEP 2106.05(g)), wherein the insignificant extra-solution activity is the well-understood routine and conventional activit(y/ies) of receiving or transmitting data over a network (MPEP 2016.05(d))
neural networks, skip-connections, HE-friendly CNN, smooth transition skip-connection (ST-SC) layers amount(s) to no more than indicating a field of use or technological environment in which to apply the judicial exception (MPEP 2106.05(h))
additional information regarding the model do(es) not apply the exception in a meaningful way (MPEP 2106.05(e))
The additional element(s) do(es) not provide an inventive concept, and, therefore, the claim is not patent eligible.
Regarding claim 2, the claim is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1 Analysis: Claim 2 is directed to a method, which is directed to a process, one of the statutory categories.
Step 2A Prong One Analysis: The claim recites a(n) computer-implemented skip-connections analysis method for neural networks by removing skip-connections and reducing latency.
The limitation of removing all mid-term skip-connections, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers a mental process. The limitation is directed to observation, evaluation, judgment and opinion and is a process capable of being performed by a human mentally or using pen and paper.
The limitation of adding long-term shared-source connections from an output of a first convolution layer of the ST-SC layers to every one of four layer's output, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers a mental process. The limitation is directed to observation, evaluation, judgment and opinion and is a process capable of being performed by a human mentally or using pen and paper.
If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind, then it falls within the "Mental Processes" grouping. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
Step 2A Prong Two Analysis: With respect to the abstract idea, the judicial exception is not integrated
into a practical application. The claim does not recite any additional elements which integrate the
abstract idea into a practical application and, therefore, does not impose any meaningful limits on
practicing the abstract idea. Therefore, the claim is directed to an abstract idea.
Step 2B Analysis: The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to
significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to the integration of the
abstract idea into a practical application, the claim does not recite any additional elements which
provide an inventive concept, and, therefore, the claim is not patent eligible.
Regarding claim 3, the claim is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1 Analysis: Claim 3 is directed to a method, which is directed to a process, one of the statutory categories.
Step 2A Prong One Analysis: The claim recites a(n) computer-implemented skip-connections analysis method for neural networks by removing skip-connections and reducing latency. The Step 2A Prong One Analysis for claim 2 is applicable here since claim 3 carries out the method of claim 2 but for the recitation of additional element(s) of wherein the network is trained for additional epochs before returning the network without the skip-connections.
Step 2A Prong Two Analysis: With respect to the abstract idea, the judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application.
The claim recites wherein the network is trained for additional epochs before returning the network without the skip-connections which is simply additional information regarding the model, and the element(s) do(es) not apply the exception in a meaningful way (MPEP 2106.05(e)).
The claim recites wherein the network is trained for additional epochs before returning the network without the skip-connections which is simply generic training to perform the abstract idea of model generation and amounts to mere instructions to apply the exception (MPEP 2106.05(f)).
Accordingly, the additional element(s) do(es) not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because the additional element(s) do(es) not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea, and, therefore, the claim is directed to an abstract idea.
Step 2B Analysis: The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to the integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional element(s) of:
generic training to perform the abstract idea amount(s) to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception (MPEP 2106.05(f))
additional information regarding the model do(es) not apply the exception in a meaningful way (MPEP 2106.05(e))
The additional element(s) do(es) not provide an inventive concept, and, therefore, the claim is not patent eligible.
Regarding claim 4, the claim is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1 Analysis: Claim 4 is directed to a method, which is directed to a process, one of the statutory categories.
Step 2A Prong One Analysis: The claim recites a(n) computer-implemented skip-connections analysis method for neural networks by removing skip-connections and reducing latency.
The limitation of wherein a first scenario of the break scenarios includes removing all of the skip-connections at a same time when there are more than a single skip-connection in the network, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers a mental process. The limitation is directed to observation, evaluation, judgment and opinion and is a process capable of being performed by a human mentally or using pen and paper.
If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind, then it falls within the "Mental Processes" grouping. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
Step 2A Prong Two Analysis: With respect to the abstract idea, the judicial exception is not integrated
into a practical application. The claim does not recite any additional elements which integrate the
abstract idea into a practical application and, therefore, does not impose any meaningful limits on
practicing the abstract idea. Therefore, the claim is directed to an abstract idea.
Step 2B Analysis: The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to
significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to the integration of the
abstract idea into a practical application, the claim does not recite any additional elements which
provide an inventive concept, and, therefore, the claim is not patent eligible.
Regarding claim 5, the claim is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1 Analysis: Claim 5 is directed to a method, which is directed to a process, one of the statutory categories.
Step 2A Prong One Analysis: The claim recites a(n) computer-implemented skip-connections analysis method for neural networks by removing skip-connections and reducing latency.
The limitation of wherein a second scenario of the break scenarios includes removing the skip-connections one-by-one based on a policy, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers a mental process. The limitation is directed to observation, evaluation, judgment and opinion and is a process capable of being performed by a human mentally or using pen and paper.
If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind, then it falls within the "Mental Processes" grouping. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
Step 2A Prong Two Analysis: With respect to the abstract idea, the judicial exception is not integrated
into a practical application. The claim does not recite any additional elements which integrate the
abstract idea into a practical application and, therefore, does not impose any meaningful limits on
practicing the abstract idea. Therefore, the claim is directed to an abstract idea.
Step 2B Analysis: The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to
significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to the integration of the
abstract idea into a practical application, the claim does not recite any additional elements which
provide an inventive concept, and, therefore, the claim is not patent eligible.
Regarding claim 6, the claim is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1 Analysis: Claim 6 is directed to a method, which is directed to a process, one of the statutory categories.
Step 2A Prong One Analysis: The claim recites a(n) computer-implemented skip-connections analysis method for neural networks by removing skip-connections and reducing latency. The Step 2A Prong One Analysis for claim 1 is applicable here since claim 6 carries out the method of claim 1 but for the recitation of additional element(s) of embodied in a cloud-computing environment.
Step 2A Prong Two Analysis: With respect to the abstract idea, the judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application.
The claim recites embodied in a cloud-computing environment which is simply additional information regarding the hardware, and the element(s) do(es) not apply the exception in a meaningful way (MPEP 2106.05(e)).
The claim recites additional element(s) – cloud-computing environment. The additional element(s) is/are recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as generic computer components performing generic computer functions of executing instructions on the computers) such that it amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components (MPEP 2106.05(b)).
Accordingly, the additional element(s) do(es) not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because the additional element(s) do(es) not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea, and, therefore, the claim is directed to an abstract idea.
Step 2B Analysis: The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to the integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional element(s) of:
cloud-computing environment amount(s) to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components (MPEP 2106.05(b))
additional information regarding the hardware do(es) not apply the exception in a meaningful way (MPEP 2106.05(e))
The additional element(s) do(es) not provide an inventive concept, and, therefore, the claim is not patent eligible.
Regarding claim 7, the claim is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1 Analysis: Claim 7 is directed to a computer program product, which is directed to an article of manufacture, one of the statutory categories.
Step 2A Prong One Analysis: The claim recites a(n) skip-connections analysis computer program product for accelerating neural networks by removing skip-connections.
The limitation of breaking a dependency within the network on the skip-connections based on break scenarios ..., as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers a mental process. The limitation is directed to observation, evaluation, judgment and opinion and is a process capable of being performed by a human mentally or using pen and paper.
The limitation of replacing skip-connections with smooth transition skip-connection (ST-SC) layers, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers a mental process. The limitation is directed to observation, evaluation, judgment and opinion and is a process capable of being performed by a human mentally or using pen and paper.
If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind, then it falls within the "Mental Processes" grouping. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
Step 2A Prong Two Analysis: With respect to the abstract idea, the judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application.
The claim recites additional element(s) – computer program product, computer-readable storage medium, program instructions, computer, servers, client. The additional element(s) is/are recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as generic computer components performing generic computer functions of executing instructions on the computers) such that it amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components (MPEP 2106.05(b)).
The claim recites additional element(s) – neural networks, skip-connections, HE-friendly CNN, smooth transition skip-connection (ST-SC) layers. The additional element(s) is/are recited at a high-level of generality such that it amounts to no more than indicating a field of use or technological environment in which to apply the judicial exception (MPEP 2106.05(h)).
The claim recites training a network with skip-connections ...; ... wherein the client trains either an encrypted or an unencrypted HE(homomorphic encryption)-friendly CNN (convolution neural network) model ...; training the network for N epochs, where N is an integer which is simply generic training to perform the abstract idea of model generation and amounts to mere instructions to apply the exception (MPEP 2106.05(f)).
The claim recites ... wherein the client ... uploads the HE-friendly CNN model to the servers ...; returning the network without the skip-connections, which is simply transmitting data recited at a high level of generality. This is nothing more than insignificant extra-solution activity (MPEP 2106.05(g)).
The claim recites ... wherein the network is embodied within servers and a client...; ... wherein the HE-friendly CNN contains only polynomial components which is simply additional information regarding the model, and the element(s) do(es) not apply the exception in a meaningful way (MPEP 2106.05(e)).
Accordingly, the additional element(s) do(es) not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because the additional element(s) do(es) not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea, and, therefore, the claim is directed to an abstract idea.
Step 2B Analysis: The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to the integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional element(s) of:
computer program product, computer-readable storage medium, program instructions, computer, servers, client amount(s) to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components (MPEP 2106.05(b))
generic training to perform the abstract idea amount(s) to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception (MPEP 2106.05(f))
transmitting data amount(s) to no more than insignificant extra-solution activity (MPEP 2106.05(g)), wherein the insignificant extra-solution activity is the well-understood routine and conventional activit(y/ies) of receiving or transmitting data over a network (MPEP 2016.05(d))
neural networks, skip-connections, HE-friendly CNN, smooth transition skip-connection (ST-SC) layers amount(s) to no more than indicating a field of use or technological environment in which to apply the judicial exception (MPEP 2106.05(h))
additional information regarding the model do(es) not apply the exception in a meaningful way (MPEP 2106.05(e))
The additional element(s) do(es) not provide an inventive concept, and, therefore, the claim is not patent eligible.
Regarding claim 8, the claim is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1 Analysis: Claim 8 is directed to a computer program product, which is directed to an article of manufacture, one of the statutory categories.
Step 2A Prong One Analysis: The claim recites a(n) skip-connections analysis computer program product for accelerating neural networks by removing skip-connections.
The limitation of removing all mid-term skip-connections, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers a mental process. The limitation is directed to observation, evaluation, judgment and opinion and is a process capable of being performed by a human mentally or using pen and paper.
The limitation of adding long-term shared-source connections from an output of a first convolution layer of the ST-SC layers to every one of four layer's output, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers a mental process. The limitation is directed to observation, evaluation, judgment and opinion and is a process capable of being performed by a human mentally or using pen and paper.
If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind, then it falls within the "Mental Processes" grouping. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
Step 2A Prong Two Analysis: With respect to the abstract idea, the judicial exception is not integrated
into a practical application. The claim does not recite any additional elements which integrate the
abstract idea into a practical application and, therefore, does not impose any meaningful limits on
practicing the abstract idea. Therefore, the claim is directed to an abstract idea.
Step 2B Analysis: The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to
significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to the integration of the
abstract idea into a practical application, the claim does not recite any additional elements which
provide an inventive concept, and, therefore, the claim is not patent eligible.
Regarding claim 9, the claim is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1 Analysis: Claim 9 is directed to a computer program product, which is directed to an article of manufacture, one of the statutory categories.
Step 2A Prong One Analysis: The claim recites a(n) skip-connections analysis computer program product for accelerating neural networks by removing skip-connections. The Step 2A Prong One Analysis for claim 8 is applicable here since claim 9 carries out the computer program product of claim 8 but for the recitation of additional element(s) of wherein the network is trained for additional epochs before returning the network without the skip-connections.
Step 2A Prong Two Analysis: With respect to the abstract idea, the judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application.
The claim recites wherein the network is trained for additional epochs before returning the network without the skip-connections which is simply additional information regarding the model, and the element(s) do(es) not apply the exception in a meaningful way (MPEP 2106.05(e)).
The claim recites wherein the network is trained for additional epochs before returning the network without the skip-connections which is simply generic training to perform the abstract idea of model generation and amounts to mere instructions to apply the exception (MPEP 2106.05(f)).
Accordingly, the additional element(s) do(es) not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because the additional element(s) do(es) not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea, and, therefore, the claim is directed to an abstract idea.
Step 2B Analysis: The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to the integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional element(s) of:
generic training to perform the abstract idea amount(s) to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception (MPEP 2106.05(f))
additional information regarding the model do(es) not apply the exception in a meaningful way (MPEP 2106.05(e))
The additional element(s) do(es) not provide an inventive concept, and, therefore, the claim is not patent eligible.
Regarding claim 10, the claim is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1 Analysis: Claim 10 is directed to a computer program product, which is directed to an article of manufacture, one of the statutory categories.
Step 2A Prong One Analysis: The claim recites a(n) skip-connections analysis computer program product for accelerating neural networks by removing skip-connections.
The limitation of wherein a first scenario of the break scenarios includes removing all of the skip-connections at a same time when there are more than a single skip-connection in the network, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers a mental process. The limitation is directed to observation, evaluation, judgment and opinion and is a process capable of being performed by a human mentally or using pen and paper.
If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind, then it falls within the "Mental Processes" grouping. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
Step 2A Prong Two Analysis: With respect to the abstract idea, the judicial exception is not integrated
into a practical application. The claim does not recite any additional elements which integrate the
abstract idea into a practical application and, therefore, does not impose any meaningful limits on
practicing the abstract idea. Therefore, the claim is directed to an abstract idea.
Step 2B Analysis: The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to
significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to the integration of the
abstract idea into a practical application, the claim does not recite any additional elements which
provide an inventive concept, and, therefore, the claim is not patent eligible.
Regarding claim 11, the claim is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1 Analysis: Claim 11 is directed to a computer program product, which is directed to an article of manufacture, one of the statutory categories.
Step 2A Prong One Analysis: The claim recites a(n) skip-connections analysis computer program product for accelerating neural networks by removing skip-connections.
The limitation of wherein a second scenario of the break scenarios includes removing the skip-connections one-by-one based on a policy, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers a mental process. The limitation is directed to observation, evaluation, judgment and opinion and is a process capable of being performed by a human mentally or using pen and paper.
If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind, then it falls within the "Mental Processes" grouping. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
Step 2A Prong Two Analysis: With respect to the abstract idea, the judicial exception is not integrated
into a practical application. The claim does not recite any additional elements which integrate the
abstract idea into a practical application and, therefore, does not impose any meaningful limits on
practicing the abstract idea. Therefore, the claim is directed to an abstract idea.
Step 2B Analysis: The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to
significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to the integration of the
abstract idea into a practical application, the claim does not recite any additional elements which
provide an inventive concept, and, therefore, the claim is not patent eligible.
Regarding claim 12, the claim is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1 Analysis: Claim 12 is directed to a system with a processor, which is directed to a machine, one of the statutory categories.
Step 2A Prong One Analysis: The claim recites a(n) skip-connections analysis system for accelerating neural networks by removing skip-connections.
The limitation of breaking a dependency within the network on the skip-connections based on break scenarios ..., as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers a mental process. The limitation is directed to observation, evaluation, judgment and opinion and is a process capable of being performed by a human mentally or using pen and paper.
The limitation of replacing skip-connections with smooth transition skip-connection (ST-SC) layers, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers a mental process. The limitation is directed to observation, evaluation, judgment and opinion and is a process capable of being performed by a human mentally or using pen and paper.
If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind, then it falls within the "Mental Processes" grouping. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
Step 2A Prong Two Analysis: With respect to the abstract idea, the judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application.
The claim recites additional element(s) – system, processor, memory, instructions, servers, client. The additional element(s) is/are recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as generic computer components performing generic computer functions of executing instructions on the computers) such that it amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components (MPEP 2106.05(b)).
The claim recites additional element(s) – neural networks, skip-connections, HE-friendly CNN, smooth transition skip-connection (ST-SC) layers. The additional element(s) is/are recited at a high-level of generality such that it amounts to no more than indicating a field of use or technological environment in which to apply the judicial exception (MPEP 2106.05(h)).
The claim recites training a network with skip-connections ...; ... wherein the client trains either an encrypted or an unencrypted HE(homomorphic encryption)-friendly CNN (convolution neural network) model ...; training the network for N epochs, where N is an integer which is simply generic training to perform the abstract idea of model generation and amounts to mere instructions to apply the exception (MPEP 2106.05(f)).
The claim recites ... wherein the client ... uploads the HE-friendly CNN model to the servers ...; returning the network without the skip-connections, which is simply transmitting data recited at a high level of generality. This is nothing more than insignificant extra-solution activity (MPEP 2106.05(g)).
The claim recites ... wherein the network is embodied within servers and a client...; ... wherein the HE-friendly CNN contains only polynomial components which is simply additional information regarding the model, and the element(s) do(es) not apply the exception in a meaningful way (MPEP 2106.05(e)).
Accordingly, the additional element(s) do(es) not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because the additional element(s) do(es) not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea, and, therefore, the claim is directed to an abstract idea.
Step 2B Analysis: The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to the integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional element(s) of:
system, processor, memory, instructions, servers, client amount(s) to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components (MPEP 2106.05(b))
generic training to perform the abstract idea amount(s) to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception (MPEP 2106.05(f))
transmitting data amount(s) to no more than insignificant extra-solution activity (MPEP 2106.05(g)), wherein the insignificant extra-solution activity is the well-understood routine and conventional activit(y/ies) of receiving or transmitting data over a network (MPEP 2016.05(d))
neural networks, skip-connections, HE-friendly CNN, smooth transition skip-connection (ST-SC) layers amount(s) to no more than indicating a field of use or technological environment in which to apply the judicial exception (MPEP 2106.05(h))
additional information regarding the model do(es) not apply the exception in a meaningful way (MPEP 2106.05(e))
The additional element(s) do(es) not provide an inventive concept, and, therefore, the claim is not patent eligible.
Regarding claim 13, the claim is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1 Analysis: Claim 13 is directed to a system with a processor, which is directed to a machine, one of the statutory categories.
Step 2A Prong One Analysis: The claim recites a(n) skip-connections analysis system for accelerating neural networks by removing skip-connections.
The limitation of removing all mid-term skip-connections, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers a mental process. The limitation is directed to observation, evaluation, judgment and opinion and is a process capable of being performed by a human mentally or using pen and paper.
The limitation of adding long-term shared-source connections from an output of a first convolution layer of the ST-SC layers to every one of four layer's output, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers a mental process. The limitation is directed to observation, evaluation, judgment and opinion and is a process capable of being performed by a human mentally or using pen and paper.
If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind, then it falls within the "Mental Processes" grouping. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
Step 2A Prong Two Analysis: With respect to the abstract idea, the judicial exception is not integrated
into a practical application. The claim does not recite any additional elements which integrate the
abstract idea into a practical application and, therefore, does not impose any meaningful limits on
practicing the abstract idea. Therefore, the claim is directed to an abstract idea.
Step 2B Analysis: The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to
significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to the integration of the
abstract idea into a practical application, the claim does not recite any additional elements which
provide an inventive concept, and, therefore, the claim is not patent eligible.
Regarding claim 14, the claim is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1 Analysis: Claim 14 is directed to a system with a processor, which is directed to a machine, one of the statutory categories.
Step 2A Prong One Analysis: The claim recites a(n) skip-connections analysis system for accelerating neural networks by removing skip-connections. The Step 2A Prong One Analysis for claim 13 is applicable here since claim 14 carries out the system of claim 13 but for the recitation of additional element(s) of wherein the network is trained for additional epochs before returning the network without the skip-connections.
Step 2A Prong Two Analysis: With respect to the abstract idea, the judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application.
The claim recites wherein the network is trained for additional epochs before returning the network without the skip-connections which is simply additional information regarding the model, and the element(s) do(es) not apply the exception in a meaningful way (MPEP 2106.05(e)).
The claim recites wherein the network is trained for additional epochs before returning the network without the skip-connections which is simply generic training to perform the abstract idea of model generation and amounts to mere instructions to apply the exception (MPEP 2106.05(f)).
Accordingly, the additional element(s) do(es) not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because the additional element(s) do(es) not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea, and, therefore, the claim is directed to an abstract idea.
Step 2B Analysis: The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to the integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional element(s) of:
generic training to perform the abstract idea amount(s) to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception (MPEP 2106.05(f))
additional information regarding the model do(es) not apply the exception in a meaningful way (MPEP 2106.05(e))
The additional element(s) do(es) not provide an inventive concept, and, therefore, the claim is not patent eligible.
Regarding claim 15, the claim is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1 Analysis: Claim 15 is directed to a system with a processor, which is directed to a machine, one of the statutory categories.
Step 2A Prong One Analysis: The claim recites a(n) skip-connections analysis system for accelerating neural networks by removing skip-connections.
The limitation of wherein a first scenario of the break scenarios includes removing all of the skip-connections at a same time when there are more than a single skip-connection in the network, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers a mental process. The limitation is directed to observation, evaluation, judgment and opinion and is a process capable of being performed by a human mentally or using pen and paper.
If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind, then it falls within the "Mental Processes" grouping. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
Step 2A Prong Two Analysis: With respect to the abstract idea, the judicial exception is not integrated
into a practical application. The claim does not recite any additional elements which integrate the
abstract idea into a practical application and, therefore, does not impose any meaningful limits on
practicing the abstract idea. Therefore, the claim is directed to an abstract idea.
Step 2B Analysis: The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to
significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to the integration of the
abstract idea into a practical application, the claim does not recite any additional elements which
provide an inventive concept, and, therefore, the claim is not patent eligible.
Regarding claim 16, the claim is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1 Analysis: Claim 16 is directed to a system with a processor, which is directed to a machine, one of the statutory categories.
Step 2A Prong One Analysis: The claim recites a(n) skip-connections analysis system for accelerating neural networks by removing skip-connections.
The limitation of wherein a second scenario of the break scenarios includes removing the skip-connections one-by-one based on a policy, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers a mental process. The limitation is directed to observation, evaluation, judgment and opinion and is a process capable of being performed by a human mentally or using pen and paper.
If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind, then it falls within the "Mental Processes" grouping. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
Step 2A Prong Two Analysis: With respect to the abstract idea, the judicial exception is not integrated
into a practical application. The claim does not recite any additional elements which integrate the
abstract idea into a practical application and, therefore, does not impose any meaningful limits on
practicing the abstract idea. Therefore, the claim is directed to an abstract idea.
Step 2B Analysis: The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to
significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to the integration of the
abstract idea into a practical application, the claim does not recite any additional elements which
provide an inventive concept, and, therefore, the claim is not patent eligible.
Regarding claim 17, the claim is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1 Analysis: Claim 17 is directed to a system with a processor, which is directed to a machine, one of the statutory categories.
Step 2A Prong One Analysis: The claim recites a(n) skip-connections analysis system for accelerating neural networks by removing skip-connections. The Step 2A Prong One Analysis for claim 12 is applicable here since claim 17 carries out the system of claim 12 but for the recitation of additional element(s) of embodied in a cloud-computing environment.
Step 2A Prong Two Analysis: With respect to the abstract idea, the judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application.
The claim recites embodied in a cloud-computing environment which is simply additional information regarding the hardware, and the element(s) do(es) not apply the exception in a meaningful way (MPEP 2106.05(e)).
The claim recites additional element(s) – cloud-computing environment. The additional element(s) is/are recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as generic computer components performing generic computer functions of executing instructions on the computers) such that it amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components (MPEP 2106.05(b)).
Accordingly, the additional element(s) do(es) not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because the additional element(s) do(es) not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea, and, therefore, the claim is directed to an abstract idea.
Step 2B Analysis: The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to the integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional element(s) of:
cloud-computing environment amount(s) to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components (MPEP 2106.05(b))
additional information regarding the hardware do(es) not apply the exception in a meaningful way (MPEP 2106.05(e))
The additional element(s) do(es) not provide an inventive concept, and, therefore, the claim is not patent eligible.
Regarding claim 18, the claim is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1 Analysis: Claim 18 is directed to a method, which is directed to a process, one of the statutory categories.
Step 2A Prong One Analysis: The claim recites a(n) computer-implemented skip-connections analysis method for an efficient skip-connection realization.
The limitation of optimizing a network by identifying skip-connections to maintain while reducing latency, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers a mental process. The limitation is directed to observation, evaluation, judgment and opinion and is a process capable of being performed by a human mentally or using pen and paper.
The limitation of ... compute a cost of having the skip-connections between layers of the network, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers a mental process. The limitation is directed to observation, evaluation, judgment and opinion and is a process capable of being performed by a human mentally or using pen and paper.
The limitation of adding and/or removing the skip-connections from the network based on a result of the analyzer, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers a mental process. The limitation is directed to observation, evaluation, judgment and opinion and is a process capable of being performed by a human mentally or using pen and paper.
If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind, then it falls within the "Mental Processes" grouping. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
Step 2A Prong Two Analysis: With respect to the abstract idea, the judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application.
The claim recites additional element(s) – computer-implemented, analyzer. The additional element(s) is/are recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as generic computer components performing generic computer functions of executing instructions on the computers) such that it amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components (MPEP 2106.05(b)).
The claim recites additional element(s) – skip-connections, network. The additional element(s) is/are recited at a high-level of generality such that it amounts to no more than indicating a field of use or technological environment in which to apply the judicial exception (MPEP 2106.05(h)).
The claim recites training the network with the skip-connections; training the network for N epochs, where N is an integer which is simply generic training to perform the abstract idea of model generation and amounts to mere instructions to apply the exception (MPEP 2106.05(f)).
The claim recites running an analyzer to ... which is simply applying a model recited at a high level of generality and amounts to the recitation of the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) or amounts to no more than mere instructions to implement an abstract idea or other exception on a computer (MPEP 2106.05(f)).
The claim recites returning the modified network based on a result of the adding and/or removing, which is simply transmitting data recited at a high level of generality. This is nothing more than insignificant extra-solution activity (MPEP 2106.05(g)).
Accordingly, the additional element(s) do(es) not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because the additional element(s) do(es) not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea, and, therefore, the claim is directed to an abstract idea.
Step 2B Analysis: The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to the integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional element(s) of:
computer-implemented, analyzer amount(s) to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components (MPEP 2106.05(b))
generic training to perform the abstract idea and/or applying a model amount(s) to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception (MPEP 2106.05(f))
transmitting data amount(s) to no more than insignificant extra-solution activity (MPEP 2106.05(g)), wherein the insignificant extra-solution activity is the well-understood routine and conventional activit(y/ies) of receiving or transmitting data over a network (MPEP 2016.05(d))
skip-connections, network amount(s) to no more than indicating a field of use or technological environment in which to apply the judicial exception (MPEP 2106.05(h))
The additional element(s) do(es) not provide an inventive concept, and, therefore, the claim is not patent eligible.
Regarding claim 19, the claim is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1 Analysis: Claim 19 is directed to a method, which is directed to a process, one of the statutory categories.
Step 2A Prong One Analysis: The claim recites a(n) computer-implemented skip-connections analysis method for an efficient skip-connection realization. The Step 2A Prong One Analysis for claim 18 is applicable here since claim 19 carries out the method of claim 18 but for the recitation of additional element(s) of wherein, optimizing the network by identifying skip-connections to maintain while reducing latency further comprising: starting with a pre-trained model.
Step 2A Prong Two Analysis: With respect to the abstract idea, the judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim recites additional information regarding the model and the element(s) do(es) not apply the exception in a meaningful way (MPEP 2106.05(e)). Accordingly, the additional element(s) do(es) not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because the additional element(s) do(es) not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea, and, therefore, the claim is directed to an abstract idea.
Step 2B Analysis: The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to the integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional element(s) of additional information regarding the model do(es) not apply the exception in a meaningful way (MPEP 2106.05(e)). Not applying the exception in a meaningful way does not provide an inventive concept, and, therefore, the claim is not patent eligible.
Regarding claim 20, the claim is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1 Analysis: Claim 20 is directed to a method, which is directed to a process, one of the statutory categories.
Step 2A Prong One Analysis: The claim recites a(n) computer-implemented skip-connections analysis method for an efficient skip-connection realization. The Step 2A Prong One Analysis for claim 18 is applicable here since claim 20 carries out the method of claim 18 but for the recitation of additional element(s) of wherein the analyzer utilizes HE (homomorphic encryption) technique.
Step 2A Prong Two Analysis: With respect to the abstract idea, the judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application.
The claim recites wherein the analyzer utilizes HE (homomorphic encryption) technique which is simply additional information regarding the analyzer, and the element(s) do(es) not apply the exception in a meaningful way (MPEP 2106.05(e)).
The claim recites additional element(s) – HE (homomorphic encryption) technique. The additional element(s) is/are recited at a high-level of generality such that it amounts to no more than indicating a field of use or technological environment in which to apply the judicial exception (MPEP 2106.05(h)).
Accordingly, the additional element(s) do(es) not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because the additional element(s) do(es) not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea, and, therefore, the claim is directed to an abstract idea.
Step 2B Analysis: The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to the integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional element(s) of:
HE (homomorphic encryption) technique amount(s) to no more than indicating a field of use or technological environment in which to apply the judicial exception (MPEP 2106.05(h))
additional information regarding the analyzer do(es) not apply the exception in a meaningful way (MPEP 2106.05(e))
The additional element(s) do(es) not provide an inventive concept, and, therefore, the claim is not patent eligible.
Regarding claim 21, the claim is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1 Analysis: Claim 21 is directed to a method, which is directed to a process, one of the statutory categories.
Step 2A Prong One Analysis: The claim recites a(n) computer-implemented skip-connections analysis method for an efficient skip-connection realization.
The limitation of ... compute a cost of having the skip-connections between layers of the network, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers a mental process. The limitation is directed to observation, evaluation, judgment and opinion and is a process capable of being performed by a human mentally or using pen and paper.
The limitation of removing a skip-connection based on the cost having a predetermined value, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers a mental process. The limitation is directed to observation, evaluation, judgment and opinion and is a process capable of being performed by a human mentally or using pen and paper.
The limitation of adding a new skip-connection based on the cost having a second predetermined value, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers a mental process. The limitation is directed to observation, evaluation, judgment and opinion and is a process capable of being performed by a human mentally or using pen and paper.
If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind, then it falls within the "Mental Processes" grouping. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
Step 2A Prong Two Analysis: With respect to the abstract idea, the judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application.
The claim recites additional element(s) – analyzer. The additional element(s) is/are recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as generic computer components performing generic computer functions of executing instructions on the computers) such that it amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components (MPEP 2106.05(b)).
The claim recites additional element(s) – pre-trained model. The additional element(s) is/are recited at a high-level of generality such that it amounts to no more than indicating a field of use or technological environment in which to apply the judicial exception (MPEP 2106.05(h)).
The claim recites training the network with the skip-connections which is simply generic training to perform the abstract idea of model generation and amounts to mere instructions to apply the exception (MPEP 2106.05(f)).
The claim recites running an analyzer to ... which is simply applying a model recited at a high level of generality and amounts to the recitation of the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) or amounts to no more than mere instructions to implement an abstract idea or other exception on a computer (MPEP 2106.05(f)).
The claim recites returning the modified network based on a result of the adding and/or removing, which is simply transmitting data recited at a high level of generality. This is nothing more than insignificant extra-solution activity (MPEP 2106.05(g)).
Accordingly, the additional element(s) do(es) not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because the additional element(s) do(es) not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea, and, therefore, the claim is directed to an abstract idea.
Step 2B Analysis: The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to the integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional element(s) of:
analyzer amount(s) to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components (MPEP 2106.05(b))
generic training to perform the abstract idea and/or applying a model amount(s) to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception (MPEP 2106.05(f))
transmitting data amount(s) to no more than insignificant extra-solution activity (MPEP 2106.05(g)), wherein the insignificant extra-solution activity is the well-understood routine and conventional activit(y/ies) of receiving or transmitting data over a network (MPEP 2016.05(d))
pre-trained model amount(s) to no more than indicating a field of use or technological environment in which to apply the judicial exception (MPEP 2106.05(h))
The additional element(s) do(es) not provide an inventive concept, and, therefore, the claim is not patent eligible.
Regarding claim 22, the claim is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1 Analysis: Claim 22 is directed to a method, which is directed to a process, one of the statutory categories.
Step 2A Prong One Analysis: The claim recites a(n) computer-implemented skip-connections analysis method for an efficient skip-connection realization. The Step 2A Prong One Analysis for claim 21 is applicable here since claim 22 carries out the method of claim 21 but for the recitation of additional element(s) of wherein the second predetermined value includes when a modulus chain index is a same and when a packing matches, wherein the modulus chain index refers to a limit on number of multiplication that can performed on a ciphertext.
Step 2A Prong Two Analysis: With respect to the abstract idea, the judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim recites additional information regarding the second predetermined value and the element(s) do(es) not apply the exception in a meaningful way (MPEP 2106.05(e)). Accordingly, the additional element(s) do(es) not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because the additional element(s) do(es) not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea, and, therefore, the claim is directed to an abstract idea.
Step 2B Analysis: The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to the integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional element(s) of additional information regarding the second predetermined value do(es) not apply the exception in a meaningful way (MPEP 2106.05(e)). Not applying the exception in a meaningful way does not provide an inventive concept, and, therefore, the claim is not patent eligible.
Regarding claim 23, the claim is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1 Analysis: Claim 23 is directed to a method, which is directed to a process, one of the statutory categories.
Step 2A Prong One Analysis: The claim recites a(n) computer-implemented skip-connections analysis method for an efficient skip-connection realization.
The limitation of ... compute a cost of having the skip-connections between layers of the network, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers a mental process. The limitation is directed to observation, evaluation, judgment and opinion and is a process capable of being performed by a human mentally or using pen and paper.
The limitation of starting from an initial layer of the network, finding a first layer with a minimal cost to add a skip-connection to the first layer, wherein the minimal cost means minimal latency, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers a mental process. The limitation is directed to observation, evaluation, judgment and opinion and is a process capable of being performed by a human mentally or using pen and paper.
If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind, then it falls within the "Mental Processes" grouping. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
Step 2A Prong Two Analysis: With respect to the abstract idea, the judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application.
The claim recites additional element(s) – analyzer. The additional element(s) is/are recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as generic computer components performing generic computer functions of executing instructions on the computers) such that it amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components (MPEP 2106.05(b)).
The claim recites additional element(s) – pre-trained model. The additional element(s) is/are recited at a high-level of generality such that it amounts to no more than indicating a field of use or technological environment in which to apply the judicial exception (MPEP 2106.05(h)).
The claim recites training the modified network which is simply generic training to perform the abstract idea of model generation and amounts to mere instructions to apply the exception (MPEP 2106.05(f)).
The claim recites running an analyzer to ... which is simply applying a model recited at a high level of generality and amounts to the recitation of the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) or amounts to no more than mere instructions to implement an abstract idea or other exception on a computer (MPEP 2106.05(f)).
The claim recites returning the modified network, which is simply transmitting data recited at a high level of generality. This is nothing more than insignificant extra-solution activity (MPEP 2106.05(g)).
Accordingly, the additional element(s) do(es) not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because the additional element(s) do(es) not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea, and, therefore, the claim is directed to an abstract idea.
Step 2B Analysis: The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to the integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional element(s) of:
analyzer amount(s) to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components (MPEP 2106.05(b))
generic training to perform the abstract idea and/or applying a model amount(s) to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception (MPEP 2106.05(f))
transmitting data amount(s) to no more than insignificant extra-solution activity (MPEP 2106.05(g)), wherein the insignificant extra-solution activity is the well-understood routine and conventional activit(y/ies) of receiving or transmitting data over a network (MPEP 2016.05(d))
pre-trained model amount(s) to no more than indicating a field of use or technological environment in which to apply the judicial exception (MPEP 2106.05(h))
The additional element(s) do(es) not provide an inventive concept, and, therefore, the claim is not patent eligible.
Regarding claim 24, the claim is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1 Analysis: Claim 24 is directed to a method, which is directed to a process, one of the statutory categories.
Step 2A Prong One Analysis: The claim recites a(n) computer-implemented skip-connections analysis method for an efficient skip-connection realization.
The limitation of wherein the finding the first layer is repeated, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers a mental process. The limitation is directed to observation, evaluation, judgment and opinion and is a process capable of being performed by a human mentally or using pen and paper.
If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind, then it falls within the "Mental Processes" grouping. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
Step 2A Prong Two Analysis: With respect to the abstract idea, the judicial exception is not integrated
into a practical application. The claim does not recite any additional elements which integrate the
abstract idea into a practical application and, therefore, does not impose any meaningful limits on
practicing the abstract idea. Therefore, the claim is directed to an abstract idea.
Step 2B Analysis: The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to
significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to the integration of the
abstract idea into a practical application, the claim does not recite any additional elements which
provide an inventive concept, and, therefore, the claim is not patent eligible.
Regarding claim 25, the claim is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1 Analysis: Claim 25 is directed to a system with a processor, which is directed to a machine, one of the statutory categories.
Step 2A Prong One Analysis: The claim recites a(n) skip-connections analysis system for an efficient skip-connection realization.
The limitation of ... compute a cost of having the skip-connections between layers of the network, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers a mental process. The limitation is directed to observation, evaluation, judgment and opinion and is a process capable of being performed by a human mentally or using pen and paper.
The limitation of adding and/or removing the skip-connections from the network based on a result of the analyzer, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers a mental process. The limitation is directed to observation, evaluation, judgment and opinion and is a process capable of being performed by a human mentally or using pen and paper.
If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind, then it falls within the "Mental Processes" grouping. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
Step 2A Prong Two Analysis: With respect to the abstract idea, the judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application.
The claim recites additional element(s) – system, processor, memory, instructions, analyzer. The additional element(s) is/are recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as generic computer components performing generic computer functions of executing instructions on the computers) such that it amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components (MPEP 2106.05(b)).
The claim recites additional element(s) – skip-connections, network. The additional element(s) is/are recited at a high-level of generality such that it amounts to no more than indicating a field of use or technological environment in which to apply the judicial exception (MPEP 2106.05(h)).
The claim recites training a network with a skip-connections; training the network for N epochs, where N is an integer which is simply generic training to perform the abstract idea of model generation and amounts to mere instructions to apply the exception (MPEP 2106.05(f)).
The claim recites running an analyzer to ... which is simply applying a model recited at a high level of generality and amounts to the recitation of the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) or amounts to no more than mere instructions to implement an abstract idea or other exception on a computer (MPEP 2106.05(f)).
The claim recites returning the modified network based on a result of the adding and/or removing, which is simply transmitting data recited at a high level of generality. This is nothing more than insignificant extra-solution activity (MPEP 2106.05(g)).
Accordingly, the additional element(s) do(es) not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because the additional element(s) do(es) not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea, and, therefore, the claim is directed to an abstract idea.
Step 2B Analysis: The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to the integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional element(s) of:
system, processor, memory, instructions, analyzer amount(s) to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components (MPEP 2106.05(b))
generic training to perform the abstract idea and/or applying a model amount(s) to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception (MPEP 2106.05(f))
transmitting data amount(s) to no more than insignificant extra-solution activity (MPEP 2106.05(g)), wherein the insignificant extra-solution activity is the well-understood routine and conventional activit(y/ies) of receiving or transmitting data over a network (MPEP 2016.05(d))
skip-connections, network amount(s) to no more than indicating a field of use or technological environment in which to apply the judicial exception (MPEP 2106.05(h))
The additional element(s) do(es) not provide an inventive concept, and, therefore, the claim is not patent eligible.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claim(s) 18-19, 21, 23-25 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pfeil, Thomas (US 2021/0065010 A1 – Compressing a Deep Neural Network, hereinafter referred to as “Pfeil”) in view of Chen et al. (US 2022/0114415 A1 – Artificial Neural Network Architectures for Resource-Constrained Applications, hereinafter referred to as “Chen”).
Regarding claim 18 (Currently Amended), Pfeil teaches a computer-implemented (Pfeil, [0035] – teaches computer implemented) skip-connections analysis method for an efficient skip-connection realization (Pfeil, [0008] – teaches that adding skip-connections allows for quantization with reduces memory requirements and processing requirements), the method comprising:
optimizing a network (Pfeil, [0054] – teaches compressing [optimizing] a neural network) by identifying skip-connections to maintain (Pfeil, [0058] – teaches adding skip-connections) while reducing latency (Pfeil, [0008] – teaches that adding skip-connections allows for quantization with reduces memory requirements and processing requirements), further comprising:
training the network with the skip-connections (Pfeil, [0056] – teaches training the model; Chen, [0063] – teaches repeating the training and adding skip-connection steps);
adding and/or removing the skip-connections from the network (Pfeil, [0058] – teaches adding skip connections; Pfeil, [0063] – teaches repeating the training and adding skip-connection steps) …;
returning the modified network based on a result of the adding and/or removing (Pfeil, [0063] – teaches returning the final model after training and adding skip-connections); and
training the network for N epochs, where N is an integer (Pfeil, [0063] - teaches training until abort criteria is reached based on training data batches).
While Pfeil teaching adding skip connections, Pfeil does not explicitly teach removing skip connections or adding/removing skip connection based on an analyzer which computes a cost of having the skip-connections between layers of the network.
Chen teaches
running an analyzer to compute a cost of having the skip-connections between layers of the network (Chen, [0060]-[0066] - teaches analyzing the length of skip connections to replace long skips with short skips to reduce memory);
adding and/or removing the skip-connections from the network based on a result of the analyzer (Chen, [0061]-[0065] - teaches replacing long skips with short skips which involves removing long skips and adding short skips);
training the network for N epochs, where N is an integer (Chen, [0049] - teaches training for a predetermined number of epochs).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the claimed invention to modify Pfeil with the teachings of Chen in order to alleviate memory issues of skip connections in the field of neural networks with skip connections (Chen, [0061] – “According to aspects of the present disclosure, our inventive architecture(s) and approach(es) advantageously alleviate memory issue(s) of skip connections namely, we replace long skip connections with the short ones, especially for the ones, which cause the peak runtime memory...”).
Regarding claim 19 (Currently Amended), Pfeil in view of Chen teaches all of the limitations of the method of claim 18 as noted above. Pfeil further teaches wherein, optimizing the network (Pfeil, [0054] – teaches compressing [optimizing] a neural network) by identifying skip-connections to maintain (Pfeil, [0058] – teaches adding skip-connections) while reducing latency (Pfeil, [0008] – teaches that adding skip-connections allows for quantization with reduces memory requirements and processing requirements) further comprising:
starting with a pre-trained model (Pfeil, [0055] – teaches starting with a pretrained model).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing data of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Pfeil and Chen for the same reasons as disclosed in claim 18 above.
Regarding claim 21 (Currently Amended), Pfeil in view of Chen teaches all of the limitations of the method of claim 19 as noted above. Pfeil further teaches wherein, starting from a pre-trained model (Pfeil, [0055] – teaches starting with a pretrained model), the optimizing includes:
training the network with the skip-connections (Pfeil, [0056] – teaches training the model; Chen, [0063] – teaches repeating the training and adding skip-connection steps);
adding a new skip-connection (Pfeil, [0058] – teaches adding skip connections; Pfeil, [0063] – teaches repeating the training and adding skip-connection steps) …;
returning the modified network based on a result of the adding and/or removing (Pfeil, [0063] – teaches returning the final model after training and adding skip-connections).
While Pfeil teaching adding skip connections, Pfeil does not explicitly teach removing skip connections or adding/removing skip connection based on an analyzer which computes a cost of having the skip-connections between layers of the network.
Chen teaches
running an analyzer to compute a cost of having the skip-connections between layers of the network (Chen, [0060]-[0066] - teaches analyzing the length of skip connections to replace long skips with short skips to reduce memory);
removing a skip-connection based on the cost having a predetermined value (Chen, [0061]-[0065] - teaches replacing long skips with short skips which involves removing long skips and adding short skips);
adding a new skip-connection based on the cost having a second predetermined value (Chen, [0061]-[0065] - teaches replacing long skips with short skips which involves removing long skips and adding short skips).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Pfeil and Chen in order to add and remove skip-connections based on an analyzer to alleviate memory issues of skip connections (Chen, [0061]).
Regarding claim 23 (Currently Amended), Pfeil in view of Chen teaches all of the limitations of the method of claim 18 as noted above. Pfeil further teaches wherein, starting without a pre-trained model (Pfeil, [0055] – teaches starting with initial untrained model), the optimizing includes:
starting from an initial layer of the network, finding a first layer … to add a skip-connection to the first layer (Pfeil, [0058] – teaches starting with a first layer and adding a skip layer), …;
training the modified network (Pfeil, [0063] – teaches iteratively adding skip networks and training the modified network); and
returning the modified network (Pfeil, [0063] – teaches returning the final model after training and adding skip-connections).
While Pfeil teaching adding skip connections, Pfeil does not explicitly teach removing skip connections or adding/removing skip connection based on an analyzer which computes a cost of having the skip-connections between layers of the network.
Chen teaches
running an analyzer to compute a cost of having the skip-connections between layers of the network (Chen, [0060]-[0066] - teaches analyzing the length of skip connections to replace long skips with short skips to reduce memory);
starting from an initial layer of the network, finding a first layer with a minimal cost to add a skip-connection to the first layer, wherein the minimal cost means minimal latency (Chen, [0060]-[0066] - teaches analyzing the length of skip connections adding short skips to reduce memory).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Pfeil and Chen in order to add and remove skip-connections based on an analyzer to alleviate memory issues of skip connections (Chen, [0061]).
Regarding claim 24 (Original), Pfeil in view of Chen teaches all of the limitations of the method of claim 23 as noted above. Pfeil further teaches wherein the finding the first layer is repeated (Pfeil, [0063] – teaches iteratively adding skip networks and training the modified network).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing data of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Pfeil and Chen for the same reasons as disclosed in claim 23 above.
Regarding claim 25, it is the system embodiment of claim 18 with similar limitations to claim 18 and is rejected using the same reasoning found in claim 18. Pfeil further teaches a skip-connections analysis system for an efficient skip-connection realization (Pfeil, [0008] – teaches that adding skip-connections allows for quantization with reduces memory requirements and processing requirements), the system comprising:
a processor (Pfeil, [0035] – teaches computer implemented); and
a memory, the memory storing instructions to cause the processor to perform (Pfeil, [0035] – teaches computer implemented) …
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing data of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Pfeil and Chen for the same reasons as disclosed in claim 18 above.
Claim(s) 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pfeil in view of Chen and further in view of Chhabra et al. (US 20190354806 A1 – Neural Networks for Discovering Latent Factors from Data, hereinafter referred to as “Chhabra”).
Regarding claim 20 (Currently Amended), Pfeil in view of Chen teaches all of the limitations of the method of claim 18 as noted above. However, Pfeil in view of Chen does not explicitly teach wherein the analyzer utilizes HE (homomorphic encryption) technique.
Chhabra teaches wherein the analyzer utilizes HE (homomorphic encryption) technique (Chhabra, [0077] – teaches using homomorphic encryption techniques during training).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the claimed invention to modify Pfeil in view of Chen with the teachings of Chhabra in order to handle stringent privacy concerns in the field of neural networks with skip connections (Chhabra, [0037] – “To deal with the case where the privacy concerns for the data are stringent, aspects of the present disclosure relate to using homomorphic encryption with neural networks constituted from polynomial operations to pre-train the models. For prediction, encrypted data is fed into the system and the model output is also encrypted data. This disclosure relates to using encrypted data only for pre-training and uses unencrypted data for prediction, and produces un-encrypted data as the output. This is different from earlier approaches in that, at deployment, the input data is not encrypted and the outputs are also not encrypted; instead the encrypted data is only used for pre-training the network and fine-tuned using public data.”).
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communication from the examiner should be directed to MARSHALL WERNER whose telephone number is (469) 295-9143. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday – Thursday 7:30 AM – 4:30 PM ET.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Kamran Afshar, can be reached at (571) 272-7796. The fax number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is (571) 273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/MARSHALL L WERNER/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2125
Prosecution Insights